Talk:Frederick Carrick

Ok, the deluge cometh...
The subject of the article is actually a well-known quack; See, e.g., http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/chiropractic-neurology/

It seems this page was probably put here for self-promotional purposes.


 * But*, Glenn Beck is now saying that the man cured him of a mysterious neuropathy that no other doctor had been able to diagnose for a decade.

This page is gonna need editing, and protection. Soon.

Djcheburashka (talk) 06:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article"


 * So basically, this whole article has to be stripped down. Immediately. Alex Maione (talk) 06:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Alex Maione Agreed. I'm going to give it a shot. Djcheburashka (talk) 07:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Good start; however, I feel it will be reverted back by someone at some time in the future and then back again, and on, and on, and on. Yet, all the changes you made are legitimate. The article was full of unreferenced "facts". I looked into Carrick's site and there were a lot of big words and explanation, yet after reading it I still didn't understand what was actually being done... Alex Maione (talk) 07:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Alex Maione Feel free to send me a "thanks."  :p  Right now we have three people stripping this page down.  The last person was more aggressive than I felt comfortable going, but I fully support what he did.  Hopefully this will be enough to protect the page and make sure only properly sourced, WP:BLP, WP:FRINGE, and WP:NPOV compliant material gets in.


 * I thought about asking for page protection but I don't think we have grounds to do that until it begins. Djcheburashka (talk) 07:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I've seen by your history that you've gotten yourself into a couple of edit wars. I reviewed the history on David Lisak, and can't seem to find exactly what it was that you edited "wrong" there. It seems to me that this page might devolve in to something like that. Anyway, I don't have the medical credentials to argue against the "medicine" that is being used here; however, I think it's fairly clear that Carrick's business is at best pseudoscientific. Alex Maione (talk) 07:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Hah! One edit war, but it grew to multiple fronts... Basically, David Lisak was an academic who published a lot of really far-out WP:FRINGE stuff on campus rape.  Like that 15% of men on campus are confessed  rapists, 60% of them molest children, etc.  He didn't get tenure, apparently, and is now a consultant and public speaker.  There are people who believe that rape is a political issue and would like Lisak to be seen as the definitive source on the subject.  I had no real interest in the topic until I was researching the false-rape-accusation rate for something else, saw the false accusation of rape page, and realized that what was on it just could not be correct.  (The rate for false-reporting crime in general is well above 40%, and only 5% or less of people accused of rape are ultimately convicted.  So its pretty bizarre to claim that 94% of the time when someone reports a rape to the police, that a rape actually occurred.  Ask a practicing lawyer how often a new individual client who came in actually told the complete truth...)  I went into the sources to try to understand what was going on, and found out that the source was garbage (not garbage enough to justify removal completely, because lots of people do believe it), and worse that the page was claiming that the overwhelming majority of research on the topic was "discredited" based on Lisak's study of 136 accusations at a single college campus over ten years, in which any accusations that were recanted or not proven definitively malicious were either excluded or coded as "true."


 * I was really surprised by the reaction, since I thought I was just fixing some misleading sourcing problems. If you're interested in it, I started a discussion on the POV disputes page to try to get a broader consensus and get the articles properly fixed.


 * I agree there's a threat of an edit-war here. I'm really a consensus-focused guy, so I hope reasonableness and calm discussion can belay that, but I recognize that with chiropracty that may be asking too much.  Djcheburashka (talk) 08:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Interesting that he is associated with Duke University. A place that knows all too well about the perils of falsely accused rape. I personally was a student on campus freshman year when that all went down. Odd.... Alex Maione (talk) 09:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Content in lead
There is a violation of LEAD. The content about Beck should be mentioned in the body first, and only if significant then mentioned in the lead. You may want to check out some of my changes to the Glenn Beck article. Also, more RSs are appearing as the ridiculousness of Beck's story is catching attention. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)