Talk:Mucoid plaque/Archive 2

"mucoid plaque" Pubmed search
I noticed that the first reference is a Pubmed query. That's probably WP:OR. I've noticed that Pubmed will sometimes not return results when it should. For example, "simple green" has no results. Yet I recently added an reference from Pubmed with "simple green" in the title, over at the Simple Green article. What's the deal? Should that "reference" be removed? II | (t - c) 09:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Without going into the reasons why the reference is thus formatted, I agree it's not ideal. The question is: what level of source is necessary to cite the point that this entity is not a recognized medical condition, has no medical research to support it, and is confined to the more promotional areas of the webopshere? MastCell Talk 22:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This should be removed with prejudice. It is blatant OR to use search results to verify information. Search engines have flaws, and are not a source in itself. In order to source the statement "X is not recoignised by Y", you need to cite an RS that states such a finding. Surely there are books or journal articles that state something along tehse lines. Such findings should be attributed where possible. Eg. Intelligent design: --ZayZayEM (talk) 23:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigh. The National Academy of Sciences is not going to comment on mucoid plaque, so we are left with parity of sources. Mucoid plaque is a purported medical entity substantiated only in a promotional book and on websites which sell products designed to remove said plaque. There is absolutely no reliable source supporting it as a credible concept - unless you're aware of something I'm not, in which case please enlighten me. That said, parity of sources comes into play. If a handful of experts with relevant credentials have dismissed this as hokum, then that is certainly as notable, if not more so, than the badly sourced claims from marketers of colon cleansers. This is not "bias" or "POV", but a simple implementation of this encyclopedia's most basic precepts. MastCell Talk 23:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Threhsold for wikipedia verifibility not truth. If you can't source you can't say it. It is simple as that. Do not attempt to subvert it by creating non-existant sources through OR.--ZayZayEM (talk) 23:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not saying no criticism should be included. I am saying that criticisms based on OR should not be included. --ZayZayEM (talk) 23:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No need to debunk
This article has multiple issues to do with its subjective tone, loaded language, use of non-reliable sources, use of innapropriate references, overuse of quotes, etc. etc.

Wikipedia is not a place to play out a list of debunking sham medicine.

No matter how disgusting, harmful and tragic you feel con-artists like Anderson are, this is not the place to express that.

So far this article appears to:


 * quote mine - it uses chopped up quotes to clearly attack, rather than describe the concept of mucoid plaques
 * conduct original research (removed with prejudice) - if you want to cite the absence of something, do not look for it, find someone who says there is an absence of something, and attribute it accordingly
 * use innapropriate tone (partly corrected) - "John Wayne myth", "myth" referes to spiritual stories that hold significance in culture and religion - as much as CAM may rely on similar tactics to spirituality and religion, they are not quite that similar, this is like calling ID a "theory"
 * reliance on a single reference (Anderson) to describe what mucoid plaques are - yes, I know it is his idea, but I think other people have started cottoning onto to this money-maker and have been adding to the idea. A neutral article will ignore Anderson as an authority (unless the literature consistently refers to him as such), and survey CAM literature for an accurate global description of what they claim it is. Using Anderson alone is close to strawmanning it.
 * arguments from authority. Three doctors are paraded as authorities to debunk this pseudomedical concept. There titles are bandied about like they mean something. They appear to be three ordinary doctors. Being a university professor does not mean anything special. This is a tactic used by peddlers of muck, please do not lower Wikipedia to that standard.

I hope some of this criticism is well accepted. Just being a nice guy.--ZayZayEM (talk) 23:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't it be well-accepted? Just because you tagged the article before attempting to actually discuss your concerns, used a bunch of accusatory edit summaries, and demanded the equivalent of the National Academy of Sciences to "debunk" this? In all seriousness, the basic issue is that this is essentially a non-notable topic. It fails WP:FRINGE, which demands mention in reliable and mainstream sources - unless you count the "debunking" by a handful of physicians with relevant expertise. I'm not particularly inclined to the idea that these sources establish notability on the one hand, but must be downplayed or editorially "softened" on the other. Feel free to find additional reliable sources describing mucoid plaque. Hell, as you point out, Anderson's book doesn't meet our criteria, so even one reliable source would be a start. I've looked, and not found any, but maybe you'll have better luck in your survey. Until then, parity of sources applies; physicians with relevant expertise are more than adequate as sources when we're heavily referencing Anderson's book and a handful of colon-cleanse websites. The lead needs to accurately and proportionately summarize our sources. Since our most reliable and most numerous sources are of the opinion that this is a non-existent condition, that should be accurately reflected in the lead. When appropriate sources are critical, we don't go out of our way to soft-sell their criticism - that would be WP:SYN and a violation of WP:NPOV. MastCell Talk 23:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No demands. I am using NAS as an example. If this is non-notable nom for delete. I really don't mind.
 * Anderson's books clearly do meet our RS criteria. And they are well represented in the article. I am criticising the use of only Anderson's books. That is relying on primary sources. If no credible third party resources (by credible I mean non-marketing material, CAM *journals* or alt-magazines might be considered credible on CAM subjects) can be found then I would support a non-notable del nom.
 * There is no need to soft-sell critcism. There is a need to accurately portray it. Which means attributing the source appropriately (who said it, in what context, and NOT puching their credentials unless relevant).--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Richard Anderson's books are published by Christobe Publishing, which appears to be a vanity press devoted solely to publishing the work of Richard Anderson. They are essentially self-published work, and his website (mastercleanse.com) is a promotional, self-published website. Neither has any independent editorial oversight, nor a reputation for fact-checking or accuracy as mentioned in our reliable sources guideline. Richard Anderson's books and website absolutely do not meet WP:RS; if you have the slightest doubt about this, I think we ought to seek outside input, because this seems fairly rudimentary to me. MastCell Talk 06:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly. clear guidelines are in place for self published works. this article verily violates #2 (contentious - erm.. WP:MADEUP), #3 (unduly self-serving), and #7 (a section is primarily based un such material). #2 I am willing to concede that a self-published source full of amde-up hogwash is a fin source, as long as it is not presented as some sort of false authority. Anderson is obviously some sort of authority on Mucoid plaque, but he is not an authority on anatomy and physiology.
 * Hence why I feel tagging this article as very shoddy is appropriate, and I am confused why calls for clean-up and reassessment of a shoddy tit-for-tat POV-style have been met with alarm.--ZayZayEM (talk) 06:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

In "most" people
That mucoid plaque can be created and some few people do find it and picture it is pretty much undeniable. What is dubious about it is that Anderson, the sellers of his products, and their many fans, believe and are taught to believe that mucoid plaque is a danger threatening most supposedly healthy people, IOW they make a rare thing into a common thing. That's where they go wrong, and their critics will likewise go wrong if they claim that mucoid plaque doesn't exist at all. It is the cause of it; its supposed ill effects; its need for treatment; and its mass marketing, that are all hallmarks of this quackish scam. I have therefore added a few words to ensure that misunderstandings don't ensue. -- Fyslee / talk 04:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I feel that mucoid plaque should not be described primarily as an intestinal lining, but perhaps as an eliminated product (note: not excreted). This would appear to be a more uncontroversial description of what mucoid plaque "is" (in reality). This is what I was hoping of ultimately hoping to steer the article towards (I could have been much more radical in my sweeping changes), but as I've said, I'm backing away for quite a while.--ZayZayEM (talk) 01:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You are correct. It is an eliminated product that is claimed to be an unhealthy intestinal lining, if I understand this correctly. Do you have a proposed wording to replace an existing one that isn't quite accurate? Please propose it here. -- Fyslee / talk 05:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Content sections
I've retitled some content section titles, but haven't tweaked the content. The content should possibly be tweaked to better match these titles, that I feel are appropriate for an encyclopedia article.

Basically material should be organised to best just describe the concept. Material shoould be focused on mucoid plaque, and not colonic irrigation which is a separate article.--ZayZayEM (talk) 04:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Can I suggest and "explanations" or "causes" sections. First introduce the alleged causes (would allow somewhere more appropriate for previous "Andersons' claims" material). Then introduce the idea that cleansing pills themselves create these "plaques". I am worried about attempting to sort of make this fit WP:MEDMOS, as it may give an illusion that it is a medical article, but really the style should understandably follow suit (it is a fictitious-ish disease) just that the content will be different (ie. controversial statements should not go unchallenged, and appropriate use of "claims", "Andersons says" to note opinions and speculation rather than fact.--ZayZayEM (talk) 06:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've gone and done a rewrite. Much of the information was sourced innapropriately and removed where it could not be reworded
 * I would be in favour of removing a lot of Anderson's self published sources. He is not a reliable source, and seems to twist truths in favour of his interpretation (noooooo... really?). He should be used for barest of minimal - ie. his description of the characteristics of plaque, what he claims causes it, and he is a "true believer" who thinks the medical profession are just ig'nant or his genius. Wherever possible (actually hopefully in all instances) these should be backed up by independent (!) third party publications. Surely some CAM journal has done a special feature on this hokery.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Allegedly?
"Mucoid plaque (or mucoid cap or rope) is a term used by some alternative medicine advocates to describe a combination of allegedly harmful mucus-like material and food residue that they say coats the gastrointestinal tract of most people." -- what the hell kind of message is this? Isn't wikipedia about sharing information, not criticizing a subject as false? The tone of this sentence--by using words and phrases such as "some", "allegedly", and "they say"--serves only the purpose to discount the subject "Mucoid Plaque". This makes the article biased, and that's not what a large information base should be about! I'm changing it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerozeplyn (talk • contribs) 02:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia will criticize a subject as false when it is false (like this one). That is the essence of its neutrality. See WP:NPOV and especially WP:FRINGE. Alexbrn (talk) 03:26, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ...who is to judge that it is false? i have direct experience with mucoid plaque. --Aerozeplyn (talk) 09:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll simplify it for you. Mucoid Plaque is a term. What's wrong with the term? I understand the problem with scam products. On another note, labeling "Mucoid Plaque" as a false concept...what is so false about buildup sheathed in mucus? It's what the body does.... --Aerozeplyn (talk) 06:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Consider Removing Richard Anderson References
References to Richard Anderson adds no value to the concept of Mucoid Plaque. For example, it appears that many popular laxatives are on the market containing the same product ingredients, such as psyllium hydrophilic mucilloid ("psyllium husk"), hydrated bentonite, etc. as the products by Richard Anderson. I have not used his products, and I can say that--as a witness--I have personally eliminated mucoid plaque without the use of any laxatives. In fact, here's another individual who claims to have witnessed what is called "mucoid plaque" without using laxatives or colon cleansing products: http://howirecovered.com/failed-liver-flush-delivers-mucoid-plaque/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerozeplyn (talk • contribs) 10:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Please limit your discussion here to improving the article. Please read WP:TPG.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 06:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't you think it would better improve this article to label Richard Anderson's products as pseudoscience? That's apparently what this article is all about anyways, right? --Aerozeplyn (talk) 06:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Repeated removal of the infobox
Not sure why? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * infobox is pseudoscience. "Mucoid Plaque" is not a subject of scientific study, it is a term. --Aerozeplyn (talk) 12:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We have sources that describe it as such
 * Medical medical claims that are not based on science is by definition pseudoscience Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 13:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * check out the peer-reviewed article (with photos, sources, etc.) i posted that was recently removed from the Article (look at edit history). On your sciencebasedpharmacy wordpress site, at a glance it doesn't appear to be a peer-reviewed article, neither do I see sources. It still looks like a valuable article in exposing scam products. Nevertheless, check out the article I posted. It's not about this diet crap, it's about mucoid plaque. As in layman terms--which I believe may be different than what is termed on this page, which would put me out of context and not appropriate to post on this mucoid plaque area--plaque built up in a living organism that started with layers of protective mucus. --Aerozeplyn (talk) 06:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Witnesses and Accounts
Here's a copy of what I've added to "Witnesses and Accounts", yet this was removed. Could someone help me with that about this violates Wikipedia? Or could someone help me write this? Maybe I'm just in a completely wrong section for the topic of "Mucoid Plaque", as this page seems more about a pseudoscience conspiracy for people selling products and making money scarring others about mucoid plaque. I don't say this out of disrespect to the authors, I say this because I'm observing that I may just be in a completely wrong place on wikipedia. Any friendliness and guidance is much appreciated :) My previous text from the "Witnesses and Accounts" section...

Several reports, witnesses, and imagery of the concept of "Mucoid Plaque" exist within the blogging community. The individuals who post this information have no products to sell, but share their information and report freely. For example, a well-known expert in Juice fasting, John Rose, discusses mucoid plaque without using the term "mucoid plaque", but refers to it as the "Most dangerous substance in the world".

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerozeplyn (talk • contribs) 06:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Replying to most of what you have written here today, along with post.... Content that is WP:Biomedical information needs to be sourced per WP:MEDRS; all other content needs to be sourced per WP:RS. (MEDRS is a bit more strict than RS).  The two sources you bring there are not OK per MEDRS for supporting biomedical information.   About the section -- sections generally follow the format described in WP:MEDMOS.  We generally don't have a section called "witnesses and accounts"; am not even sure what we could put there. Jytdog (talk) 06:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * This makes sense, thank you for the links. So basically, if it's not sourced as such, it's immediately just removed? I'm fine with that. It appears that the "talk" page is a better place to bring proposed changes.... --Aerozeplyn (talk) 06:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "Witnesses and Accounts" (to me) sounds like something religion or UFO-related. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Pretty much, yes. It's part of the cult of colonic irrigation. Guy (Help!) 01:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

More info on Mucoid Plaque Term and peer-reviewed article example
Hi Jytdog, any reason for removing this? Let's discuss it here

The term is also used by pathology researchers to describe the mucus buildup to protect tissues from a foreign substance. These plaques are observed along side fish populations with growing tumors.

--Aerozeplyn (talk) 06:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, kind of grabbing what we call a "primary source" where the term is used in passing, is not how things are done here in WP. We generally use what we call "secondary" or "tertiary sources".  (this is explained some at WP:MEDDEF).   If you are aware of some source that discusses generally how the term is used in veterinary medicine or the like, that could be interesting. We often have veterinary sections in article where that is relevant. .  Jytdog (talk) 06:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, and whether it is veterinary medicine or not, mucoid plaque is the same exact thing in humans. Sort of like a fish's organ that functions much like the human liver is also called a "liver". I'll check out the links you gave me... it seems like a header for "veterinary" is appropriate. I still believe this article should make it clear that Richard Anderson's products are based on pseudoscience, not that the subject of "mucoid plaque" is pseudoscience. --Aerozeplyn (talk) 07:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If you wish to write an article about the fish disease you are welcome to. It could be Mucoid plaque (fish) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 07:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * How about this article becomes "Mucoid Plaque (Richard Anderson)"? It's much more fitting. "Mucoid Plaque" alone refers to basically any vertebrate species, while this article is focused on just the pseudoscience of Richard Anderson, or more specifically: colon cleansing products. Since this article does not differentiate, it is highly misleading and unscholarly. If the community agrees, I'll write up the section "Colon Cleansing Products", and we can swap the article text. --Aerozeplyn (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have looked into this and there are no good MEDRS refs that talk about mucoid plaque in people. If you are aware of any please cite them. If you cannot find any you will need to let things be. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree with Jytdog here. Do not cite any such sources. You are banned from this topic and are prohibited from commenting on it anywhere on the English-language Wikipedia. That includes discussing sources about the topic. The material on fish may be OK as long as it contains absolutely no information of any relevance whatsoever on mucoid plaque in people. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah thanks for catching that. Wasn't aware. Jytdog (talk) 03:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)