Hans Adler (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
:::The problem is Barrett himself is very questionable--he is NOT a DDS and the article in question is a blog. Further research has shown that even the claim regarding focal infection theory is in error--a 2009 Wiley textbook said the theory never truly died and 2004 and 2006 Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers textbooks state that "there has been a resurgence of interest in oral focal infection theory" and "It is becoming more validated that the oral cavity can act as the site of origin for spread of pathogenic organisms to organisms to distance body areas,..." So the rebuttal is to a reference that in reality likely shouldn't have been there in the first place.--[[User:BruceGrubb|BruceGrubb]] ([[User talk:BruceGrubb#top|talk]]) 18:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC) |
:::The problem is Barrett himself is very questionable--he is NOT a DDS and the article in question is a blog. Further research has shown that even the claim regarding focal infection theory is in error--a 2009 Wiley textbook said the theory never truly died and 2004 and 2006 Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers textbooks state that "there has been a resurgence of interest in oral focal infection theory" and "It is becoming more validated that the oral cavity can act as the site of origin for spread of pathogenic organisms to organisms to distance body areas,..." So the rebuttal is to a reference that in reality likely shouldn't have been there in the first place.--[[User:BruceGrubb|BruceGrubb]] ([[User talk:BruceGrubb#top|talk]]) 18:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC) |
||
::::"The problem is Barrett himself is very questionable" that's your personal perspective, and the main problem that I in all this. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz|talk]]) 19:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC) |
::::"The problem is Barrett himself is very questionable" that's your personal perspective, and the main problem that I in all this. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz|talk]]) 19:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::::Ronz, please ask yourself whether you may be trying to keep questionable claims in an article about history of dentistry just because you think Barrett is infallible. He is very obviously not even an expert in that area. [[User:Hans Adler|Hans]] [[User talk:Hans Adler|Adler]] 23:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:04, 14 October 2010
RfC
Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rorschach test images. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 16:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Quotes
These are excellent Bruce. Will definately be using them in my defense. Many thanks.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Scientific Method
Burke's in Day the Universe raised an interesting question-- does data drive a theory or does a theory determine what is data.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
MLM
Thanks, Bruce, for your good and continuing work in preserving the Multi-Level Marketing page. DougHill (talk) 17:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
AfD
There's a straight-forward guide at WP:AFDHOWTO. Let me know if you have any questions. Will Beback talk 18:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
New Christ Myth Theory FAQ
User:BruceGrubb/CMT_Material/FAQ That I am working on.
Chick publications
Thanks for helping to clean up the article! The tone was beginning to sound a bit like the material being criticized! (I was worried that Chick might issue a pamphlet on Wikipedia! And it would be totally factual! :) 20:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Having said that, the article still needs citations, just like every other article in Wikipedia, whether "the sun shines during the day" or "this way is up." Making mere "claims" to refute Chick "claims" is hardly encyclopedic. One loud voice against another. Please respond on article discussion page. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey
Hi Bruce, there's a question for you at Talk:Christ myth theory#I Howard Marshall, in case you missed it. Cheers, SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Templates
Bruce, I'd appreciate if you wouldn't add citation templates to that article. Writing the refs out by hand makes loading time, particularly for preview and diffs, much faster, especially when there are such a large number of references. Also, per the MoS, punctuation goes after ref tags, and it's really not good form to place ref tags inside sentences if it can be avoided. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 10:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- I am following the MoS: Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Inline_citations--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
ethnology
I think by "historical anthropology" you mean "ethnohistory" and not "ethnoloby." Slrubenstein | Talk 09:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- The three are closely related to the point they are called by the other names. When I learned anthropology the term was "historical anthropology" with "ethnology" thrown in for a pseudonym.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Weston Price
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Weston Price, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Considering a quote by a DDS is being flag as well the template IMHO doesn't belong there in the first place.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand. Did you mean, "is being flagged"?
- I started a discussion on the matter [1]. I hope you'll respect the tagging and continue to participate in the discussion. I'm glad you've chosen not to make further comments like "Claiming that quote is OR and NPOV is insane." [2]
- Please note, I'm claiming that the introduction and juxtaposing of the information you added with Barrett's criticism is original research and not neutral. I've since brought up the concern that this is the use of Wikipedia as a battleground. --Ronz (talk) 16:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is Barrett himself is very questionable--he is NOT a DDS and the article in question is a blog. Further research has shown that even the claim regarding focal infection theory is in error--a 2009 Wiley textbook said the theory never truly died and 2004 and 2006 Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers textbooks state that "there has been a resurgence of interest in oral focal infection theory" and "It is becoming more validated that the oral cavity can act as the site of origin for spread of pathogenic organisms to organisms to distance body areas,..." So the rebuttal is to a reference that in reality likely shouldn't have been there in the first place.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)