Talk:Mark Hyman (doctor)/Archive 1

Fringe Template

Mark Hyman makes many claims about the benifits of his Detox diets, including the ability to cure Autism[1] this article does not have any information on how frivolous his claims are, therefore the Fringe Template. VViking_TalkEdits 20:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Does his BLP here on Wikipedia contain fringe theories claiming the benefits of his detox diets? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any undue weight given to a particular theraputic therapy, let alone an endorsement of Hyman's books. This looks like an ad hominem warning. Will remove the template pending discussion of specific issues that justify it. — Brianhe (talk) 11:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Book Criticism

Hi. I am new to Wikipedia edits, so I appreciate any and all help in advance. This article mentions a book criticism randomly in the middle of Hyman's career section. This feels out of place, and in my humble opinion, deserves its own section if warranted. A few other Wikipedia editors have reached the same conclusion.

The criticism's source does not detail any specific reasons for disliking the book, and seems more of an ad hominem against Hyman. The criticism is also only from a single person, so the plurality is misleading. Please advise. My edits were reversed based on an accusation of whitewashing, but I'm not even sure what that means? Thank you again for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.168.50.103 (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

"Criticism" section deleted

What is the justification for removing the "Criticism" section and merging it, somewhat haphazardly it seems to me, into the "Career" section? The edit claims that this section was "original research due to synthesis," but reading the Wikipedia policy on this I don't see how—the section constituted a consistent narrative, hardly different from (say) the Views and Controversy page for Joseph Mercola. The result is both less effective writing (in what way is being featured in Quackwatch part of Hyman's "career"?) and obscures the marginal science upon which much of Hyman's career is based. 104.173.202.52 (talk) 07:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm removing the "Quackwatch" mention/ref. I went to the reference and it is one person on a website giving an opinion on a published book. There is no explanation, discussion or other reasoning as to why Hyman or this book should be defamed. Just to be clear, I have no relationship or allegiance to Hyman nor have I read any of his books. I saw an interview with him and looked him up here on Wikipedia. Personally, I do not care if he or is work is defamed. My only motive is to remove a subpar reference from encyclopedia. Jyg (talk) 05:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

See Quackwatch. Wikipedia regards that site as reliable. You do not get to decide this alone. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling:Yes, I've seen the Quackwatch Wikipedia page. Not to be combative, but who says "Wikipedia regards that site as reliable" other than you? I would like you to address that Quackwatch defames Hyman's book with absolutely no reference or explanation. The Quackwatch page referenced lists the book's title, the authors, and nothing more. No explanation of how or why or any research into the conclusion to consider the book or Hyman a hack. How is that something Wikipedia would regard as a valid reference? After researching your efforts on Wikipedia, you seem to have a long time commitment to having your perception on medical (mis)information as the one Wikipedia maintains. I would be perfectly fine with that if references at least tried to show some credibility. This one does not. If you do not care about facts having support and your not caring wins the day, then Wikipedia loses. Jyg (talk) 05:53, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

mE.Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jyg: Search WP:RSN archives for Quackwatch: it's reliable for fringe medical claims. And you better knock off this "defame" line because per WP:NLT it could get you blocked; not that a book can be "defamed" in any case! Functional medicine is a load of BS and per WP:PSCI we are obliged to point that out if it's mentioned. Alexbrn (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Reliable, as always. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 15:04, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Other sources in relation to functional medicine (borrowed from its article):

• Hall, Harriet (2017). "Functional Medicine: Pseudoscientific Silliness". Skeptic. Vol. 22, no. 1. pp. 4–5.
• Gorski, David (September 29, 2014). "Quackademia update: The Cleveland Clinic, George Washington University, and the continued infiltration of quackery into medical academia". Science–Based Medicine. Retrieved 2016-12-02.

—PaleoNeonate – 21:04, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Sure, a wikipedia note on Quackwatch might say that Quackwatch as a site is generally credible. I'm willing to go with that. But this particular reference provides absolutely nothing to support having the book denoted as the work of a quack. I don't care if Hyman is a quack and his functional medicine is complete quackery or not. That's not the point. I removed the reference because *that* particular reference let to a baseless listing -- it gave no justification. Why is Hyman's book quackery? At least if Quackwatch had given a subsequent link with an explanation, citing other credible medical texts, etc. But, it doesn't. It lists the title and the authors. QED. If Wikipedia operates on the reasoning that because a website is generally credible it may pass judgement for content without justification, then being banned from Wikipedia is not a consequence, it is a gift that let's us all know that the information is Alexbrn's POV, not necessarily fact. Jyg (talk) 22:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: Thank you for that further information. Please read my above reply to Alexbrn. It's not the book nor the science, it's the reference at issue. If the Quackwatch destination from the reference on this page had that sort of reasoning and detail it would be a good reference. It looks to me like noe more than some quack unjustifiably calling other people's work quackery. Like I said to Alexbrn, if that's Wikipedia's idea of a quality reference, then who would give a crap about Wikipedia except people with a POV claim to stake? Jyg (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

As mentioned, multiple sources considered reliable agree and we have WP:PSCI (we must make clear that functional medicine is pseudoscience). The article should of course not say "<person> is a quack", it's criticism about works or discredited views. Wikipedia is actually gaining a reputation for accuracy about its descriptions of fringe topics. —PaleoNeonate – 23:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

It looks to me like noe more than some quack unjustifiably calling other people's work quackery. If their work is a pile of quackery bullshit, there's no reason not to call it out. We're not guilty the quack has wasted their life on quackery. Also, the word is justifiably. byteflush _Talk 01:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mark Hyman (doctor). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130925061131/http://katiecouric.com/author/drmarkhyman/ to http://katiecouric.com/author/drmarkhyman/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)