User talk:Mark Odegard

Tasks: start a new article • add basic, wanted or requested articles • add definitions • add metadata • edit new pages

Welcome to the Citizendium! We hope you will contribute boldly and well. Here are pointers for a quick start, and see Getting Started for other helpful "startup" links, our help system and CZ:Home for the top menu of community pages. You can test out editing in the sandbox if you'd like. If you need help to get going, the forum is one option. That's also where we discuss policy and proposals. You can ask any user or the editors for help, too. Just put a note on their "talk" page. Again, welcome and have fun!

Robert Tito | Talk 16:51, 7 February 2007 (CST)

credibility

As any scientist should know, claims are not made by mouthing words but by giving prove of things, according to the welknown scientific method, I need to be able to prove or reject certain theorems or ideas. Your claim gives me none other then your information something is a fraudulent article.

if no fundament - tested on several different locations, by different persons can be given of your allegations

then my conclusion is your allegations are fraudulous, else I must conclude, the article might not be based upon truth. (truth in the scientific way, not any religious bias and ambiguous way.) Until that prove has been delivered beyond any scientific prove - refrain from this kind of remarks please. Robert Tito | Talk 04:12, 11 February 2007 (CST)

A comment here was deleted by The Constabulary on grounds of making complaints about fellow Citizens. If you have a complaint about the behavior of another Citizen, e-mail constables@citizendium.org. It is contrary to Citizendium policy to air your complaints on the wiki. See also CZ:Professionalism.

WARNING

Robert Tito | Talk 05:05, 11 February 2007 (CST)

I don't believe there is any attack, although the pages may have some lags in displaying copy. Access through the tabs on the history logs solves this problem I think. Hardly anyone else is active at CZ at the moment. David Tribe 06:03, 11 February 2007 (CST) Constable. My userpage is locked because of a recent vandalism episode stop your offensive behavior David Tribe 06:03, 11 February 2007 (CST)

Some thoughts on "scientific", encyclopaedic, and respect for other opinions.

Hi Mark, it is good to see that you have joined Citizendium. Your posting and disgruntlement about the vertebral subluxation article raises some points. For one, the article is about the chiropractic concept of vertebral subluxation, not about the practice of chiropractic as a health profession, and not about the conventional medical concept of subluxation. If your opinion is documented and represents a major view of this concept of vertebral subluxation, and that view is not mentioned in the article or in its links, then the onus is on yourself to suggest the additions or changes, together with the requisite support documentation. Secondly, and in my opinion more importantly, your comment touches on the essence of what an encyclopaedia is about. An encyclopaedia is about human knowledge, that is, what humanity know and thinks about the world outside and inside of our bodies, both past and present. It does not publish new ideas, but describes those that have been published - made known in a way that can be independently confirmed. That includes all thoughts and ideas that can be documented, so that it qualifies as "what we (people) know or think", as opposed to "what I (individual writer) know or think". It does not give value judgements, simply observations or descriptions of events. It does not advocate new theories as definitely right, nor shoot down theories which have become obsolete, without bothering to describe what the theory was. As a simple example, I would love to read thoroughly researched articles about the idea of a flat earth, how ancients interpreted or explained the motion of the planets, or how come Galileo had ideas different from his contemporaries (most articles just say he did, but I have never understood why only one person seems to have thought or said what he did.) A more extreme example, which I believe to be valid, would be an article about the phenomenon of holocaust denial. An interested person should be able to find an article about what persons who follow this belief are actually thinking - what the reasons are, what it means, how it is used (ideas are there to be "used":)), what facts are used as evidence for or against, and how different sections of humanity view it. The fact that so discussing the topic in say Austria can get you sent to jail is unfortunate, but hardly a reason for avoiding the reality of the human thought movement, as if it did not exist. In this context, the labelling of a health related human activity or belief as falsehood, quackery or snake oil is outside of the scope of an encyclopaedia. What is valuable, is how the activity is viewed by those practising it, by those who believe in it, and - once more - by different sectors of humanity. In the context of an article about vertebral subluxation, I would want to know what this phrase means, where it comes from, how the concept is used, and what the major interpretations and opinions about the principle is (remembering that this is about an a idea and a phrase, not about the practice of chiropractic as such). --Christo Muller 16:43, 11 February 2007 (CST)

I think the key sentence above is the following: "If your opinion is documented and represents a major view of this concept of vertebral subluxation, and that view is not mentioned in the article or in its links, then the onus is on yourself to suggest the additions or changes, together with the requisite support documentation." Chris Day (Talk) 01:49, 12 February 2007 (CST)

A comment here was deleted by The Constabulary on grounds of making complaints about fellow Citizens. If you have a complaint about the behavior of another Citizen, e-mail constables@citizendium.org. It is contrary to Citizendium policy to air your complaints on the wiki. See also CZ:Professionalism.