Talk:Vaginal steaming

WP:MEDRS

As much as I'd like to get a DYK out of this, wonder if this article can stand with zero sources passing MEDRS. Ritchie? EEng 21:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm trying to skirt around that issue by basically changing the article so it's all opinion based, "x said this", "y said that", or words like "claims to" - basically nothing that actually presents itself as scientific fact. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Still I think we might have a WP:NEO problem too. Can you find something helping us past that? I'm skeptical of the claims this is an ancient Chinese secret and so on. If it's just today's fad with no serious comment at all, we might be out of luck. (Hate to, er, throw cold water on it.) EEng 22:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The Guardian source I just added explains the science, though I wouldn't normally treat that as a valid MEDRS; however, I don't think anyone's seriously claiming anything that's actually scientifically proven anyway. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• They're not MEDRS, but at least they're more reliable than news articles:
  • ‘Basically, it’s sorcery for your vagina’: unpacking Western representations of vaginal steaming - Culture, Health & Sexuality
  • A multi-country study on gender, sexuality and vaginal practices: implications for sexual health: policy brief - World Health Organization
  • Prevalence and self-reported health consequences of vaginal practices in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: findings from a household survey - Tropical Medicine & Internal Health

There's also this review which was pulled from publication for apparently being abandoned by the authors. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The right hook

OK, bullets 2 and 3 get us out of NEO. All we need now is the right hook. EEng 22:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, there's always the droll, neutral version "Some women use steam from boiling herbal water on their vaginas due to a belief in its positive health effects." It's not a hook per se, but it's a place to start. I think the right wording could make a good hook. I'm not going to suggest too many myself because, well, I wouldn't be able to resist the temptation to just pun my way through offending everyone who reads this thread. I'd get everyone all hot and bothered. ANI would boil over with complaints. One might even say I'd make steam shoot from their... Ears. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

...they're their ears? By all means, pun away! EEng 03:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

they're ears? <twitch>...<bites his lip>...<twitch>... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Keep it in your pants. I'm blaming this one on the autocorrect. EEng 22:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

MjolnirPants dealing with those who mangle proper grammar

The only things that are MEDRS are the statements that there is no scientific basis for this nonsense. Probably reliably sourced as to the cultural practice, but absolutely not with respect to the bodily aspects being anything other than fringe/pseudoscience/placebo. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I have not attempted to look for any sources on this. I have recently heard of it, and heard it also called yoni steaming. I offer that as an additional search term for those who would like to improve the article. LadyofShalott 02:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I suspect if I went into my local library and said "have you got anything on vaginal steaming?" they'd give me a funny look. Or direct me towards the "romantic fiction" section. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Or, you know... they might actually try to help you find the information. Signed, a library employee, aka LadyofShalott 19:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC) If someone goes in acting like the topic is a joke, like much of this discussion has done, it might be received as such. If it is presented as a real inquiry, it should be treated in that manner. LadyofShalott 19:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

There is a medical library near me which permits limited public access. I have, quite literally done exactly this, and I can say with assurance that you are both right. I was, at first, advised to visit the check-out line of the local supermarket with a (shared) chuckle, then helped efficiently. And the answer, by the way, is "No." They had nothing on it except for digital access to the two peer-reviewed sources I provided above. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Social science (and related) literature

• Hilber, Adriane Martin. "A cross cultural study of vaginal practices and sexuality: Implications for sexual health". Social Science & Medicine. 70 (3): 392–400. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.10.023. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Hull, Terence H. "Prevalence, Motivations, and Adverse Effects of Vaginal Practices in Africa and Asia: Findings from a Multicountry Household Survey". Journal of Women's Health. 20 (7): 1097–109. doi:10.1089/jwh.2010.2281. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Two thirds of women in Chonburi had ever performed vaginal steaming or smoking (66.9%), which they associated with maintaining wellness and feminine identity. Women mostly reported carrying this out in the postpartum period (85.5%). The practice was also not uncommon in Tete (current practice 10.0%), although there it was mostly intended to enhance male sexual pleasure by causing vaginal tightening (64.1% of users) and drying (22.9%).

• François, Isabelle. "Prevalence and Motivations of Vaginal Practices in Tete Province, Mozambique". International Journal of Sexual Health. 24: 205–217. doi:10.1080/19317611.2012.691443. ISSN 1931-762X. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• De Gezelle, Jillian (2014). Q’eqchi’ Maya Reproductive Ethnomedicine. Spinger. pp. 56–57. ISBN Jillian De Gezelle. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)

use of Piper auritum "leaves in a postpartum vaginal steam bath"

• Thank you Lady. I worked two of them into the lead, with the tweak that indicates this is not just some hipster thing--that's what matters here. I cannot expand on this article right now, sorry. Drmies (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts! LadyofShalott 19:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Potential DYKs

Honestly it's a daunting task to decide among the potential hooks. The following are extracted from various sources. Please give your opinions and whichever one seems most popular I'll (a) figure out how to shoehorn into the article and (b) boil down to the requisite 200 chars. (Others, feel free to add their favorites to the list.) EEng 01:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• From https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/jan/30/sorry-gwyneth-paltrow-but-steaming-your-vagina-is-a-bad-idea
  • "Mugwort, for instance, is an aromatic herb used in Chinese traditional medicine and as a food flavouring. In South Korea it’s used in rice cakes and soup. And in LA it’s used to steam vaginas."
  • "heating the vagina isn’t necessary"
  • "Steaming the vagina cannot possibly impact on hormone levels. I urge you to put the kettle away, throw the mugwort in some soup and consciously uncouple from this website."
    • ... that women have been advised to "consciously uncouple" from vaginal steaming? Gatoclass (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "rebalance female hormones and for a squeaky clean uterus"
  • '"If you’re in LA, you have to do it.” Which makes me grateful that I’m not.'

• From http://www.livescience.com/49648-vaginal-steaming-no-benefits.html
  • "V-steaming could also cause more immediate problems, such as second-degree burns"
  • 'it's possible that the treatment is doing something else. "She's probably getting turned on," Burch said. "Heat increases blood flow to the vagina, as well as the clitoris."'
  • The vagina cleans itself
• From "'Basically, it’s sorcery for your vagina': unpacking Western representations of vaginal steaming". Tycho Vandenburg, Virginia Braun. Culture, Health & Sexuality. Apr 2017, Vol. 19, No. 4: 470-485:
  • Did you know ... that themes found in online accounts of vaginal steaming include "the self-improving woman", "the naturally deteriorating, dirty female body", and "contemporary life as harmful"?
  • Did you know ... that online accounts of vaginal steaming appear to fit "within historico-contemporary constructions of women’s bodies as deficient and disgusting"?
  • ... that "sorcery for your vagina" is not universally recommended? Gatoclass (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

So far I like this one best. The problem is that the phrase sorcery for your vagina only comes, so far, from the title of the paper -- apparently that's from some quote inside the paper, and (weirdly) the paper won't come online for a year. I'll have to see it in hardcopy next time I wander into the library. However, are we agreed that there are certainly good hooks available, so that we should go ahead and nominate? EEng 23:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• Collected from discussions elsewhere (mostly appropriate for April 1 -- probably true for all of this):
  • Did you know ... that Gwenyth Paltrow was advised that vaginas need not be steam-cleaned
  • Did you know ... that Yes, vagina, V-steaming really is a thing?
  • Did you know ... that Gwenyth Paltrow claims sitting on a throne cleanses the female reproductive system? (Thanks to HalfGig)

and (weirdly) the paper won't come online for a year. Check out the section above. I'm pretty sure I can get access to a digital version of this article before then (it may be a pre-review version, or hopefully just a pdf of the journal page). I'll check back next weekend after I give it a shot, and bring notes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

EEng predicts...

Well, you might want to call ahead or check the catalog before you go, because I predict you'll find it's not available yet. But The Great and Powerful Oz has been wrong before. If you could get the context for the "sorcery" quote (including page #) that'd be great. EEng 21:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

That's what I'd be looking for. The only reason I didn't take notes previously is because I could have sworn both of those articles were open-access. Question: Do you have access to that journal? It says it was published last year, and the search at the library was only of articles they have access to. Or at least, that's what I was told by the librarian. Personally, I don't think I'm willing to shell out 42 bucks for 24 hours of access, when I'm used to spending ~30 bucks for a pdf of the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I do have access but as seen here it seems issues are available only on paper for the first 18 months. I spoke with the library just now and it appears, further, that the last issue they received in hardcopy was last summer. So we probably shouldn't hold our breaths. EEng 00:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the hook. What does it matter that the quote comes from the title of an article? It's still a quote, and the hook is still valid. Gatoclass (talk) 11:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Even for April 1, it's dangerous to use a quotation without knowing its original context. EEng 16:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Not that it's a good hook, but that it might give someone some ideas: In the 19th century, a physician by the name of George Taylor invented a steam-powered vibrator to treat "hysteria". Here's the source for the vibrator. (If one takes the "sorcery" comment a bit more literally than called for, that might be said to make this a strange case in which technology not only preceded sorcery, but turned out to, presumably, be a lot more fun.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Surely you don't intend to challenge the supremecy of Talk:Dr._Young's_Ideal_Rectal_Dilators. EEng 17:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely. Right up until the point that someone straps them to a steam engine, at which point all bets are off. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Since we have to get a DYK nom kick started within a week of the article being created (unless the rules have changed since I looked, and that's always possible), we've now got Template:Did you know nominations/Vaginal steaming. Go forth and add hooks (but make sure you steam clean them first). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• For the record, EEng, I hit the library yesterday and you were right. They got nothing but about 75% of the abstract for the article body (but 100% of the abstract when searching for abstracts, of course). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Of course I'm right – see User:EEng#correct. I'd write to the authors for a preprint but I'm not sure they'd be sympathetic to the goal. EEng 23:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Ehh, it can't hurt to try! Unlike the act, itself... Which makes me wonder if penis steaming is a thing. Trust me, don't look for sources for that. Rule 34 is a harsh mistress... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Stealing. Penis stealing. EEng 23:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I got a Lojack for mine. I'm ain't worried about theft. It's hackers that worry me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• @EEng: @Ritchie333: May be a bit late to the party but my suggestion for a hook would be "...that it is considered healthy to blow steam up your vagina?" The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Readers lacking vaginas may be momentarily confused. EEng 12:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Or perpetually, in my case. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The trouble with that hook is "considered by whom"? Certainly the sources used suggest there is no conclusive scientific benefit, and therefore you steam your crotch at your own risk. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

By Gwyneth Paltrow, of course. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I hope you are just having fun. Please don't use this vaginal steaming article for a DYK. The article text debunks it on the basis of critical theory. There is a better reason (also mentioned in the article) which is actual harm, like getting burnt or causing vaginal infections. I am female, and the thought of subjecting myself to something that could burn or irritate mucosal tissue makes me shudder and cross my legs. Mjolnir's comment about advocates of vaginal steaming, pseudo-science queen Gwyneth Paltrow, speaks for itself. There is NO scientific benefit, and a real possibility of harm. The livescience post that you linked to is correct.--FeralOink (talk) 10:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The DYK proposal is for April 1, and all the versions I've seen imply or state that it's been debunked as healthy or useful. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Yay, I feel a lot better knowing that. I didn't realize it was being considered for the April 1 DYK. Thank you for the quick response, User:MjolnirPants.--FeralOink (talk) 14:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

4/1/17 is over, and anyway I'm glad to know you crotch cookers weren't serious. Lord High Permanent Senior Undersectretary to L3X1 (talk) 00:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I hate to break it to you, but I remain dead serious about crotch cooking and i would thank you not to denigrate this important and meaningful activity. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Its all sorcery. I shall have my new fav admin block people who don't see eye to eye with me. And that useless undersecretary is fired. L3X1 (distant write) 16:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't make me take off my tin foil hat and come over there. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Removal of RationalWiki link

WP:COI warning: RationalWiki (RW) editor & creator of RW vaginal steaming article.

@PCHS-NJROTC: removed a link I added to RW's vaginal steaming article. That's fine. A month later, unprompted, PCHS-NJROTC warned me that I was "spamming". I suppose I'll justify myself.

The vaginal steaming article on RW is years older (2014), substantially larger (>10x) and more-indepth, and substantially better cited (80 cites) than the Wikipedia article. The RW article may thus be of interest to readers.

As noted here, RW is WP:UGC. However, this is an area with little published research. Most "articles" on the subject are sensational news praising/bashing Gwyneth Paltrow. I suggest that RationalWiki is a decent external source for this WP:FRINGE subject.

But I didn't see a need to revert then and don't now. The WP article is a decent introductory stub. Besides, I've got lots of "spamming" to do and can't be bothered with little things like this. FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 14:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I have restored the link. WP:UGC is for reliable sources. Absolutely nobody is treating RationalWiki as a reliable source for the claims put in this article, it is simply an additional piece of information. Yer pays yer money and yer takes yer choice. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333:, the issues isn't WP:RS, the issue is WP:ELNO. Rational-Wiki is a user contributed website like Conservapedia, Encyclopedia Dramatica, or anything on Wikia. FuzzyCatPotato is on the board of directors of that site, and although he may not wish to harm Wikipedia, that's his reason for linking to it. The link needs to be removed again. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 10:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

The specific issues at hand are Links mainly intended to promote a website and Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked. Go to Rational-Wiki and look up "headless chicken mode." The wiki is far from stable with a long history of edit wars, wheel warring by administrators, vandalism, squabbling over policy, and sometimes outright immaturity, and the person who added the link has a blatant conflict of interest as a board member for the RationalMedia Foundation. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 11:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think throwing the baby out with the bathwater is a good idea myself - see comments I made yesterday about how thinking even The Sun might be useful for sourcing minor-league football results, though I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole for BLPs. Just because some RationalWiki pages are problematic, doesn't mean all of them area. I suppose if you were concerned about accidentally linking to a page that happened to be vandalised at that point in time, you could link to a specific revision. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Still, WP:ELNO strictly says that the wiki must have substantial stability and a substantial number of editors, and counting only active users, Rational-Wiki fails both. One can't even accurately judge the latter because there are serious sock-puppetry issues at Rational-Wiki (even by respected established users), and because of the sites lack of CheckUser abilities, there is absolutely no way of verifying how many active editors the site actually has. See this incident where one of the site's once most respected users is suspected of sock-puppetry and rigging a moderator election. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 11:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I generally don't care about shenanigans like that. By the same analogy, one could point to Essjay and OrangeMoody, and conclude that Wikipedia should not be read under any circumstances. Mind you, I've publicly declared enjoying some of the Wikipediocracy blog posts, so maybe I'm just out of whack with things around here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't care if someone "likes" the link to Rational-Wiki, I care about policy, and this is no case of WP:IAR. Rational-Wiki fails WP:ELNO, and if our own article doesn't have enough information, expand it (and that doesn't mean copy from R-W because their neutrality policies are incompatible with ours). Conservapedia and Encyclopedia Dramatica cover certain topics with more detail than we do too, and some of the content is pretty good (referring to the baby with the bathwater analogy), but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Furthermore, re-adding the link is encouraging disruptive behavior the same way readding Microsoft links added by a member of Microsoft's board of directors would be encouraging disruptive behavior. If we can't agree on policy here, perhaps we should bring in a third opinion? PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 12:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think RationalWiki (of which I'm a regular reader, if not contributor) should be used to source anything, per WP:UGC, except when linking to a specific revision to claim "On the second Tuesday of last week, RationalWiki said..."

I don't, however, have a problem linking to it as an external link, if it has articles offering more in-depth coverage of a subject than our own, provided said subject is one which is of interest to skeptics and debunkers (the target audience of rationalwiki.com). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC),

• • Conservapedia would be of interest to conservatives and Christians, and Encyclopedia Dramatica would be of interest to people into memes, but would we link to it? This is obviously attracting people from the skeptic community (who would be more sympathetic to Rational-Wiki), so it's time to bring in an outside opinion. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 02:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Consider an article on a meme; I think it would be okay to link to Encyclopedia Dramatica in that article (as an EL, not a source). As far as Conservapedia goes; that's about politics nominally, but it covers so many subjects from a POV that's not backed by verifiable science and empirical evidence (not saying it's wrong, just that you can't find empirical science that backs up the assertion that liberals are all idiots, for example). I get where you're coming from, I really do. But there's such a huge difference between skepticism and political affiliation that I don't think that particular comparison is apt. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. If one were to ask a typical creationist, he or she would say there is strong evidence of a living God and that evolution is nonsense, whereas a typical skeptic would say there is strong evidence of evolution and young-earth creationism is nonsense. Both think they are right, but obviously both can't be right. Conservapedia is not just about politics, it is also about fundamentalist religious beliefs. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 02:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

...but obviously both can't be right. Exactly, and therein lies the rub. It's rather easy to see which side is actually right about having evidence. It's not that both sides think they have evidence, it's that one side knows it has evidence, and the other side either thinks it does, too. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Again, I have to disagree because everyone thinks they are right. I could go into a scientific/theological discussion explaining how either way could theoretically be right, but it would be a long post and doing so would be off-topic for the issue at hand. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 03:16, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

You may disagree, but that doesn't mean I'm not right. The evidence cited by a creationist would be something like this, which, if you read it, you can easily see isn't actually evidence. It's a collection of arguments, some of which are more compelling than others. Compare that to this, which cites and describes actual, reproducable measurements that confirm predictions of the evolutionary model. Indeed, many of those measurements have been reproduced many times.

I'm not saying that it's impossible for the creationist to be ultimately correct (it remains possible). But the creationist is, inarguably, incorrect about having evidence to support that view. That view is -in fact as well as by admission by the vast majority of religious people- actually a result of their faith.

As the religious often point out, all of us have beliefs built upon a varying levels of faith. One has faith that their new boss won't defraud them out of money or labor when taking a new job, for example. One has faith that one's spouse will remain faithful on a trip back to their hometown, where their spouse's single ex-lover still lives. There are many beliefs that come from faith. But to use one of those examples as a hypothetical, the new boss' assurances that he is an honest man who would never run a con isn't actually evidence, no matter how much we might wish it to be. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Just as the concept of evolution can be proven as plausible in a lab, the concept of intelligent design can be proven as plausible by the invention of genetically modified organisms and artificial intelligence proving that such things can be intelligently designed and manipulated by outside forces. Short of creating a time machine, it's difficult to use the scientific method to actually prove where life came from, it's just a matter of providing convincing evidence. This would catch some fellow fundamentalists off guard, but Genesis actually says that God made radical changes to organisms (creating Eve out of Adam, and making the serpent crawl on its belly), so really any evidence of common descent is evidence in favor of the Bible, and if you think about it, early skeptics probably would have laughed at the idea of evolution. It's impossible to verify that carbon dating is accurate when going back to the early days of Earth because there could be environmental variations we are unaware of. The Bible was written by people who did not have modern science, yet they were able to label a lot of things that are harmful to one's health as sin. I could ramble on, but again, it's off-topic. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 04:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

By the way, Genesis also says that God created people from the dust of the ground. Microorganisms anyone? I'm not saying that's necessarily what God meant, but it's a possibility. I interpret the Bible literally, but we must also consider the historical context in that literal interpretation (failure to consider historical context is how many people fall to the excuse that Jesus drank wine). PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 04:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Just as the concept of evolution can be proven as plausible in a lab, the concept of intelligent design can be proven as plausible by the invention of genetically modified organisms and artificial intelligence proving that such things can be intelligently designed and manipulated by outside forces. That would not be evidence of ID, as ID is the postulate that complex organisms cannot come into existence without intelligence, not that complex organisms can be create by intelligent beings. It is also not contradicted by the theory of evolution, so it would not be evidence against that, either.

so really any evidence of common descent is evidence in favor of the Bible... No, it would be evidence of common descent alone. It may be interpreted as evidence of old Earth creationism, but not in any context which would favor it over evolution.

...and if you think about it, early skeptics probably would have laughed at the idea of evolution. Some did, yes. There are two things that define skeptics, and one of them is the willingness to accept that we were wrong about something.

it's impossible to verify that carbon dating is accurate when going back to the early days of Earth Radiocarbon dating is not used to determine the age of objects more than about 20 thousand years, and certainly not more than fifty thousand years. It's never used to date objects back to the early days of the earth. There are other forms of Radiometric dating that we can show beyond any reasonable doubt are are accurate to within well specified ranges, which can be used on objects millions or billions of years old.

The Bible was written by people who did not have modern science, yet they were able to label a lot of things that are harmful to one's health as sin. Indeed, but they also labelled a lot of things that weren't harmful to one's health as a sin. They also made a number of basic scientific errors, including errors of science that was known at the time. Even without those two facts taken into consideration, this would not be evidence of any unusual insight, but evidence of an unusual correlation. In other words, it could have been a coincidence, or it could have been they simply decided to label anything they already knew to be harmful to one's health as a sin.

As I said before, there are plenty of arguments for a faith-based view, and some are more compelling than others. But there simply is no evidence of it. So the skeptical POV of Rationalwiki is not really comparable to the faith-based view of Conservapedia. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

And again, this is a great example of how WP:NPOV means conceding that no point of view is right by default, because I have to disagree with almost all of what you said there. Scientific theories change over time, and I'm not convinced that the idea that man evolved over the period of millions of years is something that can be tested with scientific method. One thing you were correct about was that faith extends beyond religious belief, and if you are arguing that we shouldn't base encyclopedia content on faith, isn't trusting scientists fatih-based in a way? Nonetheless, there's consensus on that issue. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 12:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:NPOV means conceding that no point of view is right by default That's not what NPOV means. See WP:DUE and WP:YESPOV, subsections of that page which clearly state that not all views are to be given equal prominence. Further (since vaginal steaming is, in fact, a medical subject) see WP:MEDRS which all but bludgeons the reader over the head with the idea that not all views are equal.

I'm not convinced that the idea that man evolved over the period of millions of years is something that can be tested with scientific method.That may be so, but the scientists who deal with that idea are convinced, and they are more qualified than either of us. Furthermore, I am convinced, not by the authority of the scientists, but by having seen for myself that there are many ways of testing that can confirm or deny different aspects of evolution.

isn't trusting scientists fatih-based in a way? No. We trust science because science has proven, again and again, that it works. The computer you are typing on being just the most obvious example. Now, there comes a point when we trust scientist in a way that's not directly justified by evidence, and I agree that there's an element of faith in that. For example, when a preeminent scientist is explaining a concept which we cannot grasp, we will often "tune out" the explanation and only listen for the conclusion, because we have faith that the scientist will give us the correct conclusion. But this faith, itself, is based on prior evidence. After all, we don't trust this guy to explain ancient Egyptian history to us, even though the History channel assures us he's a reputable researcher. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

The argument of the computer being proof of science is virtually indistinguishable from creationists saying that the complexity of life is proof of a creator, without some degree faith, how can I know that the computer was in fact a product of science? One has to take the word of someone else to appreciate that. Really arguing over creationism on this thread is unproductive and off-topic, especially since I couldn't post what I truly believe and the controversial rationalism behind it without severely offending someone (not even necessarily a poster or even a Wikipedian, just someone reading), and that would be a disruptive rabbit-hole. The discussion of whether to base articles on scientists' opinions or theologians' opinions is a valid one, but comparing highly educated scientists to teenagers creating content at Rational-Wiki is, in my opinion, insulting to the scientists. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 14:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

You continue having a serious misunderstanding about what NPOV means and how Wikipedia works. The superficial postmodern ideas you are trying to invoke do not work: not all ideas are created equal, and facts can be checked. The "one side says this, the other side says that" position is just the starting point. When you actually check facts, some opinions turn out to be wrong, such as creationism. That, fact checking, is what Conservapedia does not do and RationalWiki does, and this is why your equation CP = RW is wrong. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

The argument of the computer being proof of science is virtually indistinguishable from creationists saying that the complexity of life is proof of a creator, without some degree faith, how can I know that the computer was in fact a product of science? Well, without some degree of faith, one can't know anything. But assuming you meant "without some degree of faith beyond the usual faith-in-what-my-eyes-tell-me-is-true" level, I can easily answer the question.

You can learn mathematics, and in so doing you can see for yourself that mathematics contains many provable (beyong any doubt) statements. You can then learn physics, and see for yourself that the principles upon which computers operate are demonstrable and repeatable (indeed, they must be repeatable for computers to work). You can then learn programming, and see that the computers operate by well defined rules, subject to only extremely minor outside interference, interference which is, observable and testable. I understand that it is not practical to expect someone to devote 20 years of their life to learning all of those subjects, but that does not make it impossible. So you can have a little bit of faith, which is itself based on real evidence, or you can presume to deny it based on a faith that lacks evidence. But the two are clearly not equivalent, once one spends any appreciable good-faith effort looking into them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

If it is your intentions to personally sell me the naturalistic set of ideas, you are wasting your time because I work in sales, I am familiar with how manipulation works, and I am not interested in anti-Christian nonsense. If you're interested in what my worldview is, go watch the film "Professing Themselves to be Wise" by Steven L. Anderson and that will give you a pretty accurate idea, except I'm open to the idea of God creating one organism from another, but with most of it occurring in the literal seven days described in Genesis between five and ten thousand years ago. Otherwise, I don't see the point of discussing naturalistic evolution vs. creationism on this talk page and I feel this rabbit-trail discussion would be seen as disruptive; if I wanted to propose that creationism be covered with respect I would go to a relevant article, a relevant Wikiproject, or the Village Pump, but I don't feel that would be a productive use of my or the community's time given the mentality of the leadership of this site. It is proper to say that Rational-Wiki is not the same as Conservapedia if for no reason but the fact that Conservapedia does not play with the blocking functions of MediaWiki as if it were a toy like Rational-Wiki does, but there are relevant similarities such as Rational-Wiki's self-proclaimed incompatibility with Wikipedia's policies, and Conservapedia is actually more authoritative for someone exploring the fundamentalist point of view than Rational-Wiki is for someone exploring the skeptical point of view because Conservapedia is tightly controlled by someone with established credentials (love him or hate him) whereas Rational-Wiki is controlled by teenagers and young college students and it is chaotic. I have no question that Conservapedia's policies are incompatible with Wikipedia's policies, but like Conservapedia, Rational-Wiki itself acknowledges that its policies are incompatible with Wikipedia, and therefore I believe Conservapedia, Encyclopedia Dramatica, and Wikia links are a fair comparison. If we are to allow links to wikis, there needs to be discussion to change WP:ELNO because I feel I have adequately explained why Rational-Wiki is blatantly incompatible with that guideline. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 01:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

If it is your intentions to personally sell me the naturalistic set of ideas, you are wasting your time because I work in sales, Working in sales does not translate into an expertise in manipulation. This is -ironically- evinced by your suggestion itself; I have said nothing that was intended in any way (or indeed, well-suited in any way) to manipulate you and your mistaken assumption that I might be trying to do so is understandable for a person lacking such expertise, though it would be shocking in an expert. Regardless, I am not here to proselytize, but to explain the real, tangible differences between a site which advocates skeptical principles and one which advocates fundamentalist principles.

I should point out that I'm trying to say that I think some atheistic doctrines are designed to manipulate (just as some religious organizations make up things in order to manipulate), not that you personally are trying to manipulate. I apologize if that was taken in some other way.

anti-Christian nonsense Nothing I've said has been either nonsensical nor anti-Christian. Indeed, much of my own beliefs are informed by the concept of non-overlapping magisteria, so it is highly unlikely that I would be subject to any anti-Christian biases. One of my dearest friends is actually a pastor at a non-denominational (in name only; for all intents and purposes they are Southern Baptist) church. My children all attended Lutheran schools during their first few years. I can quote the bible as well as many of the most devout Christians, though I will admit that my favorite verses tend to be quite a different selection than one might expect of a believer.

I have to agree with NOMA to an extent; I feel a lot of matters of science and religion do not contradict as much as some people think.

if I wanted to propose that creationism be covered with respect I would go to a relevant article, a relevant Wikiproject, or the Village Pump, but I don't feel that would be a productive use of my or the community's time given the mentality of the leadership of this site. From where I sit, with no vested interest in creationism, it certainly seems to be covered with great respect already. If you want to see what disrespectful coverage of it looks like, try the RW article.

Conservapedia is actually more authoritative for someone exploring the fundamentalist point of view than Rational-Wiki is for someone exploring the skeptical point of view because Conservapedia is tightly controlled by someone with established credentials (love him or hate him) whereas Rational-Wiki is controlled by teenagers and young college students and it is chaotic. I promise you this: I can find more Christians who will disagree with any given position of Conservapedia than you can find Skeptics who will disagree with any given position on RW. The fractiousness of skeptics as a whole is generally held to be a good thing, as it reflects the fractiousness of those sciences most responsible for technological breakthroughs, those arts most responsible for shaping our culture, and those intellectuals most responsible for shaping the way we think. And to boot, Schlafly's credentials are a BSE in electrical engineering and a JD; hardly suitable credentials for someone purporting to manage a library of theological and political ideologies. An epistemologist or a historian would be much better suited to that.

I feel I have adequately explained why Rational-Wiki is blatantly incompatible with that guideline. You have made a wonderfully compelling case for why we cannot use them as sources, but I'm afraid you have thus far been entirely unable to convince me of any problems with using them as external links on appropriate articles, or that there is no fundamental difference between them in terms of their suitability as an EL. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:ELNO is separate from WP:RS. WP:ELNO specifically deals with external links, and it says open wikis are inappropriate, not that fundamentalist open wikis are inappropriate. The guideline specifically says Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Rational-Wiki definitely fails on the substantial history of stability and may fail on the substantial number of editors depending on what one considers "substantial" and whether we consider only active users or the total number of users. The same would apply to a wiki about Star Wars or dog breeds. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 04:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:ELNO is separate from WP:RS. Yes, that is substantially my point.

Rational-Wiki definitely fails on the substantial history of stability In comparison to static websites, maybe. But its articles seem to maintain significantly more stability than WP's own articles. There's quite a bit less POV pushing on RW than here, for example, owing to the dedicated POV of the site overall.

The same would apply to a wiki about Star Wars or dog breeds. This would seem to suggest that you feel that all wikis would fail the standard for what constitutes a good EL wiki. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

You would be correct. ELNO gives an exception to those with substantial stability. Conservapedia might pass that due to Andrew Schlafly ruling the site with an iron fist, but Rational-Wiki has frequent HCMs and edit wars. For example, look how many times the Bernie Sanders article has been locked down to editing only by MODERATORS (basically like our bureaucrats). Look up the user -Mona- and the drama she brought to the site. Adding to the confusion is the complete inability to regulate sockpuppetry due to the inability to trust their own people with CheckUser abilities, and the apparent technical incompetence of the RationalMedia Foundation allowing a data-breach to go undetected until one of the contributors there got someone from the Wikimedia Foundation to help them out. This one article may be stable at the time being, but the history of the whole wiki is relevant because it is a reflection of how they would handle a content dispute on this article. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 14:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Conservapedia is also regularly lambasted by RSes as being full of inaccuracies. For example, compare Conservapedia's stance on the link between abortion abd breast cancer to the overwhelming consensus of researchers, documented here and here. Indeed, the clear (and apparently sourced) claim on conservapedia that "The vast majority of scientific studies have shown that abortion causes an increase in breast cancer, including 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies." is completely false, and doesn't even appear in the source it is cited to. That source appears at first glance to be a peer-reviewed paper, but was, in fact, an opinion piece published in a conservative and alt-med activist periodical. When a site cannot be trusted to provide verifiable information, and indeed, cannot even be trusted to accurately report what their ideologically-aligned sources say, they are functionally worthless as an additional resource to the reader. Except, perhaps, on the article about the site. Now, if you can find reliable sources regularly criticizing RW for it's inaccuracies, that might be worth discussing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment regarding policies related to Rational-Wiki links

(I should probably disclose that I am an occasional contributor at Rational-Wiki myself, but without being registered) There are numerous policy concerns with a board member of the Rational-Media Foundation adding a link to Rational-Wiki in this article, including WP:ELNO, WP:SPAMMER, WP:PROMOTION, and since adding the link is more or less validating their viewpoint, WP:NPOV. Rational-Wiki blatantly fails WP:ELNO and the matter has been discussed on numerous other articles, as I have explained in the previous section. Some other users have used WP:USEFUL, WP:HARMLESS, and WP:VALINFO arguments but have not provided any policy-based argument for its inclusion. In my opinion, policy trumps sympathy, and I see no policy-based grounds to include a link to Rational-Wiki in this article. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 02:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

[COI: RW editor + boardmember]

First, on "spam". In the past year, I've added four (4) external links to RationalWiki. The articles: Michel Chossudovsky, Vaginal steaming, Pseudoscience, Freemen on the land.^{Funnily enough, FOTL had another sourcing drama involving RW in 2012.} Since RW has no rules against primary sources, I believe RW often has better content on WP:FRINGE subjects like these. (Straight from the horse's rear, as it were.) I believe this may interest readers who wish to read the fringe material itself rather than secondary reporting.

Second, on conflicts of interest. As a boardmember, I have a genuine potential conflict of interest. However, I have little to gain. RW is nonprofit -- and an extra dozen visitors from an external link means nothing to a site with millions of monthly visitors. I added the links because I think they're good.

Third, on @PCHS-NJROTC:. Three (3) of the four (4) external links were removed by PCHS-NJROTC ([1][2][3]). PCHS-NJROTC previously disclaimed that they are "against almost everything Rational-Wiki promotes". [1] That said, this has no impact on whether RW is a reliable source / reliable external link or whether I am a spammer. [2] However, this suggests that PCHS-NJROTC is indeed correct to request outside comments, as PCHS-NJROTC is not unbiased. (Nor, indeed, am I.)

Thanks. FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 05:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I am tentatively in favor of allowing occasional external links to RationalWiki on some topics, on a case-by-case basis. The behavior of FuzzyCatPotato does not appear to have been out of line with general WP policies. Due to differences in editorial policies, there will likely arise occasions where the RW article on a topic can be assessed as being a useful resource for readers of the WP article. One of the limitations that WP places on itself regarding reliable sources means that, for instance, blog posting from experts who are not yet recognized on WP as notable, cannot be used. If RW is more relaxed on this particular sticking point, they may be able to write a more extensive treatment of the topic than we can here. But it's admittedly a matter of editorial judgment, not easily covered by a blanket rule. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm awfully sorry that the actions of Rational-Wikians on Wikipedia and the fact that they, "by their own admission, engage in acts of cyber-vandalism" (Simon, Los Angeles Times, 2007) makes me biased against their wiki. We have one person who is on the board of trustees for Rational-Wiki (based on the account he links to on his own user page at Wikipedia, which I think is acceptable) and two people who "like" Rational-Wiki (as seen here and here). FuzzyCatPotato's argument is basically that we should include the link as a way to skirt Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, basically like saying "there's not enough reliable sources with information about this subject, so I'm going to make a Facebook page with original research and link to that." Rational-Wikians are not professional scientists, most of them are juvenile (for example, of the most active contributors, two declined a board of trustees nomination due to being under 18, one claims to be in her early twenties and makes no mention of any education beyond public high school, and I have sensitive evidence that two others are very young), and there's really not an abundance of active contributors there, so the value of their original research is questionable. I have argued based on policy, but the three fans of R-W have all argued basically based on WP:ILIKEIT. I don't think established consensus should be tossed out in favor of three people who "like" Rational-Wiki and frequent their site. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 12:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I do not believe you have accurately characterized FCP's argument. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to add, there's these wonderful things called Google, Bing, and DuckDuckGo for people who don't find what they are looking for here. The phone directory has useful information that Wikipedia doesn't have and cannot have due to WP:NOTDIRECTORY, but we don't link to it on articles about cities and towns. FCP says he has nothing to gain from promoting R-W, but that doesn't mean he's not promoting R-W, and as for the numbers, Christianity and many other religions have millions of followers, but that doesn't stop people from witnessing, and Walmart makes more money than any company in the world, but they still advertise. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 13:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to add, there's these wonderful things called Google, Bing, and DuckDuckGo for people who don't find what they are looking for here. The phone directory has useful information that Wikipedia doesn't have and cannot have due to WP:NOTDIRECTORY, but we don't link to it on articles about cities and towns. That is a reasonable argument against the existence of external links in general. I personally don't find it very compelling, because it could just as reasonably be used as an argument for deleting everything on WP except WP:RSN and WP:IRS. After all, if search engines are so useful, why don't we simply explain what makes a source reliable and let the reader search out the information on the wider internet, armed with knowledge of how to weed the wheat from the chaff?

FCP says he has nothing to gain from promoting R-W, but that doesn't mean he's not promoting R-W I agree. But it also does not change that this page is for discussing changes to the article, not for discussing the behavior of other editors. If you have serious concerns about FCP, I suggest you take them to WP:COIN. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If FuzzyCatPotato is here to build an encyclopedia and not just to promote Rational-Wiki, why are most of his edits related to his site? I think some people here are forgetting that WP:COI exists for a reason, and I think allowing this link to stay will encourage further disruptive behavior by FuzzyCatPotato. I have been removing links to Rational-Wiki with support from the community for several years now, so clearly it is not my actions that are disruptive, but suddenly it becomes an issue because a conflict of interest editor has made it an issue. And this is all because I dared to bring his attention to Wikipedia policy, putting him on the defense. This whole thread is why the next time he does something like this I think he needs to be sanctioned. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 13:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Headless Chicken Mode

Outsiders trying to evaluate whether this is a case for an exception to WP:ELNO need to consider Headless Chicken Mode (don't let the fact that the page is in user space fool you, it's an official thing there, which is why their often heated dispute resolution page is called The Chicken Coop). If you think Rational-Wiki is stable... PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 13:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Translation: "Headless Chicken Mode" = "funnier* name for wikidrama"

Translation: "Chicken Coop" = "funnier* name for dispute resolution"

@PCHS-NJROTC: The point of RFC is not to post links until people agree with you. You and I both desire outside discussion. Step back and let others discuss.

_{*funniness not available in all locations. terms and conditions may apply. please consult your doctor.}

FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 13:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

The point I am making is that the existence of severe wikidrama that has severe impacts on the wiki as a whole could establish that the wiki is not stable, and since the point of the RfC is to get the opinion of someone uninvolved with Rational-Wiki, they need to be able to evaluate what Rational-Wiki is. Lets quit trying to refute each other and allow the outsiders to evaluate the situation without having to read walls of text, fair enough? PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 14:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Essjay I think, says it all. If you're unfamiliar with that, try Essjay controversy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Read our own Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia. :-) PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 15:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

But of course. Please accept this, this, this and this instead. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:18, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• The reason RationalWiki is an unreliable source is indeed the same reason Wikipedia itself cannot be used as one: user-generated content that has not been peer reviewed, curated and published by a critical third party editor. We could borrow sources from those articles to use here however, and if their content license permits it, borrow material (while attributing it)... I'm sure that on a case by case basis some RationalWiki articles are excellent, but that still does not solve this problem (and if not using a permalink, the quality of said articles are likely to vary over time, just like here on Wikipedia). —PaleoNeonate – 05:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

No argument here. The question of the RfC is whether or not it's appropriate to permit RW as an external link when they cover a subject which has gotten significant coverage from the skeptical community in more depth than WP gives it. My point above is that the drama that happens at RW shouldn't preclude it from being an EL in appropriate articles, just like the drama on WP doesn't preclude a "See also" collection of Wikilinks in articles. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I don't have an opinion about using an external link to it, it may depend on the circumstance. But "Unless we want Conservapedia links too, WP:ELNO" is a rather convincing argument. —PaleoNeonate – 22:46, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

See the discussion above: unless false balance is the new face of WP:NPOV, then there's a world of difference between Conservapedia and RW. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:DEADHORSE. Everyone knows both of our positions on that at this point. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 00:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@PCHS-NJROTC: That is not helpful, nor appropriate. Expecting everyone to actually read the entirety of the long discussion above is too much; a one sentence summary of my position is not beating a dead horse. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. See WP:NOWIN. No hard feelings, just trying to help you out because I've been there. As someone once told me in a discussion, you don't have to reply to every comment you disagree with and it's not helpful to make the same point over and over again in a discussion. Lets both let the RfC run its course so hopefully we can reach consensus without having to go to WP:EL/N or WP:ArbCom to do that, fair enough? PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 20:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

OKay, let me be more explicit: First off, your assumption that I would be replying to "everyone" is just that: an assumption, and one of bad faith. There is a very different assumption we are supposed to be making. Second, when you interject yourself into a conversation that did not previously involve you merely to chide someone over what you perceive to be their poor behavior, you are the one engaging in poor behavior (it's also very unlikely to result in anything but another argument: case in point). Your comment was unnecessarily inflammatory and inarguably disruptive. Your continued defense of it is also unnecessarily inflammatory, and I will not be responding further (because it's disruptive to continue). I suggest you follow my example as well as Elsa's invaluable advice. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Well you are right that one is likely to more often be right than the other, I meant it as invitation/bait for people to add more links. —PaleoNeonate – 01:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

• I don't see any reason to link to what seems to me really a jokey site ("It's patent bullshit". "A woman sitting on a bucket, which appears to contain leaves raked in from the yard"). Sure, there are pseudoscientific aspects to this practice, esp. its modern iteration with its healthist aspects, but that's covered in the article--so why do we need this link? No, no link to no wiki. Drmies (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

  Hey, short reply. RW has SPOV -- an emphasis on both snark and science. IMO, the RW article has more jokes (eg, "steamed clams") and more substantive discussion of alt-med claims (eg, 11 health claims). FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 23:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Note: First two !votes moved from main section to here with this edit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support continued linking while maintaining my position that RW is useless as a source. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
• I think that was already established, just as my opposition is pretty much already established. The idea is to get an outside opinion. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 13:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support inclusion of link. The fundamental purpose of an external link is to provide a route to additional information about the topic covered in the article that is covered elsewhere but not in the article. There is no requirement for these links to be neutral (otherwise we would never link to official websites), only that they are useful. I've read both the Wikipedia and RationalWiki articles about this topic, and the latter offers far more information than WP, a lot of it in the form of primary sources and quotes that would be inappropriate for WP to use. Yes it is written in a different tone to Wikipedia, but that is because it is not Wikipedia, and once you understand that it is not Wikipedia and read the content not the style (why anyone would do differently I don't understand, but they apparently do), it is clear that it fulfils the usefulness criteria. This is not support for a blanket allowance of links to Rational Wiki - the articles there vary in quality just as much as Wikipedia articles do and so need evaluating on a case-by-case basis. Thryduulf (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • So if I make a really pretty, professional looking page on Weebly or even Facebook with more information than Wikipedia, I can link to that, right? Gee, why haven't I thought to do that when I've had trouble finding good sources for something. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 21:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
    • The way to convince other people that your side of the argument is the correct one is not to resort to bludgeoning (you do not have to answer every single comment), particularly if reductio ad absurdum is your strongest argument. Thryduulf (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
      • Both sides have been bludgeoning this issue (see above, and thank you for reminding me the correct term), and I think (at least in my case) it's a matter of strong opinions rather than weakness by either bludgeoning party. Honestly, that's the real reason I can't stand Rational-Wiki; its members have created numerous fecal hurricanes on Wikipedia at least for the last seven years. Of course, that's not a valid reason to remove a link, but at this point, I'd argue it's a valid reason for WP:ArbCom intervention. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 21:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

You are continuing to cast aspersions. I strongly suggest you stop. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Weak Support it's clearly not a reliable source. However, there are some links to TV Tropes in similar situations on other pages, I see no reason not to link to Rationalwiki here. I would strongly oppose a link to rationalwiki on any topic related to BLPs. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Just like I would oppose linking to Conservapedia, Metapedia, or Wookiepedia (which is not to say all of them are equivalent, of course). Wikis are not reliable sources. If you argue that reliability is irrelevant, there needs to be some other reason to include, and I fail to see any compelling reason to include that wouldn't also grant legitimacy to links to other wikis. Though, to be clear, my opposition here is on principle (against all links to wikis in external links) and I realize that this is not an RfC to amend Wikipedia:External links. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose  My sliver of open-mindedness to the possibility of maintaining this source came to a full close when I saw a non-neutral opinion in RW's voice directed against an author.  The quote is, "Eight months later, [author's name] changed her story and claimed that the piece on vagina steaming 'actually came from her editorial director, [director's name]'.[89] Right." ref: [4]  Unscintillating (talk) 22:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

• I dug a little deeper and [5] is the edit that added the non-neutral opinion in RW's voice.  I also checked the reference, http://doubtfulnews.com/2015/08/gwyneth-paltrow-not-the-one-behind-the-vagina-steaming-claim/, which states, "Funny how it took her 8 months to backtrack on this..."  As per our article on Sharon_A._Hill, doubtfulnews.com is a private blog.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose  I'm here following an invitation; and never having seen this page before, I'm the epitome of an "uninvolved" editor. And now that I have seen, I'm quite unlikely to ever return! So, FWIW, here's my two penn'orth: When reading a Wikipedia article on any topic, I want to read reliable sources and only relevant, worthwhile external links. And isn't that why we have relevant policies on both? I don't see that a link to a RW article is likely to meet either my criteria or WP's policies. But since that's not impossible, I agree with an earlier comment that we should judge each case on its merits, so that where a link to RW offers useful, verifiable and relevant information and we have nothing less contentious to use, editors may judge its use appropriate. Still, my default position would be to avoid linking to RW. yoyo (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Break down of consensus by User:PCHS-NJROTC

Extended content

There are four users who are admittedly editors or frequent readers of Rational-Wiki Three of these users are in favor of the link WP:USEFUL One of these users is against the link, per chiefly WP:ELNO and other policies and one supports the link but concedes that the comparison of Rational-Wiki to Conservapedia and Encyclopedia Dramatica is a great argument This is deceptive: the thing that made the argument "great" is that it's a fun argument to respond to. Not that it's convincing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC) There are three uninvolved Wikipedians Two oppose the link, one flat out opposing it, and the other defacto opposing it by offering an argument against the link but refusing to take a hard position, both basing their opposition in WP:ELNO. One supports the link per WP:USEFUL

Discussion

This RfC has been going on for a few days, and while there are numerous opinion-based WP:USEFUL arguments for the link, there are numerous policy-based arguments against it, including by supporters of the link. I was going to propose closing this as consensus against the link today, but in light of the most recent comment that came in today, I don't think it's that simple. I don't see further consensus coming from this medium because both sides have strong opinions on the matter, so I propose taking this issue to the Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard where those who frequent are more familiar with the external linking policy, to reach a clearer consensus. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 21:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• It would be inappropriate for you to close this RfC as you are very heavily involved. Thryduulf (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Which is why I am not and would not be closing it per WP:BOLD. Instead, I am asking to move the discussion to a different venue to reach a clearer, less biased consensus, then an uninvolved contributor can close it. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 22:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit request September 2017

Based on the bot-closed RfC above, at the EL notice board, at ANI, and everything I know about consensus at WP:AfD, it appears there is consensus to remove the Rational-Wiki link. Anyone care to do the honors? I don't want to do it myself because I don't want to step on anyone's toes. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 20:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The closing remarks at ANI August 2017 show that you narrowly escaped an indefinite topic ban from your campaign against RationalWiki. If there is nothing better that requires your attention at Wikipedia, I suggest concentrating on your alternative. Johnuniq (talk) 22:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Update to make article less bias

Hello. I am new here, but I feel strongly that the current version of the vaginal steaming article is extremely negatively biased. I am therefore seeking to ADD information to this article in order to provide a more balanced view (I do not seek to delete any current information). People may say that there is no "proof" of the benefits, but there is also no "proof" that the practice is dangerous or isn't effective. The current version cites articles written on pop-culture websites by non-experts, and I am proposing to cite websites and books written by people who have devoted their careers to understanding the practice, yet my version has been removed twice. I am going to try again, this time removing certain sources and trimming down the benefits, so that they are in balance with what the critics say. I would like to humbly request that, if possible, we work together to make the version I post acceptable and in alignment with wikipedia guidelines (which I am grateful exist!). Thank you!SBrashear (talk) 23:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The article references a number of high-quality sources. So which reliable sources can you add? Jonathunder (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

SBrashear, if you are looking to cite medical or scholarly sources, then keep WP:MEDRS in mind. Read WP:MEDRS. As seen above, editors have already tried to use WP:MEDRS-compliant sources to source this topic, but there are barely any. They have instead mainly kept this article regulated to media sources because the topic as a health treatment is so dubious. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Note also that blogs about how a celebrity felt after doing this or websites promoting collections of herbs to be used are poor sources. Jonathunder (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Jonathunder :Flyer22 Reborn, So, media articles written by non-experts are relevant, but a book written by a doctor is not? For example, I cited this source in my last revision:

Rosita,, Arvigo,. Rainforest home remedies : the Maya way to heal your body and replenish your soul. Epstein, Nadine, (First edition ed.). San Francisco. ISBN 9780062030412. OCLC 860769988.

I feel that my most recent version is balanced and demonstrates varied opinions on the matter. I really don't understand what the resistance is to improving this article with ADDITIONAL information (I am not trying to silence those who do not agree with the practice). Are there any parts of my latest revision that could be accepted/added? For me, the current version of the article is completely unacceptable because it denies the experience of a VAST population of women. It needs to be made more balanced SOMEHOW.

That book promises to tell the reader how to "Rid your house of negative energy with a Maya cleansing ritual." Do you understand why we might be skeptical? Jonathunder (talk) 01:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Jonathunder No, I absolutely do not. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be neutral and unbiased. Just because you don't believe in energy clearing, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Many cultures and people have very real experiences with it, as is the case with vaginal steaming. That book is written by DR. Rosita Arvigo...she is a doctor, which is more than the editors of the Guardian or Live Science can say. Why are they the experts and she is not? Can we address my question? — Are there any parts of my latest revision that could be accepted/added? SBrashear (talk) 01:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

No. See WP:RS. Johnuniq (talk) 01:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Jonathunder I am reading that Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. Do you really believe that the article is neutral as it is?

I understand the policies and am willing to work to make the article meet the guidelines, while also sharing a broader perspective. If this is not possible as you say, I believe this is an example of the systematic silencing of women's lived experiences in our world. I am utterly and truly disappointed that an organization that I have loved and trusted is so unwilling to explore this topic more deeply. SBrashear (talk) 01:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

SBrashear, your sources are not reliable and the prose was not up to snuff either. Now, you can claim this is systematic silencing of something--well, we are simply not allowing those blogs and promotional websites and whatnot. That's about it. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Seriously--if you want to be taken seriously, first of all, cite with complete bibliographical information: "Q’eqchi’ Maya Reproductive Ethnomedicine. Spring. 2014." is nothing and means nothing Same with ""V-Steam: Why Tia and Tamera Steamed Their Vag!nas" and others. Second, cite reliable sources: "ABOUT THE CREATRESS". WELCOME TO THE YONI STEAM® INSTITUTE is NOT a reliable source, since it's obviously some commercial website, and Rainforest Home Remedies is not valid for a medical topic. Drmies (talk) 02:01, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

My "prose" is not up to snuff? That's interesting because the current version's "prose" isn't great (for example: "Side effect and potential dangers include:" is missing an "s"). Can you PLEASE give me an example of how my prose falls short?

On citations: "Q’eqchi’ Maya Reproductive Ethnomedicine. Spring. 2014." is a DIRECT copy from the CURRENT version, which no one seemed to complain about. As for the other two, they are using the "tool" offered by Wikipedia to create citations...so if it doesn't work, I don't know what to tell you. I am unclear how a book published by a doctor about "Rainforest Home Remedies" is not valid when The Guardian or The Daily Mail is... and furthermore, I thought we were calling this "alternative health"...as it says in the article, rather than a "medical" topic? But again, why couldn't you just tell me I need to work on how I cite, rather than disregarding ALL of my contributions? I am not saying my entry is perfect, I am asking for it to be worked on rather than trashed. Why am I not being met with kindness and professionalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SBrashear (talk • contribs) 02:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, what source verifies "Although some scholars and practitioners had been touting the benefits of vaginal steaming in private for decades, the practice was a largely unknown in the United States until around the year 2014, when the concept spread rapidly in the mainstream"? Why on earth does it matter that two people on TV got their v's steamed? Where does this warm herbal steam that gently penetrates the exterior of the vulva come from? (I mean the soothing language, not the actual steam.) It's editorializing, just like "Some critics take it a step further". For medical information one should cite appropriate sources. The Guardian is not dispensing medical information; it's reporting on it. The article (now in a more complete and restored state) contains a mixture of medical and cultural information, and I hope and trust that the right things are cited with the right kinds of sources. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

But your comment on Q’eqchi’ Maya Reproductive Ethnomedicine was well taken, and I have corrected/completed the reference. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

The changes by Drmies look good. User:SBrashear, as for your complaint that you were not "being met with kindness and professionalism", I don't see anything out of the ordinary.. We're not professionals. We're all volunteers, as are you, presumably. Your talk page shows that immediately after the first undo of your material an editor politely suggested that Jumping into large scale editing of contentious articles as a new account often creates problems. Start with small scale changes and gain consensus on article talk pages before making large edits. You ignored that and restored your entire edit, and I pointed you to WP:BRD. A third editor pointed you to WP:RS and also asked you to discuss it on the article's talk page. That's how content disputes are settled. You then posted to the article's talk page, but restored a version of your material to the article again before any significant discussion. Meters (talk) 04:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Effects on microbiome?

Is there research specifically about the effects on the vaginal microbiome? A quick search yielded this, but it is more general about probiotics etc than V-steaming specifically. Jimw338 (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Added (I know, verboten under any circumstances..) Reflist-talk by Jimw338 on 9-30-2020 for purpose of stopping references from "spilling" beyond further sections others may add **

References

Healthline source

The Healthline source makes the obviously wrong claim that bacteria cause yeast infections. I removed that part from this article, but I don't know if the rest of the source should be excised as well. A source making mistakes about middle school biology doesn't really speak well to it's quality. 24.52.30.140 (talk) 07:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)