User talk:Bon courage

If you are here to discuss something about an article's content then please, to maximize consensus, comment on that article's Talk page and not here.

This is Bon courage's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

Controversial Topics

YEs, I am trying to be as respectful in my comments as I can. Please let me know if I have not adhered to the rules of wikipedia. Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 16:16, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Francine Shapiro

Further comments to Talk:Francine Shapiro, in English. Bon courage (talk) 08:39, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello, it's not spam, it's his conference in Bali filmed by a professional, why did you remove it without even discussing it?

Laurent Gay (talk) 08:14, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because it looks spammy. Who is the "his" of "his conference"? Bon courage (talk) 08:16, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

J'avoue le début de la conf est un peu brut, je vais voir avec Ghylaine Manet (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Laurent_Gay/Brouillon-Manet) si il y a une autre partie mais je ne pense pas, les conférences c'est en général 30mn, c'est Ghylaine qui a assisté a sa conférence et elle a payé un professionnel qui l'a filmé. Apres la vidéo je peux charger la video sur commons wiki si ca vous arrange. Laurent Gay (talk) 08:34, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bof. There is no indication this apparently random amateur video on a commercial site is reputably published, relevant or even legal. And Francine Shapiro was not a man. Please make any further comments at Talk:Francine Shapiro. Bon courage (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Repeat edit and removal of information and reputable sources - Eurycoma Longifolia

Hi there, I would like to clarify on what basis you remove new information and reputable citations referencing ACTUAL clinical trials which have been conducted on the topic? Various journal articles have been cited here from the National Center for Biotechnology Information with credible data and conclusions. I'm confused as to how these sources are considered "fringe," my friend. I will be reverting your revision once again, feel free to add some "non-fringe" sources to the article please. Parker.Josh (talk) 14:26, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Clinical trials are not generally reliable for biomedical content; please see WP:MEDRS. CAM journals like EBCAM are not usable for anything much on Wikipedia. Bon courage (talk) 14:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please note there are additional credited sources that substantiate the information. Please see:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4085925/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4085925/. New information and research should be included and updated on such topics surely? Parker.Josh (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not when it's weak/fake from poor sources. Wikipedia reflects accepted knowledge from reliable sources. Your intent to edit war is noted. Bon courage (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"My intend to edit war" displays your intentions on this platform. You are welcome to read the citations I have provided and inform yourself on the topic. As far as your "edit war" goes, you can do that on your own. Add value to the topic or not. That's my concern. Parker.Josh (talk) 15:31, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roseto effect

I'm not sure if this is a medical or sociological thing. I recall reading about it in Outliers, the book by Malcolm Gladwell. There are also a few medical sources and more. I didn't want to deprod the article with discussion first, but can you reconsider your own proposed deletion? Bearian (talk) 13:02, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It might be an idea to ask at WT:MED. My concern is there are apparently no WP:MEDRS sources on this supposed biomedical phenomenon. Bon courage (talk) 13:32, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February music

(vexatious: I have been accused of canvassing, and hate it.) To spare you the trouble to look up Satie: this made me smile. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These infobox discussions can often go pear-shaped. Bon courage (talk) 09:39, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happier without them. When the community accepted one for Mozart, with good arguments, I hoped the ordeal was over ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:43, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are thousands of articles in Category:Wikipedia articles with an infobox request. I don't want us to spend so much time fighting over a few disputed ones. We could be spending that time adding infoboxes to the articles where people have actually asked for them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, and I keep adding them - to articles I write, articles I meet - but, as another participant expressed, breaking the situation seems also a good idea. Your wonderful comment really put things in perspective, - I still smile ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Purinergic signalling

I'm not clear on why you removed my expansion of the lead section. I was merely paraphrasing statements already in the body in an attempt to make the lead a comprehensive summary. I added no new content and nothing fringe (that wasn't already in the article.) Thanks Littenberg (talk) 01:45, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss at Talk:Purinergic signalling. If acupuncture is going to be aired it will need to be contextualized. Bon courage (talk) 06:06, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March music

On Ravel's birthday, we also think of a conductor and five more composers ;) -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even though he was not a member of Les Six

Bon courage (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today I could have written five stories off the main page, and chose Sofia Gubaidulina. I find the TFA also interesting, and two DYK, and a birthday OTD. How about you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still Ravel: today his opera, 100 years old OTD, on Bach's birthday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As strange sounding today as ever. Bon courage (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Read the references

You didn't even have time to read the references before reverting all of the work done.

Go and do it now.

Thank you. Not a similar account name (talk) 08:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Enough time to see the crappy sources used and note the knowledge you removed. Bottom line: Wikipedia isn't going to be carrying your fringey whitewashed view of the macrobiotic diet and if you continue pushing it I think it's likely you'll get sanctioned, again. Bon courage (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for confirming your NPOV prejudice for the world to see.

Do you want me to write to the 'American Association for Cancer Research' and tell them that you think they are a "crappy source", or do you want to tell them yourself? Not a similar account name (talk) 09:57, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Such dishonesty - I think I know what to tell you! Bon courage (talk) 11:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

That's enough LL. Don't post here again. Bon courage (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

You are conflating smoking-gun evidence with other kinds of evidence, like circumstantial. There is no definitive evidence that it originated in the markets either. Credible media reports lay this out. See the Vanity Fair article as an example.The underlying article is wildly slanted by any objective, reasonable standard and the reflexive resistance to correcting outdated information and biased language displays a lack of good faith. Wikipedia deserves better. Dancasun (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see when authoritative sources say, the rest is noise. They say there is no evidence for LL. Bon courage (talk) 14:09, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A non-response. You've plunged a stake into indefensible ground. The world is awash in misinformation. How regrettable for Wikipedia to add to the deluge. Dancasun (talk) 14:34, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BIGMISTAKE. Bon courage (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Tendentious editing Dancasun (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Acupressure

Hi there, I'm wondering why you reverted my removal on this article. Did you look at the source? Thanks, MediaKyle (talk) 11:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I didn't see any particularly-worrying claims, except removing "There is no reliable evidence for the effectiveness of acupressure" (which is a decent summary) was concerning. Bon courage (talk) 12:09, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This "college" is certainly not a reliable source for anything. I did hesitate about removing that last sentence, yes, but as I noted in the edit summary it was a repetition - it also doesn't have an attached citation, and while obviously that statement is true, everything should be cited.

I took a look at your contributions, and I wanted to commend you for your work on these pseudoscience articles - rest assured that I have the same goal, but my focus is the historical element. You'll notice articles such as Crystal healing were full of all sorts of supposed "historical evidence" for their claims, that never holds up to scrutiny when looking at real, academic sources. I think it has been easier for people to insert this sort of false history into these articles, because that element isn't receiving as much scrutiny as the medical side of things. The "Background" section on this article is particularly egregious, which is why I struck it altogether.

Are you alright with me going back and removing that again, and just leave that sentence you mentioned? MediaKyle (talk) 12:19, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citations are not required in a lede (WP:CITELEDE), where summarizing body content. That's the only content I have a strong opinion on! Bon courage (talk) 12:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, yes, but wouldn't there be a rationale for including citations in the lead if there's "contentious material"? For example, under Acupuncture, there's citations immediately attached to where it describes the practice as "pseudoscience". I really don't know if this is a policy-based decision or just something that caught on, but it makes sense to me.

In hindsight, definitely was too quick to cut that sentence, but I'm still wondering if it should have a citation. MediaKyle (talk) 12:36, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In practice citations are often used to stop people removing stuff. One here wouldn't hurt. Bon courage (talk) 12:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

German intelligence agencies

You wrote somewhere that there had been prior discussion involving the inclusion of opinions from German intelligence agencies, where those opinions were that the lab leak was unlikely. I can't find the particular discussion. Do you know where it occurred? TarnishedPath^talk 05:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

US agencies only I think have been discussed; the point about the German ones is that news reports[1] of their POV being 'the other other way' did not spark calls for inclusion. I might circle back and take a look at this again soon. Certainly on social media the actual virologists[2] seem unimpressed. Bon courage (talk) 05:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OCD Psychedelic therapy

Why did you remove my section on Nature's published retrospective study on psychedelic effects of OCD symptom reduction? I checked WP:MEDRS and it should be acceptable given the following paragraph:

"Primary sources should NOT normally be used as a basis for biomedical content. This is because primary biomedical literature is exploratory and often not reliable (any given primary source may be contradicted by another). Any text that relies on primary sources should usually have minimal weight, only describe conclusions made by the source, and describe these findings so clearly that any editor can check the sourcing without the need for specialist knowledge. Primary sources should never be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors"

I described only conclusions made by the source and there is little other review articles to source. Jakeosb (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because as WP:MEDRS says in bold text in the lede "Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content". Bon courage (talk) 19:55, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that doesn't mean they should never be used. I still don't understand why you removed it because the text is very clear about the subjective nature of the study and the results are clearly explained. Jakeosb (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, and there are exceptional cases where they might be used, and an attempt to codify consensus on that can be found in the WP:MEDFAQ. This is not such a case, however. Bon courage (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I can understand that, but I just want to clarify that you don't think this bolded situation applies from WP:MEDFAQ?

Primary sources

might

be useful in these common situations:

when writing about a rare disease, uncommon procedure, etc., for which no high-quality secondary literature is available, or for which the available secondary sources do not cover all of the information normally included in an encyclopedia article.

Jakeosb (talk) 20:08, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of decent secondary sources on Psychedelic therapy, with which a good encyclopedia article can be built. Not only is your proposed source primary, it is in Scientific Reports, very much a bottom feeder in the world of scholarly publishing, and so inappropriate for use anywhere on Wikipedia; Bon courage (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sounds good. Thanks for the explanation. Jakeosb (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pesticide Exposure and Autism

Hi Bon Courage, I noticed that you recently made an edit at Health effects of pesticides where you deleted my information (saying it was outdated and unreliable) and added a new sentence that misrepresented the more recent source that you cited. What's going on? Diligent researcher (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't be using out-of-date or primary sources for WP:BMI. The newer review is well-summarised. Please make any further comment at Talk:Health effects of pesticides so the article's other editors can see. Bon courage (talk) 02:08, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated reverts on Chromotherapy page

Life's too short. Bon courage (talk) 13:10, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi @Bon courage, I noticed that you are repeatedly reverting my edits to the Chromotherapy page which attempt to add peer-reviewed secondary sources and are in line with WP:MEDRS. Your edits do not seem neutral at all, so please engage in a discussion first before attempting to revert every change. Objectiveanalysis (talk) 13:04, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My latest edit completely complies with WP:MEDRS and the secondary sources policy so an explanation is needed regarding why was that reverted. Objectiveanalysis (talk) 13:07, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do not post to this page again. Bon courage (talk) 13:10, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.