![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of Vaginal steaming be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
![]() | A fact from Vaginal steaming appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 1 April 2017 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
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? E Eng 21:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
they're ears?<twitch>...<bites his lip>...<twitch>... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:49, 13 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. Ladyof Shalott 02:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
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%).
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help)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.) E Eng 01:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
...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)
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 EarthRadiocarbon 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.
WP:NPOV means conceding that no point of view is right by defaultThat'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?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.
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.
anti-Christian nonsenseNothing 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.
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.Yes, that is substantially my point.
Rational-Wiki definitely fails on the substantial history of stabilityIn 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)
(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)
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-WI 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)
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)
Extended content
|
---|
|
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
Is there research specifically about the effects on the vaginal microbiome? A quick search yielded this, [1] but it is more general about probiotics etc than V-steaming specifically. Jimw338 ( talk) 18:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
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)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of Vaginal steaming be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
![]() | A fact from Vaginal steaming appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 1 April 2017 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
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? E Eng 21:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
they're ears?<twitch>...<bites his lip>...<twitch>... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:49, 13 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. Ladyof Shalott 02:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
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%).
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help)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.) E Eng 01:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
...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)
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 EarthRadiocarbon 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.
WP:NPOV means conceding that no point of view is right by defaultThat'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?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.
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.
anti-Christian nonsenseNothing 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.
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.Yes, that is substantially my point.
Rational-Wiki definitely fails on the substantial history of stabilityIn 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)
(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)
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-WI 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)
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)
Extended content
|
---|
|
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
Is there research specifically about the effects on the vaginal microbiome? A quick search yielded this, [1] but it is more general about probiotics etc than V-steaming specifically. Jimw338 ( talk) 18:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
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)