text:
Talk:Hoxsey Therapy

Editorial Concerns
This article needs to seperate the difference between discussion of the Hoxsey Therapy/Method and the life of John Hoxsey (which could/should be its own biographical article). ju66l3r 17:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the Hoxsey family history surrounding the method is multigenerational, since it was invented by John, but made famous under Harry, who had the noteworthy battles with the AMA and FDA. I tried to focus only on the parts of his biography that had bearing on the therapy and its associated clinics.--Rosicrucian 23:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * After performing the merge (and thus getting closer to the info/text), I guess just the items to the end of the History section (he got cancer, used modern medicine for a cure, died) were the only parts I thought could be seen as less important to the Hoxsey Therapy..except he did try his method and it failed him which is pertinent. I'm less concerned with splitting off that info into a John Hoxsey article now than I was before.  Of course, if anyone were to feel ambitious enough to want to create the Hoxsey biographical article, it'd be a reasonable (i.e. notable) addition to the wikipedia.  ju66l3r 18:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge Discussion
I couldn't find this article when I was looking for "Hoxsey method", so I created a new one... then found this one. Should they be combined?Kyouran 21:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm in the process of doing that now. ju66l3r 22:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Ok, I've completed the merge. Please read through the article to be sure that I haven't duplicated or garbled any information in the merge process.  ju66l3r 23:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

GMTA
Heh. More or less the same thought process I went through when I made the article, Kyouran. Was getting a little lonely editing it by myself. Hopefully we can work together to make a stronger article.--Rosicrucian 23:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. The merge looks good, I think it hits on all the major points well. I'm curious to see how the case with this kid in Virginia works out. Kyouran 17:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio
A lot of this article is taken verbatim from the American Cancer Society article linked at the bottom. Specifically the History and Side Effects sections. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk • contribs).

 * Okay. Thank you for the info.  I didn't write the text (only merged 2 articles).  I'll take a look at the possible copyvio and rewrite those sections.  Anyone else is welcome to also do this as I'm a bit bogged down at work this second.  ju66l3r 20:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Reworked the side-effects section to avoid copyvio. Going to look at the history section next.--Rosicrucian 22:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Just got home and read through the rewrite. Nice work.  Thanks for taking care of it.  ju66l3r 23:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Lead paragraph
Umm... it really should be mentioned in the lead that the Hoxsey Therapy is considered entirely ineffective by the scientific and medical communities. I'm open to discussing the phrasing, but it should be in there. This is generally in line with how most unproven therapies are handled. Also, WP:LEAD says we should include "Criticism - include criticism if there has been significant, notable criticism." And there has. MastCell 01:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I apologize. After looking at the policy page you point out, I agree that notable criticism belongs in the lead section.  Someone might like to add other information to the lead section to balance it.  At the moment I don't see anything obviously suitable.  --Coppertwig 16:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

 * No problem... like I said, I'm not set on the current phrasing and I'd be open to other suggestions. I agree that the lead in general could certainly stand to be expanded. MastCell 17:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

A Neutral Point of View
Articles such as this one are inevitably controversial. Where research cannot definitively prove the efficacy of a treatment, it is open to a range of good faith interpretations from support to opposition. There's also the challenge of precise editing to avoid weasel words, without oversimplification or including unsupported claims.

An example - the statements "Hoxsey Therapy is a cure for cancer" and "Hoxsey Therapy has no value at all" are currently unverifiable. By contrast, "Hoxsey Therapy is promoted as a cure for cancer" is entirely accurate and does not prejudge the therapy either way.

If all this sounds like statements of the blindingly obvious, here's the point:
 * I believe a recent series of anon IP edits have taken the article away from a neutral point of view towards outright support for Hoxsey Therapy. This includes deleting sourced material which casts doubt on its effectiveness, changing the opening sentence to "HT is a cure for cancer", and so on.
 * I have (again) reverted the article to what seems to be the last neutral version.
 * I have outlined the above to explain the reasoning for what I have done.
 * In the interests of consensus, I welcome a discussion with the anon editor (or anyone else) about changes to the page to improve its neutrality. However any changes must be sourced and due regard must be given to conflicting evidence, and I don't believe these standards have been met in the recent anon edits.

Comments, suggestions welcome. Euryalus 09:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

 * You have done correctly by my account. None of the IP edits appear to approach neutrality and some seem downright antagonistic.  I'm sorry I haven't been on wikipedia lately to help out, because this is a page on my watchlist since I put in a good amount of effort to clean it up the first time.  The semi-protection should force the discussion with this anonymous editor and if it doesn't then it's clear that their intentions were not to the benefit of the article anyways and future edits should probably be considered intentionally disruptive.  ju66l3r 02:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Ausubel Research Book Reference
Kenny Ausubel wrote an in depth book about Hoxsey, his life and his formula entitled When Healing Becomes a Crime. This book provides a fair account of what Hoxsey underwent and is somewhat sympathetic. However, Ausubel does an excellent job at remaining fairly neutral on the subject and as a documentarian is well suited to cover the subject. There is also a video on the same subject that should be referenced. It may be valuable to include references to both materials in this article but because I have a personal bias toward the Hoxsey formula I have disqualified myself from adding materials.

The role that the Nurse Mildred Nelson played in the administration and promotion of the formula is essential to this subject. She had first hand knowledge of its use and provides numerous accounts of how it has worked. To be sure Hoxsey was a showman but just because he played the role or "snake oil salesman" doesn't mean that the formula helped no one. He was understandably distrustful of the JAMA relationship with the FDA and the background of the people that worked to undermine Hoxsey's efforts should be brought to light as well. Again, I clearly have a bias about this but to make the article comprehensive it is essential to include the impact of the lawsuits that Hoxsey filed and the incredibly shaping of the current structure of the FDA and its questionable relationship with JAMA.

One person that could be contacted that is still living is a licensed naturopathic doctor that lives in Oregon named Steve Austin. He visited the Hoxsey Clinic in Mexico and spent time speaking with Mildred Nelson. His reputation is beyond question and his scientific bona fides are well established. Having his comments added to the article could make it even more valuable. Ausubel briefly references Dr. Austin but I have had a couple of long discussions with him about his visit to Mexico and he has an objective take on the Hoxsey approach.--Prole Writer (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

 * While Dr Austin might certainly have an interesting perspective, our focus here needs to be on what has been published by reliable sources on the topic. This isn't really the venue to do our own investigative work; Wikipedia does not publish original work, new findings, or novel interpretations of material. MastCell Talk 07:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Benedict F. Fitzgerald, Jr
I've temporarily removed the section on the testimony of Benedict F. Fitzgerald, Jr. In order to assess how to work this in and to assess its context, we need something more than a link to the Congressional Record, which is a primary source. The only mention I can find of this report is in the alt-med Webosphere, where admittedly it's something of a recurrent meme, but I'm unable to turn up any reliable secondary sources that discuss it. An excerpt from the Congressional Record is very difficult to use in isolation - what was the context of Fitzgerald's report? How was it received? Did any action result? Was it one person's opinion or was there additional testimony? How was it relevant to the struggle between the AMA and Hoxsey? We need a reliable secondary source to answer those questions. I have not read Ausubel's book - does he mention it? Are there other reliable secondary sources that mention Fitzgerald's testimony? MastCell Talk 19:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Fitzgerald's report is a secondary source. The records of the court cases on which he is reporting are the primary sources.  I have personally read the published opinions of the cases Fitzgerald refers to, and as far as I can tell (Fitzgerald certainly had access to more complete records of the trials and appeals than I have) his summary of the record is accurate.  As well it is a "reliable" source by any measure of the word.  I don't think there is any question that Fitzgerald was who he claims and that he wrote what is published in the Congressional record.  The content of the quote is not his opinion, but rather the opinion of the fact-finders in the discussed court case who heard first-hand the testimony presented on the question of the effectiveness of Hoxsey's treatment, which is after all the topic of this section of this article.

 * May I caution against being distracted by the personal differences between Hoxsey and the AMA in this section. The passage  referring to the Journal Editor's professional history should perhaps be excluded from this quote as it is not quite on point.  I left it in there with the idea of perhaps later excluding it; as you can see from the ellipses I already edited out some of the passage and I didn't want to remove too much of it before people had a chance to read it.

 * As far as Ausubel's book goes, I have already returned the copy I was reading to my library, but I do remember there is a reference to a contemporary newspaper report on Fitzgerald's report and apparently to his professional credentials. I personally do not have the time or resources at the moment to track down that article, but if you're interested the citation is in there.  However, as I've said, I don't see that it really matters, since, as I've said, there's no real issue as to the reliability of the quoted passage.   Jweiner (talk) 11:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * For Wikipedia's purposes, a record of Congressional testimony is generally considered a primary source (see WP:PSTS). I'm actually interested enough to read Ausubel's book once I get to the library; if there's coverage in there, then we can cite it, but I'm not comfortable citing at length from a (Wikipedia-defined) primary source without any information about context, due weight, etc. MastCell Talk 22:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

 * What you've written here, and what the No Original Research page you rely on says are so inconsistent I can only wonder if you have actually read that page.
 * First, the No Original Research page does not say that the Congressional Record is a primary source.
 * Second, the No Original Research page defines "secondary sources" as "accounts at least one step removed from an event."  The quoted passage from the Fitzgerald Report refers to the opinion of the jury, and the testimony of "leading pathologists, radiologists, physicians, surgeons, and scores of witnesses" as well as of the Editor of the AMA Journal.  Fitzgerald did not directly hear any of this testimony himself.  Since Fitzgerald (unlike the trial judge) did not hear directly from those giving testimony, he was "at least one step removed from [the] event."  Thus by the definition given on the No Original Research page, this report is a secondary source.
 * Third, the No Original Research page explicitly says that "transcripts of...trials" are primary sources, and that, "[s]econdary sources may draw on primary sources...to create a general overview."  Clearly the Fitzgerald Report draws on trial transcripts to create a general overview, therefore by this second definition provided in the No Original Research page, the Fitzgerald report is a secondary source.
 * Fourth, even if for some reason you are still somehow convinced this report, one step removed from the trial transcripts, is a primary source, you will please note the No Original Research page says that "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia...with care." The Congressional Record is clearly a reliable source.  Thus, even if this report were a primary source--which is is not--that fact alone would not justify prohibiting its use.  More particularly, the No Original Research page says that "anyone...who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source."  In this case, the "Wikipedia passage" is a verbatim quote from the Fitzgerald Report.  There can be no greater degree of "agreement" than an exact quote.  If you doubt that I have accurately quoted the Report, then I invite you to visit your local government documents depository to confirm the textual agreement for yourself.  Furthermore the No Original Research page says that "To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should...only make descriptive claims...[and] make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source."  The only claims I made about the quoted passage are (1) that it came out "some years after the trials" and (2) what the name and professional title of the author are.  Clearly these are descriptive claims and are neither "analytic," "synthetic," "interpretive," "explanatory," nor "evaluative."  Thus even by the Wikipedia standards required of primary sources, this passage is appropriate to this article.
 * Finally, you express concern about "context, due weight, etc." Regarding context, I don't know what standard you are referring to. but the context is given: the quote is from the report of a Special Counsel to a Senate Committee.  With regard to undue weight, the guidelines say that "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each" (my emphasis).  The operative phrase here is "in proportion."  If you believe that including this quoted passage from the Report would give the view represented by the quote too much or too detailed of a description as compared with an alternate view that you prefer, the solution is to provide a more detailed description of your preferred view (with reference to published reliable sources), not to remove the reference to the significant view with which you disagree.  As far as "etc" goes, I don't know what you mean by that.

 * In summary, (1) by the published Wikipedia definitions, the quoted Report is a secondary, not a primary source, (2) my use in including it was careful enough to meet the requirements for primary sources, and (3) if you have a problem with the proportion of descriptions of different significant views, you should add what is missing, not delete what you disagree with.

 * Now that I have provided you with as much of a response to your objections as any reasonable person could demand, would you care to undo your "temporary" removal of the edit I took the time to make, or shall I? Jweiner (talk) 16:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I have, in fact, read WP:NOR. It describes examples of primary sources as including "...historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews..." (emphasis mine). A transcript of public hearings on the topic of the Hoxsey Therapy is a primary source. That said, primary sources can of course be used as you note above. But since this particular primary source presents one side of a controversial issue, the question is how much weight to assign it in a proportionate and contextual presentation of the subject. The passage as written provides quite a bit of weight to this primary source. I'm asking for a secondary source - that is, books, newspaper coverage, journal articles, etc - which describe FitzGerald's testimony in some sort of context. Was is rebutted? Was it accepted? Was it acted on? Was it read in a Friday afternoon session to an empty session and subsequently ignored outside the alternative-medicine webosphere? I don't know the answers to these questions, and without them I don't know how much weight this particular source should carry or how to accurately present it. I am of course not the last word on this (or any) subject; if you find this request for context and due weight irrational, then the next step would be to request a third opinion or outside comment on the subject to move toward consensus. MastCell Talk 04:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

 * The Fitzgerald Report is a report. It is not "testimony" as you incorrectly characterize it. Senator Charles W. Toby, Chairman of the Senate Interstate Commerce Committee assigned its Special Counsel to draft the Report.  Special Counsel Fitzgerald reviewed the primary source documents referred to and wrote the Report.  By the time Fitzgerald was finished, Senator Toby was no longer the Chairman of the Committee.  Fitzgerald then submitted the report to the Committee, care of Senator John W. Bricker.  Fitzgerald never appeared in person before the Senate.  Fitzgerald never testified in any hearing.  The Report was accepted and was not rebutted.  Some time later, Senator William Langer acted on the Report by obtaining a copy of it and inserting it into the Congressional Record.
 * The Report is not a diary.
 * The Report is not census results.
 * The Report is not a transcript of surveillance.
 * The Report is not a transcript of a public hearing.
 * The Report is not a transcript of a trial.
 * The Report is not a transcript of an interview.
 * The undeniable fact that this Report is a secondary and not a primary source could not be any clearer. If you persist in so mischaracterizing it, I shall be compelled to question your willingness to accurately comprehend the English language, in particular the meanings of the words "transcript" and "hearing."  Jweiner (talk) 11:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Jweiner, your post above is coming remarkably close to a personal attack. The discussion is an interesting one but needs to stay focused on the content not contributors. Not that big a deal, just a polite reminder. Euryalus (talk) 10:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I notice you've since edited it - thank you. Euryalus (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Material taken from the Congressional Record coincides most closely with the definition and examples of primary sources given by WP:PSTS. Also, if this report is a notable and meaningful source or event, why is there zero coverage of it in reliable, independent secondary sources? I've been looking and literally finding nothing on this report beyond a handful of alt-med discussion forums and unreliable websites. I'm not sure how we can proportionately and accurately represent it without some sort of reliable secondary-source coverage to give it context. In your edit, it sounds like the FDA and AMA shut down Hoxsey's clinics as making unsupported claims, but then a Congressional report proved otherwise. That is not an accurate impression. I will continue looking for sources. MastCell Talk 19:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Dispute Whether the Fitzgerald Report is a Primary or Secondary Source
Two editors of this article are in disagreement as to whether a particular source document is a "primary source" or a "secondary source" within the meanings given on the No Original Research page.

Facts
In the 1940s and early 1950s, Mr. Hoxsey, whose cancer treatment is the subject of this article, was a party to a number of lawsuits in which the effectiveness of his treatment was an issue necessary to outcome of the lawsuits. At the trials a number of witnesses testified. The witnesses included medical experts, the then editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association, and some of Hoxsey's patients. The cases were tried to juries, which heard all the witnesses testify and rendered their verdicts. The judges trying the cases also heard all the witnesses testify, took the jury verdicts, and issued judgments along with written decisions. These written decisions were published in the relevant court reporters and can today be found in law libraries and in online legal databases.

Some years after the trials, the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee of the US Senate, by request of its Chairman Senator Charles W. Toby, directed its Special Counsel, a lawyer named Fitzgerald, to supervise a study of organizations conducting cancer research and to submit to the Committee a report (hereinafter referred to as "The Report"). Among those organizations included in the Report was Hoxsey's Cancer Clinic. In drafting the report, Fitzgerald studied the court records of the above-mentioned trials, which presumably included the published decisions written by the judges, as well as transcripts of the witnesses' testimony. In his Report, Fitzgerald summarized these cases, in particular describing the positions of the different parties, the qualifications of the witnesses, the jury verdicts, and the outcomes of the cases, both at trial and on appeal.

Fitzgerald was not at the trials himself. He did not himself hear any of the witnesses testify. All his information came from the written court records. By the time he had finished his Report, Senator Toby was no longer the Chairman of the Committee. Fitzgerald sent his Report to Senator John W. Bricker and the members of the Committee. Fitzgerald did not testify in any hearings on the questions decided in the court trials. Some time after Fitzgerald submitted his report, Senator William Langer obtained a copy of the Report from the son of the then-deceased Senator Toby, and with permission of the Vice President of the United States, had the report inserted into the Congressional Record. The Report was published in the Appendix to the Congressional Record by the US Government Printing Office, and is today available in law libraries.

The Question
The question in need of resolution by a third opinion is whether the Report's description of the court trials is a "primary source" or a "secondary source" within the meanings provided on the Wikipedia No Original Research page.

Standards
The Wikipedia No Original Research page both defines and gives examples of the terms "primary source" and 'secondary source."

The Wikipedia No Original Research page provides these definitions of "primary source":

 * "Primary sources are sources very close to the origin of a particular topic."
 * A primary source "provid[es] an inside view of a particular event."
 * "Primary sources enable the researcher to get as close as possible to what actually happened during an historical event or time period."
 * "Primary sources were either created during the time period being studied, or were created at a later date by a participant in the events being studied...and they reflect the individual viewpoint of a participant or observer."

Given examples of primary sources are:

 * an eyewitness account of a traffic accident
 * archeological artifacts
 * photographs
 * historical documents such as
 * diaries
 * census results
 * video or transcripts of
 * surveillance
 * public hearings,
 * trials
 * interviews
 * tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires
 * written or recorded notes of
 * laboratory and field research
 * experiments
 * observations
 * published experimental results by the person(s) actually involved in the research
 * original philosophical works
 * religious scripture
 * administrative documents
 * artistic and fictional works such
 * poems
 * scripts
 * screenplays
 * novels
 * motion pictures
 * videos
 * television programs

The Wikipedia No Original Research page provides these definitions of "secondary source":

 * A secondary source is "a work that interprets or analyzes an historical event or phenomenon."
 * A secondary source "is generally at least one step removed from the event."
 * "[A] secondary source analyzes and interprets primary sources, is a second-hand account of an historical event or interprets creative work. "
 * "[A] secondary source analyzes and interprets research results or analyzes and interprets scientific discoveries."
 * "Secondary sources are works of synthesis and interpretation based upon primary sources and the work of other authors."

Reasons why the Fitzgerald Report is a Primary Source
Awaiting editor's position.

Reasons why the Fitzgerald Report is a Secondary Source
The Report is a secondary source because it is one step removed from the trials it describes. The Report is based on trial transcripts which are themselves primary sources. The Report is a secondary source because the author was not present at the trials, but wrote the Report years after the trials. The Report describes the opinions of the medical experts who testified at the trials and the jury verdicts and published court opinions, but the Report itself was not authored by any of those experts, juries, or courts. The Report does not fall into any of the example categories of primary sources.

Source that Hoxsey was a Vaudevillian
Does someone have a source for the claim that Hoxsey was a vaudevillian, which appears in the first paragraph of the "History" section of the article? Neither of the two sources cited at the end of that paragraph contain that information, and I have not been able to find any source to verify that claim. Jweiner (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I don't see anything in our sources to the effect that he was a vaudevillian. The Cantor article describes Hoxsey as leaving school after 8th grade and working in the coal mines in Taylorville, IL as well as selling insurance before he began marketing his treatment. I've updated the article accordingly. MastCell Talk 21:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * While I believe I was the one who originally added the claim, I cannot locate my original source on the matter. I suspect it may have been some confusion on my part due to Hoxsey's association with Baker, who was a vaudevillian before becoming a radio personality.--RosicrucianTalk 00:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably. I've seen some sources which indicate that Baker in particular, and in association with Hoxsey, promoted their treatments at fairs which included vaudeville performances, but that's about the extent of it. MastCell Talk 00:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Missing info
Pokeweed (Phytolacca americana) has one mention in this article, under Side-effects - "Pokeweed has caused deaths in children." It is not listed with herbs and minerals under Treatment, nor do any of its other common or regional names appear elsewhere. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 23:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The American Cancer Society article referenced mentions Pokeweed (and was one of my main sources when initially writing the article and the accompanying side-effects section). It seems that since that revision a different source has been used to revamp the ingredients under "Treatment".--RosicrucianTalk 00:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverts
OK, this should probably come to the talk page. has now twice removed this material. I can't quite understand the edit summary, but apparently they feel it is not in the cited source. Here is the relevant paragraph from the cited source:

Rather than once again removing verifiable information, perhaps General Disarray could explain his/her objection to the citation of this material in this article? MastCell Talk 23:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe it's likely that such a source exists and states precisely the quote above, but the link provided states no such thing. A link directly to the page which states this would be appropriate, but as it stands the reference provided points to this page and only states:

 * "So-called unorthodox methods of cancer treatment are readily available to patients and families. They are frequently claimed to be "harmless" or "nontoxic" or "painless" alternatives to more standard treatment regimens. The Congress of the United States has estimated that $2 billion is spent annually on cancer quackery. Many physicians will be asked by their patients for opinions on such alternative treatment regimens, and the purpose of this review is to provide the practitioner with the basic information necessary to discuss these topics with their patients."

 * I haven't read the article stated as the source, but was led to believe the link provided linked to the article reference. I take it that's not the case? It would appear that none of the articles which point to the PUBMED archives are contained there; i.e. notes 2,4,6,&7 all point to articles on PUBMED which don't support the statments they're referencing which is frankly quite confusing. Are those the actual articles? The link for note 4 points to a blank page. Can this be remedied?

 * BTW, these exact same statements about the "400 patients" are repeated again in the "Effectiveness" section. If actually accurate, is it necessary to note the same point twice in teh article? I resolve to remove one of the two. Which shall it be? DisarrayGeneral  04:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The link is to an abstract of the article through PubMed/MEDLINE. The full text of many (most) medical journals is often not freely available. In this case, the full text of the article contains the quote in question. Unfortunately, many reliable sources are not freely available on the Internet, but they remain reliable sources. The PubMed links do not point to "blank pages", but to the article abstracts (summaries) where these are available. As with any reliable source which is not freely available, verification depends largely on obtaining the source from a library or asking someone with access to the source to verify it for you.
 * I see that you've extensively used Kenny Ausubel's book as a reference to support the treatment's effectiveness. While Ausubel's book is probably a notable source, he is a journalist who wrote a fairly polemical book about the treatment. Our policy on undue weight suggests, to my reading at least, that his opinion as expressed in a book from a small publisher should not really be given equal weight to the views of the Food and Drug Administration, National Cancer Institute, American Cancer Society, and other demonstrably expert, reliable groups.
 * It is original research to suggest that Frederick Mohs used a paste "identical to Hoxsey's", unless Mohs himself stated that in the source in question. He did not, to my knowledge. Several of Mohs' articles from the 1940's and 1950's on "chemosurgery" are freely available. He describes the paste used, generally, as including dichloroacetate and zinc chloride. The composition of his paste does not appear to be "identical" to Hoxsey's, though of course Hoxsey never actually revealed the makeup of his paste except perhaps under oath in the libel trial. I think Ausubel made this claim in his book; if so, it should be cited to Ausubel's book and it should be made clear exactly who is making this claim. It should not be cited as if Mohs himself indicated he was using a "red paste identical to Hoxsey's" - that's misleading.
 * You cite a 1994 article from the Journal of Naturopathic Medicine in support of the Hoxsey Therapy's effectiveness. I cannot locate this article; it does not appear on Pubmed, for instance. Highlighting this result from an obscure fringe journal as a counterpoint to the findings of numerous large, respected medical bodies violates WP:WEIGHT.
 * I've asked for additional output at the fringe theories noticeboard and the Medicine WikiProject to help resolve these issues. MastCell Talk 18:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to wonder if you've given my edits more than a cursory glance? For one the removal of my contributions to the intro raise questions about your good faith here. From the same source already provided I expanded the point about the effectiveness found in animals,yet you've excised this?

 * You've basically excised all my contributions with sweeping WP:OR and WP:UNDUE accusations, yet you've also removed WP:V contributions; I've provided the results of the prospective study provide by the University of Texas, and yet it's been removed? Are they also too insignificant in contrast to the AMA to note their published findings? I didn't challenge the AMA's content, but have provided balance where it was sorely lacking from bona fide sources. WP:UNDUE is not a policy, it's a guideline which despite how some feel wasn't established to eradicate all minority opinions from Wiki. The AMA does not own a franchise on this information where verifiable reliable sources contradict their claims.

 * Note 4 points to a blank page; this was not a figment of my imagination. DisarrayGeneral 19:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

 * What prospective study are you talking about? You replaced an excellent, PubMed-indexed journal article with a webarchived link to an iffy-looking webpage - that's not an improvement in referencing. The UT did conduct a retrospective review of the Hoxsey Therapy - I've added that material here. I would like to ask you to carefully review what I'm saying instead of reacting defensively. Your comments betray significant confusion about both Wikipedia policy and real-world considerations (i.e. not every journal article is freely available on the Internet). Briefly: WP:UNDUE is a policy (part of WP:NPOV), not a guideline. If you're unclear on this, read it again. Note 4 does not point to a blank page; it is the PubMed reference for a journal article published in 1979. If you, personally, do not have access to this journal article, then that does not magically make it a poor source. Citing the PubMed reference is standard practice on Wikipedia, as a glance at any other medical article or the manual of style will confirm. I think there's a more basic misunderstanding of "balance". WP:NPOV does not mean that we present equal amounts of "praise" and "criticism". It means that we accurately reflect what experts in a field have to say about a topic. In the case of the Hoxsey Therapy, experts in the field are virtually unanimous in condemning it as ineffective. An article which dilutes that unanimity in the interest of "balance" is not neutral. I realize the AMA is a convenient boogeyman in many spheres of alternative medicine, but I would ask you to move past that a bit and read the article. It's hardly the AMA's word here. The National Cancer Institue and Food and Drug Administration have looked at this treatment. So has the American Cancer Society and two of the most prominent cancer centers in the world, both of which have departments quite sympathetic to alternative medicine in general. All have reached the same conclusion. Yes, Kenny Ausubel wrote a polemic about Hoxsey, and we can certainly note that, but not out of context. As to the remainder of my points, you've not addressed them at all in your revert. Does the Mohs reference contain any indication that he used "the same paste as Hoxsey"? If not, you are actively mispresenting it, and I'm asking you, again, to be more careful with your sourcing and less cavalier with this site's policies. MastCell Talk 19:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid the talkpage for WP:NPOV regarding the discussions about undue weight will show that it's not as set in stone as you're attempting to portray it here, and that even though the NPOV is a pillar and policy, undue weight is mutable for circumstances and is open to some interpretation. I don't believe I've attempted to give equal consideration to these new contributions or set them as equal to the views of the broader whole. Neither have I in anyway eluded to the AMA as a "boogeyman", so I'll thank you not to make such presumptions.

I apologize for my misunderstanding of the abstracts that those links in the notes point to. I thought those were the articles themselves. Thank you for explaining further. I would like for you to indulge me by clicking on the PMID link for note 5 (not 4); you'll see that it does take you to a blank page.

Obviously we if discussions are to be productive they should focus on content and it's reliability, verifiability, etc., and not on what is or isn't "true". Despite the broader medical communities alleged "unanimous" opinion about this treatment, considerations have been given to it among the alternative medicine community, and likewise warrants mentioning. Regarding my contributions:
 * 1) The statement I provided for in the intro came straight off of the Overview section of the reference that was already being used.
 * 2) Duke's statements regarding the anticancer properties of the herbs are from as credible source as exists.
 * 3) This "iffy-looking webpage" is the University of Texas' summary of Hoxsey; the clinic's own website reflects the same costs whereas the "excellent PUBMED" article contradicts them with inflated numbers. But whichever.
 * 4) This prospective study warrants inclusion as its the only study that has published any numbers. They're not exactly favorable, and it's the only known study that involves humans. Moreover it's from a reliable source, so why excise it?
 * 5) The "400 patients" are mentioned in two places in this article: in History and Effectivness. I believe its redundant in Effectiveness. DisarrayGeneral  22:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, at least we've moved from "WP:WEIGHT isn't policy" to "WP:WEIGHT isn't set in stone". I'd agree that its implementation is open to discussion. When you characterize note 5 as a "blank page", it in fact indicates the article title, authors, and publication details, but the abstract and content are not freely available. As to the specifics:
 * I think we should limit the quote to discussing the treatment's effectiveness, which after all is in line with the meaning of the ACS article. If you want to preserve the ACS opinion about some herbs having in vitro effects, then to accurately reflect the source it should probably be phrased along the lines of: The American Cancer Society found that while a few of the herbs in the Hoxsey formula have some anticancer activity in animals, "there is no scientific evidence that the Hoxsey herbal treatment is effective in treating cancer, and there have been no clinical trials of the treatment."
 * Duke is one person whose credentials are entirely unclear. What is his position at the Dept of Agriculture? Does he have some experience in screening or testing biologically active plant substances? Why is his opinion relevant? Citing him, without addressing any of these questions, to "rebut" the ACS, FDA, NCI, etc etc is sort of the definition of undue weight.
 * If the UT webpage is a great source, why is it on web.archive.org? Why not reference the curent page? Why an archived copy? Is there an updated, active page somewhere?
 * I've already explained my concerns with including a study from a fringe journal with no evidence of medical or scientific impact. That particular study was criticized pretty harshly in the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center review of Hoxsey Therapy, citing "...the obvious flaws of this study - the majority of patients lost to follow-up, lack of access to detailed medical records, and reliance upon patients for disease stage information." . I'm not comfortable presenting this as a reliable source, particularly not devoid of the above context.
 * The "400 patients" should be in "Effectiveness", since it directly addresses that issue. A much briefer note could be made in the history section; its relevance there is that the FDA's review was made possible in part by Hoxsey's testimony under oath in the libel trial, and the FDA's findings of lack of efficacy in those 400 patients were a basis for the decision to ban the therapy.
 * I'm not going to make these changes at present, because there's too much edit-warring going on. I believe you have already broken the three-revert rule; though I'm not going to press it at this point as a courtesy, I'd ask you to stop reverting. These kind of disputes are resolved through discussion between us, or through inviting outside input. I've done the latter, and discussion between us is going to work better if we don't revert back and forth while we talk. MastCell Talk 22:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Just as a random comment, if the drug (per the FD&C Act since it intends to diagnose, cure, treat, or prevent a disease) was banned in 1960, it was banned for safety concerns and not because it was ineffective. Effectiveness was not required until the 1962 Kefauver Harris Amendment. SDY (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed this dispute through MastCell's post at WP:FTN. I have to agree that in comparison to the AMA, FDA, National Cancer Institute, etc., the New Age Journal, a book published by a press that currently features the Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion, and the Journal of Naturopathic Medicine are not good sources. I would prefer not to include material sourced to such publications at all, but if it is included, it should be contextualized with mainstream criticism such as the piece from the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center MastCell quoted above. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Opinions
Having had my attention directed here by MastCell's post to the Fringe Theories noticeboard, I've looked over the article and this talk page, and would like to express a few opinions. First: the Fitzgerald report is absolutely a reputable source. A random piece of testimony to Congress is not a good source in general, but a report prepared at the behest of a Congressional committee by a staffer is as reputable as it gets. Second: I don't have great faith in the Guzley article. I've never heard of that journal (I'm a biologist but not an M.D.), and I note that he has a very limited publication record. I can't look at his paper from home, but I can probably download it when I'm next in the lab -- I want to see what evidence he cites for his statements. Third: most of the changes that General Disarray has made are not good, but they are certainly not vandalism, and it seems to me that there is room for discussion. Also I think one of his changes at least is a positive contribution, namely using the overview of the ACS article instead of a sentence extracted from the body -- I think it would be good to cite the entire overview, though, including, "It is not known if there are harmful effects of the combination of the herbs taken together. The paste made for external application can severely burn, disfigure and scar the skin." Looie496 (talk) 02:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

 * There are two things cited to that paper now, both of which are cited elsewhere in the article by different sources, so it may be reasonable to take it out, but given that there's independent confirmation (FDA on one fact, ACS on the other), I don't see a need. SDY (talk) 03:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would find it helpful if we could get a third-party opinion on MastCells characterization of the alleged undue weight created by my contributions. Duke's one statement about the anitcancer properties of the herbs has been deemed WP:UNDUE; by these standards it appears that nothing challenging the AMA's published statements, whether they're verifiable in reliable sources or not, can be included here. I have provided verifiable reliable sources for EVERY contribution I've made, and EVERY one of them has been challenged based on undue weight, or by questioning the value of the sources themselves. This would appear to be the crux of the challenge we're facing here. DisarrayGeneral  04:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If I'm understanding the situation correctly, Duke's statement appeared in an article by Ken Ausubel, published in the New Age Journal. This does not strike me as the kind of source we should be using for an article about a medical treatment, when we have statements by several different medical and scientific bodies. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Given that the New Age Journal also publishes things like "21 Ways to Read a Tarot Card" I have substantial doubts that they're a reliable source for medical information. SDY (talk) 05:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Also the statement is intrinsically unlikely: herbs are rarely subjected to rigorous tests, because tests cost money and herbs are never money-makers since they can't be patented; also the mix contains a bunch of herbs. Looie496 (talk) 06:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, there's also the issue that most herbs vary massively based on biological considerations like growing conditions. The possible variation in active ingredients means that "ten ounces of foo" could be too little for a therapeutic dose, just right, or a massive overdose.  There's also a lot of money out there for cancer research because there's money to be made in treating patients (i.e. how Hoxsey himself got rich), so the economic argument is limited.  SDY (talk) 14:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Looie, if you believe that "herbs are never money-makers", I'd suggest you look at the balance sheets of any large herbal-supplement company. The herbal market in the US was around $4.8 billion in 2007. The best-selling brands of ephedra, for instance, generated hundreds of millions of dollars in yearly sales and rivaled the larger prescription drugs (well, until ephedra was banned for safety reasons). Tests don't get done because there's absolutely no regulatory requirement that safety and efficacy be demonstrated for herbs, not because the money isn't there. MastCell Talk 18:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

These discussions are not to decide amongst ourselves what is and isn't true, or "likely", etc: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Duke's statement is one of a half dozen contributions I've provided, all of which provide reference. When called out on the fact that they're verifiable statements the argument shifted to undue weight and questionable sources. I've not suggested this article shouldn't contain material from the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, or the ACS; what dictates that they're the final authority on this matter and that opinions that contradict them should be suppressed? A PHD botanist from the USDA's opinion is unwarranted in an article about herbal treatments? I'd like to return to my original question about whether his one statement provides undue weight, for the way I read it the case is thoroughly been addressed regarding the med establishments position; I contend theirs is not the only one worthy of noting. Disarray General  07:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Duke is reputable (although 79 years old now), and there is plenty of information about him. Try a Google search for "Jim Duke ethnobotanist", or look at .  The problem is that the statement you're quoting doesn't come from something Duke wrote, it's only something that Ausubel said that Duke told him.  The issue is Ausubel's reliability, not Duke's. Looie496 (talk) 07:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Or see James A. Duke, for that matter. Looie496 (talk) 07:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I turned up a lot of James Dukes, so I appreciate you addressing my question about this particular one's notability. I am not suggesting that all non-mainstream views be "suppressed"; however, I am asking for quality sources. I'm asking that we proportionately represent the opinions of experts in the field, which are easily demonstrated. And I'm asking that we accurately reflect our sources - I have in mind the Mohs citations here. MastCell Talk 18:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Despite being a civil servant and a field botanist, James A. Duke is author of six items indexed in PubMed:
 * 1) Kirakosyan A et al. Isoflavone levels in five soy...
 * 2) Pettit GR et al. Isolation and structure of gu...
 * 3) Lal A et al. Upregulation of isoflavonoids...
 * 4) Duke JA. Maytenus: A Folk Medicine....
 * 5) Duke JA. Letters to the Editor....
 * 6) Duke JA et al. Vietnam Refoliation....

If there is still doubt re notability and authority, search Science Citation Index. --Una Smith (talk) 02:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Interesting. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I have ≥6 PubMed-indexed articles to my credit (we'll throw in letters to the editor, apparently). And let's say I make a comment in my field of expertise to a journalist, who reproduces it in the New Age Journal. Would that comment be a notable addition to a Wikipedia article on a subject when numerous large, reputable medical bodies have already commented? Actually, that's neither here nor there. I appreciate the information on James Duke. I've learned something. I'm still not sure of the best way to work in an individual opinion, even from a qualified individual, when it is reported in a low-profile, fringe, borderline-reliable source. Most of the large bodies that have reviewed the data have concluded that some of the Hoxsey herbs have in vitro antitumor activity. Duke's statement, at least as reported by Ausubel in the New Age Journal, is that they "all" do. That seems a bit odd. MastCell Talk 03:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Reliable primary source, unreliable secondary source. If we had it "from the horse's mouth" it'd be great, but through the filter of a dubious magazine it's not useful.  If we could find the J. Duke comment in another source it'd be great, but I have reservations about the interpreter.  SDY (talk) 03:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The statement Ausebel made in his article for New Age Journal were derived from the information contained in his book When Healing Becomes a Crime(Healing Arts Press, 2000). It's disingenuous to suggest we require the only information worthy of note be that which is published in a medical journal. Ausebel's book being labelled "polemic" here is an attempt to dismiss all of it's content, even the like of James Dukes commentary. The commentary provided by Dr. Duke for Ausubel's "polemic" are entirely germane, relevant, and by all account verifiable from a published source. They have every right to be noted. DisarrayGeneral 07:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If there's a more reliable source, let's use it, but just because it's published means little about the reliability of its content. Medical journal is not required, but we definitely want a reputable source of some sort.  There are enough reputable sources that talk about herbals in particular and CAM in general that there are relevant experts to consult.  Dr. Duke is a good example, but how can we even verify that Ausubel's reporting of what he said is not a gross overstatement or twisting of the facts given the apparent tone of his book?  "Healing Arts Press" does not appear to be a reliable publisher, given the comments above on what else they publish.  SDY (talk) 17:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * From what I can see about the Healing Arts Press from their website and catalog, I would argue that Ausubel's book fails WP:RS. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Tumor
The word "tumor" in the lead is very important. Historically, a tumor was a swelling. A swelling might or might not be a neoplasm. A neoplasm might or might not be a cancer. --Una Smith (talk) 07:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Few people other than Celsus would be disturbed by "tumor" being used according to the most common definition in current English usage. Historically, referring to something as "artificial and awful" was a great compliment, not to mention the changes to that three letter word that starts with G.  It is neither misleading nor inaccurate in this context.  SDY (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm, I see I didn't get my point across. Sorry.  I'll try again.  The problem is the first paragraph of the History section, which includes Hoxsey himself traced the treatment to his great-grandfather, who observed a horse with a tumor on its leg cure itself by grazing upon wild plants growing in the meadow.  Do you see the logical faults here?  Rewrite the above as The horse had a swelling.  The horse ate plants.  The swelling went away.  Ergo, eating the same plants cures cancer. --Una Smith (talk) 02:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In that particular case, it appears that Hoxsey made that exact confusion, but the therapy doesn't claim to reduce swelling. SDY (talk) 02:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

OTA report
I have a couple of concerns with this edit. I still have reservations about quoting Duke, though I agree an "Herbalgram" from the American Botanical Council is a better source than Ausubel's article in the New Age Times. I guess I'm wondering how his personal opinion, expert though he may be, should be weighted with the multiple expert bodies that have reached differing conclusions.

More importantly, the summary of the OTA report leaves something to be desired (incidentally, the relevant text is available here at Quackwatch). Specifically, the edit seems to have carefully combed the OTA report for everything favorable to Hoxsey, while leaving out any caveats from the report. I'll propose some changes to the article. MastCell Talk 19:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "The OTA, at the request of Congress, was the first Federal agency to review the Hoxsey Therapy." This is just wrong. As we've discussed ad nauseum and as noted in the article, the FDA and NCI both evaluated Hoxsey's treatment long before the OTA. Both the FDA and NCI are federal agencies. (In fact, one might consider them more appropriate evaluators of the efficacy of a medical treatment than the Office of Technology Assessment).
 * The description of Patricia Spain Ward is WP:PEACOCKing
 * "[emphasis added]"? Why did you, the editor, add emphasis to a portion of a quote?
 * You quote the OTA report on the virtues of pokeweed. Interestingly, you left out the OTA's note on its toxicities: "Pokeroot, a reported component of the liquid tonic, contains toxic mitogenic substances (agents that induce cell division and proliferation), and has been linked with poisoning, including some fatal episodes, in children and adults."
 * Many less-than-favorable aspects of the OTA report are omitted from the summary, including that The Bio-Medical Center claims an 80% "cure rate", and blames the supposed 20% failures on the patient's "bad attitude".
 * There is some interesting material on Hoxsey vs. the NCI - the NCI found Hoxsey's records completely unusable, while Hoxsey felt that it was the NCI's responsibility to do the legwork to verify his treatment's effectiveness, and ascribed the failure to do so to a conspiracy.

I appreciate the careful consideration given to my contributions; I think the changes you made give a relatively fair treatment to them. I assume you're requesting my input here?
 * 1) You asked about "The OTA, at the request of Congress, was the first Federal agency to review the Hoxsey Therapy.", and said "this is just plain wrong"? It's word for word straight from the report, so unless you can provide a published statement to prove it's "just plain wrong" your WP:OR is trumped by it's WP:V.
 * 2) My understanding of the "differing conclusions" from the "expert bodies" is that what they're offering for conclusions fall into different categories. The commentary from Duke's article provides reference for the understanding that botanists have reached regarding the individual herbs in the formula. The FDA and NCI's conclusions about the treatment itself offers no perspective on the value of the herbs themselves.
 * 3) I never added any emphasis of my own to any quotes; at least not intentionally. What are you referring to?
 * 4) I never intended on shifting the balance of this article away from the overriding theme that it's quack medicine. I didn't "omit" anything from the OTA report that hasn't already been provided in the article. What I supplied is germane and on-topic, and as the case against Hoxsey has been sufficiently made, adding to that would seem redundant. DisarrayGeneral  22:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't find "first Federal agency to review the Hoxsey Therapy" in the OTA report; I scanned the Hoxsey section and tried Ctrl-F as well. Am I missing something? Can you provide a link or some direction to where this was taken "word for word"? The NCI actually did test and review the value of the herbs themsevles; the OTA report specifically notes: "OTA obtained results of testing for antitumor activity of the constituent Hoxsey herbs used in the internal tonic from NCI's Natural Products Branch." The results of the NCI's testing are given in the OTA report (see the link I provided). In any case, I'm OK with Duke being cited as he is currently if you are. Part of the material you added in this edit quotes Patricia Spain Ward and states "[emphasis added]". (If you pull up the diff and use Ctrl-F, you'll see it). I don't understand who added the emphasis - did you add it, or did you cut-and-paste the report from another website which added its own emphasis? I think the general concern I had was that the OTA report was being mined for favorable information to "counterbalance" the negative evaluations by other bodies. Instead of looking to accentuate the positive, I think we should just represent what the report has to say, positive or negative. What I took away, anyway, was that the OTA was high on the in vitro antitumor effects of many of the herbs, but noted the lack of animal or clinical testing. MastCell Talk 23:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Lead adjustment and reasonable parent article alternative cancer treatments
In this edit, MastCell removed the link to alternative cancer treatments from the lead (now it is nowhere in the article). Why? It's an article which is likely to attract interest from the people who are reading this and it's a reasonable article to use in the lead. II | (t - c) 06:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have anything against the parent article. I can't remember exactly why I removed the link, but using forensic techniques to reconstruct my reasoning, I think it was probably just that the wording was redundant ("alternative medical therapy" in the first sentence, "alternative cancer treatment" in the second). I'd be fine with re-linking the article on alternative cancer therapies in the lead - ideally we can just tweak the wording so it reads well. MastCell Talk 19:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Censorship
For what it's worth, I just want to cast my vote that deleting factual information from Wikipedia pertaining to Harry Hoxsey and his herbal cancer treatment is an abuse of censorship which would diminish resources available for those seeking to understand the truth behind a demonized man. Suffering cancer patients deserve to have information made available to them so that they can decide for themselves how they feel about the validity of issues involved based on factual relevant information. Even if the determinations drawn from such information are controversial, this does not legitimize the exclusion of facts. Readers should be allowed to draw their own conclusions. --— sloth_monkey 19:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think we serve cancer patients - or anyone, for that matter - by presenting them with misleading information under the guise of avoiding "censorship". Removing or editing misleading material is not "censorship" - it's a fundamental part of creating a serious, respectable reference work. In terms of specifics, what "factual relevant information" do you think should be restored to the article? MastCell Talk 20:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

¶ I am astonished, almost beyond words, to find that the Hoxsey "treatment" - a form of quackery which had some traction more than 60 years ago when there was virtually no effective cure for cancer - still has its supporters. Sussmanbern (talk) 14:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Do I have the wrong information?
I am given to understand that Hoxsey sued Morris Fishbein (editor of the JAMA who accused Hoxsey of quackery) and won. During the course of this suit Fishbein was compelled to admit that the Hoxsey treatment worked on skin cancer. There seem to be photocopies of newspapers that back this information up. Are these newspapers photoshopped? Did Hoxsey not win this suit? Why would this major event not be included in the Wikipedia page? <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hoxsey Therapy


text:
St. Mark's Pro-Cathedral (Hastings, Nebraska)

St. Mark's Pro-Cathedral is an Episcopal Church building located in Hastings, Nebraska, United States. It has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places since 1987. In 2020, it reported 247 members, average attendance of 64, and $120,307 in plate and pledge financial support.

History
When the Rev. John W. Greenwood arrived in Hastings in 1880 to organize the parish, St. Mark's was an unorganized mission with no property or building, and with very few members. He held the first service on April 25, 1880 in a public hall (possibly a pub). The parish was organized and given its name on May 3, 1880 at a meeting in Charles Cameron's store at the corner of Hastings Avenue and First Street. Bishop Robert Harper Clarkson of the Diocese of Nebraska pledged $400 to build a church building. A wooden structure was built at a cost of $1,200. It was dedicated by Bishop Clarkson on January 23, 1881.

The Daughters of Saint Mark's suggested that a new church be built in memory of the rector’s late wife Jessie Hornbrook Young. In 1912, they raised $10,000 after Bishop George Beecher suggested that Hastings be made a see city and the new church become the cathedral. St. Mark's was designated as a pro-cathedral in 1918 and served as the cathedral for the Missionary District of Western Nebraska until it merged with the Diocese of Nebraska in 1946. As part of the merger, it was agreed that St. Mark's would retain its designation as a pro-cathedral as a way of symbolizing the history and missionary tradition of the western part of the diocese.

Noted Boston architect Ralph Adams Cram was chosen to design the new church. The cornerstone was laid by Bishop Beecher on December 5, 1922. The crypt and part of the walls were completed and a chapel was made in the crypt when money to complete the structure ran out. The parishioners were reluctant to go into debt for the building project. As additional funds became available, the structure was completed in 1929, but without its original central tower. The Edward R. Green Company completed the construction; the total spent to build the church amounted to $125,000. The education wing, which was part of Cram's plan for the cathedral complex, was completed in 1959. The square-shaped tower at the crossing was not completed until 2001.

Architecture
The church building was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1987. In its National Register nomination, the cathedral design is described as typical of the Late Gothic Revival style, which is more subdued than the earlier High Victorian Gothic style. The rock face of the limestone structure contributes to an overall impression of monochromaticity. The plan of the building has characteristics of English Gothic churches, including an emphasis on length, a moderately pitched roof, and a tower at the crossing. Two octagon shaped towers flank the main façade. The main entry projects from the front of the building. Its double doors are flanked by buttresses and topped by a parapet gable. A triple lancet window is above the entrance in the upper section of the building.

In its interior, the cathedral has a rectangular nave with arcades on both sides. The roof structure, described in the National Register nomination as "an elaborate beam system of king post trusses", is exposed in the ceiling. Walls are plastered and stained glass is included in all of the windows. The pulpit, lectern and seating for the choir are located at the crossing. A rood screen and the altar have been placed in the chancel.

source: wikimedia

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Quechua/Pronunciation

This Module is part of the Quechua wikibook

Because Quechua was only recently transcribed into a Latin alphabet, it does not suffer from non-phonetic spellings like English; instead, what you see is what you say. In this course we will use the Quechua writing system as approved by the Peruvian government in 1985.

Vowels
There are only three vowel phonemes in Quechua: /i/ (front close unrounded), /a/ (central open unrounded), /u/ (back close rounded), forming a triangular system with two degrees of openness (open and close). In contrast, Spanish has a 5-vowel triangular system (i, e, a, o, u), with three degrees of openness (open, mid and close).

Note this means that e and o are phonemic in Spanish but not in Quechua where they are merely allophonic variants of /i/ and /u/; this is because those vowels contrast and distinguish words in Spanish, so in Spanish it makes sense to spell them differently, but this is not true for Quechua, where the choice of [i]/[e] and of [u]/[o] is determined purely by the phonetic environment in which the phonemes /i/ and /u/ appear and not by meaning.

Strange as it may seem to Westerners to have so few vowels and to not distinguish e and o as independent vowels, Quechua vowel system is far from rare or unique, as several other languages from different parts of the world, such as Classical Arabic and Inuktitut, feature analogous 3-vowel systems.

Consonants
Most Quechuan consonants are similar to their English counterparts, however some people may have trouble with glottal stops.

For loanwords, Quechua can use b,c (as in jam), d, f, g, x (as in khan) and z (as in throw).

title: Quechua/Pronunciation


text:
User:WK E Gillon/Books/As of 2017

 * February 1
 * February 2
 * February 3
 * February 4
 * February 5
 * February 6
 * February 7
 * February 8
 * February 9
 * February 10
 * February 11
 * February 12
 * February 13
 * February 14
 * February 15
 * February 16
 * February 17
 * February 18
 * February 19
 * February 20
 * February 21
 * February 22
 * February 23
 * February 24
 * February 25
 * February 26
 * February 27
 * February 28

title: User:WK E Gillon/Books/As of 2017


text:
User:Obaggott06/sandbox

Comparison of Handmaid's Tale and Fun Home articles
The Handmaid's Tale article has way more subsections and acts as more of a glossary, while the Fun Home article is more analytical and has sections less focused on vocab specific to the book and more on the book itself, public opinions of the book, review, critiques, controversies, etc.

Evaluation The Handmaid's Tale
The article has many subtitles and sections that could be condensed into fewer, more general sections or taken out all together. The entire article is a summary and glossary specific to the book. Majority is the more detailed explanation on characters, politics of Gilead,

Lead section
The article has a strong lead section that does a good job with providing a general summary of the book and hinting at what is to come in the rest of the article.

Background
The article doesn't give a lot of background about the book or about Atwood herself. The lead section mentions the year the book was published, and a later section entitled "Setting" provides where Atwood went to college, making a connection between the setting of the book and personal experiences of Atwood. There is mention of what genre Atwood thinks the book should fall into. She emphasized her book is speculative fiction rather than science fiction. She argues that science fiction focuses on things that don't exist and are not yet attainable while speculative fiction talks about things that are definitely plausible. In the "Historical Context" section, the article talks about an interview Atwood gave where she explained that she didn't incorporate anything into the book that the U.S. hasn't already done or is currently doing.

Summary
This article does not have a concise summary. The article is long and the majority of it is summary and definitions of topics related to the book-- very specific. The article did grab the information straight from the book, but it mentioned almost every possible thing you need to know about the book. The article is so specific you could have a detailed understanding of the plot, characters, and terms without actually opening the book.

Handmaid's Tale general observation -> concrete point
General observation: There are a lot of poorly labeled subsections

Concrete point: There is a section that talks about the book's legacy in other forms of media: film, radio, stage. television, and audio. This section talks about adaptations which would fit into an "Others" section, but it is poorly labeled and doesn't clearly convey what the purpose of the section is.

Feminism section (Changing "Feminist Reading" to "Feminist Reading and Analysis") (my additions are in bold)
Much of the discussion about The Handmaid's Tale has centered on its categorization as feminist literature. Atwood does not see the Republic of Gilead as a purely feminist dystopia, as not all men have greater rights than women. Instead, this society presents a typical dictatorship: "shaped like a pyramid, with the powerful of both sexes at the apex, the men generally outranking the women at the same level; then descending levels of power and status with men and women in each, all the way down to the bottom, where the unmarried men must serve in the ranks before being awarded an Econowife". '''Econowives are women married to men that don't belong to the elite and who are expected to carry out child-bearing, domestic duties, and traditional companionship. [this is where a quick decription of econowife will go instead of giving it its own section] When asked about where she believed the status of her novel was in feminist reading, Atwood explained that her book falls into the aisle of feminism that asserts what happens to the women in the book and the women themselves are important to the structure and theme of the book, which also, by default, makes a lot of books feminist. However, she was adamant in her stance that her book did not represent the aspect of feminism that victimizes or strips women of moral choice.' Additionally, Atwood has argued that while some of the observations that informed the content of The Handmaid's Tale may be feminist, her novel is not meant to say "one thing to one person" or serve as a political message—instead, The Handmaid's Tale'' is "a study of power, and how it operates and how it deforms or shapes the people who are living within that kind of regime".

Some scholars have offered such a feminist interpretation, however, connecting Atwood's use of religious fundamentalism in the pages of The Handmaid's Tale to a condemnation of their presence in current American society. [may or may not get rid of/re-word the previous sentence] Atwood goes on to describe her book as not a critique of religion, but a critique of the use of religion as a "front for tyranny." Yet others have argued that The Handmaid's Tale critiques typical notions of feminism, as Atwood's novel appears to subvert the traditional "women helping women" ideals of the movement and turn toward the possibility of "the matriarchal network ... and a new form of misogyny: women's hatred of women". '[incorporating somehow in this paragraph->>] Scholars have analyzed and made connections to patriarchal oppression in The Handmaid's Tale'' and oppression of women today. Aisha Matthews tackles the affects of institutional structures that oppress woman and womanhood and connects those to the themes present in The Handmaid's Tale. She first asserts that structures and social frameworks, such as the patriarchy and societal role of traditional Christian values, are inherently detrimental to the liberation of womanhood. She then makes the connection to the relationship between Offred, Serena Joy, and their Commander, explaining that through this "perversion of traditional marriage, the Biblical story of Rachel, Jacob, and Bilhah is taken too literally." Their relationship and other similar relationships in The Handmaid's Tale mirror the effects of patriarchal standards of womanliness.'''

Adjusting the Setting section
(my additions are in bold, sections that are unchanged but rearranged are underlines) (most of my edits are focused on the subsections that focus on women so a lot of the subsections, and there are A LOT, will be left pretty much unchanged)

Caste and class->>>>>> move this section under "Race" section ("Analysis" subsections: Race Analysis and Feminist Analysis)
''African Americans, the main non-white ethnic group in this society, are called the Children of Ham. A state TV broadcast mentions they have been relocated en masse to "National Homelands" in the Midwest, which are suggestive of the Apartheid-era homelands set up by South Africa. It is implied that Native Americans living in territories under the rule of Gilead are exterminated. Jews are given a choice between converting to the state religion or being “repatriated” to Israel. However, converts who were subsequently discovered with any symbolic representations or artifacts of Judaism were executed, and the repatriation scheme was privatized “with the result that more than one boatload of Jews was simply dumped into the Atlantic to maximize profits.” [delete that quote unless i can find a source to back it up]''

Sex and occupation->>>>>>>>>move under feminist analysis section
''The sexes are strictly divided. Gilead's society values reproduction by white women most highly. Women are categorised "hierarchically according to class status and reproductive capacity" as well as "metonymically colour-coded according to their function and their labour" (Kauffman 232). The Commander expresses his personal opinion that women are considered inferior to men, as the men are in a position where they have power to control society.''

''Women are segregated by clothing, as are men. With rare exception, men wear military or paramilitary uniforms. All classes of men and women are defined by the colours they wear, drawing on colour symbolism and psychology. All lower-status individuals are regulated by this dress code. All "non-persons" are banished to the "Colonies". Sterile, unmarried women are considered to be non-persons. Both men and women sent there wear grey dresses.''

''The women, particularly the handmaids, are stripped of their individual identities as they lack formal names, taking on their assigned commander's first name in most cases. This hierarchical society has forced women to come to terms with their inability to make decisions about their own bodies and lives.''

 * Unwomen->>>> move to feminist analysis
 * Sterile women, the unmarried, some widows, feminists, lesbians, nuns, and politically dissident women: all women who are incapable of social integration within the Republic's strict gender divisions. Gilead exiles Unwomen to "the Colonies", areas both of agricultural production and deadly pollution. Joining them are handmaids who fail to bear a child after three two-year assignments.
 * Jezebels->>> split up and move to feminist analysis and race (Jezebel is also a Black caricature that was used to justify the rape of Black women so I feel like that should be included in the Race section)
 * Women forced to become prostitutes and entertainers. They are available only to the Commanders and to their guests. Offred portrays Jezebels as attractive and educated; they may be unsuitable as handmaids due to temperament. They have been sterilized, a surgery that is forbidden to other women. They operate in unofficial but state-sanctioned brothels, unknown to most women. Jezebels, whose title also comes from the Bible (note Queen Jezebel in the Books of Kings), dress in the remnants of sexualized costumes from "the time before", such as cheerleaders' costumes, school uniforms, and Playboy Bunny costumes. Jezebels can wear make-up, drink alcohol and socialize with men, but are tightly controlled by the Aunts. When they pass their sexual prime and/or their looks fade, they are discarded without any precision as to whether they are killed or sent to the Colonies in the novel.

Feminism section (Changing "Feminist Reading" to "Feminist Reading and Analysis") (my additions are in bold)
Much of the discussion about The Handmaid's Tale has centered on its categorization as feminist literature. Atwood does not see the Republic of Gilead as a purely feminist dystopia, as not all men have greater rights than women. Instead, this society presents a typical dictatorship: "shaped like a pyramid, with the powerful of both sexes at the apex, the men generally outranking the women at the same level; then descending levels of power and status with men and women in each, all the way down to the bottom, where the unmarried men must serve in the ranks before being awarded an Econowife". '''Econowives are women married to men that don't belong to the elite and who are expected to carry out child-bearing, domestic duties, and traditional companionship. When asked about whether her book was feminist, Atwood stated that the presence of women and what happens to them are important to the structure and theme of the book. This aisle of feminism, by default, would make a lot of books feminist. However, she was adamant in her stance that her book did not represent the brand of feminism that victimizes or strips women of moral choice.'''

Additionally, Atwood has argued that while some of the observations that informed the content of The Handmaid's Tale may be feminist, her novel is not meant to say "one thing to one person" or serve as a political message—instead, The Handmaid's Tale is "a study of power, and how it operates and how it deforms or shapes the people who are living within that kind of regime".

Some scholars have offered such a feminist interpretation, however, connecting Atwood's use of religious fundamentalism in the pages of The Handmaid's Tale to a condemnation of their presence in current American society. [may or may not get rid of/re-word the previous sentence] Atwood goes on to describe her book as not a critique of religion, but a critique of the use of religion as a "front for tyranny." Yet others have argued that The Handmaid's Tale critiques typical notions of feminism, as Atwood's novel appears to subvert the traditional "women helping women" ideals of the movement and turn toward the possibility of "the matriarchal network ... and a new form of misogyny: women's hatred of women". '[incorporating somehow in this paragraph->>] Scholars have analyzed and made connections to patriarchal oppression in The Handmaid's Tale'' and oppression of women today. Aisha Matthews tackles the affects of institutional structures that oppress woman and womanhood and connects those to the themes present in The Handmaid's Tale. She first asserts that structures and social frameworks, such as the patriarchy and societal role of traditional Christian values, are inherently detrimental to the liberation of womanhood. She then makes the connection to the relationship between Offred, Serena Joy, and their Commander, explaining that through this "perversion of traditional marriage, the Biblical story of Rachel, Jacob, and Bilhah is taken too literally." Their relationship and other similar relationships in The Handmaid's Tale mirror the effects of patriarchal standards of womanliness.'''

title: User:Obaggott06/sandbox


text:
Template:DP-xlink/doc

This template exists to provide a simple way of providing a link from a Wikipedia article on a ship, ship class, or person to a strong article on the same fare on The Dreadnought Project, a history Wiki that specialises in naval history during the period 1880-1925.

Usage
CAUTION: do not have any whitespace in the single argument. I will try to make this more robust as I learn more.

Example
For John Jellicoe, 1st Earl Jellicoe:

 * becomes...
 * The Dreadnought Project: John Jellicoe, 1st Earl Jellicoe
 * The Dreadnought Project: John Jellicoe, 1st Earl Jellicoe

The PAGENAME of the Wikipedia article is always used, even if the Dreadnought Article being linked to differs. Its correct use requires an editor to make a good faith choice to link to articles with the same subject.

title: Template:DP-xlink/doc


text:
Flora Forster

Flora Macrae Forster (1896–1981) was a Welsh educator and writer.

Forster was born in St Thomas, Swansea in 1896, the daughter of Joseph and Alice Forster. Joseph Forster was a railway engineer, and was a descendant from Jonathan Forster from Wylam, one of the inventors of the early locomotive Puffing Billy. By 1911 the family were living in Swansea.

Education
Forster attended Dynevor School and was awarded the Mary Ewart Scholarship for English in 1915, enabling her to study at Somerville College, Oxford for three years. One of her contemporaries, and a friend for the rest of her life, was Margaret Kennedy, author of the 1924 novel The Constant Nymph, who died at Forster's house in Adderbury, Oxfordshire, in 1967. She also came across an older student from Rhydcymerau, Carmarthenshire, David John Williams and there was friendship and correspondence between the two until 1925. The correspondence is held in the DJ Williams Collection at the National Library of Wales. In her correspondence with DJ Williams they discuss the literature of the day and school syllabi. She declined offers from DJ Williams to marry her.

She donated a portrait of Henry Griswold Lewis by John Constable to Somerville College.

Career
After graduating in 1918 she got a job teaching English and Latin at Newport High School in Newport, Wales. In 1920 she was appointed lecturer at Barry College. She then went to a job at Homerton College, Cambridge in 1922 and the following year she was appointed another post at a college in Dudley. When in 1931 a new girls' secondary school was established in Malvern Hall, Solihull, she was appointed headmistress and held the position of Solihull High School for Girls until her retirement in 1961. She was highly regarded in the area and as of 2018 there is still a scholarship offered in her name for students in the Solihull district. Forster died in 1981.

title: Flora Forster


text:
law of Hobson-Jobson

Etymology

 * based on.

Noun

 * 1) The "rule" that words or phrases borrowed between languages will be modified in their pronunciation as necessary to conform to the set of sounds used by the borrowing language.
 * 2) * 1921,, s.v. "Tommy-axe", A Dictionary of Slang and Colloquial English Slang and Its Analogues, page 482
 * Tommy-axe. A corruption of tomahawk: an instance of the law of Hobson-Jobson (q.v.).
 * 1) * 1921,, s.v. "Tommy-axe", A Dictionary of Slang and Colloquial English Slang and Its Analogues, page 482
 * Tommy-axe. A corruption of tomahawk: an instance of the law of Hobson-Jobson (q.v.).
 * Tommy-axe. A corruption of tomahawk: an instance of the law of Hobson-Jobson (q.v.).

title: law of Hobson-Jobson


text:
User:Yiling35

Yiling Qiang
Hi, I'm Yiling. I come from China but study in Scotland now. My hometown is Yixing, Jiangsu. I'm a postgraduate student studying translation (Chinese-English).

About me
I have a BA in English and hopefully will have an MA in translation studies. I graduated from Jiangsu University and I'm studying in the University of Edinburgh.

My example list
I enjoy reading and watching Jojo's Bizarre Adventure

My interests

 * Sleeping
 * Reading
 * Watching Japanese anime
 * Science fiction
 * Fanfiction

My example link
I am a Jojo fan. My favourite authors are George Orwell, Liu Cixin, Xu Yuanchong, Zheng zhenduo, Lin Yutang

My example citation
I watched three seasons of Jojo anime and read the comics. I read Animal Farm and 1984. I was a news writer of Jiangsu University Student Journalist Association

title: User:Yiling35


text:
Novopovalikha

Novopovalikha (Новоповалиха) is a rural locality (a selo) in Pervomaysky Selsoviet, Pervomaysky District, Altai Krai, Russia. The population was 342 as of 2013. There are 6 streets.

Geography
Novopovalikha is located 49 km north of Novoaltaysk (the district's administrative centre) by road. Pervomayskoye is the nearest rural locality.

title: Novopovalikha


text:
Identical (musical)

Identical is a stage musical with music by George Stiles, lyrics by Anthony Drewe and a book by Stuart Paterson. It is based on Erich Kästner's 1949 children's novel The Parent Trap, which is also the basis for many adaptations including Disney's film franchise which began with a 1961 film.

Plot
As with the novel, the musical follows the story of identical twin girls who were separated at birth and reunite at a summer camp ten years later before swapping places to reunite with their parents and live each other's lives.

Production
The musical was due to have its world premiere at the Nottingham Playhouse before transferring to the Theatre Royal, Bath over the summer of 2020. However, due to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in the United Kingdom, the production was delayed until 2022, playing at the Nottingham Playhouse from 26 July until 14 August before transferring to The Lowry, Salford from 19 August until 3 September.

This production was directed by Sir Trevor Nunn and produced by Kenny Wax & Nottingham Playhouse.

title: Identical (musical)


text:
User:SweHomer/Sweden democrats Nordic Council story

Christiansborg Saturday 19 march

“Letter to the press”

Sweden’s government shall reply to questions of attacks against the Swedish Democrats

As a member of the Nordic Council requires Danish Peoples Parties spokesman in foreign matters (bad translation I know) Sören Espersen that the Swedish government reveals their stand regarding a list of attacks against members of the party Sweden Democrats. He transfers through the Nordic council three very concrete questions, and a list of the attacks of the alleged attacks is included below.

I hope the allegations about these attacks is shown to be inconclusive – otherwise Sweden as a nation have a democratic problem, that Denmark as neighbor country, member of the European Nation is forced to adjust itself to, says Sören Espersen and that informs that he got the troublesome list of the attacks of they years 2002-2004 send from the Swedish party.

I don’t know so much about the Swedish Democrats politics or party program, but i have understood that it's a fully legal party that acknowledges the democratic rules.

I understand further that the party during a longer time have been represented (elected) in many local areas (kommuner, small parts of Sweden) where they everywhere have acted according to the democratic principles. So much worse than it is that there apparently is (hets = people trying to create anger against something) against the party. During the summer – and into the next session for the Nordic council in October is Sören Espersen preparing another list of questions to Sweden’s government, that all are related to the to the shortcomings of democracy in Sweden.

So i am working in this time on a critic report about the election system of Sweden, that i fear is a danger against the individual voter on the election day. The three questions:

1.Will Sweden’s government confirm or deny the accuracy of each and every single point in the list of attacks on the Swedish Democrats in the list included. 2.Will Sweden’s government confirm, that the Swedish Democrats in the future is ensured their democratic rights and protection from attacks and foul play that have been a matter to the legal system. 3.Will Sweden’s government confirm, that a teacher in Blekinge, Rickard Jomshof, got expelled from hes work for the reason that he is a member of The Swedish Democrats. If this is confirmed, does the Swedish government accept this reason for fire him. The List:

(1):2002, 25 March. Kenneth Sandbergs house in Kävlinge is surrounded by autonomist (=anarchists?) and he receives threats.

(2):2002, 09 April. A meeting for the Swedish democrats in Trelleborg is interrupted by autonomist.

(3):2002, 09 July Hundreds of autonomist blocks a SD meeting in Medborgerhuset, Stockholm. Several mebers is attacked and beaten, among them the female member Gun Kullberg goes to the ground.

(4):2002, 08 Jun In Lund masked left extremists attacks a meeting by SD’s youths

(5):2002 13 Jun Kenneth Sandberg i Kävlinge get hes windows smashed by rocks and autonomist screams treats.

(6):2002, 22 July SD’s official in Jönköping, Janne Ljungberg gets by the phone treats to his life. “Die u damn racist”. This continues all night.

(7):2002, 24 July In Helsingborg on of SD members gets a stone thrown trough he’s window in hes home.

(8):2002, 25 July. On internet higher members of SD get their names and addresses listed with word to encourage people to attack them.

(9):2002, 17 August A meeting in Lund get attacked by masked persons.

(10):2002, 07 September A meeting in Malmö was stopped by leftwing extremists. The police was there and stopped the meeting, because they could not guarantee the safety if the precipitants

(11):2003 27 February 30 autonomist destroys a meeting in Medborgarhuset i Södermalm, Stockholm

(12):2003 19 April In Lidköping a group in the left, the syndikalitists tries to murder e Swedish Democrat delivering flyers. He was hit with a stone in he’s head so he went down and after that he was kicked in the head and also jumped on hes head. In the hospital the doctors stated that it was close that he got killed.

(13):2003, 09 July the president Mikael Jansson is attacked and beaten to the ground by four masked men a few hours after a meeting in Visby. Another member is attacked with a base boll bat. When he is at the ground kicking starts and the bat is again used. The police arrested the people doing this.

(14):2003 26 July In a meeting in Nyköping a group if left extremists attacks. Wallets phones get stolen, and members are spitted on.

(15):2003 28 july In Lidköping a car that belong to a prominent member get he’s car painted with a Nazi cross and the word SD.

(16):2003 10 October In the night to Friday arson was attempted against a SD member in Örebro. First a letter was thrown in with the words, “Hate SD” and a torch in fire was thrown in afterwards. Had he not been awake when this happened, he would have perished in the flames.

(17):2004, 29 July Sweden Democrats second highest Johan Rinderheim who lives in Nynäshamn get attacked by to young bandits with political motives. First calling him Nazi pig then beating him to the ground.


text:
Alchemy Records

Alchemy Records is the name of three different record labels:

 * Alchemy Records (U.S.), based in San Francisco
 * Alchemy Records (Japan), based in Osaka
 * Alchemy Records (UK), based in London

title: Alchemy Records


text:
Control systems/Closed loop systems

Close loop control systems use the open loop systems (as forward path) and feedback from the output to decide the input level to the open loop system. And because the input is decided based on how much away the output is from the desired level, the non idealities in forward path do not degrade the system performance. The accuracy of the output thus depends on the feedback path, which in general can be made very accurate.

For the open loop transfer function of $$G(s)$$, the closed loop transfer function is given by $$G(s)/(1+G(s)H(s))$$, where H(s) is the transfer function from output to input (with the loop broken).

title: Control systems/Closed loop systems


text:
James Buchanan Duke House

James Buchanan Duke House, also known as Lynnwood and White Oaks, is a historic home located in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. It was designed by architect Charles Christian Hook, with the original section built in 1914 and substantially enlarged in 1919. It is an H-shaped Colonial Revival style dwelling consisting of large $2 1/2$-story blocks connected by a hyphen of the same height. It features two-story tetrastyle porticos on both the south and north gable ends. It was the home of James Buchanan Duke (1856–1925) during the last five years of his life.

It was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1978.

title: James Buchanan Duke House


text:
List of The Fuccons episodes

The Fuccons is a Japanese sketch comedy series produced by Yoshimasa Ishibashi centered on the family of the same name, consisting of American expatriates James and Barbara Fuccon with their son, Mikey, who are played by mannequins. The series originated as a recurring segment in Ishibashi's sketch comedy show, Vermilion Pleasure Night, under the title The Fuccon Family, which aired on TV Tokyo. The segments were followed up with The Fuccon Family Part 2 and New Fuccon Family.

A film titled The Color of Life compiling skits from Vermilion Pleasure Night was released in 2001, which also contained alternate cuts and endings to The Fuccon Family. A DVD compiling The Fuccon Family was later released on January 24, 2004.

Beginning on January 6, 2002, the series received its own late night time slot and retitled ''Oh! Mikey''. It ran for a total of eight seasons until 2005. Afterwards, several sketches that never made it to television broadcast were released direct-to-DVD, beginning with ''Oh! Mikey Hard Core'' in 2005.

In 2004, the episodes "A Family Crisis", "The Lady Tutor", and "Mikey's Grandparents" were dubbed in English for the 54th Berlin International Film Festival, which were later released with the limited version of ''Oh! Mikey Hard Core''. In the same year, along with Vermilion Pleasure Night, ADV Films licensed the first four seasons for North American distribution with a new English dub produced, releasing the series under the title The Fuccons. The English dub was broadcast on Anime Network, as well as a recurring segment on G4's Late Night Peepshow on G4.

ADV Films released the first 8 episodes as The Fuccons Vol. 0: Meet the Fuccons on December 20, 2005. 17 episodes were later released as ''The Fuccons Vol. 1: OH! Mikey'' on February 28, 2006. 18 episodes were released as The Fuccons Vol. 2: It's a Fuccon World! on April 25, 2006. 17 episodes were released as ''The Fuccons Vol. 3: Fuccon! Fuccon! Fuccon!'' on July 11, 2006. A compilation of vols. 1-3 were released as The Fuccons: The Whole Fuccon Show! on December 9, 2008.

Vermilion Pleasure Night sketches
The Fuccon Family (フーコン・ファミリー) is a recurring segment in the 2000 sketch comedy show Vermilion Pleasure Night. After the first part ended, it was then followed up by The Fuccon Family Part 2 (フーコン・ファミリー　パート２) and New Fuccon Family (新フーコン・ファミリー). A DVD compiling The Fuccon Family was later released on January 24, 2004. In North America, the sketches were made available in English after ADV Films licensed Vermilion Pleasure Night, releasing the first volume in 2006.

Season 1 (2002)
The first season, titled ''Oh! Mikey 1st'' in Japan, was broadcast from January 6, 2002, to March 31, 2002, on TV Tokyo for 13 episodes. It was later released on DVD on December 11, 2002, by Avex Trax. In North America, a Region 1 DVD with seasons 1 and 2 was released on February 28, 2006, under the title ''The Fuccons Vol. 1: Oh! Mikey''.

Season 2 (2002)
The second season, titled ''Oh! Mikey 2nd'' in Japan, was broadcast from April 2, 2002, to June 25, 2002, on TV Tokyo for 13 episodes. In North America, a Region 1 DVD with seasons 1 and 2 was released on February 28, 2006, under the title ''The Fuccons Vol. 1: Oh! Mikey''.

Season 3 (2002)
The third season, titled ''Oh! Mikey 3rd'' in Japan, was broadcast from July 2, 2002, to September 24, 2002, on TV Tokyo for 13 episodes.

Season 4 (2002)
The fourth season, titled ''Oh! Mikey 4th'' in Japan, was broadcast from October 1, 2002, to December 24, 2002, on TV Tokyo for 13 episodes. It was later released on DVD on July 19, 2003.

Season 5 (2003)
The fifth season, titled ''Oh! Mikey 5th'' in Japan, was broadcast beginning July 5, 2003 to September 27, 2003, on TV Tokyo for 13 episodes. It was later released on DVD on July 7, 2004.

Season 6 (2004)
The sixth season, titled ''Oh! Mikey 6th'' in Japan, was broadcast beginning April 3, 2004 to June 26, 2004, on TV Tokyo, TV Setouchi, TV Aichi, TV Osaka, TV Hokkaido, and TVQ Kyushu for 13 episodes. A DVD compiling the episodes was released on December 3, 2004.

Season 7 (2005)
The seventh season, titled ''Oh! Mikey 7th'' in Japan, was broadcast from January 13, 2005, to April 6, 2005, on TV Tokyo for 13 episodes. It was later released on DVD on April 29, 2005.

Season 8 (2005)
The eighth season, titled ''Oh! Mikey 8th'' in Japan, was broadcast from April 11, 2005, to July 11, 2005, on TV Tokyo for 12 episodes. It was later released on DVD on December 3, 2005.

Hard Core (2005)
''Oh! Mikey Hard Core'' was released direct-to-DVD on August 26, 2005.

Extra (2006)
''Oh! Mikey Extra'' was released direct-to-DVD on August 25, 2006.

Fever (2007)
A film titled ''Oh! Mikey Fever'' premiered through a limited theater screening in Tokyo and Osaka on December 1, 2007. It was later released on DVD on February 22, 2008.

Romance (2010)
''Oh! Mikey Romance'' was released direct-to-DVD on December 3, 2010, to celebrate the series' 10th anniversary.

title: List of The Fuccons episodes


text:
Libanopsis

Libanopsis is a genus of extinct sphinid beetles described from fossils preserved in Lebanese amber. Libanopsis lived in Lebanon in the Early Cretaceous. The genus contains five species, all discovered in the same year: Libanopsis impexa, Libanopsis limosa, Libanopsis poinari, Libanopsis slipinskii, and Libanopsis straminea.

title: Libanopsis


text:
manucaptor

Etymology
From mainprise.

Noun

 * 1)  In English common law, a person empowered to take bail and capture a person who forfeits it.
 * 2) * a. 1279, J. R. Maddicott, Ferrers, Robert de, sixth earl of Derby (c. 1239–1279), in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004
 * Later in the same day, however, he was taken to the manor of Cippenham, Buckinghamshire, the property of Richard, earl of Cornwall, and there, under duress (as he later pleaded) and in the presence of John Chishall, the chancellor, he made over all his lands to eleven ‘manucaptors’, all notable royalists, as a security for the payment of his £50,000 debt.

title: manucaptor