Talk:Bruce Lipton/Archive 1

Archive 1

Article issues and edit warring

This articls has significant issues of tone, notability and referencing. Attempts by me and another editor have been repeatedly reverted by its creator. Samples:

• "Dr. Bruce Lipton is one of the most extraordinary academics of our time or era, as he bridged the gap that was formed some 150 - 200 years ago" - not exactly WP:NPOV
• "Never the less by adopting Darwin's theories as the truth, we apparently diminished the old knowledge about how things really work. In doing so we gave up our natural responsibility, or for that matter, the knowledge of what we are, or think we are (our thoughts), actually responsible for. This led to the spiritual disconnection from nature. As we now for instance see, that this caused a distinctive split in the way our medical practitioners think they can cure other people, as one part feels the need to physically cut-out cells that seem to be- or cause a problem, as the other part would either like to heal, repair or replace the cells by natural growth"" - unreferenced opinion

Attempts at cleanup by User:Stone and me have been repeatedly reverted here by the article's creator[1], [2], [3], [4].

I haven't undone the last reversion: please note that the article's creator is new to Wikipedia, and should be supported and encouraged in developing this, their first article. The subject appears to be notable[5], though not necessarily in the sense given in the article in its present state. Comments are welcome. MuffledThud (talk) 11:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: WP:NPOV - suggested deletion and new write-up

I am also new in my role as contributor/commentator to wikipedia and have skimmed through some of the guidelines in order to avoid tripping right away. So please bear with me in advance and let me express my sincere intention to continue to familiarize myself with and respect existing guidelines.

In accord with User:Stone and User:MuffleThud I think the article will benefit from updating or a complete rewrite. I suggest writing it from scratch by focussing on the cornerstone findings Dr. Lipton presents in his presentations as seen on Youtube[6] and related videos. For starters I'd like to suggest summing up those 17 clips and highlighting the cornerstone findings he presents along with previously ruling scientific findings and assumptions he (Dr. Lipton) identifies as false. In doing so, I think it beneficial to take a critical and balanced view of Dr. Lipton's presentation, as I seem to have found some contradicting statements, e.g. segment 17 where he flat out postulates an immortal spiritual self, which keeps 'broadcasting' their self through self-receptor 'antennas' placed on the cell's membrane. This - to me - stands in direct contradiction to a previous statement, where Dr. Lipton makes a strong point in demonstrating how preprogrammed patterns of thinking 'auto-pilot' our behaviour. My point being: If 'automated' behaviour through previous 'conditioning' and learnt patterns is assumed as being in charge prior to gaining awareness and hence control of behaviour - if that is so, then vice versa the absence of awareness means that preprogrammed patterns take over again. This lends itsself to a finding that the absent awareness of an organ donor (for he is deceased) opens room for the possibility of preprogrammed patterns taking over in the cells of the donated organs again, thus ruling that there need not be a 'self broadcast' from an immaterial/immortal entity. I find it important from a point of view of WP:NPOV to mention such things under a section 'criticsm'. Strictly speaking, my latter suggestion conflicts with principles of original research as I am presenting my own finding by following Dr. Lipton's line of thought. Whether or not this is acceptable, I leave to the community to decide upon.

The existing version of the article presents itsself rather focussing on Dr. Lipton's role in the academic community as breaking new grounds of thinking instead of concentrating on the essence of his body of work (I have not read his books, but I have astutely watched and followed those 17 segments and read into his website along with some articles on him elsewhere and not cited in this talk page). From that point of view, I suggest deletion and rewriting of the existing article. --Renovatio06 (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

2/8/2010 Rewrite and Unavailability of References

I've rewritten the article. I've added a few references, but the substance of the article comes almost entirely from his CV. In my search for information, I've found no credible sources on his pseudoscience and thus I worry that the lack of references will lead to an article that will mislead readers into believing that his bull is actual science. Perhaps this article is better off being nonexistent(deleted)? Talono (talk) 05:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I share your concern. I have looked for references related to this person and have not found many. I do not think it is appropriate to have the vast majority of the article supported by the subject's own website, with no verification. WP:BLPSELFPUB suggests that this is only acceptable if the material is not unduly self serving, there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity, and the article is not based primarily on such sources. I think this article violates all three of those, but especially the last. I will try adding some information, and searching for more. We can then decide if the article should remain, or be reverted to a stub, with only the basic biographical data.Michaplot (talk) 02:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

2010-06-03 protokol from link

LINK, "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLZ7GqWpEqM" TITLE, "Bruce Lipton - Biology of Perception 1 of 7"

min 2:38 "genetic determinism" min 2:40 "what i really wonna show you is... min 2:46 "if your are not controlled by genes... your are actually controlled by the perceptions of the environment... min 3:02 "let me give you an important fact... min 3:04 "indeed there are [ such ] things called genetic defects and they affect about 5% of the population" --- sorry, i go to sleep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Choklo (talk • contribs) 22:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Avoid emotional language not backed by facts

Hi, the text in the section of this article called "Reception" is not very informative by being overly emotional by referring to crank and woo-sphere. Especially in health-related subjects, such language is a serious sign of caution, for reasons explained at the end of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bYAQ-ZZtEU - Now, I consulted the referred article by David Gorski and I also read the Biology of Belief by Bruce Lipton. First off, neither of the two are scientific works in the strict sense, but still, there is beneficial information. The good part of the article by David Gorski is, that he cautions of too high expectations in epigenetics, for instance that a seriously ill cancer patient can change his perception and such get immediately healed, an image which is drawn by Bruce Liption in his book. On the other hand, David Gorski is really going too far: "Particularly amusing is how Lipton tries to argue that the central dogma of biology was never scientifically proven, which is utter nonsense." No, in fact, all natural science is based on fundamental axioms that are taken as granted (https://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Philosophy/axioms/axioms/node44.html), hence, natural science never provides an ultimate proof of the truth of the universe, but it shows many useful relations that are now employed in technology and engineering. The good side of Bruce Lipton is, that he is often referring to the obvious fact that if confronted with a sickness, we should not immediately get all kinds of drugs as the pharmaceutical industry intends, but first change our lifestyle. There is a serious conflict of interest between financial interest of the pharmaceutical industry and Bruce Lipton, and this is the reason why he is depicted more negatively as he should.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.166.127.253 (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bruce Lipton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140415001901/http://www.goipeace.or.jp/English/activities/award/award2009.html to http://www.goipeace.or.jp/English/activities/award/award2009.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090613015618/http://ionsconference.org/2009/BruceLipton to http://www.ionsconference.org/2009/BruceLipton
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726172505/http://iiihs.org/confarchives/conf06/confsched2006.htm to http://iiihs.org/confarchives/conf06/confsched2006.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100419070728/http://www.waldzell.org/speakers/lipton.html to http://www.waldzell.org/speakers/lipton.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

No critique?

Critique consists of one slim sentence: "A 2010 publication asserted that Lipton remains on the sidelines of conventional discussions of epigenetics, basically ignored by mainstream science." The article fails to note that half of that sentence is a quote by Lipton himself. Here is the true link to that one-page article: https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1890/1540-9295-8.2.112

With such fantastical writings and no empirical evidence to back it up, why isn't there a better section here about disputing Lipton's beliefs?

• "Beware the pseudo gene genies" - https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jul/19/epigenetics-dna--darwin-adam-rutherford
• "Epigenetics: It doesn’t mean what quacks think it means" - https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/epigenetics-it-doesnt-mean-what-quacks-think-it-means/
• [Discussion board, for background] "Debunked: Bruce Lipton and The Biology of Belief" - https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-bruce-lipton-and-the-biology-of-belief.t1003/
• [Blog, for backgraound] "Encyclopedia of American Loons: #1899: Bruce Lipton" - https://americanloons.blogspot.com/2017/09/1899-bruce-lipton.html

There are so many articles and podcasts both by Lipton himself and about Lipton by new-agers, that critique is drowned out. Epigenetics is a real branch of study to which Lipton seems to have injected his new-agey twist regarding cellular changes brought on by thoughts and "faith". There are a number of articles about epigenetics on PubMed, but nothing that I could find about controlling one's own genes "by faith", or by the mind, or anything similar.

Thank you for your attention, Wordreader (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Ellison source

@User:Revirvlkodlaku, explain why you want the article to say something the Ellison source does not say, but still source it to Ellison. Also, explain why you are edit-warring and ignoring WP:BRD. You have been on Wikipedia for 13 years, so you should know how this works. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@User:Hob Gadling, no need to get confrontational. I made a mistake. I misread the edit that the other editor was making, put it together with the abusive language they were using, so I reverted it and called them out on it. I wasn't edit-warring, by the way, I thought I was reverting quasi-vandalism. No need to get all accusatory, you could just ask me what's going on. Even experienced editors make mistakes, I'm sure you've made your fair share. werewolf (talk) 00:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Reverting a revert is edit-warring, but OK. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)