User talk:209.242.37.98

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The removal of your links has nothing to do with censorship. It has to do with the fact that a reference is referred to in the body of the article. Citing a patent where clinical studies will do is also somewhat odd.

Feel free to contribute a modestly-sized paragraph on the pages in question with a reliable source (e.g. a clinical publication by the holy Rath and divine Pauling). JFW | T@lk 21:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that some of the references are not referred to; I will move these to the more suitable "external links" section.
With regards to using the Rath & Pauling reference, the article quite empathically states that vitamin C does not work. What you added was not a reference in any form; it was more the opposite. Again, a patent text is a secondary source; why not go straight for the peer-reviewed studies from these gentlemen?
You are free to write about orthomolecular medicine and atherosclerosis, preferrably in its own paragraph due to its poor acceptance amongst researchers. Rath has worked hard to get his views heard in various fora. I urge you, however, to keep your contributions neutral (e.g. citing major opponents to claims alongside), well referenced and not overly innovative in its interpretation. JFW | T@lk 22:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I was not suggesting that your addition was original research - I was simply encouraging you to contribute high-quality new content, which I reckon you are capable of doing.

I find a patent text unsuitable for the purposes mentioned. Please peruse WP:V, WP:RS. Please cite journal articles, reviews etc. It is a medical, not a legal article. JFW | T@lk 07:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)