From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Peer review of related article[edit]

A request has been made for peer review of List of ineffective cancer treatments which has some cross-over with the content here. All and any feedback most welcome. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Stephen Barrett promotional bulk[edit]

This statement just adds bulk to the article and is really not necessary to promote Stephen Barrett's qualifications here. Links to his namesake article as well as his enterprise company should be enough.

Stephen Barrett, who runs the alternative medicine watchdog website, Quackwatch, a consumer information organization with several websites dedicated to exposing quackery, defines the practice this way:

I have attempted to edit it into a reasonable statement, removing wording "alternative medicine" not found in the referenced website and further promotional phrases unrelated to this article. My attempts at guideline adherence have been reverted twice by other editors without satisfactory reason.

Stephen Barrett, who runs the health-related frauds website, Quackwatch, defines the practice this way

"health related" is wording copied from the actual website mission statement and removes WP:OR and some WP:Puffery.This would be similar to the credit given to Paul Offit in a similar cite in the article and with possibly more notability. (talk) 12:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

What we have seems like a fair summary of what's in our Quackwatch article. No need for a change here. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 12:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
We don't need a fair summary of what is in our Quackwatch article. It's off-topic here and wreaks of over-promotion. (talk) 13:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, actually we do. The editors over at Quackwatch have achieved a consensus on how it should be described in summary and put that in the opening sentences of the article there. We need to follow suit here, to avoid creating a mini content fork whereby QW is characterized differently in different places on Wikipedia. If you want to change the way QW is characterized, get consensus on the Quackwatch article - and then we can synchronize with the new text here. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 13:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
"Content fork"? Nonsense! Let's get a consensus on this article. It would seem we need to get 3O on this or more after that one. You are using arguments that are not WP guideline or policies. Each article needs to stand on it's own merit and this article is NOT about Quackwatch or Stephen Barrett. His statements are important not his history. WP articles are not suitable references and this article needs to use proper references. Nowhere in the mission statement of Quackwatch does it use the term "alternative medicine" and that term is just OR, and needs to match a reliable reference. The second issue is the unwanted puffery. Surely you don't think we should we add a paragraph of notability to all the other notable person's statements like Paul Offit to perpetuate this style? Why just the puffery on Stephen Barrett? (talk) 14:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I have no problem with shortening it to this:

How's that? -- Brangifer (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Fine - it's ... like ... hypertext :-) Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done -- Brangifer (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Well I thought a compact summary of notability origin ( would have been in order but it matches the other quotation style and the link is there for diggers. Thanks all. (talk) 17:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)