Talk:Quackery

Globalise template

I've put on a {{globalise}} template - I think it's probably obvious why, given that thi s article only has a "History in the United states" section. Because, you know, Quackery only started in 1776, and nothing that happened elsewhere was notable... Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That section contains information about Britain, the British colonies, a German doctor, and English doctor, and laws passed in several European countries. I've consequently re-titled the section and removed the globalization tag as it is not supported by your justification. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Category needed

I think we need a category for this, and we need to mark any articles that fit the category. I created the category but someone immediately removed it. This article is a good lead article to the category. Mike0001 (talk) 11:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

cool template

I will add a cool template to the bottom of this article. If there is a better article for it we can try another article too. QuackGuru (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Please follow WP:NAV and create a real template rather than a pseudo one. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:NAV: This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it. QuackGuru (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The advantages of having a real template are so great. Consider pasting yours into Template:Skepticism. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

In case anyone doesn't know the history here, see the discussions of this pseudotemplate at Talk:Quackwatch. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Me thinks a special template for this page is informative for the reader. QuackGuru 06:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This is ancient history. It's been rejected and it's inappropriate here. Please don't repeat. -- Fyslee / talk 06:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Reference for the history of Quackery

This article is avaliable in fulltext at PubMed from a respectable peer reviewed journal: "Health for sale: quackery in England, 1660–1850" Matthew Ramsey Medical History 1992 January; 36(1): 91–96. PMCID: PMC1036526 MaxPont (talk) 07:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT#HOWTO

"The FDA also provides tips on how to recognize quackery.[12]" is not an encyclopedic statement. This should either be deleted again, or moved to the external links section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how that guideline applies here. WE are not making an instruction book but are just linking to a RS as part of the information in the article. Maybe it could be worded better? -- Fyslee / talk 00:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I found a better spot for it where it could be merged in an encyclopedic manner. -- Fyslee / talk 00:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That's better, although I think it would be more appropriate to put it in the ==External Links== section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- Fyslee / talk 05:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Notable historical persons accused of quackery

What about current cases - thinking here of Jayant Patel, currently charged with three charges of manslaughter, five charges of causing grievous bodily harm, four of negligent acts causing harm and eight charges of fraud. A quack? SmithBlue (talk) 13:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand the situation. One reason we have stayed away from listing living persons is because of WP:BLP concerns. Another is that the judgment of history is more stable and is recorded in V & RS, whereas current situations are too volatile and changing, often without a means of judging their overall "contributions" to quackery. If we started listing every practitioner who engages in quackery, we'd have to list hundreds of thousands of practitioners who are engaging in such practices everyday, AND where we can find documentation for such events in V & RS, which is an easy task, but very controversial. It isn't worth the effort and would be of dubious value for the encyclopedia. We aren't a tabloid newspaper. Such matters can indeed be included in the articles for such individuals, IOW they must be notable enough for inclusion here. In that case, they are fair game. -- Fyslee / talk 15:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

"We aren't a tabloid newspaper" - I'll try to remember this. Thanks. (Seriously not sarcastic).

This case may be very notable at some stage - some office holders in the Australian medical community and government are linking changes in medical culture and legislation to this case. But slow is best. SmithBlue (talk) 09:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC) SmithBlue (talk) 09:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Whether Patel is a quack or not, the case is apparently notable enough to make an article about Jayant Patel. Keep in mind that crimes and medical malpractice aren't necessarily quackery, although they often go hand in hand. Quackery is often practiced by sincere and well-meaning people who don't play by the rules society has layed down, and by the rules of scientific and medical ethics. They are a law unto themselves, feeling that the ends justify the means. -- Fyslee / talk 07:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Cancer-related quackery and fraud

For those interested in a source that can be used where relevant:

• FTC Sweep Stops Peddlers of Bogus Cancer Cures: Public Education Campaign Counsels Consumers, “Talk to Your Doctor

-- Fyslee (talk) 03:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

One mention of homeopathy

unbelievable that an article on quackery has only one mention of the most quackorific of them all i.e. homeopathy. Is that really what consensus means? 86.163.254.9 (talk) 07:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

References for this page

Please keep this heading and code at the bottom and don't archive it.