Talk:Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine: Difference between revisions
Quackwatch |
→Quackwatch: well... |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
I've removed the disparaging remark about Quackwatch. Obviously the site has its proponents and detractors. Solely quoting the SSE disparagement of Quackwatch and calling it "academic" gives the misleading impression that a) Quackwatch has no serious support and b) SSE is a [[Wikipedia:Reliable Source|reliable source]], rather than an organization whose primary ideological goal is to oppose sites like Quackwatch. I do agree with linking to the [[Quackwatch]] page, which is the appropriate venue for discussing praise/criticism of Quackwatch; note that Quackwatch has been praised by [[JAMA]], [[U.S. News and World Report]], and [[Forbes]]... all of which are more "academic" and/or [[WP:RS|reliable by Wikipedia standards]] than the SSE. [[User:MastCell|MastCell]] 16:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC) |
I've removed the disparaging remark about Quackwatch. Obviously the site has its proponents and detractors. Solely quoting the SSE disparagement of Quackwatch and calling it "academic" gives the misleading impression that a) Quackwatch has no serious support and b) SSE is a [[Wikipedia:Reliable Source|reliable source]], rather than an organization whose primary ideological goal is to oppose sites like Quackwatch. I do agree with linking to the [[Quackwatch]] page, which is the appropriate venue for discussing praise/criticism of Quackwatch; note that Quackwatch has been praised by [[JAMA]], [[U.S. News and World Report]], and [[Forbes]]... all of which are more "academic" and/or [[WP:RS|reliable by Wikipedia standards]] than the SSE. [[User:MastCell|MastCell]] 16:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC) |
||
:Arguable. JSE (with a board possessng impressive academic credentials) actually seems to take itself seriously about the academic question how do you address the unmentionable, and then gets stigmatized (play with fire...). The JSE "reliablity" issue gets even more interesting by scientific standards (JAMA, Forbes, USNWR have numerous critics about opinion and pov). '''QW's fundamental problem with the Kauffmann paper''', <ref>Kauffmann JM (2002). [http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/bookreviews/v16n2.php | Watching the watchdogs at Quackwatch]</ref>, is that it is a classic example of the '''[[Emperor's New Clothes | "Emperor has no clothes"]]'''. QW would probably do best for its longterm credibility by responding to the paper's merits, and correcting/reforming itself in some areas. But I'm not holding my breath.--[[User:66.58.130.56|66.58.130.56]] 00:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 00:35, 25 September 2006
This article suggests bias by the APA. However, needed verification is not provided. {{verify}} tag added. —ERcheck @ 03:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Quackwatch
I've removed the disparaging remark about Quackwatch. Obviously the site has its proponents and detractors. Solely quoting the SSE disparagement of Quackwatch and calling it "academic" gives the misleading impression that a) Quackwatch has no serious support and b) SSE is a reliable source, rather than an organization whose primary ideological goal is to oppose sites like Quackwatch. I do agree with linking to the Quackwatch page, which is the appropriate venue for discussing praise/criticism of Quackwatch; note that Quackwatch has been praised by JAMA, U.S. News and World Report, and Forbes... all of which are more "academic" and/or reliable by Wikipedia standards than the SSE. MastCell 16:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- Arguable. JSE (with a board possessng impressive academic credentials) actually seems to take itself seriously about the academic question how do you address the unmentionable, and then gets stigmatized (play with fire...). The JSE "reliablity" issue gets even more interesting by scientific standards (JAMA, Forbes, USNWR have numerous critics about opinion and pov). QW's fundamental problem with the Kauffmann paper, [1], is that it is a classic example of the "Emperor has no clothes". QW would probably do best for its longterm credibility by responding to the paper's merits, and correcting/reforming itself in some areas. But I'm not holding my breath.--66.58.130.56 00:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- ^ Kauffmann JM (2002). | Watching the watchdogs at Quackwatch