Talk:Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine

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, , 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)

Your opinion is appreciated. Quackwatch is controversial. The appropriate place for discussing that controversy is on the Quackwatch page. The appropriate Wikilink is provided. A unilateral disparagement of the site on this page is not appropriate and violates WP:NPOV. MastCell 03:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The references are not my opinion. The DYS reference shows the JOM editors' view & orientation of their work & publication, an allowed method. The Kauffman reference *is* the most relevant, referenced, academic, independent critique about this specific area of alternative medicine with relation to QW. Sorry that QW is so vulnerable in this area. The QW link is very general and self congratulatory (panhandling for contributions in the Intro????). I think the QW "classification" is appropriate for balance but that the QW link is insufficient to balance the QW assertions and references. You also are showing some defensive pov here. We're working on content here, let's let the reader sort the balance out, pls.--66.58.130.56 03:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)