Talk:Quackwatch/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Pseudoskepticism (Part 2)

I personally can see a need for pseudoscience and quakery as "See Also" links, but I must admit, I cannot see the reason for pseudoskepticism. After all, QW the organisation doesn't really use the word regularly (as opposed to the other terms), and it only really appears to be applied by others onto QW as a criticism (at least, it appears to be, I personally cannot find links saying "QW is pseudoskeptical/behaves in pseudoskeptism etc."). I cannot remember what the policy is for "See Also", does anybody know? Nevertheless, I think comments are warranted. Shot info 11:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticism, OR, SYN, POINT. We've been here before. All the discussions to date make for pretty good evidence that it's just another case of finding another way to attack Barrett and Quackwatch rather than writing an encyclopedia article. --Ronz 16:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd favor it if it was not OR. Article seems to correspond well to some of the criticismd against quackwatch, but wikipedia is not a forum for original synthesis. Cool Hand Luke 16:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not OR, SYN, POINT or, often, even criticism. It is a natural and relevant subject for any skeptical site or exercise. The WP article can be a splendid aid to sharper assessment of controversial material, especially where the controversial material *is already known* to contain some cases of poorly founded material that has been previously detected, analyzed, increasingly well documented for decades, and yet persistently remains for years.

Pseudoskepticism is a relatively new term, initially popularized in skeptic cricles. The term encompasses and fairly summarizes many of the external views on some subjects covered in Quackwatch.

Question: For a "see also" link, is there a necessity to find an inarguable WP:RS source (e.g. a pharma sponsored journal) with a direct quote using the word? I am not aware that "see also" requires it.

It is reasonably easy to show that Quackwatch is associated with pseudoskepticism as used in well educated, analytical discussion on the internet, even where the author's conflict of interest goes the *other* way, e.g. [1]. It would not be not too difficult to provide WP:RS for broad coverage of some other QW-author associated sites (e.g. SB's CSICOP where "pseudoskepticism" is WP:RS, initiated by CSI cofounder Truzzi, who broke away after a only year and developed the term). Linus Pauling, who knew something about science and skepticism, took to pains to clearly describe it in some of the actions of Quackwatch author Victor Herbert over a period of 25 years.

Wikipedia happens to already have an excellent article on pseudoskepticism, it is a fine aid to clear skeptical thinking to help avoid some common pitfalls. This is probably something all serious skeptics should do automatically, but is perhaps too foreign, too blinded off, or too painful for many claimants. Its use would be similar to some self-checking drills that good scientists use to try to reduce bias in their work with varying degrees of success (bias perhaps sometimes less successfully avoided than apparent to outsiders).--I'clast 11:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Soooo, what is it's relevance to QW the organisation as discussed in the article? The above is all fine for an essay, but for the article in question? I think the last paragraph though really is OR to apply as a reason to say "yes include". And the third paragraph is a bit odd, given that it can be argued that Truzzi dropped out of CSICOP (for whatever reason) then developed the team "pseudoskeptic" to apply to people he didn't like. Then SB was a member. So did Truzzi call SB a pseudoskeptic? Did he call QW pseudoskeptic? Is there a RS that supports it? I asked my question to explore this as I don't mind "See Also" links, but I think the reasoning of yours (ie/ invoking Truzzi) is not applicable to QW. CSICOP yes, SB perhaps, but QW????? I would suggest, in the context of WP:V (and Wikipedia in general), no. Shot info 11:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The link is pseudoskeptic'''ism''' not pseudoskeptic. Sort like recognizing the difference between a cold or flu and something permanent, congenital and/or usually terminal. The last paragraph is just general discussion pointing out parallels and benefits, WP article content policies not relevant to Talk. QW's characteristics juxtaposed alongside the PS article, form a qualitative evaluation metric about applied skepticism and common pitfalls, useful to both WP readers and editors. Truzzi wrote that CSI had demonstrable cases of PS and spent a lot of effort to document his concerns and develop more formal and better thought out methods . That there may be disagreement about who has exhibited pseudoskepticism, or what is pseudoskepticism, is beside the immediate point, the reader can link all articles, and decide for themselves - i.e. Balance and NPOV.--I'clast 11:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Umm, what happened to my original questions/comments? BTW, the article pseudoskepticism doesn't make the distinction between the -ism and -ic especially using Truzzi's quote (-ic). So I don't see how your argument works other than in a OR sense? Shot info 12:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Definitely criticism, OR, SYN, and POINT per I'clast's essay above. --Ronz 15:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The discussions here in Talk and the "see also" don't contravene WP:OR, WP:SYN, WP:POINT.--I'clast 20:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Correct. They just demonstrate that what you're trying to do is WP:OR, WP:SYN, and WP:POINT. --Ronz 20:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

For the focus on see also pseudoskepticism, as long as I follow WP policy and show reasonable context and good faith, such discussion is without merit and seems to be just "I don't like it". The "see also" subjects like "skepticism", "scientific skepticism" and "pseudoscience" beg for balance and comparison in extraordinarily controversial subjects like this. It is time for some of the QW activist/"skeptic"/flattery POV here to yield gracefully to some form of collaboration. The basic threads concerning the elements of pseudoskepticism form long running discussions and public exchanges between QW and its quarry & adversaries for 30+ years, hence a reasonable, useful link here.--I'clast 10:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

So far the only clear motivation for adding the link (as evidenced by their clear statements here) is that I'clast and allies believe that Quackwatch and Barrett are pseudoskeptics and therefore they wish to push their POV on readers by including a POV link in the See also section. Quite unwikipedian and against rules here. -- Fyslee/talk 16:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Elementally, a significant part of the public exchanges for 30+ years. Quite topical about a significant part of the nature of the controversies. I might suggest that *all three*, skepticism, scientific skepticism and pseudoscience are something of a POV push but I am flexible.--I'clast 10:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't understand still what pseudoskeptism is, would someone explain in clear English for me? --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Very understandable, since it's been spelled wrong and is now corrected. Just read the article. It's a term used by skeptics and invented by them, but when used by quacks and believers in various pseudosciences in their attacks on skeptics and scientists it is a pejorative. It is a very human failing and skeptics can certainly fall into it, but when done only occasionally it's no problem. When skeptics engage in informal rants and jokes at the expense of pseudoscientists, they are engaging in a form of pseudoskeptical behavior, but that isn't their serious mode of dealing with things and to then accuse them of being pseudoskeptics is improper, since they don't normally deal with things in that manner. OTOH, if that is the way they normally and exclusively deal with pseudoscience when serious, then they have a problem and are guilty as charged.

Skeptic humor is often funny precisely because it employs the logical fallacies commonly used as the normal mode of thinking among believers in pseudoscience. People like Penn & Teller often use pseudoskeptical humor in their entertainment shows, but when they are serious they are not only very intelligent, but serious skeptics who then avoid using logical fallacies. (Unfortunately their victims aren't readers of their more serious writings and utterances.) Their type of humor is easily understood by most (but not all) who are highly educated, but goes right over the heads of true believers, who consider it simply insulting (which it is!) and then only focus on the logical fallacies (and scream "pseudoskepticism"!) and totally miss the whole point, being the butts of the joke that they are. It's just too complicated for their brains to handle.

The term is also used as a pejorative by scientists when describing those who claim to be skeptics, but whose actions and beliefs show they are only skeptical of the topics that scientific skeptics accept as fact (for example, that the earth isn't flat and that homeopathy is nonsense) and are believers in the subjects laughed at by scientific skeptics (most types of alternative medicine). Such persons would have a hard time if they actually joined groups like the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, The Skeptics Society, the Healthfraud Discussion List, or wrote articles for them. They would be laughed right out of the room, and rightly so. We even have editors right here who have attempted to infiltrate Wikipedia:WikiProject Rational Skepticism by joining, but their actions and editing show they are either sneaky or self-deceived. You'll recognize their user names. -- Fyslee/talk 06:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

"Skeptic" humor must be especially funny when the big cheeses can join the laughter at themselves after blowing their legs off in terms of fundamental scientific (il)literacy and (anti-)scientific positions (e.g. greatly misstated results from multiple, *badly* rigged tests, enduring citations and complaints decades long, mangling even the basic notion of hypothesis testing). I have to say the black knight gag was a scream. Oh, Fyslee, incidentally, I noticed your name first on the aforementioned list.--I'clast 20:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This is unreferenced and therefore POV and original research.  Mr.Guru  talk  21:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT

WP:WEIGHT is a part of WP:NPOV. I see on this discussion page what I can only discribe as editors repeatedly, deliberately ignoring it to promote their own viewpoints. Some of those editors have even gone so far as to admit this. The only solution to this, short of AN/I and RFC/U, is to ignore these editors. --Ronz 18:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, some editors throw their weight around spewing policy acronyms in inappropriate ways. Also there are a lot of undiscussed connections to internet activism that are coming home to roost here, that make editing the article extremely difficult and time consuming.--I'clast 20:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• creak, creak, creak*. Hey, what's that sound...surely it isn't yet another COI allegation being brought out of the closet???? Shot info 22:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Quote formats

I have thought about this for some time and here are my thoughts with examples:

Formats we normally shouldn't use for quotes, at least not on controversial subjects:

In extracting the pure principles which he taught, we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms, as instruments of riches and power to themselves. I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill.

[2]

In extracting the pure principles which he taught, we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms, as instruments of riches and power to themselves. I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill.

[3]

We should just stick to using the simple indent, with or without italics:

In extracting the pure principles which he taught, we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms, as instruments of riches and power to themselves. I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill.

Why? Because the first two risk being misused to include POV emphasizing of some quotes. Either all quotes should be done that way, or none of them.

This cuts both ways (POV-wise) and to avoid any risk of accusations of using quote formats to subtly sneak in a POV emphasis, I think it best to use simple indents. On non-controversial subjects it's a matter of taste. -- Fyslee/talk 18:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I have now followed through with my proposed solution. Now all quotes, regardless of POV, are treated equal. -- Fyslee/talk 23:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

While I have no opinion or preference on inclusion/exclusion of the Ramsey text, I will say that if I see this article vacilating between versions much more I will likely protect it in whichever wrong version I happen to come across. If you all can't come to some sort of consensus amongst yourselves then it is time for some form of dispute resolution.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm for article protection. --Ronz 17:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: Just so we are square here, Pseudoskepticism's preemptory removal[4] a few weeks ago by an editor new to the QW article, first edit, was done without consensus, edit summary, or even any real discussion since then by him. Some of my effort to even communicate on other edits have been pretty summarily rebuffed, e.g. plain query, editor's bold edit summary & disposition. Pseudoskepticism, a stable see also link since December last year, was also a part of a major, stable consensus in the spring[5] where some of us allowed, perhaps against our better judgement, a shorter article to remove major chunks of criticism which Fyslee and several others then thought was very favorable. The article has "mysteriously evolved" back toward the "QW ad". Pseudoskepticism *is* in the consensus version, and its continued removal is an edit war item against an established consensus.--I'clast 19:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ronz and Isotope23, the article needs protection with all the edit warring going on about Ramsey. Though, I think a consensus could be usable about this. From the talk page there seems to be more who believe the footnote should not be in the article. --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected the article from further editing given the back and forth version flipping that I've observed here. I don't see any justification for the recent removal of the Pseudoskepticism link, so I added that back in, but I notice the last edit went to the "no Ramsey mention" version. I have no opinion on whether or not the link or the Ramsey text should be here, but I'm going to request that you either come to some sort of workable consensus here or pursue dispute resolution.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Over the past two days, Stephen Barrett‎ has been edited even more briskly. Same parties as here, including several who apparently interpret the 3RR to mean that editors should revert on each issue twice daily. Might be worth managing both of these cases together. Cool Hand Luke 21:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Matthew Ramsey quote

I realize there is a whole thread about this above, but I wanted to start a fresh conversation. I'm not steeped in the history of this dispute, but it appears that that there is at least some level of support for the addition Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs) made as well as some opposition to it on the grounds that even in a new area it is still undue weight. Is this correct?--Isotope23 ^talk 20:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been waiting for the main proponents of the Ramsey material to make a discussion concerning WEIGHT. Alas, I guess it's not coming. (I don't count harassment, reversal of responsibility, disruptions, etc). I guess the rest of us will have to figure this out. I'll read it over again and comment further shortly. --Ronz 22:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The full footnote, and only mention of Quackwatch that I could find:

133 A well-funded voluntary organization known as the National Council Against Health Fraud, which describes itself as a consumer advocacy group, has been active since 1984. The very militant Quackwatch, Inc., assumed its present name in 1997 but has been in operation since the 1970s; it has a French-language Web site based in Canada, http://www.allerg.qc.ca/quackwf.html. The US is also the home base of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal and its journal, the Skeptical Inquirer, which for two decades have maintained a steady campaign against "antiscientific" claims, many of them related to health and medicine; an affiliated journal, The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine, was launched in October 1997.

To put the footnote in context, here is the sentence that refers to it:

As this essay has tried to suggest, a dialectical relationship exists between the public claims of official and alternative medicine. One effect of the efflorescence of counterhegemonic medicines, particularly those related to New Age movements, has been a renewal of the old Enlightenment discourse on popular errors and superstitions, though not on the same scale as in the US, where a vigorous anti-alternative medicine movement has developed pari passu with the alternative medicine renaissance.

The article contains three other uses of the word "militant" used in the same way. He's using it to mean "active and aggressive", something that may be hard for us to convey properly.

Given the call to include this information, shouldn't we also include the link http://www.allerg.qc.ca/quackwf.html, which is weighted just as stongly? --Ronz 23:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

That link doesn't seem to work. ornis (t) 23:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I can see how you might find that a desirable, weighty link for our better QW references Ronz: Not Found The requested URL /quackwf.html was not found on this server. Seriously, what I found interesting (I traced it earlier to 1998, Archive is still down) was that Ramsey picked up the foreign QW link up so soon since it seems to have occurred only shortly before his paper, I wasn't familiar with it and it looks like I wasn't the only less informed editor here. Maybe MR has more breadth or depth to his QW notes than we collectively have given him credit for?--I'clast 02:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Please save your harassment for elsewhere. Thanks! --Ronz 04:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I would have called that a tantrum, but YMMV. ornis (t) 05:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Pls lighten up and try to collaborate. We've discussed the nature of the weight for a brief, pretty obvious (to the long time QW readers) statement that reflects a notable aspect of QW for unfamiliar future readers. Militant? QW (or it principals) seeks support, is aggressive, recruits, has indoctrinating literature, presents action plans, and leads or participates in attacks, (discussed above) noted by friend, foe, principals & materials, alike, almost signature characteristics in this area. To me, it would take an extreme dose of deletionist POV to not "get" (or allow) MRamsey & "militant" if someone can't come up with a *better* word, source &/or quote. If we start hiding or holding back this kind of detail, we are not benefiting readers.--I'clast 06:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the link doesn't work. Of course, it takes some work to figure that out, doesnt it? My point here is that it's going to take some work to decide whether we mention anything from this footnote at all, and if so we still have to determine an appropriate presentation that doesn't misrepresent what (little) is actually there. --Ronz 04:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, a good justification for including what amounts to no more than a passing mention, is yet to materialise. ornis (t) 05:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

So long as it is described as coming from a footnote, I don't see any good reason not to include this quote. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, the fact that it is just a footnote, is excellent reason to exclude it. ornis (t) 06:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Footnote texts provide higher levels of detail than are typically desired by readers and distract from the view of the article's points & their flow. Footnotes are still subject to review processes. Do you think you have some clear WP policy otherwise?--I'clast 06:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

"Militant" is accurate here. I don't think we should go off on OR fishing expeditions with long papers on whether the author has SAT-V 800 on "militant" & that we agree with his research on other things, where he is likely to be more researched or expert than us. Arthur made a good edit, if it can be further improved, then let's let someone do that, too, whenever. Time to finish up obvious content.--I'clast 06:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Where in Wikipedia's policy does it say we can't include information gleened from footnotes? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't mind it in, however it does suggest that the article is desperate for material. Shot info 06:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Independent, unassociated, academic material on QW is very rare indeed (that is why I mentioned indexes). No reason to help preserve the rarity, eh?--I'clast 18:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that you have used more words to describe the footnote that the relevant parts of the footnote, it's your call whether you think that you are "clutching at a straw" with the need to include it. Heck I don't mind as it shows just how needy one side of the discussion is :-). Shot info 01:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a good thing that an administrator stepped in a with a block to cool down feelings. It is a reprimand for all of us and I hope the issues can be discussed in a less inflammatory way now. I apologize for being overly assertive about the notability of the author. I just took it for granted that everybody would look his CV and come to what I believed was an obvious conclusion.

Anyway. Here are some highlights from his CV[6]: The guy is a summa cum laude from Harvard in History and Literature and a ΦBK. He is Associate Professor of History, Vanderbilt University, since 1986 with previous positions at Harvard. He is Founding Director, Vanderbilt Center for Medicine, Health & Society, 2003-2006.

His main publications are about European medical history but if you look at his breath of experience in teaching, as a reviewer etc. it is hard to believe that his knowledge and understanding of the parallel historical development in the US would be shallow or uninformed. It is also hard to believe that an academic on that level would allow himself to make sloppy statements without a solid support from facts.

His publication list is very long. It is hard to see a pro/con bias regarding alt medicine. Publications that might appeal to quackbusters could be:

“Remedy Vendors and the Printed Word in 18th- and 19th-Century France," Symposium, Quackery in History, Literature and Art, College of Physicians, Philadelphia, May 2005.

"Medicine and Revolution in Comparative Perspective," American Society for Eighteenth - Century Studies, plenary session, New Orleans, March 1989.

Keynote lecture, "Witchcraft and Magical Healing: In Search of a Narrative," international conference, "Healing, Magic, and Belief in Europe, 15th-20th Centuries," Zeist, The Netherlands, September 1994. MaxPont 20:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I personally found his writing very enlightening and interesting. That he called Quackwatch "militant" was no surprise and a compliment, considering that is what they do. They aren't joking, but take exposing quackery and healthfraud very seriously. This stuff costs lives, and when you have people like Bolen (who actually claims to use military tactics and .net/who_is_tim_bolen.htm poses beside a tank) defending Hulda Clark you get an idea of how common these types of dangerous quackeries really are, and how their scams are being defended. It takes cajones to deal with such matters and Quackwatch is doing a service by writing about them and exposing them. This saves lives. -- Fyslee/talk 05:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that these personal attacks on Bolen and Clark are appropriate for this page. Please consider removing. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Riiiiiiiight. Shot info 01:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I have revised and softened my statement above, even though Bolen and Clark don't need defending. It's quite telling that an objection to telling like it is about them finds room here, but the same editor has made numerous attacks on Barrett (and defended the attacks made by other editors) many times during the last 2½ years here. Why don't we hear him objecting to attacks made on Barrett? Do I smell inconsistency here? -- Fyslee/talk 05:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Watch out, there probably an NPA tag on it's way to your talk page (or mine, or any other random editor's really...except I'clast's though, there will be barnstar on his page). Shot info 06:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that wouldn't be anything new. We've seen it before. The adult thing to do is discuss rather than complain, which was basically the advice given the last time that was done.

But let's get back to the point here, which is that Ramsey's description is actually quite accurate and a compliment. Quackwatch does what it claims to do, and that is recognized. Even HHS official Dr. Thomas R. Eng recognized that and had this to say:

• Eng later backed away from his Quackwatch endorsement, saying consumers should question Barrett's site as well as those it targets. "The government doesn't endorse Web sites," Eng says. Still, he says, "[Quackwatch] is the only site I know of right now looking at issues of fraud and health on the Internet." [7] (emphasis added - Fyslee)

-- Fyslee/talk 07:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Rather than baiting me, why not participate constructively. I think that the quote you cite above my find a home in the article. Don't you think? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

What on earth makes you think we are baiting "you". Constructive edits are viewed and responded to constuctively. Edits that aren't so constuctive are viewed and responsed to as appropriate. I suggest that rather than continuing your mission to turn Barrettland into some personal war of your own imagination, you "participate constructively" as noted in your recent WQA. Shot info 07:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

No personal war of my own imagination here. But more baiting from you. Please disengage. I will respond to you when you are only adding something contructive to this discussion. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 08:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed that you have used that expression on multiple editors now, which would imply that the rest of the world is out to get you. Just remember, it is all about you... Shot info 08:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing the posts, I might suggest Levine was responding to the Bolen & Clark comments, and then the NPA & Barnstar aside but let's just get finished. After Isotope23's edit war & lock warning & QG's deletion sequence, I waited for some minutes looking for others' comments rather than play the "wrong edit" race games with QG. Can we sumarize what is missing from this QW page? Basically I think if we can settle on the Matthew Ramsey sentence with Arthur's version as the stable consensus version sentence we could all go on to other things. Maybe lock the article for a month after that, too, while we just exchange ideas at Talk.--I'clast 09:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Getting back to the issues: I'm concerned that quoting Ramsey will not get across meaning (and the context), or at least no one has proposed anything yet that does. --Ronz 18:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, how about suggesting something. Ramsey's statement is a factual statement and not a negative one. -- Fyslee/talk 21:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd first like to know if anyone shares my concern, because I don't see an easy solution. Given this, I'm more and more inclined to exclude it per WEIGHT and NPOV in general. There's not much to draw from, and we don't currently have similar context in which it can be easily included. --Ronz 22:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Vote

Let's get a vote to see how many will support I'clast's suggestion that we support Arthur's version as the stable consensus version sentence (minus the period after the ref....;-)

• Support -- Fyslee/talk 15:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional Support -- only conditional inasmuch as it can be slightly better fleshed out, but I personally cannot see how that can be done without making it larger/longer than the very footnote (or rather sentence) that is the reference. Shot info 21:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Object per Shot info comments. The footnote is being given too much WP:WEIGHT.  Mr.Guru  talk  22:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Object Ramsey is a historian? If the head of the AMA called it militant, that's significant. Let's go with critiques that are better written and meaningful. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Object It's a passing mention in an article about regulation of CAM in france, that's being given way too much weight. ornis (t) 22:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Object per NPOV. To include it requires giving it undue weight and placing it in a context which doesn't currently exist in the article where it would be readily understood. --Ronz 22:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support good content that I would have embraced 25 years ago as accurate & complimentary to QW--I'clast 06:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Object per comments of Orangemarlin, Ornis and Ronz.--CrohnieGal^Talk 14:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The 4 votes and comments to the "write" of Fyslee and Shot_info are bemusing. A sentence used to develop, source and show a notable characteristic seems pretty ordinary to me, excerpting the relevant information from several places in a long paper. If the head of the AMA were an expert on anything about "militant", I might ask for his PhD professorship in a social science or, at least, a few years in ROTC - last I heard, AMA was into gun (& CAM) control. Also Ramsey's super discussion group Center (a medical policy "think tank"?) has diverse backgrounds including medical professionals. The article is largely a comparison of academic & literature treatment of CAM between the French and English spheres, a scope that includes QW, however small that notice or notability may be. If its notice is too small, maybe the subject is less notable than supposed and perhaps we should just AfD or stub the article. "militant" is a very noticable chararcteristic of QW, this happens to be a direct quote from a notable source, and appears to me to be the *only* independent, academic source here (outside the medical-pharma complex) used in the WP article. Well, at least the vote helps provide a taxanomic characterization of persuations, where Fyslee is looking pretty moderate.

Pls feel free to offer a more encyclopedic version.--I'clast 19:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'clast, please refactor your comment above in light of WP:TALK and WP:NPA. Thanks! --Ronz 05:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

"outside the medical-pharma complex" come now I'clast, you know that there is nobody except for a small enlightened few outside the complex. Join the Conspiracy, you know its the only way... Shot info 22:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The medical-pharma-insurance/industrial complex, along with its advertising media, from Time to NEJM, BMJ, JAMA, etc. are pretty pervasive, with reach almost *everywhere*. Those are V RS facts.

Conspiracy? Nah, normal, pervasive business & marketing activities, misc. minor opportunities, goodwill and er gifts, (may) buy plenty of (young) hearts. It is a matter of scale. I know a non-medical/pharma family that has gotten expensive cruises (6?), cross country plane tickets, hotels and $$$$ for a few hours face time here and there, on different occasions, with an unrelated pharma, *all done by the several "kids" individually*, high school teeners and twenties, despite some concerns of the parents. Come to the Other side, they may only (ask to) offer your first & second born (directly). Then some most probably can't even (control themselves to) hold out that long. Makes me wonder about the revenue (or script) generating perks for real producers. Right, Shot? bank shot.--I'clast 09:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, pharmaceutical companies advertise and are willing to shower prescribers with perks. These perks influence prescribing habits. Those are generally pretty verifiable. How all of this relates (via reliable sources) to Barrett and the question at hand, though, is unclear, at least to me. MastCell ^Talk 17:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

"militant", as a word and description here, is both V RS *and* notable, in a general area of altmed topics where RS *has been* often compromised by gigabucks and not acknowledged. "militant" is a neutral or even favorable description of a substantial aspect of Quackwatch's history and activities for the new or unfamiliar. It seems to be an outstanding aspect to Ramsey in his article (related but with a different focus) whose qualifications as an outsider are relevant. The controversy here sort of seems like going to a Thai resturant and the someone erasing "spicy" off only the hotter parts of the menu because they don't like the red lettering. I am concerned that Ramsey's notable descriptor, is as yet, unable to be properly presented with its source for a pretty simple item. I am still looking for positive suggestions to a satisfactory edit of the sentence. --I'clast 20:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

An excellent example of POV pushing. "I like this...because it supports my POV". "in a general area of altmed topics where RS *has been* often compromised by gigabucks", sheesh Conspiracy Theory much. Lets forget the minor fact that altmed topics are often comprised by their own lack of scientific merit and credibility. All topics discussed before but heck, let's keep pushing the conspiracy canard. Thanks for letting us see your POV push however. It makes it easier to realise that when you say "independant" you actually mean something else (mind you, your support of the SSE as a "skeptic" organisation was a redflag...) Shot info 22:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

So now Arthur[8] and Fyslee[9] share or push some part of "my" POV? Ramsey and Vanderbilt 's Center for Medicine, Health, and Society = SSE ??? The SSE aspersion, see "association fallacy", perhaps denigrates Truzzi's vision of skepticism. I would never be that interested in most of either CSICOP's or SSE's content on weird stuff, but I know some here seem to follow (or relish) it.--I'clast 06:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:WTF???? Shot info 06:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Shot, thanks for the support and the humor.--I'clast 20:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. Join the Conspiracy, it's like the Dark Side but with more paperwork. Shot info 22:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thomas R. Eng statement

Copied from above:

Quackwatch does what it claims to do, and that is recognized. Even HHS official Dr. Thomas R. Eng recognized that and had this to say:

• Eng later backed away from his Quackwatch endorsement, saying consumers should question Barrett's site as well as those it targets. "The government doesn't endorse Web sites," Eng says. Still, he says, "[Quackwatch] is the only site I know of right now looking at issues of fraud and health on the Internet." [10] (emphasis added - Fyslee)

-- Fyslee/talk 07:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Copied from above:

I think that the quote you cite above my find a home in the article. Don't you think? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it could indeed be used. Of course the quote is taken out of context, but there is useful stuff in the Ladd article. Eng was naturally careful in that situation, and realizing that his utterances could be misunderstood he withdrew his spoken endorsement, making sure people didn't get the idea that just because the government thought it was a website worthy as a resource, they were not giving it some official stamp of approval. The site was just presented as a helpful resource for consumers. That's my impression of the scenario and what would seem logical. He covered his ass by making a precise disclaimer:

• "The government doesn't endorse Web sites,"

He then went on to still give the site a personal recommendation as what he saw as the only site dealing with those types of problems. (Since then other websites have joined it in the same mission, but it is still the first and largest site of its type.)

Does that sound like a reasonable interpretation? That also fits in a certain sense with the mission statement of the website:

• "Its primary focus is on quackery-related information that is difficult or impossible to get elsewhere." [11]

Regardless of what one's personal opinion is of the website, or whether one believes its mission is misguided or wrong, it cannot be denied that it does attempt to do what it claims, and both Ramsey and Eng recognize that fact, and Eng sees a need for that type of website, hence his recommendation.

I have no objection to some type of citations from Ramsey and Eng in this article. We just need to find an acceptable way to do it. There are likely quite a few such recognitions and recommendations from others who see the need for sites like Quackwatch, and who also recommend it.

We could even have the makings of a new section, all the while recognizing the truth of Eng's statement about caution: Quackwatch should not be unquestioningly worshipped. It's a valuable resource and should be used accordingly, but we should still use common sense. All very good advice. -- Fyslee/talk 15:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't trust any Republican appointed department head. Eng works for the same administration that appointed someone at NASA to put "Theory of" in every NASA reference to Evolution or the Big Bang or a Department of Interior bureaucrat who is opposed to upholding the Endangered Species Act. Republicans wasted valuable taxpayer dollars forcing NIH to set up an alternative medicine research wing (which I hope proves most of this garbage as garbage). Republicans support pseudoscience in all forms (Creationism, Homeopathy, Naturopathy...all the same non-reliance upon scientific reasoning). Eng probably was called to the carpet by the Bushies. Curious how the radical left and the radical right believe in the same stuff. Oops. I digress. I don't like the quote because of Eng's position, it makes it appear as if he is almost in support of the alternative medicine pseudoscience. The wealth of his writings do not actually support this out-of-context quote. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I like the idea of NCCAM. There's a desperate need for reliable, methodical investigation into what works and what doesn't in alternative medicine, especially given how widely used it is. And of all the recent wastes of taxpayer money, it seems among the more innocuous. But to go back: it sounds like a useful quote. I encourage the use of Ladd's article, too, as one of the more balanced and reliably-sourced criticisms. Much preferred over the, er, DIY variety. MastCell ^Talk 22:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The Bushies have taken so much money out of basic science research, stem cell research, and other areas. NCCAM is a waste of money right now, since most work already completed doesn't show much promise. Wasting money on double-blind clinical trials is a waste, if the basic research does not indicate much hope. Water does not retain "memories" of molecules. That's not science. So why should we spend any further money? I don't mind criticisms of Quackwatch, especially since I don't use it much, just the underlying references to peer-reviewed articles. But let's use notable and reliable criticisms. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Are we talking about the U.S Government here? I'm not trying to get off topic, but regardless of which political party is in power, it is their job to waste money needlessly. That doesn't change the fact that the Eng quote is pretty much the only reliably sourced quotation, with context, by someone who could reasonably be considered knowledgeable about the subject matter, that has been produced here. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go wield my "ban uni-directional impact generator" elsewhere...--Isotope23 ^talk 18:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Journal of Scientific Exploration and Joel M. Kauffman

How much of the Talk:Stephen Barrett‎ on this subject do we need to repeat here? We have no reliable sources for Kauffman, and what sources we do have are being ignored when it comes to presenting this information per WP:NPOV. Given this, the information should be removed. --Ronz 19:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Totally different ballgame here. This isn't a BLP. It can stay easily (wheareas, it should stay at Stephen Barrett too, but with BLP there are more arguments - albeit in my opinion "bad" arguments" - to contend with. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Who said anything about BLP? I mentioned WP:RS and WP:NPOV. --Ronz 20:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Professor Kauffman is a reliable source of criticism and we are presenting the information in a neutral way. What else is there to discuss? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Only that we have no consensus, let alone agreement on your opinions. --Ronz 02:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

So you agree theb that Professor Kauffman is a reliable source of criticism and we are currently presenting the information in a neutral way? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 05:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It would appear that Ronz definitely does not agree. I would consider Kauffman as a source of unreliable and inaccurate criticism, but that fact does not itself necessarily exclude him as a usable source. (I think that is my first comment one way or another on this matter. You may not have noticed it, but I have stayed out of this discussion and a number of other discussions. You might be surprised to know my real opinion on them....) At least he argues in a slightly more civilized style without the libelous and ad hominem style nearly always used by Barrett's antagonists. A line-up of Barrett's typical critics only serves to show what kinds of people attack him, which always puts Barrett in a very good light. If they are against him, he must be doing something right! IMHO.....;-) That also bears on your understandable irritation at the ease of finding V & RS of praise (which are easy to include, coming from lots of very prominent and authoritative sources) and the difficulty of finding V & RS of criticism (which are often of such a low quality that they are forbidden by policies here). That's life. If you changed POV you'd be on the "right" side and be much more satisfied. But don't do it for my sake. Stick to your convictions. That I can respect. -- Fyslee/talk 06:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

How can Kauffman be an unreliable source of his own criticisms? That's preposterous. His criticisms - whether you agree with them or not - are his criticisms. Being a respected professor of organic chemistry at the University of the Sciences in Philadelphia, he is certainly considered a reliable source of his own criticism. That you say his criticisms are "inaccurate" is merely your opinion and irrelevent here. However, if you had a reliable source commenting directly on why they feel that Kauffman's analysis of Quackwatch is inaccurate, you could possibly include that here. But as it stands now, Prof. Kauffman's criticism is a reliable source and we are presenting it in an NPOV fashion.

(P.S., I don't think that the opinions of the courts are low quality - they are ostensibly more neutral than Barrett's sycophants and critics - and the courts' opinion on Barrett specifically is typically pretty low. . . i.e. He doesn't have the qualifications or expertise he purports, he dishes out criticism but is quick to file baseless libel charges against anyone who dares to criticize him, he pays himself out of his NCAHF funds to be his own "expert" witness in cases where he has a vested interest in winning the case so he can continue to pay himself, he is not neutral, et cetera. But I digress, this article is more about Quackwatch and not Barrett specifically.) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You wrote: "How can Kauffman be an unreliable source of his own criticisms? That's preposterous." Quite right, but that's not what I wrote in my second sentence. And of course it's my opinion, just as your response is your opinion, for which I do not scold you. You have a right to it, just as I have a right to mine. This is the talk page, and neither one of us are NPOV in our personal beliefs, which is how it should be. We just need to keep that part out of the article. My statement was actually quite conciliatory and was siding with you far more than you know, but you have misread my statement and launched into a very personal rant against me. Please be more sensitive. I did not intend to irritate you and hoped you would be able to accurately read what I wrote, as well as what I wrote in neon lights "between the lines."

You also repeat something you have written before which has been explained and denied quite thoroughly: "[He] is quick to file baseless libel charges against anyone who dares to criticize him,..." That is quite untrue. He has never sued anyone for ordinary criticisms of his person or his opinions. He usually ignores such stuff. He has only filed libel suits (that were far from "baseless") for specific types of very grossly untrue and libelous attacks on his person and professional status. Such attacks are far more than mere "criticisms." Lies are not the same as criticisms. He has never been "delicensed" and he is not paid by the pharmaceutical industry. Those are libelous and false charges for which he has sued. Please do not keep repeating your false and misleading assertion regarding the nature of his litigiousness(sp?) without evidence. -- Fyslee/talk 07:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Just so we are clear then: You consider Kauffman to be an unreliable source, but you agree that Wikipedia considers Kauffman to be a reliable source. Right? (Sorry if I confused your opinion assertion for your policy assertion. I hope you can see how I was tripped up, especially when at Wikipedia so many often assert their opinions as policy. Re-reading what you wrote, I can see how you were not doing that.) As far as the libel lawsuits go, I would say that they had medit (or weren't baseless) if Barrett actually won one of them or even if a judge declared what was written about Barrett to be libelous. Until then, as "libel" is a legal determination, technically we can't call what was written about Barrett libelous. And know that from my point of view, what was written and reporsted about Barrett skirted around be libelous, but was clever enough not to be. What does "de-licensed" mean anyway? Barrett did voluntarily give up his medical license. And there too much written (books, research papers, articles, et cetera) about Barrett being/had been in the pockets of the pharmaceutical industry, the FTC, the AMA, et cetera for these kinds of statements not to be libelous. Maybe it is the truth. Maybe it is hyperbole. Maybe it is out-and-out lies. I don't think anyone but Barrett knows for sure. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

<RI>As a keen observer of Wikipedia's various scientific articles, I find similarities between Creation vs. Evolution and this Medicine and Science vs. Quackery (or Alternative Medicine). Creationists claim that you can't use science to test faith. So do Quacks. Creationists utilize specious credentials to claim someone supports their findings. Quacks use someone with a Ph.D. in organic chemistry (wow, I'm sold) as firm proof of knowledge. One of the principles of pseudoscience is Over-reliance on testimonials and anecdotes. Testimonial and anecdotal evidence can be useful for discovery (i.e. hypothesis generation) but should not be used in the context of justification (i.e. hypothesis testing). This is precisely what Kauffmann's self-serving journal does; it does not utilize science (and as a "respected" Ph.D. in Organic Chemistry, he ought to be embarrassed), it is not peer-reviewed, and it is frankly rather amateurish. Time to move on. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You're not the first one to notice. Check out the concepts of misology and denialism. Digwuren 18:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Something to keep in mind is that Kauffman's article is merely a website review, so it's peer review "status" is probably poor, in an already poor peer-review journal, for a journal that the greater scientific community regards as little more than bunk. Unfortunately for Kauffman, his review is written for his audience...the readers of JSE. And also unfortunately for Kauffman, scientific credibility is something created by being published in scientific credible journals. Mind you, this is a discussion that Levine and I'clast have had in December 2006 for about a month. It's amusing that it is getting a good recycling at the moment. Shot info 22:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your comparison. Much of alternative medicine is based on science. One of the complaints about Quackwatch though is that it relies to heavily on negative results (against lat med) and turns a blind-eye to the positive results (for alt med). This is one of Kauffman's chief remarks. Who are you calling a "quack" here? Me? Kauffman? Alt med in general? By the way, Kauffman's analysis does appear in a peer-reviewed journal. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ahem. JSE is a self-proclaimed "peer-reviewed journal", but, in editorial commentary, they deny the validity of peer review. There is no credible evidence that the journal is a reliable source, as we define it. As for whether Kaufmann, himself is a reliable source, I'm not certain. We'd have to find a WP:RS that says he is. I'm now leading against inclusion. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

“ A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. ” — Ralph Waldo Emerson

Alternative medicine based on science???? ROFLMAO. Then it would be medicine and not "alternative medicine." I always like a good laugh on Labor Day. It keeps me sane. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

There is history of science & medicine that contradicts you.--I'clast 23:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

So they speak out about the problems with peer-review process. Isn't that a good thing? Very skeptically-minded if you ask me. Maybe there is a better way. Regardless, JSE is peer-reviewed. Kauffman himself has been publish in at least a half dozen medical and scientific journals including Journal of American Physicians & Surgeons, Journal of Organic Chemistry, Journal of Heterocyclic Chemistry, Journal of Chemical Research, and the Journal of Luminescence for research very much aligned with the Quackwatch articles he analyzed. I would say his expertise is evident and thus he is a WP:RS. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick comment about the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (JAPandS). It is the rag of a little, radical group who is more known for their anti-vaccination sentiments than anything else, in spite of the official sounding name of their organization. They are to medicine what PETA is to legitimate animal rights organizations - a pretty radical fringe group! Wait, that comparison only stands on one out of four legs - the point about radicalism and fanaticism. Their POV is actually totally at odds with all mainstream medical organizations. So....they have one radical leg and the other three are running in the opposite direction than the rest of EBM. It doesn't even seem to be a PubMed indexed journal. Check this out. -- Fyslee/talk 00:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

What's your point? That since Kauffman was published by yet another peer-reviewed journal who you don't agree with, he is not a reliable source? Writing off POV which you don't agree with issymptomatic of the systematic bias at work here. How about the other four or five journals I mentioned. Surely you can dig up a publication of each of these which discredits Kauffman by mere association. Sorry, that's exactly opposite of how NPOV and RS works. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Peer reviewed by other quacks? Sure, I'll buy that. Still getting a good heart gut laugh. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read up on the editorial board at JSE... hardly quacks. They all seems to be professors at highly regarded universities around the world. Hmm. JSE website. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Arthur, I am going to say this again, for criticism of an organization, that is also a non-peer reviewed opinion site, Kauffman even just being edited is fine. Reasoned QW criticism exists, this QW WP article is going into POV deprecation on Kauffman and outright denial in general. The JSE has been deprecated past NPOV. You yourself agreed to this source almost a year ago. I am sick and tired of the systematic elimination of notable, often academic related material, less than outright praise here. This article uses lightweight, and industry POV related publications, e.g. remember JAMA's 1998 editor during the "select sites" (still early WWW) was later finally sacked in 1999 right after the QW-NCAHF related little Emily episode, and that same editor now at Medscape, continued promotion of QW editors. Kind of all in the family. Peer review, as practiced, does have notable critics for its sociology & major failures as well as some unflattering analyses of some of the assumptions underneath it.--I'clast 23:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It would appear that Wikipedia once again disagrees with you...

Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight. The reliability of a source depends on the context: A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source about biology. However, the author of a source may be reliable outside her/his primary field if s/he has become recognized as having expertise in that secondary area of study. In general, an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources to cover all majority and significant-minority published views, in line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources. All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view.[1]

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.

Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text.

Sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight should only be used in articles about the sources themselves. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.

But this has all being said (and ignored by the Anti-Barretts) before. Shot info 23:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Since the AfD for this article, I'm following this conversation from a distance. One point, "exceptional claims require exceptional sources." For the record, the claim that criticism of QW exists and that the reliability of the site is questioned is not an exceptional claim. Consider this when scrutinizing sources. User:Hopping ^T 23:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your neutral input here, Hopping. It is a huge breath of fresh air. I agree that both the existence of QW and the existence of criticism questioning QW's reliability is not an exception claim. Therefore Kauffman would pass WP:RS with flying colors and if we present it neutrally (as we do currently) it also passes WP:NPOV in similar airbourne hues. :-) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

For sure, lets look at the other points of WP:RS shall we (with the one point removed for helping with clarity of the ignoring of policy)? Don't be to far distant to be far removed from what the policy unwriting Wikipedia states :-). Shot info 01:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight. The reliability of a source depends on the context: A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source about biology. However, the author of a source may be reliable outside her/his primary field if s/he has become recognized as having expertise in that secondary area of study. In general, an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources to cover all majority and significant-minority published views, in line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources. All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view.[1]

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.

Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text.

Sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight should only be used in articles about the sources themselves. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.

I have already shown that Kauffman is authorative on the subject at hand. Many papers published on topic. Professor at reputable university. Books, articles, et cetera. Please cross that one out too. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

And what is the "source"? The particular "source" would be from JSE perhaps, ie/ not a RS. Maybe you should encourage Kauffman to get a bit of creditability and publish his "review" in a reputable journal? Then you wouldn't have the RS problem that you have. So, still 95% of WP:RS says "no". Shot info 01:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.

The last clause is key. Reliability depends heavily not only on the source, but on the subject to be discussed. For a major topic of universal interest such as Evolution or Global Warming the bar of reliability is set very, very high. For a relatively obscure topic, i.e. Quackwatch, the bar is much lower. For a subtopic within an obscure topic, i.e. criticism of Quackwatch, the bar is even lower. Almost any published mention (web or otherwise) of the site becomes noteworthy. Additionally, the nature of the site itself is contributory to the standard for sourcing criticism. Consider that the site Quackwatch's sole purpose is entirely based on contentious criticism and debunking. The name "Quackwatch" is itself highly contentious and antagonistic. By this nature, the site intentionally engages controversial topics, and as such invites a critical response. Any criticism of an author or site exclusively concerned with critiquing others deserves more than a passing mention of who disagrees, and more probably a response from those the site exists solely to discredit. To not to do would in some way be to promote the content of the author/site as somehow essentially objective, unbiased and above review. None of which is the case here.User:Hopping ^T 03:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Different "keys" for different editors I presume? The fact that Kauffman chose to "publish" his "review" in a dubious journal gives it the credibility it deserves, something WP:RS disputes you on. Regardless of your opinion with regards to the aim of the organisation and/or it's very title, RS is RS. Once editors realise that JSE probably didn't crosscheck Kauffman at all (after all, it's only a review), and the very nature of the critism is poor (after all, did you cross check it, after all, it's very review status is at question here) coupled with Kauffman's regular reliance of publishing with low quality journals, suggests that this piece fails RS on so many levels. So far 95% of RS disagrees with you (and Levine). Mind you, in saying that, I don't mind it included, but context needs to be established...per RS, after all, Kauffman isn't notable, so why is his opinion notable? So a review, published by a non-notable nobody in a dodgey journal....this is the "best criticism"??? Jeez... Shot info 03:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"this is the best criticism" Doesn't sound like criticism worthy of mention in Wikipedia per RS and NPOV. Let's not forget that NPOV requires us to find sources that help us determine how to present information in a neutral and properly weighted manner. I don't see how Hopping's interpretation of RS can begin to meet what we need for NPOV. --Ronz 03:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

What do we need for NPOV specifically, Ronz? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Or RS for that matter? Shot info 05:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hopping is a neutral party and one of the most experienced Wikipedians of us here. I've been trying to put into words for so long that which he/she has so eloquently done. I thank Hopping for putting the RS debate to rest as far as I am concerned. Now then, Ronz mentioned something about needing something for NPOV. What is that? My understanding of NPOV says taht we need to present Kauffman's criticism neutrally; whereas you seem to think it means we need to neutralize his criticism. There's a subtle difference and I think this is where we are being tripped up. NPOV means we can't take sides on Kauffman's criticsm. We present his evaluation of Quackwatch with none of our inclinations of whether he is right or wrong. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Really? [12] Shot info 06:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Hopping is not neutral, having edited mostly in Allopathic medicine and James W. Holsinger, and he's not very experienced in comparison to others here. No offense, Hopping. I don't know why Levine2112 would want to embarrass you this way. --Ronz 15:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You guys are being very rude now, perhaps because you realize that Hopping (and subsequently me) is correct here about WP:RS and WP:NPOV. So instead of sticking to a policy discussion, you move right into personal attack mode. This tactic has unfortunately become par for the course with you guys. I wish it would stop. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that discussions of Hopping's editing experience are irrelevant to the policy discussions we should be having here. However, since they were brought up by Levine2112, I feel it's completely relevant to show that Levine2112 was wrong and a case of WP:POT. --Ronz 16:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Why do you feel that it is relevant to point out that I was wrong (I am not, BTW) about something that is irrelevant to this discussion anyway? Perhaps if you didn't act on your desire to embarrass me this discussion (and many others) would be much more civil. Think about it. Now let's move on and back to the policy discussion at hand. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Then Levine, if it is irrelevant, why did you bring it up? It is not others fault that once again you are proven to be incorrect in something that you stated. If you don't wish to be proven wrong, perhaps you should keep the discussion on track and relevant to article. Remember you said "neutral party and one of the most experienced Wikipedians here" unfortunately the facts prove you wrong, it is irrelevant to the discussion and you had no need and no right to bring it up. Shot info 22:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Response from Hopping

Assume Good Faith, No Personal Attacks

Let's keep in mind WP:NPA and WP:AGF. This tone of the conversation is not appropriate. Discussions of my (or anyones) neutrality or Wiki experience are unnecessarily derisive and non-constructive. Let's review WP:AGF, it means assume, as in to hold a position without any evidence. I remind you that To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia, i.e. not a joke. So cut it with the investigations into User contributions and then subsequent discrediting. This is a talk page, not an attack page. I will AGF and proceed as though everyone here actually wants to make this article better. We only disagree on how it is to be done. User:Hopping ^T 18:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

My opinion is that some of the editors disagree about the meaning of NPOV. I am not an expert, but my feeling is that often neutrality is confused with objectivity. Not all articles are purely objective, because they discuss subjective topics, but they may still present their topic neutrally. Many articles treat entirely subjective topics, even very important articles like Metaphysics, Religion, Music, Nationalism or Art. Such articles are not filled with references from peer-reviewed journals, yet this does not necessarily mark them as poorly sourced. Though the discourse of Quackwatch uses the language and citations of objective science, it does so in an entirely subjective manner. Barrett choses the subjects, who and what to discredit, who and what to promote, based on his own design. Likewise, criticism of an entirely subjective site, will likewise be subjective. With care, all of this can presented fairly, neutrally. The editors here are being hypercritical of sourced criticism of the site. User:Hopping ^T 18:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It's very apparent that some editors here are unable to apply NPOV. It's been a problem with this and the other Barrett-related articles for close to two years if not longer. --Ronz 23:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Attack site

The Forbes quote says "Mostly attacking alternative medicines, homeopathy and chiropractors, the tone here can be rather harsh." Even this source, which is praising the site, makes it clear, Quackwatch's purpose seems to be mostly "attacking" certain fields, and in a "harsh" tone at that. It goes on to say that a CON of the site is its "listing" of doctors and organizations without any explanation, a rather serious accusation, akin to libel. This type of commentary cannot be ignored, even though it is entirely subjective, it can and should be presented neutrally. User:Hopping ^T 18:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Dubious sources

The sources for major aspects of the organization are attributed to SJ Barret. (Reference #1,2,5,6,7,8) This is dubious. Though what he says may be accurate, it is a POV issue since he's clearly biased in favor of his own organization. The reliance on him as a major source weakens the credibility of the article in a significant way. Statements like "Quackwatch is especially critical of those therapies that it considers dangerous" which are then sourced to Quackwatch make it clear, this Wikipedia article has the tone of outright promotion of Quackwatch and SJ Barrett. User:Hopping ^T 18:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. This has been an excuse that's been used to push outright bias into the the article many, many times. Let's not forget that this is an article about Quackwatch. Many times in the past it has looked like nothing other than a pure criticism of Quackwatch. --Ronz 23:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I hear you. It sounds like this article has been through many incarnations. It seems the pendulum has swung the other way. Can we strike a balance between promotion and pure criticism?User:Hopping ^T 00:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree it's swung the other way. We've NPOV problems, certainly. We've got them both promoting and criticising Quackwatch. The solution is not to strike a balance. The solution is to follow NPOV. --Ronz 00:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. Could you elaborate on what that means in this context? User:Hopping ^T 00:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

My most common concern is with WP:WEIGHT. Are we giving undue weight to the information we present? As far as reliable sources go, there is very little written about Quackwatch at all.

Most of the NPOV discussions we've had have assumed that if a source can be agreed upon, then anything from that source can be added in whatever context we link, to whatever detail we like. These assumptions are direct violations of NPOV, and ignore WP:WEIGHT and similar sections of NPOV altogether. --Ronz 01:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree entirely. Especially with this statement, As far as reliable sources go, there is very little written about Quackwatch at all. IMO, this fact guides our application re: WP:WEIGHT. The less that has been written on a topic, the the more liberal my inclination towards M:Inclusionism. User:Hopping ^T 01:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hopping, I must be the opposite, because (IMO) if there is no RS' then we don't lower the threshold of RS just to get "something". Because this is often deemed as "contraversial" this in fact raises the bar rather than lowers it. Nevertheless, RS is a pillar of Wikipedia, we don't ignore it in the quest for "balance". Shot info 01:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If we raise the bar above that for the average article, the first source to go would be Quackwatch itself, which wouldn't really qualify as a RS for your average notable article, why should it here? User:Hopping ^T 02:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. We don't lower the threshold for RS and NPOV. Instead we exclude information that isn't appropriately sourced or isn't supported well enough to deserve mention. --Ronz 02:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hopping. The Community via the latest AfD would like this article to stay. Also generally (this is an inferance from the comments at AfD) there is a critism that a lot of articles at Wikipedia are not notable. Now prehaps this is maybe the case here. The Community doesn't think so (just look at the number of editors that came out at the AfD, more than I've seen in a while), so lets assume that it is notable and encyclopedic. So the question is now, how do we satisfy the information the article from policy? BTW, it seems that the Community regards QW as a RS, it's really only Levine who once regularly trawled wikipedia to remove references to QW who thinks otherwise. If you wish to alter policy there is a suitable location to modify WP:RS and that isn't here. Shot info 04:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Never implied the article should be deleted. I voted in the AfD. Keep.
2. Never intended to alter policy. Again, AGF, my intent is to make this article better.

From WP:AGF: "If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but it is not ever necessary nor productive to accuse others of harmful motives." You are making some major assumptions about my motives. #2 also from WP:AGF "Consider using talk pages to clearly explain yourself." I am using a talk page to explain my feelings & my thoughts on editing this article, its sources, how Wikipedia policies of RS and WEIGHT should guide our editing of the article. But again, you are assuming that I have some other motive, namely trying to "alter policy." Please, whenever possible, assume someone is trying to make an article better, especially when its on a talk page. User:Hopping ^T 04:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hopping chill out. If you read my piece, you would see that what I am suggesting is if you are interesting in changing the policy (ie/ on RS) here isn't the place to do it or discuss it. Also, my comment about what the Community wants is in response to your comment about "Quackwatch itself, which wouldn't really qualify as a RS for your average notable article" which I don't necessarily disagree with....but it is an IRRELEVANT point to make, because the Community disagrees with you. It isn't an AGF or NPA. In fact, I'm starting to wonder if your adopting the ol Levine tactic of taking offence at every little percieved slight to generate something here... Shot info 05:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Wonder away my friend. Wonder away. Let me know when you've "figured out" the dark truth of my hidden agenda. Disagree that my points are irrelevant (all caps or not.) And for the record, I like your essay WP:CHILL. User:Hopping ^T 05:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the Dark Side. Shhhh, don't tell everybody the hidden handshake :-) QBoTI!  :-) Shot info 06:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Rats! Now we're going to have to hunt you down and kill you. Never mention the QBoTI in public again! Shhhhh..... We don't exist.... -- Fyslee/talk 07:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Note to Shot info: No, I am not the only one who has claimed that Quackwatch is an unreliable source. Here you will note that the majority of admins agreed that Quackwatch is not only unreliable, but partisan and questionable as well. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

A consensus being highly unlikely in this situation, I take comfort in hearing where people stand on these issues of RS, NPOV, WEIGHT in general, especially in relation to more obscure topics. I appreciate very much all thoughts expressed here. These are important questions that constantly arise on Wikipedia. Two general points I feel are important here: IMO, I feel that topics like Quackwatch are intimately related to pure science, objective articles, since the credentials of Dr. Barrett and the subjects he espouses on are so science-related. Yet this article will never be objective in the sense of, say an article like proton for the somewhat obvious reason that protons do not write about themselves, while SJ Barrett does. This spins the topic in an entirely subjective but nevertheless legitimate direction, one which we shouldn't shy from tackling, because it tastes unscientific or political. Further, the site itself is largely concerned with questions such as "what is a reliable source for health-related information?" and "what constitutes valid scientific review?" and "who is trustworthy?" These facts together mean that discussions about the presentation of these topics on Wikipedia, (questions of NPOV, RS, WEIGHT) get so very meta so quickly, creating a unique (but very real) obstacle. And this effect is somewhat magnified in an the openness of Wikipedia. I'm encouraged by the thoughtfulness, of others. I'd like to continue to follow this discussion, from a distance. I'd like to further consider the excellent points you've raised. Thanks! User:Hopping ^T 04:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This talkpage is not the place for such a discussion. Shot info 04:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

USA and UK lists of links to QW from (GP-selected) sites

UK: Search of searchmedica.co.uk SearchMedica - The GP's search engine.

USA: Search of searchmedica.com.

I currently do not want to be involved in editing this article so I'm simply leaving this on its talk page for consideration and possibly perusal by its regulars. Avb 10:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Google Scholar indexing

Google Scholar indexes articles published on QW, together with cites by other indexed articles. See this search. Avb 10:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Kauffman criticism and NPOV

We have no source with which to determine WP:WEIGHT for this criticism, so I've trimmed it way back as a compromise instead of deleting it altogether. To clarify my edit summary, "Criticism - cleanup of Kauffman criticism per NPOV - will probably have to remove the entire section per WP:RS and WP:NPOV": By "section" I mean the information about the criticism by Kauffman. --Ronz 00:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally (this is just my opinion) I feel that the criticism should stand (including Kauffman's "Best criticism...eva...". It would be nice to add some additional third party reviews but I believe they were deleted over the last 6 months because they were "promotional" or the like, leaving us with primary sources. Nevertheless we will forge on!  :-) Shot info 00:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anything in your new trimmed version indicates why it should be included at all. I'm not sure it should be included, but this edit leans toward a WP:GAME violation. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to apply WEIGHT while I get absolutely no assistance from others on how to even apply WEIGHT. Sorry if you don't like my attempt. Maybe I shouldn't have even tried to compromise and just deleted it entirely?

I see no need to give a background on the source as part of the article, and there was a great deal of contention on just that. Perhaps all I've done is show that the criticism doesn't belong? That wasn't my intention. --Ronz 01:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

What's missing from the trimmed version is an assertion that Kaufmann (possible) or JSE (impossible, IMHO) is a WP:RS. If you could reinsert something about Kaufmann's credentials, I'll consider it in good taste, as well as in good faith. Otherwise—well, it's still probably in good faith, but we're dealing with a variant of WP:CREEP; A_trim is better (under some policies and/or guidelines) than A, and deleting the entire section is clearly more appropriate than A_trim, but A⁺ might be better still (although IMHO, not Levine2112's or I'Clast's versions). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree this is a serious case of WP:CREEP here. I'm sorry for adding to it, but I really think this article has a generalized POV issue.User:Hopping ^T 01:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Am I'm missing something? Why do we need to add something to the article that asserts that the source is reliable? Are we doing this as a compromise because there is contention on the source being reliable? --Ronz 02:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think all we need to do (and I believe this is what Arthur and Hopping are asking for) is to say that Joel Kauffman is a professor and a PhD - thus he is a reliable source of criticism. Correct me if I am misinterpretting or if this won't satisfy the issues at hand. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Kauffman's review is the source (per this annoying RS policy thingyo), not Kauffman. Kauffman choose an organisation that Wikipedia would regard as not a RS to publish the "best criticism....eva....". It can be assumed that if Kauffman chose to publish his review per the requirements demanded by Wikipedia, we wouldn't be here. Your problem is with Kauffman and Wikipedia, not with this article. Shot info 04:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The refs are not reliable. We can compromise by trimming the entire section to satisfy WP:WEIGHT or delete it.  Mr.Guru  talk  04:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

We can trim quoting Kauffman's article directly to one trailing sentence and then lead & "blame" the rest of the paragraph on Hufford, who says largely the exact same thing that more technical/medical editors agreed to Sept'06 - July '07, except that Hufford adds that he also looks at Quackwatch as one of two exemplary sources of the strongest critics exhibiting "systematic bias" in the anti-CAM literature. Hufford is completely V RS.--I'clast 05:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be the best plan yet. Yes? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Ronz, how do you feel about QuackGuru's edit here: [13]? Is it okay or is it uinsupported POV? Something else?What's your take? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 15:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe we have sources that support QuackGuru's edit, and he didn't provide them nor discussed his rationale. --Ronz 16:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I agree (as noted by my edit summary on my revert). -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Another editor has re-added QuackGuru's edit. Still no sources or discussion of a rationale. Care to remove the edit, Ronz? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Refs have been provided. Time to make sure they verify what's been added. --Ronz 18:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not able to verify the info from the refs provided. Doesn't the Time article cover this though? --Ronz 18:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No. The references given are the criticisms themselves and I am quite certain that they don't refer to themselves as "pseudoscientific alternative medicine supporters". Please remove. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Tagged as failing verification. Let's see how the contributors respond. I'm going to check the Time article as a possible substitute. --Ronz 18:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I have checked both Time articles listed in the references and there is no mention of ""pseudoscientific alternative medicine supporters". -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The wording is true, but is not supported by the refs. Too bad....;-) It can therefore not be included unless other sources are included that support that truth. -- Fyslee/talk 04:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed... not with your opinion that the wording is true, but that it is not supported by the refs and thus may not be included. I have removed it. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 05:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

criticism intro sentence

A simple lead sentence for the criticism improves this article. I simplified it to satisfy the inclusion critieria.  Mr.Guru  talk  16:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This is WP:OR. None of the sources given say that criticism comes from "alternative medicine supporters." Further, the village voice reports that Health and Human Services official Dr. Thomas R. Eng & director of the HHS panel that reviewed Quackwatch "backed away from his Quackwatch endorsement, saying consumers should question Barrett's site as well as those it targets."[14] User:Hopping ^T 21:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, although it's undoubtably accurate, there's no source. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, glad we are in agreement. I undid the change. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section

None of the people doing the criticism are notable, and all of it, save the random chelation supporter being given undue weight, comes from ONE article in the non-Reliable Source "Village Voice" (An alternative tabloid article with obvious strong biases for alternative medicine?) You can do far better than that. Provide decent, well-sourced criticism from notable people. I'm sure you can find something. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The fundamental problem is that no intelligent, reliable people disagree with the basic mission of Quackwatch. The few critics are defenders of fraud, or have a general attitude and agenda that "scientific medicine is bad" and any stick, no matter how dishonest or irrelevant, is good enough to beat it with. alteripse 18:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

"No intelligent reliable people disagree?". In my opinion, this is a glorification of what Quackwatch does and a misrepresentation of Steven Barrett's critics, many of whom are credentialed, respected physicians. User:Hopping ^T 21:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we could quote a reliable source discussing the attacks on the site in a neutral, balanced way that doesn't presume, say, that promoters of possibly dangerous medical frauds are, in fact, right. (I mean, sheesh, Chelation therapy? That's killed people.) Or, I don't know, Deepak Chopra or Hulda Clark or something, if we can make the criticism balanced with other sources. Didn't the Scientologists try and sue them? Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes: [15] - that's not really a reliable source, but if we could find information on it from a better source, we could use it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think I've made it more-or-less neutral, using notable or notablish sources. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the Village Voice is generally a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. It is probably the single best-known "alternative" weekly in the U.S. It does have a reasonable process of fact-checking and editorial oversight. I'm not aware of an institutional bias on the part of the Village Voice against mainstream medicine or in favor of alternative medicine; for example, they did an excellent series examining the AIDS-denialist movement and the 2000 International AIDS Conference fiasco. The Ladd piece in question is clearly an opinion piece, but I think the source itself is reliable enough to use with appropriate attribution (as opposed to most of the others). MastCell ^Talk 19:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. But it's kind of awkward to use opinion pieces like that. Eh, well, how it's used is probably good enough.

Heh. Forgive me. I was just writing from the Simple English wikipedia. That really can do your head in, trying to describe complex issues in really easy language. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I basically agree with MastCell on this one. We need to be careful not to delete all criticism or exclude it because it comes from critical sources. That doesn't make any sense at all and would be a misapplication of policies. Even sources that we and the whole scientific and medical community would universally consider "unreliable" sources of information can still qualify as Wikipedia V & RS examples of critical and fringe opinion. That is after all what we do here - we document opinions, not truth. They just need proper attribution as mentioned above. At the same time it would be desirable to see real examples of serious criticism in the section instead of the typical (99.9999% of all the criticism - the internet is huge!) straw man, libelous personal attacks and conspiracy theories, without any real rebuttals. (Fortunately the worst is gone.) We don't need junk criticism, we need seriously well reasoned criticism. It may still be unreliable and fringe stuff, since they are pretty much the only ones who criticize Barrett and Quackwatch, but at least it can be used without risk of BLP violations or misuse of Wikipedia to sell their quack agendas.

I have for a long time now (months) been seeing alot of such misapplication of policies and have let those involved discuss it, hoping to see some kind of brilliant arguments from both sides, but I'm getting tired of seeing it happen. I just don't want to get too involved in these discussions and MastCell has jumped in at the right moment. Thanks for that. I hope you do it more often. Some people seem to think that because I'm relatively silent I agree with all the deletions. No, I definitely don't agree all the time. Some skeptics are going too far, but that doesn't mean I totally agree with the arguments being used by the other side either.

NOTE to Skeptics: Please beware - criticism of Barrett and Quackwatch obviously comes from critical and unreliable sources (by normal standards). That's life, and some of it must be included. -- Fyslee/talk 21:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but these were particularly bad sources. I've managed to find more notable ones, and phrase it more neutrally. My complaint was not that there was a criticisam section, but that it was a really bad criticism sction. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Court Cases

Can we compile a list of the suits that "Quackwatch" and Barrett have been a part of? We could list them on this site, at least the notable ones. User:Hopping ^T 22:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The lawsuits were by Barrett, not Quackwatch, and are correctly listed there. Only one case I've looked up is currently ongoing, a federal suit similar to Barrett v. Rosenthal. The pre-Tim Bolen suits are not currently covered, but I'm aware of at least one (anyone remember it?) Cool Hand Luke 22:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know anything about Harrison v. Barrett, Botnick, Quackwatch ? Is that case ongoing?User:Hopping ^T 22:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, Quackwatch is not a legal entity separate from NCAHF (but I could be wrong) just publishes information, so the only relevant court cases would suits concerning specifically what was written on Quackwatch. I don't believe there are any. --Ronz 23:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

We have "been there and done that" a long time ago. The cases are related to Barrett and one is related to NCAHF. Those matters have long since been dealt with on those articles. -- Fyslee/talk 04:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Is the Negrete case listed below the same as the one listed here? .com/quackwatch.html Is this info at all reliable? Does anyone have sourced information for these other cases? Obviously the one most relevant here are ones where Quackwatch is actually listed as a defendant, not just Barret. Also, which of these cases is discussed on Quackwatch and/or involves activities related to the site?User:Hopping ^T 06:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is the Koren case. The reliability question hinges on the source. It is hosted on an adversarial site and both Bolen and Negrete[16] are big adversaries of Barrett who are employed by (or have supported) a number of persons who have either been convicted of crimes or accused of such. Most have usually run afoul of the law, the FDA, the FTC, etc., without any prior involvement by Barrett. He usually just reports the cases and then they attack him personally for doing so. Some names that have been published in this connection are Kurt Donsbach[17], Hulda Clark[18], Tim Bolen[19][20], Stuart M. Suster, Douglas Phillips, Robban Sica, David Steenblock, and Eleazar M. Kadile[21][22]. Bolen has been involved in these cases, and Negrete in some of them. Right now Negrete is dealing with Donsbach's latest losses in Mexico, where his Hospital Santa Monica has been closed yet again by the authorities.[23][24] (These sources are V & RS for expansion of the Donsbach article here.) Quackwatch would not normally be named as a defendant in cases since it is the author of what is written that gets sued, not the website. Some of the cases are reported and discussed at Quackwatch or at CaseWatch, where court documents and depositions can be found. I have linked several of them above, and at the bottom of those pages you will usually find many more references which make very interesting reading. This is typical of Quackwatch articles, especially those written by Barrett. There is one current case which is of unknown status and therefore we can't write about it here, and that is the relatively new Harrison case which names Barrett, Botnick, and Quackwatch. It involves material written by Botnick that was hosted at Quackwatch. Of course it will be Barrett, and not Quackwatch, who will have to answer for that. When the case progresses further and we know if it will fly or not, we might be able to find V & RS that report it in an unbiased manner. If and when that happens, then we can mention it here. Some (including Ilena R.) would like us to already publish such things here, but we simply can't because of the rules here. We don't publish graffiti here. We'll just have to be patient and see what happens. If the "bird" (case) flies, we can shoot it down and serve it here using better sources than grafitti....;-) -- Fyslee/talk 17:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Should the article mention the cases that are discussed on Quackwatch? Or the case where Quackwatch is a party?User:Hopping ^T 21:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Because of long edit wars, AfDs, and endless discussions about this matter, it was decided to consolidate such information on the Barrett article since it usually concerns him, and not the website. He is the one in court, not a website. (Bytes can't testify....;-) That doesn't mean certain particular cases couldn't come along that might be placed here rather than there (not both places). They need to have progressed to the point that they are history so we have relatively unbiased V & RS to help us establish their WP:WEIGHT. We don't publish yellow journalism, graffiti, premature speculations, or perform original research cum investigative journalism. We only report history. -- Fyslee / talk 22:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your tutelage regarding this page's history. However, edits wars notwithstanding, it would seem "we" are not "report[ing] history" in this article, rather "we" are repeating verbatim the claims made about QW by the QW website, as if they were unbiased, verifiable, undisputed facts, which they are not. User:Hopping ^T 00:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect material at Quackwatch to be totally unbiased, and in fact would hope not. Quackwatch has a definite pro-EBM, anti-quackery bias based on an examination of both sides of the subject. Nobody with an opinion worth listening to is without some form of bias, which isn't exactly the same as prejudice (uninformed bias). Material is used from the subject's website (in this case the subject is Quackwatch) under the WP:SELFPUB policy, which is a portion of the WP:VERIFIABILITY policy: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." After that, attribution is what makes it NPOV. While we may not agree with something written on the site and even consider it untrue, we can't deny that the site verifiably writes it, so NPOV requires us to present it neutrally rather than advocate it by taking sides. Is there anything particular you dispute that needs to be changed? You can start a new section if that would be more appropriate, or continue here if it concerns the court cases, even though they are dealt with on the Barrett article. -- Fyslee / talk 00:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Hopping, if your NPOV tag was inspired by your comment above, maybe, in light of my invitation (right above) to clear things up, it was a premature and provocative move.....? I expected a response here, rather than an NPOV tag, which in this case could be viewed as a POV editorializing addition to the article. Maybe I'm reading things wrong. Please enlighten us. What concerns do you have? Let's deal with them and improve the article. If there are any policy violations, then it needs to be addressed right here. -- Fyslee / talk 04:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate the invitation. I really do. But how is an editor expressing POV issues provocative? I am expressing them. This is well within WP guidelines to do so, given the many who expressed similar concerns here on this talk page, as well as at the AfD. I've made a sincere effort to start building a consensus in Attempt to Build Consensus. My POV tag is likewise sincere. Let's work together. Beginning by not removing the tag until the dispute is resolved.User:Hopping ^T 05:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You mention there is a "dispute", and I am trying to get you to tell us the nature of that dispute, not in generalities, but specifically. Again I request that you tell us what your concerns are, and please be specific. -- Fyslee / talk 05:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Oops! I failed to respond to your mention of the NPOV tag and why I considered it provocative. I would expect that my request for an explanation of your concerns would be answered here rather than an NPOV tag referring to a claimed dispute with unknown content. We usually add such tags after we have tried to discuss differences and have come to an impasse, and then use the tag to call in previously uninvolved editors. I just felt the polite thing to do would be to respond to my query for elaboration of any concerns. -- Fyslee / talk 06:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)'

Sorry for all the confusion. The POV tag was not in response to any comment you made. Nor was it a response to your request. I tried to link the discussion of the POV issue directly from the tag, for clarity. It links to the "Attempt to Build Consensus" section. User:Hopping ^T 14:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up for me. Now I understand. I have also indented your last comment there. I hadn't noticed it. I'll carry on the conversation down there. -- Fyslee / talk 16:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Court Cases List

Ongoing

• Barrett v. Negrete, federal, on remand from Ninth Circuit. Was stayed for a long time awaiting Barrett v. Rosenthall.

Resolved

• Barrett v. Fonorow, dismissed by IL state court 2003 under CDA interpretation, aff'd 2003.
• Barrett v. Koren, dismissed in PA state court 2002, aff'd 2007.
• Barrett v. Mercola, settled after IL state judge found immunity did not apply. Supposedly for $50,000.
• Barrett v. Rosenthal, called Barrett v. Clark at the CA state trial court. Dismissed and aff'd in appellate court in regards to Barrett, and CA Supreme Court found that the CDA blocked claims for Barrett's co-plaintiff.

Added

• National Council Against Health Fraud, Inc. v. King Bio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (2003) "A private plaintiff (NCAHF) brought a representative action for unlawful competition and false advertising against a seller of homeopathic remedies. After the close of plaintiff's case-in-chief in a court trial, judgment was entered in favor of the seller." --Anthon01 (talk) 12:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

A review of the archives will help. Shot info 00:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The Stephen Barrett article says "The Quackwatch website is Barrett's main platform for describing and exposing for what he considers to be quackery and health fraud." The QW website's second section is called "About Stephen Barrett," where extensive info about him is published, including his CV. The QW homepage says "Operated by Stephen Barrett, M.D." The content of these two articles significantly overlaps, and the many of the references for the SJ Barrett and QW articles are referring to QW as the source. As per the AfD, I agree we need this content, but I think we might want to consider putting all this info on place to clarify. QW is SJ Barrett's website, and SJ Barrett's publishes his writings on QW.User:Hopping ^T 03:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This merger is pointless. It's like saying that Terry Pratchett should be merged with Discworld. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This has been proposed several times and been rejected and then resolved in the current manner. Barrett is Barrett, but Quackwatch is much more than Barrett, therefore Quackwatch must be dealt with separately as both a website and an organization with myriad volunteers, resources, and allies. -- Fyslee/talk 04:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

But it seems that(unlike Discworld), QW is just Barrett's personal platform for expressing his views. More like a personal website. Thoughts? User:Hopping ^T 13:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Also diasgree with merger proposal. Quackwatch is more than just Stephen Barrett. It has roughly 100 editorial advisors/contributors and is more or less an online journal. Barrett may be a primary contributor to QW but it is clearly a separte entity and merits its own article distinct from that on Barrett. Rhode Island Red 14:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Rhode Island Red. Also, wasn't this already decided that this article was useful but needed work when it was brought up for deletion? Also, Dematt I don't think anyone who knows your editing style would think you were saying anything negative about anything you edit. You are one of the fairest and honest editors I have had the pleasure to chat with. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this discussion is at an end. Note no criteria from WP:MERGE was given that hadn't already been discussed and ruled out in the past. --Ronz 20:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No. Independent notability evidenced by citations to QW without Barrett. Moreover, a merger would create sticky BLP issues better left out. Cool Hand Luke 05:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

SourceWatch: Center for Media & Democracy

I don't know much about this, but I see that the founder of Quackwatch, SJ Barrett, is involved with several other health information organizations. "Sourcewatch" has listings on one of these The American Council on Science and Health that suggests this group protends to be scientific when in fact they are have a political agenda. Does this shed any light on this article? Do we consider Center for Media and Democracy a reliable source? User:Hopping ^T 23:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be more appropriate to discuss Stephen Barrett's activities over at Stephen Barrett rather than here. Besides, the source doesn't mention Barrett (or Quackwatch) so it's relevance (without resorting to SYN) would be? Shot info 23:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The Stephen Barrett article has over a dozen references to QW. The QW site publishes Barrett's CV and has a whole section "About Barrett" - I'd say the two topics heavily overlap, possible merge? User:Hopping ^T 00:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

And the source's relevance? Shot info 00:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm uncertain about the relevance, just asking if anyone knows about the relationship of Barrett to ACSH. Is there one? There seem to be a lot of organizations here that represent similar views. I'm trying to understand what the relationships are.User:Hopping ^T 00:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't know, and in reality I don't think that ideal speculation on the topic adds any value to the issue of this article? Shot info 00:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think he was on the board, but I could be wrong He is a scientific advisor[25]. There is info on the net as I remember reading several months ago. I'll see if I can dig it up. -- Dēmatt (chat) 03:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I see a lot of other familiar names, too... Gots, Gorski, Novella, Jarvis, Neuberger.. it's got them all? -- Dēmatt (chat) 04:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That makes alot of sense. ACSH is clearly a skeptical and mainstream oriented organization. Birds of a feather..... You'll find the same phenomenon in chiropractic organizations, political organizations, activist groups, Wikipedia, etc.. It can't really be any other way, so it isn't odious. We need to be careful to avoid the libelous guilt by association accusations we have seen about Barrett and the ACSH, the AMA, and the pharmaceutical industry, none of which has ever been proven. A shared POV does not a COI make. -- Fyslee/talk 04:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Certainly didn't mean anything negative here, just researching questions. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 13:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Just remember, WP:BLP applies here. That means no adding things that aren't explicitly said by reliable sources. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I would think Barrett would think this was a good thing, being a SA for ACSH? ---- Dēmatt (chat) 13:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Several points.... SB and QW are of course overlapping subjects, so we decided along time ago to try to keep them as separate as possible to avoid unnecessary duplication. Some minor duplication is necessary, but let's try to avoid it. The status of Sourcewatch... well, it's a wiki (IOW not eligible for use here) of extremely varying quality. Even a minor examination of the wiki reveals a very strong political, anti-authoritarian, fringe, conspiracy theory, and often pro-alternative agenda. Sometimes it seems more like a blog or discussion list with a mixture of some good and informative articles alongside sketchy comments more like the notes quickly jotted on the back of a napkin, or a grocery list, or even a "to do" list. I have seen articles in all those states at the site. Anyone who criticizes Quackwatch for occasional pages that are not updated fast enough would be horrified at the state of Sourcewatch. It makes Quackwatch look pretty good. It is not a reliable source in any sense, and especially in the Wikipedia sense, and not just because it's a wiki. No fact checking or editorial oversight, just an anti-authoritarian agenda, IOW the classic pseudoskepticism (skeptical of the skeptics). -- Fyslee/talk 04:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, never seen pseudoskepticism used that way :-) ---- Dēmatt (chat) 13:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dematt. The phrase "skeptical of skeptics" is my summary of the concept mentioned here (using another organization), especially the last sentence:

"Groups sometimes accuse each other of pseudoskepticism. Commenting on the labels "dogmatic" and "pathological" that the "Association for Skeptical Investigation" puts on critics of paranormal investigations, Robert Todd Carroll of the Skeptic's Dictionary argues that that association "is a group of pseudo-skeptical paranormal investigators and supporters who do not appreciate criticism of paranormal studies by truly genuine skeptics and critical thinkers. The only skepticism this group promotes is skepticism of critics and [their] criticisms of paranormal studies.""

-- Fyslee/talk 05:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

If WP:BLP applies here, why don't we merge this article with Barrett? Also, how much can we really rely on QW as a source for this article? Aren't we just repeating the content of QW here? User:Hopping ^T 13:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"How much can we rely on QW as a source for this article?" Well, we are allowed and required (since it can't be any other way) to use it to some degree. Sources are allowed to document their own positions and POV in articles about themselves (see WP:SELFPUB). Fortunately there are plenty of other sources that provide the needed secondary and tertiary documentation for notability. In fact there is much more, but if we included it there would be an outcry from QW enemies here that we are making the article too positively in favor of QW. There is much more that could be be added of that type, but to keep an uneasy truce, we are leaving it as is for now. Anti-QW editors don't complain that there isn't more and pro-QW editors think that there is just enough. It's an uneasy balance we are dealing with that is related to WP:WEIGHT issues. -- Fyslee/talk 05:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Hopping, there are a lot of things on QW that I do not agree with but that being said, it is a site that has a lot of information from different people about things that can not be found anywhere else. Merging the two, in my opinion would be a mistake. Though Dr. Barrett runs the site, QW isn't Dr. Barrett. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Sourcewatch is not a reliable source to BLP standards as it is both a Wiki and a progressive activist site. It could work as a named citation on Quackwatch, but I don't think there's much here. Cool Hand Luke 19:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You were planning to add defamatory material based on combining a Sourcewatch judgement of a site Barrett is slightly connected to, combined with original research to connect it to Barrett, and then use this attack on Barrett to attack Quackwatch. How could WP:BLP not apply? Just because this article isn't named Stephen Barrett doesn't mean that there's free reign to attack living people on it. WP:BLP applies anywhere you're discussing living people. It just doesn't come up as often outside of biographies. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's take care to WP:AGF. However, this discussion seems to be a fishing expedition, rather than a discussion of facts and policies. --Ronz 20:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Whose attacking? How is the claim that QW is more or less the same as Barrett an attack? The title of the page[26] is "Quackwatch, Your guide to Quackery, Health Fraud, and Intelligent Decisions, Operated by Stephen Barrett." I respect that you disagree, but I don't think this is an attack, or an outlandish claim. My next question was regarding ACSH. I'm wondering, how many website does this guy write on? Are they all "operated" by him? What does that specifically mean "operated by Stephen Barrett." Why is that fact not mentioned I honestly don't know. The Wiki intro paragraph specifically states "Since 1996, it [Quackwatch Inc] has operated a website, Quackwatch.org" - but the QW page says it is operated by Barrett? This seems odd to me. Is QW really Barrett? Is it like a pseudonym? (Which is fine, I just think we should mention it.)User:Hopping ^T 22:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone provide a source, other than QW, to verify this statment "Quackwatch is operated by Stephen Barrett with input from a board of advisors and help from volunteers, including a number of medical professionals"? Does this non-profit have a pay roll, a budget? An office? That is distinct from Barrett's personal address or finances? Is it a non-profit of one person, Barrett? These are important questions, IMHO.User:Hopping ^T 22:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

During the AfD, editors of this articles asked for more involvement from people previously not associated with this article. Seeing the level of vitriol this discussion immediately devolves to, I understand their frustration. What's with the harsh language and assumptions about peoples motives?User:Hopping ^T 22:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess the editors responses are more from frustration rather than anything else, as your questions above have been asked and answered many times before by most of the editors here. I can suggest a review of the archives by yourself to hopefully alleviate some of the frustrations, rather than engaging in what appears (but probably isn't) another round of round and around. Shot info 23:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"Since 1996, it [Quackwatch Inc] has operated a website, Quackwatch.org" - but the QW page says it is operated by Barrett?" Every source mentions the website, not the non-profit. User:Hopping ^T 03:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hopping, I am going to AGF and assume that the reason you ask these questions is evidence that you haven't done your homework and are expecting us to do it. OK, that's the lazy way to do it. Nothing seriously odious about it, but it's just frustrating to the old time editors here (of years length) who have gone to Quackwatch, NCAHF, and other related sites and read all their introductory material, FAQ, who runs them, who finances them, what connections they have or do not have with industries and interest groups, who is the webmaster, is there a board of directors, etc. etc. etc.. You can find all this information if you look. Many accusations have been made (such as supposed connections with the AMA and big pharma) and they have been answered, but people either don't read the answers or they won't believe them because it destroys their conspiracy theories. Quackwatch and the NCAHF are quite open about such information, and in fact (I speak from personal experience) you can find more information on the websites than by asking Barrett himself. He's too busy and sometimes a bit short and impatient. Just my experience. AFAIK, Barrett rarely does anything for the ACSH. He may have earlier, but not in the later years. He is a cofounder of the NCAHF and the founder of Quackwatch, and the webmaster for both sites, IOW he oversees alot and delegates responsibility to volunteers, and also serves in a chief editorial function. If you sent an article to him for publication, he would be involved as an editor-in-chief. If you are a good writer and researcher, and like to write on skeptical subjects related to health, quackery, healthfraud, scams, etc., then give it a try. There are thousands of pages and myriad articles and resources at Quackwatch, many not written by Barrett. It's the largest resource of its kind outside of actual government sources, and they don't specialize in that type of stuff. The FDA and FTC have lots of material related to healthfraud and scams, and Barrett makes use of it and cooperates with them. -- Fyslee/talk 05:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

Is there a way to request a POV check on this article? I would like to place a POV tag on this article, but I wanted to discuss first. The other route would be fact tags on specific statements. Which is more constructive? I would very much like to keep this friendly, and cooperative. Is that possible here? User:Hopping ^T 03:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason that you would like to. I mean you can put one on there, but it probably will be reverted with the comment No reason see archives or something similar. Shot info 04:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The most constructive way, and the way you'll get the best consensus results, would be to copy the relevant sentence or whatever, including the refs, to a new section here and ask your questions. Then we can work on improving or discarding it as the case may be. These articles are some of the most explosive and sensitive at Wikipedia, at least in the health care arena, and therefore any tampering with even single words can set off long edit wars because the current wording has been hammered out through long and often painful struggles here. Believe me, there are monsters here and the devil is in between the lines! You may think something looks pretty straightforward, but don't be too sure. We want to avoid rebuilding bridges, so bringing it here is the best way. -- Fyslee/talk 05:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe in tagging where appropriate. What problems do you perceive? Cool Hand Luke 05:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily any problems, but it can also be disruptive because of the nature of the editing atmosphere and the history of these particular articles. They are unlike others and we need to wear kid gloves. Using the talk page saves problems. Being bold here can backfire big time, with edit wars to follow. No need for that. We need to skip all other processes and go directly to consensus building edits, and that is done here. -- Fyslee/talk 06:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Attempt to build consensus #1

OK. What I'm hearing is that the "Be Bold" tenet of Wikipedia does not apply on this page. I find that frustrating, but I will respect it. It seems like this page has its own rule "Be conservative." I do want to be constuctive, so I'll skip the fact tags and POV tags and try the more conservative, hopefully more constructive approach suggested above by Fyslee. I'll start with the intro paragraph:

“ Quackwatch Inc. is an American non-profit organization that aims to "combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct" with a primary focus on providing "quackery-related information that is difficult or impossible to get elsewhere." Since 1996, it has operated a website, Quackwatch.org, which contains articles and other types of information criticizing many forms of alternative medicine. ”

Quackwatch, the non-profit, does exist, but is it notable?. Looking through the sources for this article, most (all?) of them refer to Quackwatch.com, the website. The 70+ "awards" listed on the QW page, are all lauding the site, not the non-profit. All of QW's notoriety stems from the website. My point is that while most "non-profits" have various activities, and they have a website that tells the public about it, QW seems to be primarily a website, that happens to be run by a non-profit. This non-profit may have other activities, but all of the notability of QW is secondary to the website. I'd suggest something more along these lines.

“ Quackwatch.com is a website operated by Stephen Barrett, a retired psychiatrist. The website contains articles criticizing many forms of alternative medicine as well as discussions of health fraud. Quackwatch is part of a network of 20 websites, most dedicated to specific topics such as acupuncture, chiropractic, and homeopathy. These sites are all registered to Quackwatch, Inc. a U.S. non-profit corporation. ”

I tried to pick two non-QW, current, reliable sources for the intro sentence - something I think this article is a bit short on. Thoughts? User:Hopping ^T 17:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think mentioning the nonprofit is fine. If such an article existed, we would merge here, but there's no reason to avoid mentioning holding entities that have no independent notability. The sources do need some work. Cool Hand Luke 03:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The new version of the intro paragraph mentions the non-profit. Is that sufficient?User:Hopping ^T 03:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

What I see happening is a drastic revision of the WP:LEAD. (Wikipedia articles don't have any "introduction".) Is that wise? The lead should be a summary of all the significant article content and should also reflect major changes in the article. The aims and purposes are even left out of the lead and should be restored. The website is an expression of the aims, purposes, and sympathies of the organization, its members, contributors, and allies. It's primary purpose is the provision of information which is why the website is so prominent. Article improvement cannot be accomplished without change, but there can be a lot of change without improvement. I don't see any improvement and I see unnecessary changes of material that is the result of long edit wars leading to a consensus on each word and phrase. It's a delicate balance that should not be disturbed without very compellingly good reasons. Why the changes? Please explain your thinking. -- Fyslee/talk 05:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The lead, as it stands now, does not reflect a consensus, IMHO. I tried to explain my primary reasons for the changes above. #1 Website v organization question, which is more noteable. #2 Reliable, non-QW, sources.User:Hopping ^T 05:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your point #1, are you considering the difference between "notability" and "noticeability", or possibly confusing the two? The website is obviously the most noticeable, it being the primary manifestation of the organization's activities, which is the provision of free information. Things were different before the advent of the website, but the aims, POV, etc. are still the same, it's just that now the website is what's noticeable. Yet the website is still just the medium, IOW it's the tail, and the dog is still wagging the tail. No dog, no tail. So what is most notable? Hmmm.... -- Fyslee / talk 01:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I was only making this point in references to sources, not my opinion. Many sources I can find for Quackwatch, listed within the article and otherwise, refers to Quackwatch.com (or .org), the website. I think we should follow sources lead here as per WP:WEIGHT. The "best, most reliable sources" refer to Quackwatch.com (or .org), the website, almost exclusively qualified by some form of "operated by SJ Barrett". See Examples below.

Again, my issues here are:

1. Website v organization, both should be mentioned but, according to sources, which should be listed first, in the LEAD? (suggesting website.)

2. Operated/Run/Overseen/Edited by SJ Barret, according to sources, should this fact be in the LEAD? (suggesting yes.) User:Hopping ^T 03:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Examples

• Wall Street Journal "Stephan Barrett, a retired psychiatrist who operates www.quackwatch.org, a Web site debunking medical fraud." [27]
• New York Times "Dr. Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch, a medical watchdog Web site" [28]
• New Mexicans for Science and Reason "Dr. Stephen Barrett, whose "Quack Watch" internet site contains over 200 reports on dubious and fraudulent medical devices and treatments"[29]
• New York Times 9/1998 "At the other extreme is www.quackwatch.com, run by Dr. Stephen Barrett, a longtime scourge of alternative medicine." [30]
• Boston Globe " Quackwatch, run by former psychiatrist Stephen Barrett, seeks to provide Web users with criteria to help them evaluate the credibility of medical and health information they find on the Internet. The site is the on-line home of an organization by the same name" [31]
• Salt Lake Tribune "What prompted you to start Quackwatch?" [Presumably quoting SJ Barrett] "It began as a luncheon discussion group in late 1960s. I was practicing psychiatry full time and in the mid 1970s, I started writing about things we were discussing. Eventually, it evolved into a sideline career and I became an investigative reporter of sorts. Then I got on the Internet and what used to take three months to research took five minutes. Now we operate http://www.quackwatch.org and 18 other Web sites." [32]
• NPR. "According to the Web site quackwatch.com, colloidal silver, a suspension of submicroscopic metallic silver particles . . . "
• All things considered. NPR. Barrett is a psychiatrist turned, in his words, investigative reporter. Barrett runs a Web site called Quackwatch, dedicated to fighting medical fraud." 10/6/2003.
• Washington Post "If MedlinePlus directs you to the most credible health sources, Quackwatch will help protect you from the countless attempts to sell unproven, unsafe, illegal or worthless treatments and products. Intrigued by chelation, blue-green algae or magnets? Do yourself a favor and visit Quackwatch first. Yes, Quackwatch can be as knee- jerk negative as product marketers are blue-sky positive, but it's an effective counterweight to the many sales pitches coming your way. Complaints: The site isn't always updated with the latest research (see glucosamine, for example). [33]
• Forbes. "Dr. Stephen Barrett, a psychiatrist, seeks to expose unproven medical treatments and possible unsafe practices through his homegrown but well-organized site."

User:Hopping ^T 03:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The lead of an article should be a good summary of the article as a whole. I'm concerned here that we're trying to make it more a summary of various sources instead, which can lead to NPOV/WEIGHT problems. --Ronz 03:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any serious problems with your suggestions, just as long as the lead is still a summary of the article. The website is certainly more noticeable than the organization and what is best known. That's always the case with organizations that publish. It's the publication that is best known. In this article we have chosen to cover the whole thing since they are inseparable. There is also no question about Barrett's leadership role as an "editor in chief" and webmaster. He oversees and coordinates operations. This isn't anything new and should already be apparent from reading the article. If it isn't mentioned in the lead, it should be. We can do this by using and rearranging all the current content in the lead (and thus not violate the consensus that agreed on that content), and add that Barrett is the chairman of the organization and webmaster of the website.

You have some good examples there, a couple of which we have seen or even used here before. Because Barrett is the most visible figure, we have experienced that Quackwatch and Barrett get the most criticism, and then when we have investigated, have found that some of the articles that were criticized were not even written by him. While he does write the majority of the articles (or, to be more precise, his name ends up on the article, even though it has involved several people and many sources), many articles are also written by others and he solicits such articles. Besides articles, there are loads of historical, legal, and government documents and sources that aren't even linked from the front page. There are even a few whole books on-line for free. If I understand it correctly, his creation of all the other sites is an attempt to make some order out of a mess of mixed up subjects. He is trying to collect related subjects under their own URLs. Quackwatch was simply getting too big. -- Fyslee / talk 06:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Fyslee, this question will probably sound acrimonious, though I don't intend it to be. I'm wondering, in your discussions here, who is "we," i.e. "we have seen here before" and "we have experienced and investigated." Do you represent a group of editors? Or can I assume you speak for a group that helps to edit here? User:Hopping ^T 18:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm reading "we" to mean the editors involved in the previous discussions here. Note that there has been a great deal of discussion here. Most topics have been addressed multiple times in the past. --Ronz 19:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

A simple check of the history and a look through the archives would answer Hopping's question. Shot info 22:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Your question is perfectly reasonable and Ronz has answered it just fine. I only meant the editors of all persuasions who have been editing this article for a long time. While it's true that the history will bear this out, I wouldn't expect you to have read the whole thing! That would be a daunting task that would likely take several hours, depending on how carefully you read it, and if you followed all the links it could take days. So don't hesitate to ask. Some of us who are experienced skeptics have been around these topics for years and you can just ask. There are no stupid questions. -- Fyslee / talk 23:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :) User:Hopping ^T 08:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Get out while your still sane....there's no hope for all of us.... :-) Shot info 09:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

History of quackbusting

I'm just dumping this link here right now because it's waiting on my mouse to be copied somewhere:

• Quackbusters Inc.: Hot On The Heels Of Medical Hucksters

(There is of course no such organization as Quackbusters Inc..)

Maybe we can use some of the information here or in the NCAHF article. -- Fyslee / talk 06:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I recommend to start a new section at this article called background.  Mr.Guru  talk  17:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

... or at the NCAHF article? -- Fyslee / talk 23:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Or both articles? Or just get it started somewhere. Or enough talk and be bold.  Mr.Guru  talk  17:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Boldness is your weakness, so take it easy. -- Fyslee / talk 18:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I tip my cap to you and let you get it started in any way you see fit. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  18:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal

I just read this page. I am shocked. I have been receiving emails from someone named Ilena for a few days suggesting sources that could be used on the Quackwatch page. I had no idea who this person was, but I read some of the documents she sent me. I realize she has attempted to use me as her proxy editor for the page. Though I may share some of her views, particularly those critical of Barrett, and I respect her right to express herself, I find being contacted in this way disturbing. I take WP policies seriously, all of them, because I think WP is cool as hell and I want to keep it that way. She failed to mention that she has been banned from these pages. In the process, she put my credibility as an editor at risk. That's seriously not cool.

I am willing to acknowledge that I could somehow be mistaken about this person's identity, or that I've misunderstood the findings of the arbitration committee, but from my current POV this seems clearly problematic.

On a personal note, there seems to be some very ancient twisted karma associated with this article and its editors. Not sure what to make of it or how to respond. I haven't encountered anything on this level here on WP before.User:Hopping ^T 07:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

O yeah, there was a whole world of pain associated with this ArbCom. I'm not surprised that Ilena (presumably the same person) would do this. I'm glad that you have seen through her, although it would be beneficial to WP if her other proxies would take note. Shot info 07:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Hopping, your honesty is appreciated. Hat's off to you! Although many editors and Wikipedia itself have serious issues with Ilena R., the subjects she mentions may have merit here, but it's a matter of doing it by following the rules here, using V & RS, avoiding advocacy, and not using Wikipedia as a battleground for wars at Usenet. That's where she ran afoul of the system here (and blames Barrett for it all!). Personal attacks on other editors and using bad sources just don't fly here. -- Fyslee/talk 17:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

RfC alert

I figure a number of editors here might be interested in this:

• Link to RfC at alternative medicine.

-- Fyslee / talk 19:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

"Sources that mention Quackwatch as a credible or reliable source for consumer information"?

Some of the sources listed do not fit that description. For example, healthfinder.org provides a link to this website, under this disclaimer: http://www.healthfinder.gov/aboutus/disclaimer.asp, which clearly means no endorsement whatsoever. I have not checked the other sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

We have two options: (a) if a source doesn't qualify for the section (the header being the inclusion criteria), it should be removed: (b) if the header just needs to be tweaked a bit to make it fit the contents, then do that. -- Fyslee / talk 15:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Please do not revert good faith edits. If there is something incorrect with my edits, please let me know. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I have not questioned your good faith efforts in any manner, but I am questioning their wisdom (or rather the manner in which they were done without extensive discussion from all sides), which is another matter entirely. My one revert was of a whole lot of edits of varying quality, some good and some questionable. Too many were made in a short time to deal with each of them one at a time. This article is a minefield balanced on a knife's edge and it's simply not wise to be bold when editing this article. This article and the Barrett article are the "canary in the mine" when dealing with subjects related to alternative medicine. That's why they are constantly under attack and have editors with strong feelings on each side. You will not find other articles in the health care field of such volatility, which is because of their notability and status - one is either for them or one hates them. There is no middle ground for those who know of them. One cannot criticize and expose quackery and healthfraud without getting very vocal enemies and also getting supporters. I am just trying to advise that caution should be exercised when editing here. We don't need more battles than necessary, and each edit is a potential starter of a third world war, so to speak. Two edits can create chaos. Three in a short time can have rather unforeseen consequences. It's become common here to start by getting consensus before actual changes of any consequence. -- Fyslee / talk 22:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the pointers. I will take these into account in my future edits. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you make the edit then? Or is it that if I make the edit I will get automatically revereted? Which one? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Kauffman critique

Jossi, I am curious about your thoughts on including this critique of Quackwatch written by Prof. Joel Kauffman of the Univ. of Sciences in Philadelphia. This review has been discussed for inclusion here and/or at Stephen Barrett. Those who were against inclusion mainly cited that this analysis was published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, a journal which provides "a professional forum for the presentation, scrutiny and criticism of scientific research on topics outside the established disciplines of mainstream science". Since this journal often deals with exploring fringe topics (albeit from a rational, scientific perspective which includes an impressive peer-review editorial board), those against inclusion of Kauffman's analysis feel that having being published in the JSE makes the analysis a less-than-reliable source. (If I am inaccurate here with my description of your argument, Fyslee et al. please feel free to correct me.) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

As per NPOV, we present significant viewpoints without asserting them. The question the is: Is the JSE a significant viewpoint on this subject or not? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

How do we determine significance? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

By checking on the credentials of the people that write for that journal, the number of times they are cited, etc. The summary of that paper:

All 8 pages from www.Quackwatch.com that were examined closely for this review, which were chosen simply because their topics were familiar to this reviewer, were found to be contaminated with incomplete data, obsolete data, technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo; no other pages were examined. Hostility to all alternatives was expected and observed from the website, but not repetition of groundless dogma from mainstream medicine, examples of which were exposed. As a close friend and colleague reminded me, the operators of this site and I may have the same motivation — to expose fraud. It remains a mystery how they and I have interpreted the same body of medical science and reached such divergent conclusions. While Dr. Barrett may (or may not) have helped many victims of quacks to recover funds and seek more effective treatment, and while some of the information on pages of the website not examined in this review may be accurate and useful, this review has shown that it is very probable that many of the 2,300,000 visitors to the website have been misled by the trappings of scientific objectivity. At least 3 of the activities in the Mission Statement: • Distributing reliable publications • Improving the quality of health information on the Internet • Attacking misleading advertising on the Internet ...have been shown to be flawed as actually executed, at least on the 8 webpages that were examined. Medical practitioners such as Robert Atkins, Elmer Cranton and Stanislaw Burzynski, whom I demonstrated are not quacks, were attacked with the energy one would hope to be focused on real quacks. The use of this website is not recommended. It could be deleterious to your health.

... is pretty tough on Quackwatch. I would suggest checking these sources and authors on scholar.google.com and see how widely are they published and cited. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Significance is also determined by whether or not there are third parties who find the source significant. Is Kauffman quoted widely enough so that a thorough evaluation of his arguments has been presented? In particular, are there mainstream medical doctors who have used Kauffman in their evaluations of quackwatch? Likewise, Kauffman's critiques of "groundless dogma from mainstream medicine" subject to WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE considerations. ScienceApologist 17:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Mmmmm... does not seem so. It is not a peer reviewed journal? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I find thousands of cites for this journal's publications - See: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=scientificexploration&btnG=Search ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It is a peer-reviewed journal. It says so right on the home page of SSE: The SSE publishes a peer reviewed journal, the Journal of Scientific Exploration (JSE)...

The editorial board looks pretty impressive to me.

Professor Kauffman looks to be rather well-published in subjects related to this analysis. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

JSE is not peer-reviewed in the usual sense because writers are given a very wide latitude in content. The editorial board has very little in the way of editorial control of the papers. Mostly, they try to be as lenient as possible: a noble endeavor but not one that lends much credibility to the publication. That's not what JSE is about anyway, the point is to have a relatively open forum for discussing ideas that are sometimes wholly outside the mainstream. Kauffman's anti-mainstream ideas are well-documented and cloud his writings consistently. He supports some bullshit that's downright loopy, but the editorial board at JSE has it enshrined in their editorial policy that anything and everything in reality is fair game. That causes real problems for us at Wikipedia with our commitment to reliability and verifiability.

The whole point of the founding of the SSE in the first place was to attempt to remove many of the normal restrictions of the peer-reviewed mainstream from potential authors who complained that they were getting the short-shrift. Wikipedia has an article on the Journal of Scientific Exploration that does a passable if not complete job of illustrating the dynamics of the issue.

Certainly some of the papers the journal publishes are of interest. Others are complete WP:BOLLOCKS. Simply finding citations to the journal in general isn't good enough, especially given the editorial leeway afforded the writers. DIRECT citations TO THE PAPER IN QUESTION are required if we are going to take this source seriously as a notable critique.

ScienceApologist 19:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be very well educated in the subject of this Journal. Would you care explain if this is just your opinion, or if this is an assessment of this Journal that has been published? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's an example of such an assessment ScienceApologist 20:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

That assessment is from a skeptics' organization. Duh? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. So? ScienceApologist 21:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, what's with the dissing of skeptical opinions? They are mainstream opinions from highly respected mainstream scientists (and such scientists are nearly always skeptics). Are we to expect that fringe and unscientific opinions are now going to get admin support? Please explain. -- Fyslee / talk 22:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Admin support? What are you implying? I am here not as an admin, but as a fellow editor. There is no admin duties to be applied here. As for your comment, it may be not obvious to you, but to an outsider like me (I have no dog in this fight), it is obvious that an anti-quack site will have anti-quack sentiments against anyone that is perceived as not critical enough of quaks, or even more, one that criticizes their anti-quack positions. That is what I said: duh! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Please forgive me. I misunderstood you. It sounded like ridicule to me, since that's what we're used to hearing here. Sorry about that, and also for seeing you more as an admin who was getting involved here, than as an editor. My bad. -- Fyslee / talk 02:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem in using this source if properly summarized and attributed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Given that this has been discussed at length, many times, I think that links to past discussions should be provided here for easy review and out of respect for the previous consensus efforts. --Ronz 19:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide links to these discussions? Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

If I am not asking too much of you Jossi, I would love to read your suggestion for summarization and attribution. This is a sore subject for many of us longtime editors here and getting a fresh perspective from an outside such as yourself should lead to a better reception by all. Also, with the doing away of an actual "Criticism" section (definitely an improvement to the site!), I would be curious to know your thoughts on the proper placement of such a critique. Thanks again for your help. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I am fairly certainly there is more, but the gist of the discussions can be found here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I would hope that Levine2112 would provide the links to past discussions, since he was a part of them and has brought up the subject to be addressed anew. --Ronz 21:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This source should not be used unless the relevance of the paper being cited can be established. I will resist the imposition of this paper on the article by either Jossi or Levine per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE until such time as they establish the notability of the paper as a critique. ScienceApologist 19:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I read with interest the discussion on this subject at Archive 9, and my opinion is that there is no solid argument presented to not to use this source, if properly summarized (one sentence will do) and attributed, including a wikilink to the WP article about the publication. Let the reader explore more about this subject without eliminating information that is useful about the dispute. As for a "Criticism" section, my preference is always to include criticism alongside other material in an article, as it provides better context for our readers and avoids undue weight violations and POV magnets. Finally, a disclaimer: I personally do not use any alternative medicines (my MD is a traditional doctor), and although I enjoy a therapeutic massage from time to time, I have no specific POV pro or con on this subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I will resist the imposition of this paper Uh? If there is no agreement, we proceed with dispute resolution, not by "resisting". This is Wikipedia, not a battleground. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

If there is no common ground found about this, I will place an RfC on this specific subject later today. I would appreciate it f editors avoid WP:CANVASS and afford non-involved editors to make their comments unburdened from polemics. Let them make their comments for a week or so, and then we can evaluate what they have said and decide on how to move forward. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This would seem to be a extremely reasonable step toward dispute resolution. Of course, I always would like to see common ground reached here at Talk first. But an RfC would be good for outside input. Thanks again. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

All either of you need do to resolve this issue is provide evidence that the Kauffman critique is noted by the mainstream and then it definitely will deserve entry. However, this is a mainstream topic and as such minority views on the topic are to be weighted in accordance with their prominence. ScienceApologist 20:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. This has nothing to do with "mainstream" or not, as quackwatch.com can also be described as not mainstream. It is a self-published source, with no peer review whatsoever, and very little editorial control that can be spoken of. As such, I would argue that a published criticism of the website is indeed useful. As it seems that we can only agree to disagree, the next step in WP:DE, which would start with a request for comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This is quite interesting: Quackwatch.com articles are not peer reviewed, and there are arguments that a peer reviewed article is not fit as a reliable source? I fail to see how that makes good editorial sense. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Dismissing Quackwatch as a self-published source with no editorial oversight, and thus no better than a run-of-the-mill SPS, isn't accurate in my opinion. Quackwatch features content from a number of experts in their respective fields, and it's been cited repeatedly and approvingly by a number of mainstream, reliable sources (e.g. JAMA, USNWR, etc as cited in the article). A useful comparison might be RealClimate. At the same time, all peer review is not created equal, and the peer review process at JSE is not the same as the peer review process at Science or the New England Journal of Medicine. A useful metric is, indeed, how often these sources are cited or mentioned by third parties, independent sources, etc. My sense is that Quackwatch is often cited by such sources (not always approvingly, of course), whereas JSE and Kauffman in particular are not cited much or at all on this topic by third-party sources. MastCell ^Talk 20:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Mastcell. I am not arguing about the credibility of Quackwatch.com. I am arguing for the fact that it is an SPS without an editorial process. The only thing that applies here is notability' of a website (See WP:WEB), which this website certainly is. OTOH I have not seen any published journal articles that have used Quackwatch.com as a source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Full agreement with MastCell on that one. He beat me to it! The negative statement above (not the first of precisely this character from this editor) reveals either an antagonistic attitude towards Quackwatch, or - AGF, and I will do that - a gross lack of understanding of the nature of Quackwatch, its contributors, its supporters, and its esteem among mainstream scientists, governmental agencies, universities, and other highly regarded sources, not to mention the skeptical community (which is of course mainstream). It is not a peer reviewed scientific journal, although it hosts plenty of it and uses it extensively, and should be judged accordingly. The Kauffmann article is just an opinion piece by a scientist who seems to have left or ignored his original scientific underpinnings. A search of the JSE archives reveals a large number of articles by Kauffmann. Those articles reveal a shocking amount of gullibility and support for woo woo ideas, and reveal that the JSE seems to be willing to publish anything, regardless of how scientifically nonsensical it is.

I have never argued for a total exclusion of this source (and have actually stayed away from the discussion for the most part, letting others use their time on it). If it is cited, then it should also be done with attribution that clearly reveals the fringe nature of the source. If that isn't done, readers will be left with the totally false impression (revealed here by the main supporter for inclusion) that because Kauffmann has a PhD his opinion is somehow a scientifically legitimate voice that deserves to be heard and believed. Far from it. He's a fringe believer who tries to fool people by claiming he's a skeptic. His writings reveal that he is a pseudoskeptic at best, to put it mildly. -- Fyslee / talk 22:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I really do not appreciate this Reveals either an antagonistic attitude towards Quackwatch, or - AGF, and I will do that - a gross lack of understanding of the nature of Quackwatch. You have absolutely no right to make an assessment of my motives. I made my arguments in good faith, and will appreciate a response that addresses my arguments and not your faulty perceptions of my motives. All I have argued is the fact that we have a website that is self-published, with zero or unknown editorial process, and that we have a critical paper written and published that has a publicly known editorial process. I give a hoot about Kauffman's opinions, as wel as another hoot about quackwatch opinions. All I am arguing for is for all significant opinions to be available for our readers, as NPOV is not negotiable. An RfC is the next step in DR and I will do so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, I can understand your feelings, especially since you seem to interpret my comments as "an assessment of [your] motives." But I have not done that. I have addressed your degree of knowledge of Quackwatch based on what seems apparent from your comments thus far. You even call it Quackwatch.com, when it is .org. Yes, a minor detail, but you also keep repeating that it is an SPS without editorial control which is not true. Please stop repeating that. It happens to be the largest internet database of its kind, with many individuals involved and thousands of pages and hundreds of articles ranging from extremely reliable sources not available elsewhere to informal and unreliable (in the Wikipedia sense, but otherwise reliable) commentaries we would never dream of using. It is a website with various types of content, not a medical journal like JAMA or BMJ (which also happen to have non-RS content, like letters to the editor - I'm "published" in the BMJ.....;-) It has editorial control of varying types depending on the article in question. Most articles include input by several individuals and consultation with even more, all with extensive background research, many references and of course fact checking. Of course it isn't perfect and each article needs to be judged on its own merits, and we haven't claimed otherwise. I do not question your good faith and intentions, only your degree of knowledge about this website. You have put your hand into a hornet's nest without realizing what you were dealing with. If someone who did not speak English very well and was not educated joined a discussion group about the Encyclopedia Britannica and immediately proclaimed that it was a minor source and of little worth, the others would react like we have done. You are no doubt educated, but this is another ballpark. It's a different game with different rules than you are used to. Stick around and you'll begin to learn more about Quackwatch, but it's only after you have used it as a source for years and researched its reputation in the mainstream that you will really learn to appreciate it. Welcome on board! -- Fyslee / talk 03:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, I don't doubt your good faith, and I do want to address your arguments. To bring it back, I really do think that Quackwatch is not a run-of-the-mill SPS, but one which collates work by authorities in a number of fields and has been cited approvingly by a number of respectable mainstream outlets. Again, an apt comparison would be with RealClimate, which is a blog without formal peer review, but which hosts work by people with real credentials in the field and garners mainstream citations. I don't have a problem with including the Kauffman article (if you go back a few million KB on this talk page, you'll probably find me arguing in favor of using it), but I don't think the argument should be based on casting Quackwatch as an SPS with zero credibility when in fact it's significantly more established than that. MastCell ^Talk 23:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying that the website lacks credibility , it may have a huge amount of it. I do not know, and our readers do not know that either. What s verifiable is that it is a website, with no editorial control, and that there is a journal that published a critical view of some of the articles published in that site. What is the big deal? I do not really see any. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Whaho! It's round and around time....again! (what's that, the second or third time this year, it's so hard to keep track of). Shot info 22:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, just be aware that Kauffman's article is a "Website Review", not a critique per se, and it is presented as just that in a journal of dubious standing with regards to it's review status. Given that it is in essence a book review, almost all other journals with similar book reviews do not peer review such reviews, nor are they presented as such. This couple with JSE's known "selectability" with respect to peer reviewing makes any claim of his website review having some sort of additional credibility, disingenuous. Mind you, this has been discussed before in the achieves, many, many, many, many, many times over. But once again, Levine has found another sucker to drag into the quagmire. O well, enjoy your time here :-). Shot info 00:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware that it is a website review, and also aware that this article is about a website. And no, I am not a sucker... :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If you are aware, please consider refactoring your RfC in the light of this. Shot info 00:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I do not see the need to refactor anything. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stephen_Barrett#JSE This is an obvious BLP violation.  Mr.Guru  talk  00:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

BLP violation? I don't think so. I monitor WP:BLP/N daily, was instrumental in the promotion of WP:BLP to policy status and see no BLP violation here. I think that involved editors pro and con are simply missing the point in these threads. There is no harm in stating that a person and his website has been criticized. It actually makes Quackwatch. com assertions more believable.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Front

I find this questionable per NPOV and SYN:

According to Quackwatch, nearly every week they get emails leveling accusations about being a front for the American Medical Association, the pharmaceutical industry ant the medical establishment, and they respond that "the idea is preposterous", and that they have no commercial or financial ties with any organization. [34]

It looks too much like another case of trying to present unsourced criticisms at quackwatch. I'm happy to explain further for the newer editors here if they'd like. Others are all to familiar with this tactic here. There are literally months of discussions on such issues. --Ronz 17:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Jossi is one step ahead of me, though I don't agree on his rationale. --Ronz 17:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You may have missed the fact that self-reverted myself, on the basis that a WP:SPS cannot be used to make claims about third parties. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

That is the only rationale possible, Ronz. The quote is from Quackwatch itself, but it refers to third parties, and can be seen as self-serving as well. See WP:SELFPUB. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Jossi's rationale was An WP:SPS cannot be used to make claims about third parties. My question for Jossi is: Who do you feel is the third party in this claim? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The author is using the site to talk about third parties: those people that purportedly write accusatory emails. That is both a claim about third parties, and can be also assessed to be on the self-serving side... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Having a great deal of familiarity with the article history, I know that this topic has been repeatedly added and removed from the article. The common problem with each and every time it's been added is that NPOV and SYN were being violated. It's a common problem here unfortunately. They are problems that overwhelm all the discussions here and in the other quackwatch-related articles. Thanks for the quick self-rev. --Ronz 18:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to to with SYN and NPOV. How could it be? It is simply a cite from the subject of this article. The only policies that apply here, if any, are WP:V (SPS and SELFPUB sections). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand Jossi's explanation of claims about third-parties. To my knowledge, this is the first time this particular quote has been of issue. There has been time where we discussed third-party criticism which included the assertion that Quackwatch is funded by the AMA and big pharm. That is a different issue though because it deals with third-party sources and not WP:SPS (necessarily). If I am understanding Jossi, if we had a reliable third-party source of significance (and not self-published) which made this claim against Quackwatch, we could certainly include it. In turn, we could include Quackwatch's response to such a claim. Is this correct, Jossi? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin just restored the information. Hopefully he'll explain shortly. --Ronz 19:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Arthur's argument is sound: the third parties are unnamed. But his argument does not address that it is a self-serving statement, which does not seem to be supported by any other source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Which is an NPOV concern. Per NPOV, without an independent source to support this information and help us present it in a balanced manner, I don't think it can be kept in the article. --Ronz 19:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, this has nothing to do with NPOV, as the claim is made by the subject of the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

After considering the arguments (not relating to the "third party", of which there is none), it appears self-serving, and cannot be used unless a real third party (Kaufmann?) makes the same accusation. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I think we're all in agreement that without another source, it should not be included. --Ronz 21:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget Hufford's article[35] discussing Quackwatch and Kauffman's "Watching the Watchdogs..." article. Although Hufford's article was deprecated by some editors more disposed to believe QW uncritically here, it is a scholarly paper in a peer reviewed journal, J of Medicine, Law & Ethics, on the nature and track record of the "skeptical" authors, specifically including Quackwatch.

In the same vein as Kauffman's article repeatedly shows, Quackwatch articles have long mispresented the megavitamin C positions seriously, (mis)leading "conventional medicine" advocates & the public by greatly misstating the hypotheses supposedly tested - repeatedly misrepresented in the quantities, durations & frequencies by a factor or ten to one hundred(!) as well as the nutrional paradigm generally. This is despite even having personal communications with Pauling, never mind Pauling's persistent public discussions & writings of the orthomolecular quantities even the lower range remains untested (Pauling's 1 to 2 gram/hr at first tickle of a cold) despite dozens & decades of irrelevant institutional tests outside the hypothesis range and Pauling's acknowledgement of the higher "megadose regimes" proposed (and used) eg. not 1, 2 or 3 grams orally per day but 40-200 grams in divided doses for treating many respiratory illnesses (with other nutrients). The weakness of a superficial use of WP:V here is if enough "WP:RS" sources say it and a lot of WP editors gang up, it is hard to untangle the misinformation even when it gets blatantly misleading and counterfactually misrepresented despite clear, most current WP:V science to the contrary (and even directly testable by many individuals).

My point here is that Quackwatch is notable and is uncritically accepted by many, including the popular magazines with highly paid pharma sponsored ads, but that QW has, at least on a number occasions upon closer examination, been noted to be quite *scientifically unreliable* in its positions whether or not it represents some mainstream in medical beliefs grossly misrepresentative testing of economic competitors. A large segment of our medical industry simply does not (want to) hear such criticism, no matter how well founded or carefully stated by qualified scientists. Even Dr Barrett says he's not even trying to be balanced. Here at the QW space articles, Wikipedia has been used to advance Quackwatch's image as promoted without serious criticism, systematically deleting WP:V criticism such as Hufford WP:V, WP:RS article quoting Kauffman's article at length and QW supporters deprecating QW's critics out of hand.--I'clast 15:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Unconvincing argument. QW is not a peer-review journal: it's a public service. In that vein, the descriptions it uses may be overly broad like any public service announcement about scientific topics, but that doesn't mean that the site is "unreliable". The legalistic game-playing that goes on with this kind of thing is, quite frankly, absurd. It's similar to the arguments leveled by the Discovery Institute against critics of intelligent design. Trying to profit on the actual ambiguities inherent in scientific methodology and investigations in order to claim that Barrett is somehow being dishonest or worse is not only fearmongering, it is frankly ludicrous. On closer investigation, even the best science textbooks have oversights, errors, and deliberate whitewashing. That's because a general presentation of facts and scientific consensus can never be truly 100% descriptive. I'm tired of people with obvious agendas defaming a very good resource like QW just because they don't like to see their pet ideas attacked. Take a dose of WP:COI and call me in the morning. Sheesh! ScienceApologist 15:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sheesh! Bringing the intelligent design controversy to this argument is quite disingenuous. I see no substantial argument presented for the exclusion of criticism of this public service, website, advocacy outlet or whatever you want to call it. On the contrary, it would be expected that such a site will attract criticism, and not having it in the article is confusing, misleading, and makes for a poor article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I see the intelligent design controversy as apt. As in that case, we have here proponents that are doing anything they can to get their viewpoints presented. As has been said here many, many (...) times, we need to strictly adhere to NPOV and OR so as not to let minority (or even insignificant) viewpoints be treated as something they are not. --Ronz 16:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. NPOV calls for all significant viewpoints to be presented and that is my intention. And if we do not find common ground to identify these significant viewpoints, we shall pursue dispute resolution until we find it. We need just patience and perseverance. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Except what it seems to me the alternative medicine group fails to understand is that they represent a minority viewpoint per WP:WEIGHT. ScienceApologist 18:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ouch... That may be your opinion, SA. I do not thing is neither that black and white, nor that simple. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Given the popularity of alternative medicine and traditional medicine throughout the world, I am not sure I understand your argument to be anything more than your ungrounded opinion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Majority opinion is not verifiable or reliable. It may be that most people in the world are geocentrists. That does not mean our verifiable statements about the lack of evidence for geocentrism is "ungrounded". Reality is not based on a popularity contest. ScienceApologist 21:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The issue here is whether Quackwatch opinions are verifiable or reliable or not, where WP:V & NPOV take on special importance in scientific issues that are akin to SPOV rather than MPOV.

The WP:COI, at least with roots in personal economic/professional interests or outside internet wars AFAIK, has pretty much been on the "QW defense". What nominally "(QW) mainstream medical" proponents often fail to acknowledge is that QW's bias and obsolesence on the *scientific* parts has rendered QW's shortcomings, in at least some of the chemical/biologically testable areas, visible to a growing number of people with substantial relevant science and experimental backgrounds in bio-/chem-.

Also one should carefully distinguish Science, its principles, and Medicine, its politics, common or "accepted" practices, and presuppositions, where some here are eager to presume or portray that they are synonymous. They aren't.

Because the errors made by QW often involve more than one subrepted concept or fact, they are difficult to coherently disentangle here for a less observant or knowledgeable audience despite their publicly noted failures. Yes, in our society good, solid, generically based science, as well as some bad science, will likely be in the publication minority when juxtaposed at direct variance with large, checkered, commercial/institutional interests. The QW proponents pound their *opinion* of QW's "infallibility" (promoting QW's "scientific authoritativeness" and deprecating, minimizing or eliminating even its more scientifically, or legally, qualified critics) where those opinions that concern QW's "scientific rationales", with serious errors concerning basic experimental practices in hypothesis testing and observational contradictions. The reason I pick on vitamin C here is twofold: (1) it involves perhaps the most notable, highly misunderstood scientific disputes with persistently highly misleading "authoritative" misrepresentations, with errors & misrepresentations repeated and promoted here at WP by QW & its proponents (as well as other fellow travellers), and (2) the Quackwatch versions are so benighted that QW's scientific violations and errors are so fundamental that the disputes are not only over outputs (observations, measurements & interpreted results) but that QW persistently repeats blatantly corrupt(ed) inputs that have been repeatedly, and publicly, identified as incorrect over decades but denounced in the best traditions of biased human nature, institutional/economic power, and demagoguery.

Basically these blatant, persistent methodolical failures in hypothesis testing, largely supported by QW's repetition to the public & despite QW claims of authoritative nutrient expertise, especially with respect to the orthomed viral and respiratory disease claims, reads something like "We *only* (look or) tested at 0.2X to 4X, failed a hundred times after spending millions, therefore the experiments & observations at 40X-500X are "wrong" no matter how many decades we have been told how to or shown otherwise and the high range experimenters ("frauds/quacks") should be burned at the stake." Again where *current* science (last 10-20 years) shows significant support to many of the observed ascorbate claims by several mechanisms, as well as clinical observations by qualified scientists/physicians (in different decades, continents & languages, or even DIY) where QW simply show no *relevant* hard data but QW supporters (or believers) launch a flood of ill founded technical (WP:RS quotable but WP:V obsolete/wrong) innuendo at WP (still mopping it up, slowly). These particular QW articles are pretty unscientific or pseudoskeptical as well as biased based on WP:V facts and the publically noted, repeated, basic methodological failures in hypothesis testing. Errors so much that even many common people *have* been able to punch through the barrage of "authoritative QW mainstream" bs on this particular topic. Yet QW gets more favorable, unblemished portrayal than, say, some of Einstein's foibles. There is statistical evidence that QW is a small minority, population wise, even if widely promoted in the various (big $ advertising) publications and associates, as well as being seriously scientifically challenged.

Prof Kauffman's review and analyses of 8 QW articles are specific scientific & methodological criticism of Quackwatch by a qualified scientist and are quoted at length by Prof Hufford in a WP:RS. Some of Kauffman's points controversial to WP-QW proponents have already been shown elsewhere here at WP to be compliant with *current* medical school research results.--I'clast 23:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox for your fringe beliefs, I'clast. This diatribe is nothing more than unsubstantiated and (frankly) ignorant innuendo. Just because quacks don't like being called quacks doesn't mean that we have to accommodate their minority viewpoints. (NOTE: This comment refers to the people that Barrett is directly criticizing. It does not refer to any user on this page.) Read WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT. ScienceApologist 00:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that you are crossing a line here that you should not. I would appreciate if you can make a little effort to remain civil and address arguments presented on their merits and without ad hominem attacks. It is not helpful, it is disrespectful, and frankly, reflects very poorly on you. Any further such ad hominem will be logged and if they persist, will be brought to the attention of the appropriate noticeboard. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I am being civil in as much as I am stating as plainly as I can what I believe to be the case based on the evidence presented. I'm convinced that basically, I'clast is writing excessive amounts of prose with very little in the way of relevance to this conversation (and, indeed, very little in the way of factual support) in an attempt to force a snow job acceptance of his viewpoint that Quackwatch should be considered a dubious source for issues of medical science. I balk at this suggestion and do accuse the user of having ulterior motives. Frankly, there is little to comment as to the "merits" of his arguments: they are fairly much "hot air". As to ad hominem, I am simply pointing out the problematic starting point that this editor is working from, effectively, I see this as a conflict of interest as I pointed out above. I encourage you to take it to a noticeboard if you think I have erred in my evaluation of the situation. ScienceApologist 00:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I do enjoy how I'clast often regards the following of policy as a shortcoming "QW proponent" et.al. If only his references were published in reputable sources, then we wouldn't be here. Also, SA may be bordering on uncivil, but his comments are not ad hominem "attacks". The arguments by I'clast are long winded soapboxery. Sorry, that's what they are. Calling the argument that is not ad hominem in any way shape nor form. If I'clast wishes his arguements to be discussed seriously, he should park his quite apparent POV at the door and look at improving the article, rather then educating Wikipedian Editors on why the Community is wrong and he is right. Shot info 01:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You could have said just this, to better effect and less drama: "I'clast, could you please summarize your point in a short sentence. That way editors can address your arguments in a manner that can move this debate forward". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Now I can understand someone telling me that I shouldn't tell someone that they are a coward or a liar, but how is it problematic to tell someone that what they are doing is disrupting the talkpage by using it as a soapbox for fringe beliefs, that their diatribe is nothing more than unsubstantiated and ignorant innuendo, and that we don't need to accommodate the feelings of those criticized by the subject of the article? Really, I want to know what's so terrible about this. Explain it to me on my talk, though, as here is not the place to do it. ScienceApologist 01:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'clast has been told this repeatibly. Just because he wishes to get on his Soapbox does not mean that other editors are not allowed to point this out and dismiss his argument. Shot info 01:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI, in Wikipedia does not appreciate editors that think (a) that they are always right; (b) that believe that their POV is the "correct" POV instead of just a POV; and (c) that believe that by categorizing an editor as biased, ignorant, or conflicted, fail to see their own bias, ignorance, and conflicts. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI, Wikipedia does not "appreciate" anybody as Wikipedia tain't no person. You may not appreciate certain editors for various reasons, but you are not Wikipedia. Me, personally, I don't appreciate editors who think (a), (b), or (c) either and thank the flying spaghetti monster that I am not such an editor. However, if you do think I am such an editor, you are welcome to explain how you came to that conclusion at my talkpage. ScienceApologist 01:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you got my point. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry SA, Jossi's description fit I'clast just as much as you or anyone else. Jossi just isn't used to reading I'clast's missives, which we have done dozens of times. They all come down to a complaint that mainstream sources, V sources, and RSources do not confirm his version of what is scientific accuracy related to megavitamin therapy and orthomolecular medicine, and Barrett just happens to side with the mainstream and thus has more V & RS on his side. Since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor permits OR, but is dependent on already established (IOW historical) V & RS, we are forced to use them and can't use I'clast's sources which hope that they will become verified in the future and mainstream in the future. Our hands are tied. -- Fyslee / talk 01:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

SA, regarding diatribe...beliefs, my discussion is actually about verifiable facts, historical and scientific, not my beliefs, that relate to the unreliablilty of some of QW's articles that have significant misrepresentations about dosed treatment quantities in them concerning orthomolecular medicine. Before and since Pauling, orthomed pioneers & practitioners have complained in print[36][37] about the "mainstream medical" lack of experimentation with the actual orthomolecular protocols & dosage ranges, despite funding dozens upon dozens of *much* lower "large doses" than the current Pauling/orthomed recommendations. The essentially ex cathedra statements by the Quackwatch authors have *no* experimental basis for important parts of their conclusions, like correct dosing, not even remotely close - pls show me any "mainstream test" tests in QW's referenced tests even at 2 grams per hour for any respiratory illness (Pauling's "first tickle" version, lower dose orthomed), much less say 150 grams per day for a flu, divided & dosed every waking hour[38]. I have never seen a "mainstream" test beyond 4 - 6 grams daily, OID or BID, and a single dose test of 8 grams. "Mainstream medicine" proponents often do have verifiably mistaken beliefs about what orthomed actually recommends in print, where Quackwatch is often being miscited as a reliable source, and QW is verifiably not reliable on a number of important points stating the orthomed positions (as in greatly mistaken or misrepresenting orthomed, even if they are copying other "authoritative" or "mainstream" authors that are verifiably (WP:V) counterfactual misinformation). QW points that are mistaken, or simply innuendo, are often in overwhelming quantity that are hard to correct in a maelstorm of uninformed if popularized POV at WP. And I do provide WP:RS & WP:V references for my science quotes, sometimes slowly, where I am trying to get the most current or best experiemental science refs available to me in the wilds of North Am.

Publications like QW often control or abort *any* scientific discussion of alt med subjects by greatly distorting the discussion & proposition into unrecognizable strawmmen. I.e. if orthomed reports up to 500 grams^[39] per day of oral vitamin C at bowel tolerance[40], even dosed at several times per hour, may help ameleriorate or greatly shorten or cure a viral infection and Quackwatch says that is "quackery" because the referenced "mainstream" tested dozens and dozens of tests that typically run 0.2 - 4 grams *per day* as "conclusively" negative or insignificant despite repeated orthomed publications with the much larger amounts, say 2 to 12 grams *per hour*. Who really is the (pseudo)scientific/skeptical crank or quack when these supposed "experts" fail to test, or even correctly state, the orthomed hypothesis amounts by an order of magnitude of more ??? Done deliberately this is clear scientific misconduct or fraud, but whatever the cause or rationale the greatly nonrepresentative tests are praised as "authoritative" in the "QW mainstream" POV.--I'clast 17:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

C more authoritatively

Please reference Do vitamins C and E affect respiratory infections ?. Even discussing the lower amounts "(mainstream) high dose tests" QW authors fare poorly. On p. 63, major Cochrane reviews author on vitamin C, Harri Hemila (MD + 2 PhDs), strongly criticizes QW / NCAHF's Victor Herbert's conclusions on several vitamin C papers. Among several criticisms of QW's Stephen Barrett on vitamin C, p.64, Barrett’s presentation of facts related to the findings from studies on vitamin C and the common cold have been markedly biased. or, how about, Barrett’s claim that at best there is only a slight reduction in symptoms appears grossly misleading considering the published results. Hmmm, QW authors sound pretty scientifically unreliable on vitamin C coming from a real mainstream vitamin C & respiratory disease authority.--I'clast 17:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You are citing a dissertation, which does not carry the weight of a peer-reviewed article. You have cited some choice quotes, but I think additional context is illuminating. She states, "Anderson et al. (1972) found that vitamin C supplementation (1-4 g/ day) decreased the ‘numbers of days confined to house’ per subject by 48% in subjects with a low dietary intake of fruit juices. Barrett’s claim that at best there is only a slight reduction in symptoms appears grossly misleading considering the published results." She highlighted one result from a study from 1972 that covered subjects with low fruit juice intake. Presumably this is the best evidence to refute Barrett's claim, and it's just not that good. It's not very damning or even convincing. Certainly, if there are good criticisms of Barrett or Quackwatch, they can do more than fault him for missing a solitary finding from 1972. Antelan ^talk 17:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hemila's "mere" dissertation is a integrated rollup of about 15 years of Hemila's peer reviewed vitamin C papers on respiratory infections including subsequent Cochrane review material integrated with some supportive details from the prior peer reviewed papers. Hemila takes 2 pages to deflate QW authors' related claims, Hemila using accepted *mainstream* lower dose test data only, properly analyzed and reinterpreted. Hemila's previously published statements in peer reviewed journals demolish documented bias and serious errors in previous mainstream positions that form the mainstream and QW type biases against vitamin C in respiratory infection(e.g. commentary on one Hemila paper), again only using the "low (nega)dose" type "mainstream" data, rather than orthomolecular Megadose quantities an order of magnitude, or more, higher. The 2nd quote concerning Anderson is an example where Barrett's writing miscites or misrepresents, not the statement & fact's single, absolute conclusory determination for vitamin C for everybody - academically it's the act or bias that is notable, not so much the scientific error's magnitude or generality. The 1st quote, ...markedly biased, is more broadly written, followed by the example of the 2nd quote. Btw, Harri turns out to be a he in Finland, not a she.--I'clast 23:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Negadose? Now I've heard it all. I'm not convinced by this paper, which cites little controlled evidence and relies heavily on technicalities that are barely relevant to the broader picture. The conclusions at the end of the paper, which do little more than suggest "further research", don't convince me that Barrett was wrong. My point in telling you this is that I don't think this is one of the better criticisms of QW - I think jossi has found more robust ones, below. Antelan ^talk 03:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You might want to read Hemila's thesis (or associated papers) closer, he pretty well authoritatively guts everything you (and your professors) probably think you know about vitamin C and respiratory disease after being soaked in 35+ years of mangled statistical handling and clear "mainstream" bias & error on the relatively low 0.2 - 4 gram/day mainstream test range. Btw, looking at their correspondence, Hemila and a number orthomed supporters would not be considered friends. Obviously the point of the Hemila's 143 pages is vitamin C & respiratory disease, not debunking QW so he doesn't spend much time directly building the case to discredit the VH & SB bias, as much as simply noting their positions and pontifications as markedly incompatible with the evidence and ...markedly biased. "Negadose" was my humorous attempt to differentiate the orthomolecular Megadoses and the faux "megadoses" usually run in the much lower dosed mainstream tests and stilted analyses criticizing orthomed and thus has nothing to do with the credibility of Hemila's papers. Hemila is the recognized mainstream expert here and has reviewed all the data he could find in an exhaustive retrospective search for papers, building on others previous searchs & techniques. Hamila's work is built out of a *series* of peer reviewed papers at a high level in a professionally dangerous area where care was essential to professional survival and to maintain/advance his Cochrane reviewer status.

Hemila's recommendation for more research recognizes an "intriguing" upward trend of effectiveness with rising vitamin C dosage in the mainstream data analyzed to date that warrants extending the test range upwards to higher ascorbate loadings. No doubt he doesn't want anyone to claim he peeked under the covers at orthomed's results :) .

David Hufford, bioethics prof at UPenn Med school and Penn State Med Center, says severe bias in a V RS article. Vitamin C Cochrane reviewer (mainstream expert) Harri Hamila says ...markedly biased and prof Joel Kauffman[41], quoted at length by Hufford, says contaminated with incomplete data, obsolete data, technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo,...repetition of groundless dogma...misled by the trappings of scientific objectivity. This article currently unabashedly favors QW without noting criticism addressing such blemishes & claims by highly qualified 3rd parties.--I'clast 15:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You say, You might want to read Hemila's thesis (or associated papers) closer, he pretty well authoritatively guts everything you (and your professors) probably think you know about vitamin C and respiratory disease after being soaked in 35+ years of mangled statistical handling and clear "mainstream" bias & error on the relatively low 0.2 - 4 gram/day mainstream test range.

I'm wondering why you keep bringing this up on the talk page? I say "This is not mainstream" and you say "the mainstream is wrong". That's not a response that is going to get your views much traction on Wikipedia. This is a page for discussing Quackwatch, not whether professors of medicine at Johns Hopkins know their basic biochemistry. Antelan ^talk 22:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I am pointing out that the vitamin C story changed substantially in mainstream science or mainstream scientific medicine as of 2005-2006 with authoritative sources weighing in with significant concessions to LP & C on mainstream "oversights", but not enough for concretely altering your mainstream medical education with "new" treatments. The C story at this point is not just basic biochemistry, it is a significant science dispute re-opening after being side tracked for several decades by mainstream medical figures (with significant documented allegations of scientific fraud and bias by Pauling et al), now quietly substantiated on parts. Authoritative mainstream figures are saying that the old mainstream got the testing and analyses wrong with significant new publications.

The dispute is significant to Quackwatch for at least several reasons: (1) because Quackwatch authors have so vitriolicly attacked LP & vit C for so long it is a significant part of the QW history; (2) because the Moertel fraud (LP said many times & points)/bias aspects should have been be clear to any claimed scientific medical parties or claimed experts adequately involved and doing their homework for public pronouncements or long term discussions even if Pauling et al didn't protest so loudly; (3) the Pauling - vitamin C attack has been a long running publicity note for Quackwatch, after basicly leading a good part of the chorus continuing to shout the man down, where it turns out even Pauling's relatively modest orthomed proposals remain *untested* after 30 years and millions of dollars of faux tests that have Quackwatch as the most familiar cheer leader. Now authoritative mainstream voices (e.g. NIH, Cochrane reviewers) are having to admit there might be something there, but the mainstream needs to finally *start* doing their homework & performing *relevant* tests where they have *none*.--I'clast 16:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Consensus version?

Does that means that this article is locked? I am sure that this is not the case. Can those that keep reverting my edits explain how do you expect users to better this article? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Here a diff for one specific edit which I self reverted. What is wrong with that edit? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Other issues

1. The lead needs to be expanded and NPOV'ed as per WP:LEAD
2. The criticism section will be better merged into the rest of the article, rather than in a separate section
3. Some of the statements in the "Credibility as a source" are not verifiable, for example, healthfinder.org provides a link to this website, under this disclaimer: http://www.healthfinder.gov/aboutus/disclaimer.asp, which clearly means no endorsement whatsoever.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate editor's comments on these issues. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Book question

How this book should be assessed in regard of this subject?

• Aloiso, Ted. Blood Never Lies(2004) by Ted Aloiso, Llumina Press ISBN 1932560947

It has a full chapter very critical Quackwatch.com. Seems that this person is the Director of a Veritas Health Institute in Canada, but I do not know what that Institute is or anything else about the author besides that he published that book.

I would also appreciate editor's comments on this article: [42] in particular related to this debate [43] (also [44]} ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate editor's comments on these issues. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Llumina is a vanity press, Kos publishing is a vanity press. The final paper is the opinion of a single medical professional who was summarizing a "debate" between MCS true-believers and debunkers. It's not the best source, but you could do worse. ScienceApologist 01:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes Lumina is a self publishing entity, but I am not referring to that. I am referring to the magazine article which is republished on a page of the kospublishing.com site, which was published originally in Vitality Magazine, May 2002. The magazine article and the self-published book, both refer to the same incident, that's all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, Ted Aloiso's book is self-published then...

Vitality magazine isn't exactly a neutral source on the matter either.

ScienceApologist 02:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have access to Ingenta database? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I do. ScienceApologist 02:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, Kosh publishing does not seem to be a vanity press, but a small publisher of alternative medicine books. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a vanity press run by one woman who is on her own crusade to teach the world about alternative medicine. Click on the "about" tab for more. ScienceApologist 02:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I gave them a cursory look. It's Ted Aloisio. He appears to be a live-cell microscopy quack. His book should be treated as self-published given the publisher "Llumina Press provides personalized self-publishing services including editing and marketing."

As for the rest, I don't think arguments based upon ad-hominems and straw men (from both sides) deserves mention without independent reliable sources. --Ronz 02:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That is why I am asking for access to the to Ingenta database, in which we may be able to find if any of these assertions of fact are true or not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I am also trying to find out if the Vitality magazine article was an op-ed or a full article in the magazine. Will know soon. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Vitality magazine's articles are generally all just alt med hype pieces anyway. ScienceApologist 02:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It does not matter, as it is a reliable source to describe criticism made by Quackwatch's targets. We will not be using the source to make claims of truth, but to assert an opinion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

As long as the opinion is appropriately weighted, there's really no issue. ScienceApologist 04:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Non-profit status

Also, I have tried to find out what non-profit status Quackwatch Inc has, but I have failed to find them in GuideStar [45]. Does anybody know what status it has? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Does this help?: Non-Profit (Non Stock) -- Fyslee / talk 05:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Fyslee. What is confusing to me at this point is its relationship with NCAHF, which states in its website that QW is part of their company. NCAHF is a 501(c)(3), but QW is not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Summarizing previous discussions

There's one very important point that's made many times in the discussion archives that hasn't been mentioned in this latest round of discussions: Quackwatch, Stephen Barrett, and NCAHF are only barely notable. They certainly are all notable, and as independent entities, but there are very few independent, reliable sources that indicate they're notable. (There have been many discussions for deletion and/or merging, which is not the point.) Because there is so little written about them in usable sources, it's very easy to get frustrated looking for usable sources supporting details about them. In the case of both praise and criticisms (and just about anything else), we often find ourselves in a position where there are none we can use at all. This is to be expected given that they're barely notable to begin with. When we push the limits of NPOV, RS, and related policies/guidelines, it's useful to remember that perhaps the information isn't important enough to present at all. --Ronz 22:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If there are no sources to support an NPOV representation of an article, there are two choices in Wikipedia: One is to submit the article to AfD, so that it gets assessed for deletion. The other, is to make a short stub of the article with only very basic information about the subject, just a sentence or two. I will be surprised if any of these two approaches will gather any traction. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry that I didn't mention that stubbing is not the issue either. We have enough sources to avoid that. It's just that we don't, and probably never will, have the sources to make large and detailed articles. We've repeatedly pushed the limits of NPOV, RS, etc to try to expand the article, and in almost every case it has resulted in extreme frustration. Basically, I'm saying that we have to be expect that these should be small (probably smaller) articles. Anyways, this is just my summary of spending far too much time trying to get some balance to these articles. --Ronz 00:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That is where fresh eyes can help. I am just getting started with this article, and see no problems in finding and adding some sources to balance this article for NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If I had been drinking coffee my keyboard would be ruined. Ronz, what have you been drinking? There are thousands of sources, but it's just a matter of how large we want this to get and what sources are worth using. -- Fyslee / talk 01:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

"and what sources are worth using" Yes, but that's my point. There don't seem to be many usable sources for the topics that editors want to include into the article. As you say above in another section, "Our hands are tied." We can only include what's available in acceptable sources. Too many of the discussions here have been driven not by the available sources, but by points of view that editors want included somehow. --Ronz 04:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

So maybe I can try to summarize my summary: Most of the problems here come from editors trying to find ways to include their perspective or point of view into the article, when instead we should be writing the article from the available and appropriate sources. Because the articles' topics aren't highly notable, there are often no sources available at all for what editors want to include. --Ronz 04:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I continue to disagree with your statement, Ron. I have edited hundreds of articles in Wikipedia, and I have yet to see one article about a controversial issue that does not carry criticism from an opposing POV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see Ronz or anyone else denying that there are plenty (thousands) of criticisms from opposing POV, or that some of them should be included. They must be, but which ones are worth it? This comment summarizes the situation very nicely:

• Look, the fact is that advocates of fringe or minoritarian viewpoints have a tough road to hoe on Wikipedia. This is supposed to be a serious encyclopedia. Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work. WP:WEIGHT codifies this. Of course minority or fringe viewpoints can be represented and covered, but advocates who relentlessly push for favorable treatment of widely discredited fringe viewpoints and refuse to bow to any sort of consensus or Wikipedia policy don't last long (or rather, they shouldn't but often do). MastCell ^Talk 00:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

While the good doctor is discussing sources used for a slightly different purpose (for facts, not specifically criticisms), MastCell touches on some principles that still apply here. We need criticisms in this article. We need good and legitimate ones, not ad homs or straw men. There aren't many others than that. Critics "have a tough road to hoe." The criticisms need to have some weight and legitimate notability (not notoriety) behind them. If they came from reliable sources that are respected in the mainstream, we'd really have something here! I'd like to see such criticisms in the article. We can and have had plenty of criticisms (the article used to be mostly criticisms) that were libelous, outright lies, ad homs, straw men, and mere burps of irritation, and some were from attack sites of the lowest kind. Some got removed and the sources blacklisted for any use at Wikipedia, they were that bad. We need good and legitimate criticisms, or lacking that, criticisms from V sources that also include balancing comments that give context. Lies should not be allowed to stand alone without letting the reader know that what is being said has been rebutted effectively and beyond any doubt, otherwise we are facilitating the deception of readers by editors with their own agendas or who are running errands for those who wish to defame Barrett and deceive readers about him. -- Fyslee / talk

Thank you. We are in violent agreement then. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Psst....over here....just between the two of us. I too have some criticisms of Quackwatch and Barrett personally, but unfortunately I'm not a V & RS.... ;-) -- Fyslee / talk 06:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comments

Comments by involved editors

Comment by Jossi (talk · contribs)

• My question is very simple: can a source published in a peer reviewed journal be used to describe criticism of this website, which is in itself self-published and without editorial control, when it is this lack of editorial control and review that the criticism is based upon? See #Kauffman_critique for a summary of that source, as well as links to the journal in which it was published.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arthur Rubin

I still question whether the journal in question is peer-reviewed, and whether it, even if peer reviewed, may exhibit intentional bias against the site we're talking about. So, the answer is still no, as far as I'm concerned, but JSE may not really be peer-reviewed nor may Quackwatch be necessarily SPS. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Is intentional bias a reason to dismiss a source? Is intentional bias verifiable, or just an editors's opinion? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Intentional bias could rationally be inferred from the journal's charter, but it is OR. Unfortunately, that would mean, that to avoid WP:BIAS on our part, we need to include that section of the charter in the article, or at least prominantely in the citation. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, we can do that gently and without poisoning the well. Readers can always find more info by follwoing the wikilink. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

How can we do it? Leaving an unadorned reference seems inadequate. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Give it a go. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought I tried that a while back. It was reverted clause-by-clause by the pro-alternative medicine cabal, until nothing was left. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, it's a website review. In my experience with peer-reviewed professional journals, review articles are not peer-reviewed. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I could read, the review was not about the website itself, but about several documents published on the website. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

He calls it a "website review". Whether it is or not is up to interpretation of the reader, I suppose. ScienceApologist 18:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Adam Cuerden

Quackwatch has a lengthy list of advisors, so it's not really a self-published source, and the JSE's "peer review" system is... not what is commonly understood by the name. On the whole, it rather seems that saying the JSE is good for criticising Quackwatch is like saying that the Creation Science Quarterly is a good source for attacking, say, The Panda's Thumb (a collective evolution blog). Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Do the advisors review the documents posted in the site? It does not seem so. See [46] All articles described in that review were signed by Stephen Barrett, M.D. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments by respondents to this RFC

Can we find a reputable, mainstream journal that has criticisms of Quackwatch? Antelan ^talk 03:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Do we need such? I have seen many articles in Wikipedia, in which the threshold for including criticism does not require a mainstream journal. One example, the Christopher Hitchens article has a reference to criticism made by William A. Donohue of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Liberties, obviously a partisan organization that is upset with Hitchens anti-religious stance. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm offering that suggestion because it would, I believe, ameliorate the concerns raised by others while still providing the criticism you are seeking. Any criticism from the mainstream would suffice. Antelan ^talk 03:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I've yet to see one. This is basically the issue. ScienceApologist 04:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Many articles in Wikipedia carry sources that are not from the "mainstream", and it seems to contradict NPOV that a site as this one cannot carry criticism of these being targeted by it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That is precisely one of the proofs of the acceptance of Quackwatch in the mainstream - the lack of evidence against it from that quarter. The few "criticisms" mentioned in website reviews are regarding minor imperfections and irritating things, not of systemic errors. Criticisms are nearly always ad hominem and straw man attacks (never real debunking of Quackwatch's arguments) from fringe sources that have been criticized for their unscientific or outright deceptive and/or criminal practices.

In the case of deceptive or criminal practices, Quackwatch often levels criticisms after they (individuals, etc.) have been charged with such by the police, FTC, or FDA, IOW Quackwatch is just reporting, not originating, the information. (That's what happend with Hulda Clark, where Quackwatch and Barrett were never involved until after she got into trouble.) What then happens is that Barrett and others work on researching the person, company, or profession, and expand on the subject by providing what they have found. When that process is finished it becomes an article, often with Barrett's signature, but having involved input from numerous volunteers. I have seen this process work several times when quackish and/or fraudulent issues were first discovered by participants on the Healthfraud Discussion List (of which I was a participant, but now no longer know what they are even doing). The list members (an international collection of over 500 individuals, many of whom are professionals in science and health care) would then report and discuss their findings and later Barrett (or a list member) would produce an article including those sources and even more. Fact checking was very basic to the whole procedure. Often antagonistic members (or even trolls) would criticize or find fault with the discussions and findings, and if they were right changes would be made and the final product would be even better. Basically many articles are the product of many persons' efforts. Quackwatch is definitely not an SPS without editorial oversight or lack of fact checking. Articles are often later revised in keeping with new information of a reliable character, IOW a conservative approach. While Barrett often does much of the work, he is not alone. He is an experienced editor, coordinator, task deligater, author, moderator, and teacher, whose expertise on the subjects of quackery and health fraud are renowned in the mainstream and feared and hated among the fringe and criminals. People automatically place themselves in one category or the other by their favorable or negative comments about him and his work, which is the nature of things. It can't be any other way. The third possibility is comments made in ignorance. -- Fyslee / talk 05:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not disputing any of that (although I am not sure it can be substantiated by a source, otherwise we would have that in the article already). Only that what you call "antagonistic members" have a viewpoint which is not currently presented in the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, again, my point is that if you can find mainstream criticism, all of the other issues will melt away. I'm proposing this as a way to end the back-and-forth that seems to be happening here. Why perseverate over what seems, after a brief read, to be a largely reactionary diatribe if there is better material to be found? Antelan ^talk 05:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point, and hope that you could understand mine. My point is that a website that carries criticism of X, will have , by its nature criticism of it by X. Not describing such criticism, puts this article in the realm of not being factual, as well as not describing the controversies surrounding their activities (that by the look of it—read the related articles—is quite substantial. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like a straw man argument to me, or has someone deleted all criticisms? We have had plenty of them. -- Fyslee / talk 05:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Jossi - Yes, I can understand that X will criticize the same website that criticizes X. This is simply to be expected, and does not establish that X's criticism merits a mention in the website's Wikipedia page. Hence, my point about looking for mainstream criticism, rather than what seems to be criticism that in this case seems to be reactive at best or fringe at worst. Antelan ^talk 05:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

(ed conf) I see your point, Antelan. Hopefully we will find some secondary sources that describe the criticism, which could be quoted in that context, rather than directly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Antelan's argument is essentially notability, which Hufford's peer reviewed paper well establishes for Kaufman's JSE paper. Kaufman is reviewing from the mainstream methodology viewpoint of science, concerning *highly* politicized topics on a partisan site. Kaufman is using *modern* research & facts for his discussion. This "fringe" dismissal business is tiresome where Kaufman has quite modern mainstream references, in the paper or, more, his book, Malignant Medical Myths [47][48] and his points in the Watching Watchdogs at Quackwatch paper are largely about (lack of) QW factuality and proper scientific reasoning & conduct, which he is quite qualified to do.--I'clast 15:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Another factor that may be adding confusion is a consensus decision (required by policy) to keep on topic. IOW criticisms should be placed in the appropriate article, so while many criticisms mention Quackwatch, they are directed very specifically at Barrett and have ended up being moved to the Barrett article. Because the articles are rarely rebutted, Quackwatch and the articles go scott free, while the author (and Barrett often gets criticized, even when another author has written and signed the article!) gets lambasted with personal attacks, without any rebutting of the actual contents of his writings. That's what makes 98% of the criticisms unworthy of use here. -- Fyslee / talk 05:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand. It may be difficult to separate the website from the person behind it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Very true. That's why certain special positive and negative things should be in both articles. -- Fyslee / talk 06:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

RfC Response Is the Journal of Scientific Exploration a WP:reliable source for use in this article? NO. See Time Magazine, Science on the Fringe.. Dlabtot 20:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

JSE as an independently edited periodical with a qualified editorial board is a sufficiently reliable source to report (alternative) views on controversial subjects such as a qualified scientist's analyses, or questions, as on entrenched or popularized (pseudo)skepticism in medicine. The nature of the subjects in altmed, the partisan site, and the journal itself, indicate that there is basic conflict or questions on politics, economics, and scientific matters that is largely a sufficient notice to caution readers. JSE has far fewer economic conflicts of interest than the usual (pharma sponsored) "mainstream" media, well noted by prominent mainstream figures[49][50][51], as well as their altmed counterparts.--I'clast 15:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

JSE is a "peer-reviewed" journal, per their own statement, but the editorial board has also said that they don't believe in peer-review. (And would you please cite the book, rather than the amazon.com sales link?) The question of economic conflicts of interest is suitable for discussion, but philosophical conflicts of interest are, IMHO, more serious, as they are extremely difficult to document. JSE has shown such conflicts in their editorial policy, and so cannot possibly be considered a reliable source except in cases where the article's author is separately a reliable source. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

An article in the JSE is certainly not a reliable source for scientific claims, but it may very well be a reliable source for a critique of this website. Sources and their reliability cannot be assessed without the context in which they are used: that is basically what good editorial judgment calls for... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we all need to understand something about JSE because I feel it is getting mischaracterized. JSE use sound reasoning and good science to examine thing outside of mainstream scientific study. This does not mean that the support the belief of UFOs or Telepathy, or even foster these beliefs. Rather, they publish good scientific studies of these fringe topics, which typically reveal why they are bunk. JSE is a great resource for scientific studies, because it dares to publish research of the fringe... but not fringe research. The peer-review process there - as the TIME article above alludes to - sifts through the bad research and finds only the sound and rational examinations. For this reason, I see no reason why the JSE alone can't be considered a WP:RS. Couple with that, Kauffman is a professor at a renowned scientific university and has many published pieces of research in the very fields the articles of Quackwatch which he reviewed are dealing with. Kauffman's expertise here cannot be challenged. His website review is the best critique of Quackwatch we have seen here to date. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I still disagree. My position (and my relatively stable position, except for short periods of times) is that JSE is clearly not a WP:RS, even for website reviews, because of their odd definition of peer-review, and that Kauffman may be a reliable source, but we haven't done the balancing analysis yet. Even if Levine2112's assertions as to Kauffman's credentials are accurate (I believe they are, I don't recall ever seeing sources), Kauffman may not be an expert at reviewing scientific results, which is what would be needed. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure he is. Please review his credentials here. A Google Scholar search reveals even more research he has done or been cited in. Further, I don't believe that we have any reason to believe that his review was subject anything other than normal scientific editorial peer-review. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Mmmm.... Kauffman may not be an expert at reviewing scientific results that is a strange statement, as what he is reviewing is not a peer reviewed scientific result, but an article in a Website. The more I look at this I see no reason why Kauffman site review cannot be described in the article, properly attributed and alongside a comment about the provenance of his review. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Is this issue resolved? --Anthon01 (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we mostly just go tired of it. WP:NPOV and WP:V are pretty much being ignored here. Kauffman clearly has an agenda, while his expertise is questionable, and it's unclear that any fact-checking was done whatsoever. JSE is a very poor source. We have no source to determine WP:WEIGHT, nor any source to help us balance this biased viewpoint at all. --Ronz (talk) 17:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Types of criticisms against Quackwatch (not Barrett)

To really get anywhere, I suggest that a list of the known types of criticisms against Quackwatch (not Barrett) be listed, and then we decide what types we feel are proper for inclusion. -- Fyslee / talk 05:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that this can be easily resolved by moving critique of QW from Barret's article as well as keeping what is already in this article, namely:

1. A number of practitioners and supporters of alternative medicine criticize Quackwatch for its criticism of alternative medicine. Donna Ladd, a journalist with The Village Voice, says Barrett relies mostly on negative research to criticize alternative medicine, rejecting most positive case studies as unreliable. She further writes that Barrett insists that most alternative therapies simply should be disregarded without further research. "A lot of things don't need to be tested [because] they simply don't make any sense," he says, pointing to homeopathy, chiropractic, and acupuncture, among a myriad of other things.
2. David Hufford, a Professor of Humanities at the Penn State College of Medicine, wrote an opinion piece in which he asserts that Quackwatch would be more effective if he relied more on research and less on personal beliefs.
3. Quackwatch has been regularly criticized by the groups it investigates, such as herbalists, homeopaths and other alternative medicine practitioners.
4. Regarding the fluoridation of water debate, an article in the National Review quotes a "generally informative and persuasive" Quackwatch article that states "the anti-fluoridationists' basic technique is the big lie. Made infamous by Hitler, it is simple to use, yet surprisingly effective", and comments that these type of arguments as used by Quackwatch are not the for serious-minded people.
5. The inactive Science Panel on Interactive Communication and Health, appointed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, named Quackwatch as a credible source for exposing fraudulent online health information in 1999. Dr. Thomas R. Eng, who directed the panel's study, later backed away from endorsing Quackwatch, saying consumers should question Quackwatch as well as those it targets. "The government doesn't endorse Web sites," he said. Barry Chowka, a former adviser to the National Institutes of Health's Office of Alternative Medicine panel stated that "Quackwatch.com is consistently provocative and entertaining and occasionally informative."

I do not think that any more than that is needed, as it presents the controversy, names the protagonists and ther opinions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Reference 9 "Ladd" is missing at the moment (perhaps it's already in one of the articles), and it's hard to say whether point 5 is criticism or weak support (noting the Science Panel did approve QW). And Hufford appears twice, with slightly different context following the reference itself. But, aside from that, those are mainstream references TO criticism of QW. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I like jossi's suggested text a lot. It looks good to me. MastCell ^Talk 21:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

We could conflate (1) and (3) as it makes the same point. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think that looks good. I think you may want to clarify that David Hufford is a Professor of Humanities at the Penn State College of Medicine in (2). Also, there is a dangling modifier in (4) - it is unclear from structure alone whether Quackwatch or the article critical of Quackwatch is making the "not for serious minded people" argument. Antelan ^talk 21:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Corrected. Thanks for spotting these. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Full text below. Unless there are any objections I will add this to the article in a day or two. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch has been regularly criticized by the groups it investigates, such as herbalists, homeopaths and other alternative medicine practitioners. number of practitioners and supporters of alternative medicine criticize Quackwatch for its criticism of alternative medicine. Donna Ladd, a journalist with The Village Voice, says Barrett relies mostly on negative research to criticize alternative medicine, rejecting most positive case studies as unreliable. She further writes that Barrett insists that most alternative therapies simply should be disregarded without further research. "A lot of things don't need to be tested [because] they simply don't make any sense," he says, pointing to homeopathy, chiropractic, and acupuncture, among a myriad of other things.

David Hufford, a Professor of Humanities at the Penn State College of Medicine, wrote an opinion piece in which he asserts that Quackwatch would be more effective if he relied more on research and less on personal beliefs. In regard to the fluoridation of water debate, an article in the National Review quotes a "generally informative and persuasive" Quackwatch article that states "the anti-fluoridationists' basic technique is the big lie. Made infamous by Hitler, it is simple to use, yet surprisingly effective", and comments that these type of arguments as used by Quackwatch are not the for serious-minded people.

The inactive Science Panel on Interactive Communication and Health, appointed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, named Quackwatch as a credible source for exposing fraudulent online health information in 1999. Dr. Thomas R. Eng, who directed the panel's study, later backed away from endorsing Quackwatch, saying consumers should question Quackwatch as well as those it targets. "The government doesn't endorse Web sites," he said. Barry Chowka, a former adviser to the National Institutes of Health's Office of Alternative Medicine panel stated that "Quackwatch.com is consistently provocative and entertaining and occasionally informative."

Rather than putting these in a "Criticism" section (which are usually POV magnets), we could place this in a section called "Viewpoints on Quackwatch" or better, integrated in appropriate sections throughout the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with the sentences about the National Review article. It looks a little bit like you are cherry-picking quotes for a flippant criticism of Quackwatch rather than looking at the content of the review in its entirety. The way I read the article, the authors were just pointing out that Barrett is being a bit over-the-top. I see this like writing about a good review of a movie where the critic says one negative thing like, "If anything, I think the dialogue was too well-written." and then choosing that quote to put in the article. It just feels artificial and a violation of WP:WEIGHT.

Also, I think that the paraphrasing of Eng's opinion on QW is not quite NPOV. Eng didn't exactly "later back away from endorsing Quackwatch". Rather he clarified his statements by saying that consumers should read everything they find on the internet with a critical eye. I think that using the word "question" is a bit too argumentative. I would write this sentence this way:

Dr. Thomas R. Eng, who directed the panel's study, later clarified his statements saying that consumers should read all information on the internet with a critical eye. "The government doesn't endorse Web sites," he said.

ScienceApologist 23:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Read the sources. That wording is not mine. Eng later backed away from his Quackwatch endorsement, saying consumers should question Barrett's site as well as those it targets. "The government doesn't endorse Web sites," Eng says. Still, he says, "[Quackwatch] is the only site I know of right now looking at issues of fraud and health on the Internet." We could add these as footnote, for verifiability and to avoid people making similar challenges as yours in the future ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I did read the sources. The wording is Donna Ladd's who is not a verifiable source. If you read the actual statements from HHS my version is more NPOV. ScienceApologist 23:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

As for the National Review article, feel free to expand to add further context to that criticism. Please do that directly on the block above, if you could. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

In response you your last edit that you amended, I disagree that is a violation of undue weight, after all it is the published opinion of a notable individual. As said before, you are welcome to expand that paragraph with more context if needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is you are quoting the only negative quote from the article. If you took a random quote from the article it wouldn't be that negative. That's why it's an undue weight violation. ScienceApologist 23:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate less filibustering and more of a collaboration to get this done and move on to other articles that could benefit from out attention. I said it already twice above: make the necessary additions to provide context. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

My "necessary addition" would be to change which quote was used. Otherwise, I'm afraid in order to satisfy WP:WEIGHT, we'll have to quote the article almost in it's entirety to give appropriate context. Cherry-picking the one slightly negative comment in an otherwise glowing review is not neutral. ScienceApologist 00:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

And saying that The wording is Donna Ladd's who is not a verifiable source, is at best a very poor argument. If you have a source that contradicts it, please make it available. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it's a wonderful argument because Ladd is editorializing and obviously has something of a softspot for QW critics. That's fine, we quote her above, but to use her text plainly without attribution is simply not acceptable practice for this encyclopedia. I again ask you to look at the actual sources from HHS and reconsider my offering of rewording above. ScienceApologist 00:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

These wordings are still being highly dismissive and deprecating about criticism of QW generally, spinning it, where even in the authoritative mainstream literature QW positions are clearly now obsolete (e.g. vitamin C, NIH and the Moertel-Pauling cancer episode presented so damning & approvingly at QW[52][53] where one of Pauling's bases for his complaint, ...fraud, included a lack of initial IV vitamin C treatment that is now supported by CMAJ 2006, PNAS 2005 papers including NIH authors on IV vitamin C related cancer treatment tests as critically important research points). Also Hufford's peer reviewed paper, is being lightweighted & deprecated as a mere "opinion piece", when as a sociology professor long involved with academic biomedical and government assessments of CAM with academic medical support, he is qualified to comment on identified biases. Hufford's reference to Kauffman's website review is also notable, where exclusion of the Kauffman reference, Watching the Watchdogs at Quackwatch, here is a notable pro-QW bias at WP.--I'clast 00:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch is notable as a consortium with an agenda

Yes Whig QuackWatch is notable. It is particularly notable for being a cover for a few agenda-driven individuals who masquerade as the "final word" of "almighty science" that sends down judgements on what is "legitimate" in the healing arts, and what is not. They have no qualms of conscience to condemn entire professions in the healing arts, while downplaying and closing their eyes to abuses in conventional medicine.

• One year ago a relative in Europe asked me to send him anything that I thought might help him in possibly lessening the severity of his irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). For the previous 5 years, no conventional medical treatments were of any help. I sent him a gift of 4 bottles of a specific type of licorice root extract, and 2 bottles of a concentrated mixture of probiotics (acidophylus strains). Several weeks later, he had complete relief of symptoms. One year later I received a report that he is still symptom-free. (I can already hear the shouts: "Testimonial!" "Placebo!")

• There is a technique used in chiropractic known as "Applied Kinesiology" which is not what it is claimed to be, and is not scientifically replicable. Yet the use of this bogus method is not justification to condemn the entire chiropractic profession - merely because some use it. Yet there are some who have no qualms of conscience to condemn the entire profession. I know of many responsible and dedicated chiropractic physicians who do tremendous work (but I also know of hucksters who are in it for the money).

• There are questionable practices in conventional medicine. Examples:
  • The recently toned down wide-spread prescribing of hormones (HRT) to practically all women over a certain age.
  • The wide-spread current prescription fad to prescribe statin drugs to "reduce cholesterol" when there is no "scientific" basis for this practice, and indications that there may be harmful long term problems as a result.

I know of many responsible and dedicated medical doctors who do tremendous work (but I also know of hucksters who are in it for the money). Quackwatch states that it is a "Nonprofit corporation whose purpose is to combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, and fallacies." Yet it covers for the medical profession's shortcomings.

This article belongs in Wikipedia, since so much of the public and the media thinks the pronoucements of Quackwatch are the pronouncements of "science". However for the purposes of a NPOV article, the facts about what it really is should be included. Arion (talk) 02:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have citations? Otherwise ... Anthon01 (talk) 03:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course there are no citations, how else is the agenda hidden if it's like written down? Shot info (talk) 06:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You will find your citations if you do your own research. Here's another scandal Quackwatch is not warning us about. Fosamax and other such biophosphonates appear to be potentially extremely dangerous. There have been a number of front page stories in various newspapers over the last 12 months, including the New York Times, recounting horror stories from people who had taken these drugs and as a result their jaw bones were crumbling (osteonecrosis of the jaw)!

The drug companies use the claim: "Bisphosphonates, such as alendronate (Fosamax), slow the rate at which bone dissolves and is absorbed into the body, resulting in increased bone density and strength." The truth is that Fosamax and the other bisphosphonates do not build bone. They are anti-resorptives. They simply prevent the oseoclasts from resorbing bone. They do this by binding to the active sites of resorption and prevent the osteoclasts from absorbing calcium out of bones. What is one of the purposes for osteoclasts in human physiology? In order to maintain the proper acid/alkaline balance in the body, they draw calcium from bones to act as a neutralizer when there is excessive acid in the system. What do you think will happen if you stop them from fulfilling their normal function?

The number of reported victims of this drug's side effects is increasing, with more complaints of stomach problems, esophageal ulcers, and severe acid-reflux disease. I personally have a friend who has been suffering from esophageal lining irritation as a side-effect of Fosamax. This is all being brought to us by our "scientific" medical benefactors.

The situation has actually gotten severely out of hand. Just as the medical fad of the last decade was giving female hormones to every woman who came to the medical doctor's office over the age of 45, now that has been replaced by Fosamax (or another biophosphate) being given to every middle age woman - and man - to "prevent osteoporosis"! Practically every time I ask a new patient that has previously been to a conventional medical doctor what drugs they are taking, they proudly announce that they are taking their Fosamax and Lipitor as prescribed. I doubt we will hear anything about this dangerous new medical fad from our friends at Quackwatch. They are too busy "protecting" us from the "scam artists" - namely those in the complementary healing arts. Arion 3x3 (talk) 06:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless you provide citations, you are wasting your time here. None of this will remain on the article page unless you can provide citations. Also, without citations, you are just using this talk page as a soapbox. Anthon01 (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOAP, yes. This is more appropriate for an e-mail or blog, not WP. —Whig (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: This section should be immediatedly moved to the archives as inappropriate discussion per WP:TALK --Ronz (talk) 17:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I would ask that the first paragraph be kept as responsive. —Whig (talk) 17:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I think it would be worthwhile to separate the initial comment that way: the first paragraph from the rest of it. --Ronz (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)