Talk:National Council Against Health Fraud/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Inc. it is

Shot ^{[1] [2]} arguments:

(1) Here it is, NCAHF, Inc. right now, 19 Dec 2006 (UTC), second paragraph of the NCAHF membership/donations solicitation.

(3) NCAHF is still representing itself as NCAHF, Inc. and soliciting funds from MA, right now, as such as in (1) above. Even if it shifted to a personal dba or whatever, that status change would be notable and perhaps complex, but "not a good, reassuring thing"^TM.

Again, legality is not the only notability issue. Exact "current status" unknown/known is not required, simply most recently / last known dated status reports, or portion thereof (e.g. not currently officially listed/registered in MA), is fine, there is always a lag (Wiki Yearbook anybody?). You don't have to know everything to state the notable facts that you do have, and they can speak for themselves. Any others?--I'clast 07:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Humour me, but since you are being very pedantic, why doesn't the "NCAHF Inc" ask it's donators and members to write checks out to "NCAHF" with no Inc? And why is it that in all the website, this is the only location that the "Inc" is still in. You are drawing a long bow here. Remember WP:OR. I must admit, I do like how you and Ilena (et.al) are wanting, nay, needing to find some bizarre little fault in an organisation that is plainly not incorporated, and not playing your little game of "find the conspiracy". HOWEVER, in saying all that, I don't object to it appearing but I find it very, very, very odd that it is regarded as notable, particularly in the light that some users (Ilena etc) have written that they regard this as illegal and hence notable. So if itisn't illegal, does that make it not notable? Anyway, time to move on. Shot info 12:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Inc: NCAHF doesn't seem to use Inc in its pre2003 newsletters either, assuming no alterations. Googling 1999-2006 "Inc" is about 100x less common than w/o Inc. and a temporary drop in half for Inc in 2004 & 2005 (uh-oh, BK whopper & fries?). More Inc: bottom para,CredentialWatch 2006, Google("national council against health fraud inc")=766. The change of this organization from Inc to non-Inc. would indicate some change of interest to prospective contacts. There is nothing plain here, it's dealing with shadows, all we can do is report the WP:V facts we can find. NCAHF & associates seem to maintain the mystery(s). Illegal would be only one of several reasons for notable. If NCAHF has truly changed from Inc to non-Inc, the article's history should reflect that, but that is OR right now. Basically: NCAHF literature sometimes says it's Inc (which *any* use may be more important to the states than the non-uses); IRS forms (unsigned by NCAHF officer) say Inc, CA says it's Inc, suspended; but it almost always used/promoted the inc'less acronym (like my utility company).--I'clast 14:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Summarizing: Lots and lots of original research trying to demonstrate notability. Ilena continues to push her pov. We have no concensus.

I think this research is interesting and worth ensuring that it's available for editors to read. However it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, nor should it be the sole supporting reason for publishing something about it in the encyclopedia itself. --Ronz 18:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ronz, we have WP:OR to push a POV provided by Ilena, and the article ignores WP:N again to advance Ilena's POV. Of course under protest it has been watered down such that it is not so obvious that it is PUSHPOV, instead there is a piece of trivia (unmarked) to allow the decision to be "left up to the reader" which is a admission of the failure to follow WP:N. I vote that we remove the section altogether given that a consensus cannot be reached per the normal wiki guidelines. Shot info 22:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the credit ... but the suspension of NCAHF and the proof that it is NOT a legal Massachusetts Corporation is not my POV ... they are facts, albeit ones that you and others would prefer to hide. Ilena 22:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Ilena, your failure to understand wiki and it's purposes is documented on your talk page. The discussion isn't the "fact" is their notability. There is no argument about "hiding" or whatever this is YOUR POV creeping into the picture and frankly your failure to engage in fruitful wikiediting isn't helping to convince me that this exercise is nothing more than PUSHPOV. Now, lets vote. Shot info 23:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. I couldn't disagree more. Please and thank you. Ilena 23:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Guys, would you care to briefly articulate exactly what phrase(s) you consider OR and/or POV and why, please.--I'clast 00:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, that would be ever so useful. Thank you. Ilena 00:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

So far it has been pointed out many, many, many times and then when it all comes to a conclusion, you ask....again. The original reason the original words by Ilena was put in there was to PUSHPOV and it was blatant OR. So after many, many, many, many, many, many, many words in the talk page later, it has been boiled down to proving a negative (ie/ we can prove what it is not) while engaging in OR by saying "It claims to be Inc but it isn't registered"... Then the whole question of N comes into play. Levine says it is N because "It claims to be Inc. but it isn't registered and if I was paying I would like to know this" (my paraphrase) so we have Levine saying it is N based on OR. So since it is OR why is it still notable. In particular when you remove the OR (the whole proving a negative bit about MA registration) it just becomes a dot trivia point about CA registration. Of course Ilena is PUSHPOV her POV to support her allegations of "illegal" activity which calls into the very question of why this now trivial point is notable. Now all this has been discussed over and over again and the reason it stands is because yourself, Levine and Ilena all have various reasons to include it. Ilena's is obvious POV, Levine is derived from OR and that only leaves yourself. And from the other three editors questioning this, it appears that you position is that it is notable. Why? Shot info 01:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I may have screwed up the 2nd archive, can somebody have a look? Shot info 01:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Shot info, my dear. With all due respect, it appears you are uneducated in State requirements for non-profits and suspended non-profits. If you understood this, you would fully understand what is so notable about NCAHF who claims to be a 'watchdog' and goes campaigns for: 'Accountability for those who violate consumer laws. " Ilena 01:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC) Please and thank you. Ilena 01:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Here we have evidence of WP:OR. I have previously pointed out that the IRS does not require an "organisation" to be a corporation to qualify for non-profit status. As for being uneducated, well, I'm not the one with the repeated warnings for uncivilty on my talk page.Shot info 04:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Shot, I wanted to give you the opportunity to clarify your positions on specific phrases after all the hub bub, so I could better address them. Frankly, matching your comments to specific policies is unclear if not confusing. Also it helps if you use difs e.g. "original words by Ilena", presumably her first ever edit on NCAHF (7 July 06). By the way, I forgot to thank you for this reply, with 4 enumerated points, I felt is was clear and easier to address.--I'clast 02:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, Shot Info, I believe you are putting words in my mouth and creating what is known as a "Strawman Argument"... where one creates an advesary which they can make an argument against. My reason for stating that this information is notable is that it concerns the corporate status of this entity. If it were in good standing with the state where it files taxes, then it wouldn't be notable. But as it isn't in good standing with California - it is suspended and has been for quite some time - this information is notable. No original research. Anyone can check the California Business Portal in one click and now we can check their IRS tax filings. Our job at Wikipedia is to collect information which can be verified and be presented by the editor following NPOV. Now then, for us to say that they are operating illegally WOULD constitute a WP:OR violation as we have not seen a reliable source (as of yet) stating this. However, to state that their license is currently suspended is verifiable from the highly reliable state business portal. To state that NCAHF operates out of Massachusetts can also be verified by checking their own website. Now then, just because they operate out of Mass. doesn't mean that they still aren't a California corporation. You can register your corp. in any state and not have an office there, but come tax time, you have to file with the state you are registered in. That is why - I would imagine - NCAHF files in CA yet has their office in Mass. Of course you won't find them in the Mass. corp database and stating that they aren't in the Mass. database is NOT notable.

To summarize: That they have a suspended business license in the state which they file taxes IS notable. That they operate out of Massachusetts IS notable. That they don't have a business license in Mass. is NOT notable. That they are operating illegally DOES constitute Original Research at this point as we don't have a verifiable saying just that. It isn't enough to have two facts which seem to point to this... we need it outright stated by a reliable source that NCAHF is operating illegal by collecting donations while their business license is suspended. All information - and especially one which claims an entity or person is acting outside the law - needs to be verified.

I hope this makes you clear about my current position on this. And know that I am not stubborn and I am always willing to change my mind. Just present the verifiable information and we'll see. Levine2112 02:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

A public apology: the quote I was reviewing "If I were making a donation for $100 to NCAHF (in MA), I would be very much interested that it is duly registered" is actually from I'clast rather than from Levine. Sorry about this, I misread the signature when making my paraphase. Shot info 04:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Levine, I slightly differ on MA because it is content rather than the subject or topic, where WP:N is not applied for this kind of notability (usefuless). See below Policies...--I'clast 07:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

So, lets do this again

1. Is the organistion a corporation....yes/no/unknown?

2. Is this notable...yes/no

3. Is the organisation a corporation in CA....yes/no/unknown?

4. Is this notable...yes/no

5. Is the organisation a non-profit organisation for the purposes of being able to call itself non-profit...yes/no/unknown?

6. Is this notable...yes/no

7. Is the organisation acutally resident in MA or is this their postal address...yes/no/unknown?

8. Is this notable...yes/no

9. Is the name of an organisation on a tax return more important than the EmpID# in area D of the return to the IRS...yes/no/unknown?

10. Is this notable...yes/no

So far from reading the above it appears that we have Levine agreeing that the current information is too much. So it can be pruned. Which will turn it into a dot point. And again it needs to be asked, is a single short sentence about incorporation status in CA ... notable.....without resorting to POV and OR. The more we discuss this, the more it seems like WP:ILIKEIT. Shot info 04:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I had hoped that you would enumerate, briefly explain *your* current best thinking & policy points since you (along with Ronz) asserted so many. This list asks questions in forms that may not correspond to the verifiable facts that we do have and is hence not so useful.--I'clast 04:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Because when you remove the OR and the POV you end up with a trivial point. Now admittably this is my POV but why I keep harping on it is that it is my opinion (and seemingly in agreement with Ronz and Arthur, but I will let them answer for themselves) this "fact" deserves to be deleted because of the non-triviality issues discussed in WP:N. I don't disagree with the fact, or even some of the conclusion(s) drawn from them. BUT we are in wikipedia here. We wikilawyer for a reason... Shot info 05:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

O and while discussing notability, is this dot point notable to an english reader resident in Canada, or the UK or for that matter anywhere around the globe? Wiki is just not for US residents. Shot info 05:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Policies when you RTFM

I, along with other editors here, have frequently used "notable" in more of a colloquial sense covered by other policies rather than WP:N; e.g. (from NPOV) ^{Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete} where "determining whether some claim is true or useful" for content as well as other policies.

WP:N asks that the subject, NCAHF, and the topic, Incorporation status (or originally,About the organization) be objectively notable, noted by multiple sources, but not content ^{Dealing_with_non-notable_things} (needs to be WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV). The content here are the sentences. Despite the details that we don't know, there are enough facts here to identify an anomaly(s) that are useful to aid the general readers. Should readers be interested in a corporation has effectively left a state with legal troubles hanging on it that you are betting your money or your life on? hmmm. Wait, there's more. An unincorporated company/association can be legally and financially dangerous to its members by potentially being liable. all the members, collectively, or any one member may be liable for the entire value of the contracts of the association. The remaining members, for instance,...may be liable.... Members of unincorporated associations may also be liable for any civil wrongs that they participate in, authorize or even simply assent to by vote or otherwise.[3]. eeuuuu. Do we have all the gods-eye answers? No. Do we have to have them? No. Perhaps, at least readers will know more facts, each one counts, and it enables them to ask more informed questions and make more informed decisions. So when someone asks you to be "members" of an unknown or unincorporated association (company, uninc corp), be careful there pardner.

WP:OR is frequently (mis)quoted on source based research here, ^{WP:OR#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources}. Read it:

Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

I'm not wikilawyering, I'm editing an encyclopedia, I've seen real corporate and academic frauds, and I've avoided a number of burns by such "pedantic" caution. I hope others will appreciate the effort, I've written bare facts to be encyclopedic.--I'clast 06:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

---

WP:N asks that the subject, NCAHF,... be objectively notable, noted by multiple sources, but not content ^{Dealing_with_non-notable_things} ...The content here are the sentences. Despite the details that we don't know, there are enough facts here to identify an anomaly(s) that are useful to aid the general readers.

Your POV from your OR.

Should readers be interested in a corp that has effectively left a state with legal troubles hanging on it ...[bet].. your money...on?

Your POV from your OR.

...An unincorporated company/association...its members by potentially being liable. all the members, collectively, or any one... Members of unincorporated associations may also be liable for any civil wrongs that they participate in, authorize or even simply assent to by vote or otherwise.[4]. eeuuuu.

Again, your POV from your OR.

Do we have all the gods-eye answers? No. Do we have to have them? No....facts, each one counts,...informed questions...informed decisions. So when someone asks you to be "members" of an unknown or unincorporated association (company, uninc corp), be careful there pardner.

Still your POV from your OR. So how much of your OR do you have to write to claim that you are not engaging in sythesis....or (god forbid) POVPUSH?

So in other word WP:ILIKEIT...check:

Admitably the original intent of drawing readers to the conculsion that the organisation is acting neferously has being removed but only replaced with something more subtle. "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C." ^{WP:OR#Synthesis}. Shot info 07:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Please don't split my comments, it makes them hard to read. I've extracted my text and reformatted yours.

Now, I've tried to conversationally illustrate some of the encyclopedic interest, prudent caution, potential uses, and all I get is a face full of "POV and OR" on bare facts. Hear this. There is strictly no SYNTHESIS in the content, so pls quit trying to blast me/us with OR, POVPUSH, ILIKEIT. Again, pls read WP:NPOV, Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete.

Bottom line: WP:V, WP:RS applies to the two content sentences; WP:N (WP:NOTE) may apply to the whole subtopic. WP:OR does not apply to source based research. Germane, bare facts & no synthesis. I don't think this can be more clear. If you don't like Wiki policies, you can try to rewrite them. But not the facts.--I'clast 09:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I've made myself perfectly clear on this. I think it's OR. I'd like a source to back all the interpretation of facts. I think any other editor could and should ask for the same. --Ronz 16:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

In case you missed it above, I've quoted the relevant Wiki policy, WP:OR, on this: ...collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. There is *no basis* for claiming OR here in the Incorporation Status section. There is no interpretation presented, just the bare facts collected from relevant government sources, any interpretations are from the readers.--I'clast 19:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Piece by piece

Let's look at this one sentence/clause at a time and please point out and explain in detail how a WP:OR and/or WP:NPOV violation is being committed:

• NCAHF, Inc. corresponds with, and solicits for, new members and donations from Massachuesetts.

Verifiable fact. No opinion. Levine2112 19:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Not verifiable, NCAHF "Inc" does not exist. This is OR in making the assumption that the only page in the entire website is the sole source of this claim. The balance of the information suggests that this is incorrect. Shot info 22:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

NCAHF Inc does exist. Just look at the reference on this statement. The organization which one would mail their membership dues to is: National Council Against Health Fraud, Inc. It says this right on the page. How is this OR? I'm sure they are offically National Council Against Health Fraud, Inc., but for brevity they just call themselves NCAHF. They used the Inc. since 1977 when they first filed for a business licence in CA, according to that business portal search. Would this sentence be fine to you if we just dropped the "Inc."? Please clarify. Levine2112 23:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

So if they exist, which state are they incorporated in? We know that they aren't in two. So is that notable? Or is it OR to say "They are in MA, but aren't a corporation in MA"? Shot info 23:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

According tro that tax record (which I will search for in this talk page's archive) they are still filing in CA. Levine2112 23:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is the link to the 2004 tax filing which shows them operating out of MA but still filing in CA. [5] Levine2112 23:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• NCAHF's corporate status in California was suspended in May, 2003,

Verifiable fact. No opinion. Levine2112 19:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree Shot info 22:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• and it is not natively registered as a Massachusetts corporation.

Verifiable fact. No opinion. Levine2112 19:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this is verifiable, but it is also verifiable that it may not be registered in 48 other states. So this is not notable. It is OR to include point 1 and point 3. Shot info 22:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

But Mass. is where their office is. Hence, "not natively registered". However, I am unsure whether this is notable. Tons of corporations aren't natively incorporated. It is possible that while their office is in Mass., they are still (or wish to be still) incorporated in California. There's no problem with doing that. That's completely legal, unless nonprofits have different rules. Levine2112 23:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it is not notable and have been laboring this point. Shot info 23:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully this will clear things up. To me, everything above is verifiable and doesn't present any opinion other than the barebone facts, but I would love to hear what others think specificaly. Levine2112 19:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP

This policy states we may not use primary sources for potentially (thank you, Ilena) defamatory information if there no reliable secondary sources for the information. If it applies to groups and associations, as noted in a recent Arbcom case, this would require that the incorporation status section be removed. This is still a close matter. I don't see OR or NPOV violations, but the WP:BLP issue may require removal. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome, Arthur. The State is the ultimate source of the legality or non legality of a corporation. Frankly, with all due respect, all of this blah blah about a verifiable fact about a suspended operation is a bit pathetic. Thank you. Ilena 15:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This is pretty basic. We are discussing corporate status, legally a fictional being, a creature of state, *not* a living person. Hence not a Biography of a Living Person, no BLP.--I'clast 19:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

1. I don't mean to be picky, but unfortunately the US Supreme Court has defined a corporation as a "legal person", entitled to civil rights and permitted to sue for defamation. However, I don't understand why a truthful statement about a corporate status could not be stated. A charity has to even be a 501(c)(3)... So if this organization (however it is created) is accepting donations, it has to have some kind of IRS designation and registration with the state. One way to find this out is to ask the organization? There either is or is not some kind of registration.
2. To be defamatory, a statement or presentation must be false. If a statement is not false, it is not defamation. There can be defamation by innuendo, but that has to be very clear cut, and it is rare - that would be where the way something is presented logically results in a false conclusion. If one is using a reliable resource as a reference, and it is truthful, there should be no problem. In an article like this, I would think corporate status may be pertinent -- especially where the entity sues others and the issue of standing has been raised.
3. Public figure - this organization would be considered a public figure. That is, the only way even a false statement could be actionable is if (1) the actor knew the statement was false; or (2) acted with reckless disregard for the truth (eg did no investigation). It is nearly impossible for a public figure to prove defamation, even without the "Internet Decency Act". Jance 22:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure Wiki's definition of a "living person" is not the same as U.S.C.'s definition of a "legal person"... though I appreciate the out-of-the-box thinking, Jance. But even for argument's sake, Arthur, if were to assume that NCAHF is a "living person", the CA state portal is an extremely reliable secondary source... you must admit. I'm sure their database is kept accurate to a least the week, let alone the 3 going on 4 years it has been since NCAHF license was suspended. Ilena, can you please post the link to that tax record again (or I can search this talk page's archive for it.)? Levine2112 23:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Neverrmind, Ilena. I found the link to that 2004 tax record which shows that they were still filing in CA despite being located in MA. [6] Levine2112 23:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Consensus?

Rather than arguing lets develop the consensus:

1. Deletion
2. Prune down to just CA status
3. Keep
4. Add or increase

So far my reading of the above as Ronz with 1, myself wavering between 1 & 2, Arthur at 2, Levine between 2 and 3, I'cast at 3 and Ilena at 4. Am I correct with my readings? Shot info 22:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If I can express an opinion... I "vote" 2. I do not think it would be appropriate to leave the MA statement in there, without more information. That is improper innuendo. Also, if you keep #2, it might be a good idea to check the IRS, too.Jance 23:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This is pretty accurate in terms of my feelings. While their lack of incorporation status in their home state of Mass. is verifiable, I am not convinced that this is notable. Their CA status however is entirely notable. Since it has been suspended since 2003, it is pretty obvious that this isn't just a clerical error. I know the state gov't is full of red tape, but I'm sure whatever the issue is, NCAHF could have fixed their business license status in 3 going on 4 years. Levine2112 23:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to be presumptuous, but can I point out that it appears we have a general consensus approaching 2? It would appear that Levine, Jance, Arthur (Arthur, I don’t want to speak for your though) appear to clearly support this position and I am willing to support it (as I agree that it is notable albeit trivial but other articles have lots of trivia as well). This leaves Ronz, I’clast and Illena to respond. Shot info 23:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That being said, it might be nice to state where they are located... Peabody, Massachusetts... and leave out the "not natively incorporated" bit until someone explains why that is notable. Levine2112 00:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm cool with 2. Ilena 01:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow! we are close to a consensus... if not there already. Lose the Mass. bit and we are there. Sound good? Levine2112 01:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep.Jance 01:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

My position has not changed - I think it should be deleted (why is it back yet again?). I'm going to seek a 3rd party perspective, since I still see the original research as being a problem. However, if Arthur agrees as we're assuming, then I won't remove it because of issues of original research or consensus on those issues. The NPOV issues still exist, but those should be discussed further before taking action. --Ronz 02:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Dude! We have a consensus here. There was give and take. I changed my mind of a few things. Even Ilena has been generous enough to give a little. There is no Original Research here... this is straight up verifiable facts. And this has been completely NPOVified now. Let's roll with this positive surge of cooperative spirit and let's move on. Again, good work! Levine2112 02:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

And I've explained my position. --Ronz 02:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice work everyone! Shot Info, thanks for being the one who presented this solution! Good work all. Levine2112 02:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to be late; I concur with 2. Well done, Shot Info. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Jance 03:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sweet! Levine2112 03:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Previous issues

I'd like to again give everyone the chance to address the issues I brought up before, with a slight update on where I think we stand: [7]

We have no source that shows it's notability (so it should be removed per WP:V and WP:N). I'm not saying the individual facts are not verifiable, only that the notability is unsourced. --Ronz 01:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

How do you show notability? That the info of the license suspension is quoted in someplace other than the CA State Portal? Levine2112 02:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The WP:NOTE is simply based on multiple sources for *an article* as an objective measure, discussed previously[8], not single lines of content and individual facts. Read the policy.--I'clast 12:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

And I disagree with your interpretation. Thanks for the explanation though. --Ronz 16:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

We have lots of original research here speculating why it may or may not be notable. This research is the only rationale for supporting the inclusion of the information (so it should be removed per WP:OR). As long as the speculation on this discussion page (and archives) are the only rationale, then it's OR. --Ronz 01:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it is just one of those things where the notability is completely obvious. Any gross irregularity in the corporate status of a company (especially one that has been that way for 3 going on 4 years) is just plainly notable. Levine2112 02:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

There was no WP:OR. Ronz continually repeats & misuses WP:OR, dismissing CLEAR, desired source research as WP:OR even when presented the direct quotes requiring no interpretation. A great motivation for the "full facts version"[9] is because the phrasing simply doesn't read very well with natural questions that are being forced to remain unanswered. There are a dozen encyclopedic reasons for this contetn, some editors will igonre them all. It amazes me someone can parade this deletionism so blatantly.--I'clast 12:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm allowed my own interpretation, and without uncivil remarks against me for having them. Take the personal attacks elsewhere. --Ronz 16:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is for documenting what is verifiably known (so the information should be removed per WP:NOT). I think we've addressed this partially. We still have Wp:not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox which is really just WP:NPOV below. Also, there's Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Ronz 01:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

We have made concerted efforts to present this information in the most neutral way possible. Levine2112 02:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOTE is most about the whole articles themselves having multipe sources as an objective standard of Notablity. Little "n" notability is actually other policies that include usefulness of content like individual facts (more subjective). To me, the "little n" notability (see above) for content is intrinsic when by conventional business practices, yellow and red (warning) flags fly all around these kind of facts. The two sentences expressed no opinions. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not indecipherable & misleading. Right now the Incorporation section may lead a reader to conclude, or be just plain confused, whether NCAHF is even operational since it has been suspended so long and does not begin to address the natural questions of a reader that we have WP:V facts for (It's corresponding out of Mass. but it is not a Mass corp either.). The original phrasing is not indiscriminate, that's part of *others'*(not my) soapbox.-I'clast 12:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

This information is repeatedly presented within this discussion as criticism of Barrett (so it should be removed per WP:NPOV). The fact that it's currently not presented as criticism doesn't change the past discussion here. --Ronz 01:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

We have NPOVified this information. This isn't an article about Barrett nor does this information appear in Barrett's article. Levine2112 02:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Another blatant distortion alleging policies, again. Previously explained above.--I'clast 12:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Explained or not. It's happened, and likely to happen more. --Ronz 16:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

We have no consensus on the information at this time (so it should be removed per WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS). Despite this it has been repeatedly reintroduced. --Ronz 01:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to all of our cooperative efforts (finally!) we do in fact have a consensus. See above. Levine2112 02:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

See also, WP:OWN--I'clast 12:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Scratch all I wrote that I just now deleted. If you are talking about the MA status, I think we are in agreement that it should not be included. It is innuendo, without enough information to be anything but innuendo. The CA status is relevant, and consensus was reached, I believe (see above). But Ronz, please, is there any way you can talk in English? Oy vey maria, I am weary of WP:TLA.  ;-) Jance 02:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying. The WP references are there specifically as references to the guidelines and policies in general. --Ronz 02:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikilawyering, Ownership examples:Events--I'clast 12:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Funny you bring those up, because I had considered it also, but thought it uncivil. --Ronz 16:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, these issues were brought up to the statment "NCAHF's California corporate status was suspended in May, 2003, and its current status is unknown." --Ronz 02:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, personally I think the point is not notable (mainly not due to verifibility or anything like that but just because it's a pointless piece of trivia), however, given that a consensus was reached it should stand and wait for further information or other editors. I guess we have all had a good stab at it and really we have ended up back where we were about a month ago :-) Shot info 05:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

To correct the article's future history, the issues were for "NCAHF, Inc. corresponds with, and solicits for, new members and donations from Massachuesetts. NCAHF's corporate status in California was suspended in May, 2003, and it is not natively registered as a Massachusetts corporation." This original proposal of the Incorporation Status section reads & satisfies user questions much better also. Encyclopedic writing is being dismissed as WP:OR.--I'clast 12:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to discuss issues here. Is someone dismissing something? --Ronz 16:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)"

This is very confusing to read. The only part for which there was a consensus was "NCAHF's corporate status in California was suspended in May, 2003." All the rest in that paragraph was to be deleted. Jance 16:13, 21 December 2006

US-based

There is still no proof that NCAHF is a legal operation ... "US based" is distraction ... non profits are based out of and licensed by individual states. There appears to be no proof of any current legal license for NCAHF, therefore, it may well not be a legal "private non profit" as claimed in their advertising. Ilena 18:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

But there is no resource which actually states that they are operating illegally. An interpretation of the facts does seem to suggest that, but it we must interpret then we get into the WP:OR realm... Original Research. It we had a reliable source which specifically states that NCAHF is operated illegally, then we could say just that. If we had a reliable source that said it thought that NCAHF is operating illegally, then we can say that the source makes that claim. So unfortunately, even if in your heart of hearts you know that they are operating illegally, you can't post it on Wikipedia without a good reliable source stating so. Levine2112 18:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying Levine ... yet that isn't how it works. Any legal entity must prove their legality ... not someone has to prove their illegality. One can't prove a negative as I'm sure you know. Non profits are not "US based" ... they are based out of a State where they are supposed to be licensed. So ... even though they claim to be "US based" ... there is no proof that they are legal. If they are legal, and have a state license, it could be proven with one click at the appropriate state database. Viva la maccabees. Ilena 18:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I might be wrong about this, but I would assume that if we are going to state that something is illegal without a reliable source saying so, then we better be 100% sure of it. I'm going with the "innocent until proven guilty" philosophy here. Also, I would think that any company (legtal or not) which has its home office in the United States can call themselves "US based". But I may be wrong, if you are saying that there is some sort of a special provision for non-profits. Levine2112 18:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

To say "illegal" would definitely be OR at this point w/o those WP:V/RS sources. However, the current half sentence form is poor, uninformative encyclopedia writing based on badly mangled interpretations of the rules.--I'clast 19:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggested rewrites? Levine2112 19:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm not suggesting saying that is is written that it is "illegal." I would clarify however, that a legal entity needs and is able to prove itself so in a heartbeat. Maybe something like: NCAHF's corporate status in California was suspended in May, 2003. [3] No current state corporate status has been evidenced. Ilena 20:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

And the problem with this second sentence is that it is unencyclopedic, proving a negative? Have you tried the other 48 states and not to mention all the territories? Mind you one of my original rewrites was "Its current corporate status is unknown" which in hindsight is bleh writing... Anyway, this comes back to the original point I have been stating all along. We all agree (except for I'clast) that it is OR to state anything other than what we know about CA, and then we have to ask ourselves, is it now N? We have reached a consensus though so lets let fresh eyes and evidence have a look. Shot info 05:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

External links

Per the external links guidelines, the number of links on controversial topics should not be weighted to the pro or con side - yet currently we have an imbalance of critical external links, many of which also contain large amounts of advertising, again in contravention of the external link policy. I'm trimming them down to one critical link to balance the NCAHF link - we could discuss which critical link should be included, but the current number is disproportionate and contravenes the guideline. Finally, assuming Ilena is Ilena Rosenthal, if she's here to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia and/or remove potentially defamatory information about herself, those things are encouraged. If she's here to insert negative, questionably sourced information about Stephen Barrett and all his enterprises at every possible turn, then it may be worth reviewing the conflict of interest policy as well as "Wikipedia is not a soapbox". Importing personal grudges or conflicts into Wikipedia is strongly discouraged. Besides, don't worry - there's already a surplus of anti-Barrett editors here. MastCell 20:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry ... what is it that I posted that is not sourced adequately for you? Ilena 21:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I had in mind edits like this; perhaps you were unaware at the time, but personal phone conversations cannot be considered reliable sources for Wikipedia purposes. I think the overarching concern was the importation of a feud between yourself and Stephen Barrett into Wikipedia, which is unlikely to be constructive in the long run; hence the suggestion to review the conflict of interest guidelines. MastCell 21:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The edits have long moved past the telephone conversation to the "bare facts" Inc Status discussion.--I'clast 21:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand that; Ilena had asked for an example of inadequate sourcing. I'd also reiterate the above, regarding conflicts of interest, WP:NOT, and the inadvisability of importing a feud between Barrett and Ilena to Wikipedia. MastCell 22:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words

I tagged the Criticism section - the first two bullets both suffer from "Some critics..." and "A criticism of NCAHF is...". They need to explicitly state who is making said criticism. See WP:WEASEL for the relevant guideline. MastCell 21:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I do not agree that the spamlinks advertising NCAHF AND quackwatch.com should remain and my critical site be censored. I have added it back and do not feel it should be removed without serious discussion and total consensus. Ilena 21:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, please review the external links guidelines. You are not being censored. If you would prefer your personal site to be the critical link of choice, then make it so, although insisting on the inclusion of your personal, self-published site which solicits donations raises serious issues of conflict of interest. The link to NCAHF is not spam in this context; again, please see the external links guidelines, which clearly states that "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any." I'm not making this up to harrass or censor you, and please don't take it that way. These are guidelines that have been agreed upon by the Wikipedia community. MastCell 21:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

COI is not the only issue. The rules here expressly prohibit posting links to ones own website. Others may do so. That would be a different matter. So the issue isn't just about the quality of the website (which is still an issue), but the very fact that Ilena keeps posting it herself, in contravention of the rules here. If anyone else wants to dirty their hands by doing it for her, it's their choice. -- Fyslee 21:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the ambiguity, MastCell. I have clarified the critical sources, repaired the links and removed the "Weasel Words" tag. Levine2112 21:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. MastCell 21:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

We have still not established here that NCAHF is a legal entity. Do you have that evidence? If it isn't supplied, then this entire article becomes highly questionable since it is stated as a fact that this is a "non profit" although there is no evidence of this legal status. The consumer laws do not state that an operation must be proven to be illegal to stop them from operating. This operation has had 3 1/2 years since suspension in California to show evidence of its legality somewhere and has failed to do so to date. Ilena 21:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Paul Lee has again removed my critical link. It is not a vanity link but important and valid criticism for a very questionable operation with no apparent evidence of legality. Paul Lee claimed it October he would provide evidence of the legality and has failed to do so. I am replacing my critical link and see no reason to have it removed by Stephen Barrett's just resigned "assistant list manager." Ilena 22:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

What don't you understand above? Can't you read? You are in direct violation of Wikipedia policy. Please stop. -- Fyslee 22:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You keep claiming I "would provide evidence." I only said I'd try. I have just about as much influence with them as you do, so your conspiracy theories just don't cut it. You write to them and try to get a response. I haven't gotten much help. -- Fyslee 22:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I have reinstated Ilena link. I attest that I have no connection with Ilena nor her foundation apart from Wikipedia. Levine2112 23:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the sick joke. It doesn't take "influence" to get an operation to prove its legality. One link to the State where they are legally incorporated if they are is all it would take. The rest is distraction and playing games. My criticisms on my QuackWatchWatch [10] page are valid and your removal of this is censorship, call it what you want. Ilena 22:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

No matter the quality or subject of your site, it is against policy for YOU to post it. Period. -- Fyslee 22:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

So, according to you, if Barrett gets a monkey to advertise his site and put up links to it, that's legal in Wikipedia ... but if he does it instead of his monkey, it's not legal? How do we know it is the monkey and not Barrett posting his own links?Ilena 22:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Short answer, yes & yes. His Boy Scout honor & certain practicalities.--I'clast 03:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, please, please review Wikipedia's guideline on external links. This is a site about Barrett/NCAHF, so a link to the NCAHF website is appropriate. If this were an article about Ilena Rosenthal, then a link to your site would be appropriate. This is not a complex distinction. Constantly re-inserting your website into this article is wrong and a conflict of interest. If your website is really appropriate as an external link, someone will add it - as I pointed out, there's no shortage of anti-Barrett editors here. MastCell 22:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's the problem with excluding Ilena link for reasons that what she has on her site is not factually accurate and is designed to mislead the public... we could say (and many have said) the exact same thing about all of Quackwatch. We have a handful of verifiable, notable critics on the Quackwatch article who say that Quackwatch is not factually accurate and is precisely designed to mislead the public. Bottomline, Ilena's site falls under point 4 of WP guidelines of what should be linked to: Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews. Considering her direct legal involvement with NCAHF, her site has content which is entirely relavent. Levine2112 23:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a very basic issue here: Quackwatch is linked from Quackwatch because it's the subject of the article. Similarly, if this were an article about Ilena Rosenthal, or the Humanity Foundation (?sp), then a link to her site would be appropriate. But it's not. The comparison to Quackwatch is inappropriate, because you're talking about an article specifically about Quackwatch - in such context, an external link is unquestionably appropriate. Again, it's all in WP:EL. MastCell 00:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to the about 100 articles out there with Quackwatch listed as an external link. Am I to take it that I could remove all of those links too then? For instance, would the Quackwatch link (entitled "Homeopathy: The Ultimate Fake") on Homeopathy fall under the same rule for deletion? Levine2112 01:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, sorry for the misunderstanding on my part. I get it now. I don't have a strong feeling about QW as an external link, nor the homeopathy article, but you could certainly make a case on the talk page for removing the QW link from that article based on an interpretation of WP:EL, and if consensus exists, remove it. MastCell 02:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hm. I also do not have a strong feeling about this. That said, one cannot fault Levine's logic here. Jance 04:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Who decides what is Valid Criticism for a Questionable Operation????

Again I have Lee and Ronz ganging up and taking off my critical opinions of Barrett and threatening to ban me from Wikipedia for critical insight into this operation. This is clear censorship. Ilena 22:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Wrong again. Stop attacking other editors when they explain policy to you. It's because of policy violations you're getting in constant trouble here. Try to learn and you'll have more success. I'll support you then. -- Fyslee 22:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this is the root of the misunderstanding: Wikipedia is not a place for you to expound your critical opinions of Barrett. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and it's bound by policies which I and others are trying to explain to you. There is no organized conspiracy to censor you here; what you're perceiving as such is the reaction of unconnected editors who are seeing Wikipedia policies violated. Your importation of your feud with Barrett to Wikipedia has been highly disruptive. In general, we try to be nice to newcomers, but you've now had the relevant policies explained a number of times. MastCell 22:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a question - I don't know the answer. Clearly, the subject of this article is Barrett. Therefore, an external link to his home page is appropriate. The same is not true of any personal website, including Ilena's. My question is this: while an external link of the man is clearly appropriate, is it acceptable to use the same website as reference within the article?Jance 00:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Definitely if you want to write about NCAHF's viewpoint, since he's an officer and spokesperson for the company. Beyond that, it becomes a slippery slope. I don't think you can go far wrong if the page you're linking to has its own references that can be checked and verified, and the page just summarizes those references or gives NCAHF's viewpoint on those references. Still, it can get slippery when it's one of the criticism pages. Why not just discuss the specific references you have in mind? --Ronz 00:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Why would it only be slippery if it is on the criticism page? I would think it could be a slippery slope in any section. I actually don't have a specific example. It was a general question. Jance 01:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I think there is entirely too much emphasis on Barrett here, Baratz is still Pres. Most of the signed papers at NCAHF seem to be authored by Wm Jarvis[11] in California. Historically I get the impression that W Jarvis ("retired" Pres?, CA nexus), J Renner (dec'd 2000 as then Pres) and V Herbert (bd member dec'd 2002, "trial expert") were much more active and central figures to NCAHF and NCHRI, at least in the 90s. It might be more encyclopedic to have the body counts (won, lost & who) on the NCAHF's "witch trials" e.g. Shari Lieberman, PhD, got her RD back with public acknowledgement of a faulty NCAHF attack. When was NCAHF or its predecessor founded (198-?). And, of course, I think that the corporate status is still an uninformative, prejudicial knee jerk.--I'clast 03:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I just googled her, and what I found is alarming. It does appear that NCAHF caused a lot of grief on an innocuous issue, without any grounds. Jance 02:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Issues

1. Yes, Baratz needs to be mentioned. Dates of incorporation (or whenever the org was started and as what).
2. I don't know that as a matter of public policy, many would argue with the right of anyone to comment on the efficacy of medical practices. The only limit to that, of course, is defamation, and it appears to be the case that nobody has sued NCAHF for defamation (have they?). If there has been a public apology (close to admission of defamation), that should probably be cited. (I don't know what an RD is).
3. The real issue here, that needs to be mentioned more specifically, is a much larger issue that is only mentioned in two places: To what extent should a non-government authorized health group be allowed to investigate and essentially prosecute "Quacks"? I mean this quite literally, since this was argued by NCAHF in the Superior Court in LA County - that it should have the authority of a prosecutor, and that the burden of proof should be shifted to the defendant to prove that he did not do what the plaintiff claimed (even a prosecutor has to prove his case). THAT is why King Bio is important and needs to be stated (I restored the original paragraph, and included citations).
4. I am not sure it would be informative to have every single court case. Two examples seem ok - one where NCAHF essentially 'won' and one where it didnt.
5. If anyone can find a reliable reference on that RD, it would be good to incude. This sounds like a real abuse, and is noteworthy.Jance 02:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

More information:

"Whitaker has taken up the causes of others in legal or ethical difficulty. In 1995, he viciously attacked the American Dietetic Association for its attempt to discipline Shari Lieberman for violating the ADA code of ethics. (See Raso "Progressive or renegade? Shari Lieberman up-close," Nutrition Forum, 1994;11:9-15.)

".... Whitaker is Past President of the American Preventive Medical Association (APMA). (Ms. Lieberman a APMA board member.) APMA is largely made up of chelation therapy practitioners who lobby for laws that would strip medical licensing boards of their power to discipline maverick doctors who use chelation therapy for questionable, unapproved purposes." - Jarvis [12] -- Fyslee 10:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Whitaker. I googled Shari LIeberman and found this statement:

"Dr. Lieberman was successful in forcing the ADA to reinstate her RD credential and in forcing the ADA to publicly acknowledge its mistake with retractions and notices to its membership."

It sounds like she sued the ADA and won. Is this correct? If she violated ethics, then presumably she would not have prevailed.Jance 22:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Vanity link issue

Please stop. Despite Barrett's Ring Leader's claim that my link is "vanity" ... I am a valid critic of Quackwatch/NCAHF and there was NO consensus that my criticism should be censored here. I am a prevailing defendant against Barrett, have been quoted in the LA Times, Wired Magazine, MY DNA, WebMD, The Scientist among many other publications. I have been reading many articles in Wikipedia recently, and have seen how Barrett's teams fill articles with their criticisms while attempting to stifle criticisms against them. This is not Healthfraud/Wikipedia edition, and I have extremely valid criticisms to be aired against this questionable operation. Thank you.Ilena 15:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming that you have a serious conflict of interest and that your placing of your link is a forbidden practice here. Your criticisms are another issue entirely, and if you present them properly, you may have more success and even get my support in including them. Continually violating Wikipedia policies to force your opinion and criticisms on articles here is not the way to do it. -- Fyslee 16:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

You, Paul Lee have proven yourself to be a totally unreliable source of information regarding the questionable NCAHF. You have posted that they are a legal California Corporation several times ... totally and utterly unfounded. My criticism is valid and NO CONCENSUS has been reached to remove my link and I am reinstating it. Ilena 17:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The guideline is that as long as there is no consensus, the material in contention remains out. --Ronz 21:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

NCAHF / QUACKWATCH OPERATIONS

Happiest of Holidays All.

After coming back to Wikipedia a few weeks ago, I've received a lot of additional information about the joint operation of NCAHF and Quackwatch. I believe there was an appeal earlier to join these two articles, and I fully support it. It is impossible to tell where one operation ends and the other begins. Barrett rules ... as NCAHF head of 'internet operations' as well as Chairman of QW. Paul Lee (fyslee) runs their Webring Operation of 90 blogs and websites each promoting the other. Lee appears to be stationed as a professional healthfraud 'editor' here on Wikipedia. I've seen him pounce on and revert valid edits within seconds of their appearance. I see he just quit his longtime job as "Assistant Listmaster" of the Healthfraud List. He has repeatedly claimed that NCAHF was a legal California Corporation and for months removed the links proving this was false. His performance on Wikipedia resembles a Barrett puppet, in my opinion.

QW/NCAHF claims to send over 11,000 subscribers their newsletter ... JOINTLY. Barrett runs the Healthfraud List with an iron hand and promotes both QW/NCAHF and their Webring. Barrett signs with adverts to both QW and NCAHF and in fact, their sites cross promote and reference each other. It is rare that he is not wearing both these hats for his published opinions. For these reasons, I vote that the two articles be combined.

I recently visited several articles on Wikipedia and one would believe that it was QuackWatch / Wikipedia Branch. Single articles are filled with Quackwatch POV ... while others were fought off by Paul Lee and others.

Regarding the lack of legal corporate status in evidence ... the fact that hours and hours were wasted as people defending Barrett used every distraction and propaganda trick in the books is pure bullying. It is not a game for a non profit to prove their legal status. It could have been done in a heartbeat. The silliest game of all was for them to ask us to prove the negative that they were not incorporated in the other 49 states. I call that Quack Logic.

One of Barrett's own published definitions of what he opines is quackery"... quackery could be broadly defined as anything involving over promotion in the field of health." With 90 blogs and websites and thousands of articles circulated promoting QW/NCAHF, from someone with no current medical license and who has been called, by the Appelate Court of California, biased and unworthy of credibility'; speaks volumes as to his projection. Last count, there were over 417,000 pages promoting Barrett on a google search. Over promotion?

Further, I wish to readdress the fact of his failure to protect his patients by passing the Psychiatric Exams in several decades of "practice." This fact was only brought to light in the deposition of Barrett's losing SLAPP suit to Dr. Koren recently. Up until then, he had proclaimed himself an 'expert' in things by simple wiggling his nose or some other decider. For years, he was asked why he had never been board certified, and refused to admit that he had FAILED his boards in the 60's. This is relevant and a valid criticism of Barrett. He was licensed in the 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's ... many of them spent questioning and attacking the credentials of others. His are more than questionable. No board certification means LESS patient protection, LESS questions to his license. I believe around 85% of medical licensees protected their patients with board certification by the 90's ... why not Stephen Barrett?

After perusing Wikipedia ... it seems to me that rules are made up by those promoting Barrett about criticsm about him ... but censored regarding him.

Thank you. Ilena 18:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

This quote is but one of the 417,000 edits by User:Ilena oppose Barrett. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

For Pete's sake... please stop, Ilena. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor is it a forum for you to import your grievances and feud with Stephen Barrett. You are behaving disruptively, and at some point the community's patience will expire. MastCell 20:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that I am being disruptive. I am standing up for my write to edit and not be censored. I agree, Wikipedia should not be a soapbox ... and that is what the NCAHF/QW Team is making it into. I was shocked to read the totally biased QW references throughout Wikipedia. Barrett hides behind people like Paul Lee. Without consensus, it has been claimed that my opinion is "personal" and unworthy of merit to be allowed on Wikipedia. I am the Director of The Humantics Foundation and head a large support group and have for over 11 years. We provide free information to thousands on the dangers of breast implants and related topics. Barrett's ACSH.org was one frontgroups (junkscience.com another) who spread the disinformation the industry wanted via flacks like Mike Fumento and Steve Milloy. These groups are all part of the webring Lee heads, promoting each other. It is widely believed that Barrett's meritless SLAPP suit against me (feud in WikiSpeak) was backed by industry who want to silence my viewpoint on implants. Remember, not even one word I wrote or reposted about Barrett was considered by any court to be even arguably defamatory. Losing plaintiff Polevoy and his flacks have claimed I am the "laughing stock" of the internet. This claim was made while he was calling himself "Vera Teasdale" in over 50 posts blasting Dr. Clark and myself. I have been quoted several times in the LA Times, in The Scientist, Journal of Nutrition and Health, Chemical & Engineering News, Wired, My DNA, and WebMD, to name but a few. I am very familiar with how Barrett uses people like Fyslee (Paul Lee) who gathers others to bully and intimidate. Thank you.Ilena 20:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Resolve these issues in the real world, not on Wikipedia. That's what I and others are trying to get across - and trust me, I have no love lost for Steven Milloy & co. It's a simple matter of what Wikipedia is and is not, and it's not a place for you to disseminate external links to a site you run which attacks Stephen Barrett, regardless of the merits of the site or lack thereof. MastCell 21:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I propose this section be immediately moved to archive as it's off topic and disruptive. --Ronz 18:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop with the personal attacks

Ilena, you continue to violate policy by making personal attacks on other editors and by failing to assume good faith. You continually impute motives to others based on your own conspiracy theories, you continually violate a number of policies here, and you fail to collaborate with other editors who have opposing POV. Until you learn to do that, Wikipedia is not a place for you. Take your battles back to Usenet, where anything goes. If you want to edit here, then play by the rules. If you do that, I'll be glad to cooperate with you.

Let's get a few things straight here:

• Barrett does not own me, control me, or work through me. I occasionally contact him to attempt to get information. Anyone here can do that, and possibly with better success than I have had. None of that is forbidden and it is actually something that editors should do. We should research our subjects and attempt to get documentation.

• The Anti-Quackery Ring is my own creation, and was inspired by no one else. Neither Barrett or the NCAHF has anything to do with it. It is not his or its ring in any way, shape or form, so stop lying about that matter. The Skeptic Ring was something I inherited from the previous ringmaster. It took some time for me to convince Barrett that Quackwatch should be a part of those rings. Web rings have little effect on the site visits of larger sites, while smaller sites get some benefit. He has absolutely no influence on the rings, and in fact there are some sites in them of which he is less than enthusiatistic, and in fact I share the feeling about some. Milloy's site is one of those I am ambivalent about. I have no idea what Barrett thinks about it, and I couldn't care less. I make the decisions there. Anyone want to take over as Ringmaster? Applications accepted.....;-)

• I am greatly saddened by the effect your abominable behavior has on the cause of women with breast implant issues. I sympathize with that cause, and I also sympathize with the women who are ashamed to have you in their company. You do more harm than good for them. While neither my mother nor both MIL (my FIL remarried) had implants, they all died of breast cancer, so I've had these tragedies far too close to take them lightly.

• Please show some evidence that you can act like an adult and learn something here. Many editors have repeatedly tried to teach you proper behavior here, yet you persist in violating various policies, including attacking other editors, assuming bad faith, promoting yourself, posting links to your website, and generally bringing your Usenet wars to Wikipedia. Please show that you have some common decency, courtesy, good manners, and some semblance of good ethics. We haven't seen it yet. You seem to think that because you got away with posting other people's lies and undocumented personal attacks, that it's okay to post them. Well, it's not. It's still wrong, even if you can legally do so. That's the moral dilemma you fail to understand. You just don't seem to have an understanding of ethics and morality. On that matter you and Bolen are very similar. It's a street thug mentality, and we don't need it here. Here we try to cooperate. The best articles are often created by editors with opposing POV who cooperate. -- Fyslee 00:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Paul Lee, you have proven yourself to be totally unworthy of credibility. You repeatedly lied that NCAHF was a legal California Corporation and vandalized my posts proving otherwise. You attacked me the moment I posted NON POV links and you continue to fill my talkpage with your delusions. Regarding my breast implant advocacy: I have helped thousands of women find biased information on breast implants, we have provided several implant removals, and your criticism of my advocacy is just more propaganda. I have been quoted in Wired Magazine, The Scientist, the LA Times (several times, Chemical & Engineering News, US Today, US magazine, Washington Post, Washington Times, San Diego Business Journal, to name a few. Your attempts to separate yourself from Barrett are laughable. He runs the internet operations of NCAHF/QW with you handling the Web ring. Who are you to call others "quacks" ????? You and your "Quack Files." Ilena 02:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I just read your lie that I "got away with posting other people's lies" ... what a load of nonsense. Every court backed me that not one word I wrote or reposted about Barrett was even arguably libelous. YOU think you know whether or not Terry Polevoy stalked Ms McPhee? Were you there? Did you see him on Usenet calling himself "Vera Teasdale" and attacking Dr. Clark and myself? Why is Polevoy obsessed with the physical location of young Adam Dreamhealer? There is no evidence that I posted anyone's lies ... only repeated nonsense by you and others of the Rag-tag Posse of Snakeoil Vigilantes. Ilena 02:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Ilena, this is ridiculous. Because a statement is not libelous does not mean it is true, or appropriate, either. And Fyslee, it doesn't mean it is a lie. I thought I had seen some ridiculous things on Wikipedia, but this beats all. Ilena, if you think you are convincing or helping anyone by spewing venom, you are sadly mistaken. Do you blame anyone from responding when you accuse them of conspiracies and lies and god knows what else? I suppose I will be added now to your 'hate' list, but I feel a need to say what I think here. And I think it is outrageous. And no, I am not getting paid by Barrett, or Fyslee, or manufacturers, or anyone else. I am calling it like I see it. And all of this looks flat-out insane.Jance 05:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It is insane ... especially the Rag-tag Posse of Snake-oil Vigilantes which includes Barrett and Grell and Polevoy and Paul Lee. Yes indeed, Terry Polevoy, the losing plaintiff, WAS caught donning the disguise of "Vera Teasdale" to attack me and Dr. Clark. It may not have happened to you and you don't want to believe it .. but it's 100% verifiable and factual. You may also be unaware that Barrett, ever so humbly called himself "the media" in Time Magazine. If you don't bebelieve that ACSH.org (where Barrett is an "advisor" (God help the advised) has been paid to create disinformation in the breast implant world, you are being naive (at best). PR is a huge business ... ACSH and junkscience.com and all their quacky frontgroups have indeed been working together (or conspiring since you like that word) to put out as much propaganda as possible on the 'safety' of breast implants. Have a lovely day. Ilena 15:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Ilena, the topic is your behavior. Care to address the topic? Your continued attacks on Barrett and editors here are the very reason your behavior is being called into question. --Ronz 18:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Please let me update your information. My edits were removed from the moment I came to Wikipedia exposing NCAHF's questionable corporate status. State records were called POV and removed by you and others. When I first began to read here ... Barrett Vs Rosenthal was unrecognizable to the facts of the case. Jance has done an admirable job of getting the basics of this article correct. I am very familiar with being ganged up by people defending Stephen Barrett and his questionable operations and his "feuds" (SLAPP suits that go for over 6 years and end up in The Supreme Court of California). Thank you and have a lovely holiday. Ilena 20:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, what does this have to do with your behavior? Is it just you indirect way of saying you don't want to discuss it, you don't care, or the situation justifies it? --Ronz 20:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it is interesting that for someone who claims to be such an activist with regard to breast implants, Ilena doesn't seem to spend any time editing the article. Yet, Jance, who seems to take much in step with Ilena's views on matters, spends a lot of time editing the article in question. --Curtis Bledsoe 17:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Admin noticeboard post

This has gone on long enough. I've posted to the admin noticeboard regarding Ilena's persistent disruptive editing. MastCell 18:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to slow down a little. If I understand part of the orignial underlying provocation problems here, it seems that Ilena has details about her WP:BLP treatment that have been in conflict with the Wiki articles surrounding SB/QW/NCAHF and may have been given short shrift.--I'clast 01:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

What details? I'm all for removing anything that violates WP:BLP right away. But Ilena's focus has been to use Wikipedia as a front in her war against Barrett (which is totally inappropriate), ignore policy left and right, and keep pushing a link to her personal site. I don't agree that Ilena was "provoked"; if anything, she's been given quite a bit of slack per WP:DBTN, and shown no inclination to respect Wikipedia's policies. But again, if there's a specific WP:BLP concern, let's hear it - without all the abuse/linkspamming/soapboxing/incivility/etc. MastCell 03:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

She said that her legal victory is quite misrepresented in treatment. I personally am not up to speed on that issue. One also could make a case that there is a second warring front on the Barrett story, just much more Wiki saavy. Now I agree that she has to come to conform and needs to learn the culture if not the rules, but I am not big on training by attack / Wikilawyering when there seem to be outstanding issues. One issue may be resolving if the last edit holds.--I'clast 05:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

How is it misrepresented? The cases she is involved in are accurately described. eg see Barrett v. Rosenthal. All the cases are summarized, with court holdings or resolution.Jance 07:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that IR feels that that the Wiki articles on her legal victory do not convey & portray her legal outcome correctly *to the average reader*, and that it comes across that her legal victories were based on technicalities of SLAPP & CDA'96 rather than non-defamatory statements per se, especially in the Barrett v. Rosenthal article, although ruled non-defamatory is mentioned in the SB article. Here is Fyslee agreeing...you got away with posting other people's lies... with this point (I am not looking to kick Fyslee, just that the analyses reported here have stakes). IR previously complained that the California courts cleared her on a number of points or levels not adequately described here. Of course NPOV, RS and a representative legal analysis is a problem for us to follow in detail here. Her other issues focus on the accurate incorporation staus on NCAHF (we may be getting close) and that all 3 articles drift into pro-QW sentiment now and over delete less favorable information.--I'clast 13:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Barrett v. Rosenthal was only based on CDA and it was hardly a 'technicality'. The issue as to whether or not IR made non-defamatory statement against Polvenoy 'per se' was NOT before the court. There was one sentence in a concurring opinion where the judge, in dicta, agreed with a lower court that IR did not defame Barrett. That remains in the article on Barrett. There is absolutely no reason to include it in Barrett v. Rosenthal (although it was discussed in the section on the lower court opinion). The concurring dicta was left in Stephen Barrett to appease IR --there is no encyclopedic reason to leave it. Any non-defamation as against Barrett was never an issue in BvR - it was settled in the lower court and not appealed! It is not even part of the opinion. So please explain why exactly you or she want to rewrite the case? If she wanted to appeal the factual issue of the Polvenoy statement, she should have told her attorney to raise that issue before the CA supreme court. That was not raised. Once again, only one issue was even before the court - her immunity under the CDA. And you or she now calls that a technicality???Jance 15:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Like I said, I am not up to speed on the nuts & bolts of IR's case. I somewhat followed the various conversations on her legal situation and this seemed to be a comment & a factor in IR's response about perceptions of her results.--I'clast 21:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The NCAHF corporate status was incorrecty stated. In MA, the corporation must register with the AG (Division of Charities) and get a 'certificate' before it solicits donations from the public. It does not appear as if that has occurred, so NCAHF can not natively operate (soliciting funds), natively or otherwise.Jance 16:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)