"
The Colgan reference is an alternative medicine supporter. Barrett criticizes alternative medicine. This is not a third-party ref. BLP is highly relevant while the BLP violation text is unrelated to Quackwatch. Nutritionist Dr. Colgan claims that one of Dr. Barrett's books, The Vitamin Pushers, hardly discusses supplements but is rather ""filled with derisive statements about individuals and organizations in the health care and natural foods industry"" and lumps scientists with obvious charlatans indiscriminately. This sentence is the definition of a BLP violation.  

 the lead 
This controversial edit added text to the lead about Barrett but this article is about Quackwatch.  

 missing sentence 

previous version

Quackwatch has been regularly criticized by the groups it investigates, such as herbalists, homeopaths and other alternative medicine practitioners.[7] A number of practitioners and supporters of alternative medicine criticize Quackwatch for its criticism of alternative medicine.[67][69][70] Of one of the criticisms, Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa wrote, ""It appears that Quackwatch.com uses the emotional reaction of its critics to substantiate its position.""[40]

David Hufford, Professor of Medical Humanities at the Penn State College of Medicine, wrote an opinion paper in which he asserts that Quackwatch would be more effective if it relied more on research and less on personal beliefs.[70] In regard to the debate over water fluoridation, an anti-fluoridation article in the National Review quotes a ""generally informative and persuasive"" Quackwatch article,[71] but criticizes its rhetorical style as ""perhaps not the best way to win an argument, especially with serious-minded people.""[72]

currenbt version

Quackwatch has been regularly criticized by the groups it investigates, such as nutritionists, herbalists, homeopaths and other alternative medicine practitioners.[8][68][70] Of one of the criticisms, Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa wrote, ""It appears that Quackwatch.com uses the emotional reaction of its critics to substantiate its position.""[41] Nutritionist Dr. Colgan claims that one of Dr. Barrett's books, The Vitamin Pushers, hardly discusses supplements but is rather ""filled with derisive statements about individuals and organizations in the health care and natural foods industry"" and lumps scientists with obvious charlatans indiscriminately.[71]

David Hufford, Professor of Medical Humanities at the Penn State College of Medicine, wrote an opinion paper in which he asserts that Quackwatch would be more effective if it relied more on research and less on personal beliefs.[70] In regard to the debate over water fluoridation, an anti-fluoridation article in the National Review quotes a ""generally informative and persuasive"" Quackwatch article,[72] but criticizes its rhetorical style as ""perhaps not the best way to win an argument, especially with serious-minded people.""[73]

This controversial edit removed a sentence. A number of practitioners and supporters of alternative medicine criticize Quackwatch for its criticism of alternative medicine. I suggest all the recent controversial changes be reverted to the last stable version. Make small edits and save them and discuss substantial changes here.  "