Talk:Quackwatch/Archive 7

message: Email from Nov 28, 2007
Anthon01 (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought personal emails were not allowed.  Am I misinformed?  --CrohnieGalTalk 19:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The email wasn't used for anything at all in this case, so no harm done.  Generally, email won't meet WP:RS or WP:V. --Ronz (talk) 00:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barrett's response to my question 

message: 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. Arion 3x3 (talk) 15:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review the talk page guidelines before commenting further in this vein. MastCell Talk 17:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  A large body of off topic text was archived by Ronz.  --Anthon01 (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quackwatch is notable as a consortium with an agenda (cont)

message: Anthon, your recent revert from "recognition" to "as a source" had an edit comment that made it seem like you reverted simply because it hadn't been discussed on the talk page first. Even though I think I agree with the effect of the revert, if that was the reason, please don't use it in the future. --Philosophus T 14:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mentioned that it is a contentious page and ask the reader to 'read the talk page' so he could familiarize himself with recent discussions. Could you think of a better summary? Anthon01 (talk) 15:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting due to lack of discussion 

message: I'd like to emphasize one of the points I wrote in Talk:Quackwatch#Getting_unstuck:
* Keep the discussion focused. Concentrate on a small set of related matters and resolve them to the satisfaction of all parties.
I think one of the biggest problems here is that we're unable to "Concentrate on a small set of related matters" and there is very little effort being made to resolve anything.  Instead, the discussions go off in tangents and then come back around to the same questions being asked again as if they've never been discussed before, or people flat-out asking for repetition.  Basically, we're falling into argumentum ad infinitum.
Also, my apologies for saying "we" when it certainly isn't everyone doing this.  For now, I'm trying to look for general solutions, rather than putting any focus on who might be causing these problems. --Ronz (talk) 03:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers. Thank you for the re-focus. Antelan talk 03:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Certainly i don't chime in since i don't follow closely enough, there is so much happening at once. One at a time might well be a good way to achieve compromises. I see from ANI that Levine is getting a ton of flack. I just want to point out that when I have worked with him he has always been willing to compromise. But in order for that to happen there actually has to be some compromises available and everyone has to be willing to give a little. (disclaimer: The last point is a general point, I have not read through all the arguments above) David D. (Talk) 15:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the point of Ronz's statement was to get away from making comments on individual users. Antelan talk 16:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, lets discuss compromises this has worked in the past. David D. (Talk) 16:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, David D. I try my best! For instance, everyone please read the string just above this one. We are trying to reach a compromise, but it stalled a bit when we started dealing with a tangent. I tried to rope it back in. I would love for everyone to weigh in on the proposed compromised offered up in that discussion. I really do think we are close to finding one which we can all live with. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Getting unstuck, revisited

message: Here was a quick search about peer review of QW.  From my quick look over it looks like it is. --CrohnieGalTalk 21:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WHat are these links supposed to show? I see no mention about peer review. Please specify. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Crohnie is offering sources that are peer reviewed (or at least, vetted by the federal government) and mention QW. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right. But none of these sources claim that Quackwatch is in any way peer reviewed, right? I thought that is what Crohnie was thinking. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify, I was trying to show what ScienceApologist concluded.  The link which I showed had the search as 'Quackwatch peer review'.--CrohnieGalTalk 20:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  new search 

message: RONZ. . . please feel free to elaborate here as you have not given any justification for including this tag. . . How are we supposed to know how to get it removed if you don't tell us your particular issue(s)?TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 23:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk:Quackwatch#The_neutrality_of_this_section_is_disputed --Ronz (talk) 17:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RONZ'S reason for including the NEUTRALITY tag

message: I have just lengthened protection to not expire, after reviewing the edit history.  Actually the best for all concerned is probably to go away and never come back, leaving the article to a new community of editors; there does not seem to be anyone here who is not deeply invested in either rubbishing or defending Quackwatch. Guy (Help!) 23:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And another group of POV-warriors will come to rubbish the article, claiming that Quackwatch is run by Aliens from Area 51.  Then another group of individuals who actually care about what this project does will clean it up.  I'm sure the protection is good, but I can email you about 25,000 other articles that are worse off than this one.  I'm burning out from the POV-nutjobs around here.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And how exactly your comment helps here? It does not. You may consider refactoring your offending comment about fellow editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The text I was trying to protect was an accurate reflection of the source's comments. In fact most of it was a quote from the "limitations" section of the source's review. The article is mostly a QW promotional brochure and is in need of balance. Some criticism is rightly justified. The source sums it up well. I am not interested in trashing QW. Just getting some balance into the article. Anthon01 (talk) 03:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On balance, QW has received high praise from scientific and governmental groups, and criticism from groups that it has attacked. No need to say much more than that. Antelan talk 20:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you list sources of praise then you should list the source of criticism, especially peer-reviewed sources. Anthon01 (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything needs to be sourced. Is this what you are getting at? Antelan talk 22:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What I mean is if the article simply states "QW has received high praise from scientific and governmental groups, and criticism from groups that it has attacked" then that is fine. But if you start enumerating the sources of praise (RS) then you should also list sources of criticism (RS). Anthon01 (talk) 03:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: QW is only attacked by people who are quacks. That's already in the article. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ronz, where are you? Your SA's characterization is UNCIVIL and factually incorrect. The Consultant Pharmacist and the Village Voice are not quacks. Anthon01 (talk) 11:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Consultant Pharmacist article is not an attack (as you're trying to spin it), and the Village Voice piece seems to be a personal column. — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is much better to refer directly to the sources rather than saying "there has been support and criticism". Then readers can make up their own minds exactly how critical or supportive statements are. Also, there may be mixed responses that are also worth including. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. I believe that this is what has happened in the article. Anthon01 (talk) 10:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My bad on reading "quack" as "attack".  However, I stand by my comment on the presence of non-peer-reviewed articles (such as web site reviews) in peer-reviewed journals, and of commentary columns in news-magazines and newspapers.  The Kaufmann "article" has been clearly shown to be subject to only limited review, under JSE's editorial policies as seen on their web page (not even considering the question of whether an organization which doesn't believe in peer review would properly practice it), and there has been an arguument presented that the Village Voice column was a commentary piece.  I don't recall the result of that argument.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 2

message: Would the 'Quackwatch as a source' section be better named 'Quackwatch as a resource', similar to say the Factnet article? As it is now it seems focused on proving Quackwatch is a reliable source, requiring the documentation of praise for QW at length. If this was copied to WP: space and the article changed to look at various aspects of Quackwatch, disruptive editing by those it monitors could be minimized and the article improved.John Nevard (talk) 09:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor thing... 

message: 20:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said above, I'd like to add it as "Further Reading".  I can't see that it would be controversial at all.  Bubba73 (talk), 21:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I missed that. I don't see how it fits in this article. This isn't an article on Paranormal phenomena. Anthon01 (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is a simple statement of fact that three of the chapters in that book are reprinted from Quackwatch.  It has nothing to do with the arguement going on.  Bubba73 (talk), 22:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see. Anthon01 (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seems benign; and in fact I'd welcome it, as a gentle reminder that "quackery" is not a synonym for "alternative medicine". They overlap, but they are not equivalent. But more to the point, it helps illustrate the actual scope of the website. Pete St.John (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I had no intention of making any kind of point.  I got the book last month, and several of the chapters were reprints from Skeptical Inquirer, several from Skeptic (magazine), and some from QW.  I had no problem listing that fact on the first two articles.  Bubba73 (talk), 01:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  Here is a review of the book.  Bubba73 (talk), 01:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wanted to add 

message: I don't really care about whether we use "start a" or "institute". Is there some rationale for liking/disliking one or the other? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think institute sounds more professional for the WP project and QW. Anthon01 (talk) 20:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Overly jargoned. Again, I change my vote. I think "start a" is a plainer read. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm ok with "start a." Anthon01 (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  This may sound silly, but I commend you both for agreeing quickly on a triviality. In the context, it is not silly. Pete St.John (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you. Do you believe that this is all trivial? Anthon01 (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "start a" vs. "institute"

message: 20:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with removing the text. This is the closest we have come to consensus. This should remain until consensus is reached. Anthon01 (talk) 14:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with the assertion regarding consensus. Too many people talk about consensus on this page when this is probably the page where consensus is farthest from being realized. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, the present text is a mixture of what you and I wanted in the text. There are points that need to be rectified. Anthon01 (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: While Crohnie has some good points here, I don't see the need to change the article.  The problem here is that editors are not working to consensus.  This won't be solved by changing the article, but is likely to make some editors even more adamant in their feelings that this is a battleground where they must advocate their viewpoints at all costs. --Ronz (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Request to remove until consensus is made

message: Pete St.John has posted a Wikiquette alert regarding Ronz here. Avb 00:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have inserted a simple notification as indicated by Krator and removed the content not related to QuackWatch from this section as proposed by Ronz. Feel free to discuss on the relevant user talk page(s). Please see WP:TALK. Avb 00:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiquette Alert notification 

message: This is a placeholder for whoever decides to give a third opinion. Here are the two 3Os that were requested.
===Original:===
Talk:Quackwatch#Pseudoskepticism_yet_again Dispute over inclusion of internal link. Side issues have been discussed in User_talk:Levine2112#Quackwatch:_Please_reconsider_.282.29, after initial attempts  were refused.  Discussions this time are outright refused , , .  19:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: The diffs above show this dispute involves multiple editors, so doesn't meet the criteria for WP:THIRD. --Ronz (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Per that, this 3o has been closed. . -- Levine2112 discuss 01:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

text: No, that's up to the project volunteers.   — Athaenara  ✉  04:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third opinion 

message: Talk:Quackwatch#Pseudoskepticism_yet_again Dispute over inclusion of internal link. Side issues have been discussed in User_talk:Levine2112#Quackwatch:_Please_reconsider_.282.29, after initial attempts  were refused.  Discussions this time are outright refused , , .  19:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Original:

message: Talk:Quackwatch#Pseudoskepticism_yet_again Dispute over inclusion of internal link Pseudoskepticism to the See also section of Quackwatch. Currently, this section includes a multitude of links in table resembling a template, but it is not a template. (Added here.) Attempts to delete this table have been reverted. Attempts to add Pseudoskepticism to this table have been reverted. Discussion have proceeded with no clear consensus. We are now seeking a 3PO as per WP:DR. 20:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: The diffs above show this dispute involves multiple editors, so doesn't meet the criteria for WP:THIRD. --Ronz (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Per that, this 3o has been closed. . -- Levine2112 discuss 01:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

text: No, that's up to the project volunteers.   — Athaenara  ✉  04:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Edited by another user:

message: Quackwatch website reviewed in Running and Fitnews Sept/Oct 2007, a magazine of the American Running & Fitness Association. 
"Cutting through the haze of health marketing claims" 
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NHF/is_5_25/ai_n21119961 Emilydcksn (talk) 05:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting.  Looks like a useful RS. No author though? From what I can find, "Running and Fitnews" is the newsletter of the American Running Association. --Ronz (talk) 05:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Website Review 

message: OK, what's causing the revert-warring and how can I help with this?? Thanks, --Solumeiras (talk) 12:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is an example of the dispute we are having. Anthon01 (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see this as a dispute that has been going on since late November, when an unsourced criticism was slightly changed  to something that could be at least partially supported with sources.  Since that time, a number of editors have been working to find some way to support the original, or a similar, criticism. --Ronz (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute 

message: I removed the link to Quackery from the 'pseudotemplate' at the bottom of the page and changed the name of the list to 'Related topics' to keep it NPOV. Hopefully that is a pretty self explanatory edit. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 04:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a better idea is to actually create a real template and see if it survives through an MfD. -- Levine2112 discuss 04:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The template is disputed. Forking the content to another page may be in direct violation of POVFORK. Demanding the community to create a traditional template in order for you to MFD it smacks point. Quack Guru 19:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You need to create an actual template before one can be disputed. I suggest you do so. Until then, this "See also" thing you created is being removed because it smacks of undue POV. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are disputing the content and now you want me to POVFORK it. I will not violate POVFORK policy because you want me to. You have not gained broad consensus to remove it. Quack Guru 20:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I have restored the version edited by Dematt as it seems to have consensus in view of the edit summaries and the above discussion. Please add or remove articles from the section as warranted, or discuss here. Even if this were a template (and I would support its creation as one), MfD would not be the way to go; discussion on its talk page and collaborative fine-tuning would be the first thing to attempt. Avb 22:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Collaboration is the key. Instead of delete, just improve the edit. QuackGuru (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like Dematt's improvement of it for sure. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  PseudoTemplate at the bottom 

message: I'm still waiting for a reason to include it. --Ronz (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still waiting for reason not to include it. Please read WP:ALSO then consider the sheer amount of links in the pseudo-See-Also-template. Again, the better thing to do is to actually create a real template out of this so that these discussion can proceed on that talk page rather than here. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  See WP:BRD and WP:CON.  You've been given plenty of reasons for not having the information.  Your turn to actually offer rationale as to why it should be added. --Ronz (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have given plenty of rationale. Please read above. Meanwhile, it appears that more and more editors are in support of keeping it in. This is not a vote, but in terms of consensus it is notable that a large majority of editors have no issue with including it. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  "I have given plenty of rationale." Please indicate where. --Ronz (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Above. Essentially, WP:ALSO makes no mention of WP:RS, the neologism rationale was weak, and if we are including a huge phony template loaded with related links any how, what's the big deal with add one more related link. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

text:  P.S.  - makes pseudoskepticism all but apparent as far as a related link. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see the relationship between your google books link and the discussion.  Looks like a new section below has been started.        :::::: "what's the big deal with add one more related link" If that's the best argument for including it, then let's keep it out. --Ronz (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your best argument for not including it seems to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The large majority of editors here see no problem with including it. That's the best argument per WP:ALSO. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You misunderstand.  I've asked you for rationale, and you've given "what's the big deal with add one more related link" as your best response.  I suggest you read all of WP:AADD and see where your response fits. --Ronz (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, you misunderstand. I have cited the precise policy in question here - WP:ALSO. You on the other hand have provided no rationale whatsoever. So if not wP:IDONTLIKEIT, what's your rationale for not including this? -- Levine2112 discuss 18:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  So you're not retracting, "what's the big deal with add one more related link" as rationale? --Ronz (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ronz, are you going to provide an actual rationale? Or is the just another one of your arguments which shrink-to-nothing when asked for an explanation? -- Levine2112 discuss 19:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

text:  P.S., the "what's the big deal with add one more related link" rationale is not just mine. It came from AvB above who also doesn't see an issue with including it. What's notable there is that AvB and I hardly ever agree on anything. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Many have given you a rationale, but you refuse to accept it. You on the other hand have given no rationale to not include it. You make claims but you never do back them Ronz, my friend and there is where the problem lies. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please follow CIVIL, TALK, CON, DR, etc.  Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 05:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: What is the rationale for ...?

message: The answer you seek was given by Athaenara above in her 3rd Opinion.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 04:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but that's just one person's opinion, and one that is very carefully qualified to indicate that consensus is not clear.  See WP:CON. --Ronz (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: See 3rd Opinion

message: I noticed an editor said in their edit summary that the link and source quackpotwatch.org is "forbidden at Wikipedia."  I did a search and found this site mentioned on several User talk pages regarding the Quackwatch page, but I couldn't find any mention of the site specifically being forbidden.  Does this prohibition apply to any mention of this source on the Quackwatch main page or any page? Can someone direct me to this policy? Bryan Hopping T  18:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's forbidden as an inaccurate, misleading, unreliable, hostile, and biased site.  Remember, this is an encyclopedia. --Ronz (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Can you direct me to somewhere I can read about this policy? Bryan Hopping T  18:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The following are a few of the policies and guidelines that have been violated by past additions of the link in question: WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and WP:NOT.  --Ronz (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes of course, but is there an arbitration or something that forbids quackpotwatch?  I'm asking since this edit summary says Quackpotwatch.org is forbidden on Wikipedia. I'm sure there's a long history here, trying to familiarize myself with the history of this page, related disputes, etc. Bryan Hopping T  19:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please remove the BLP violation link from this talk page. Thanks. Quack Guru 19:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading through WP:BLP, the issue seems to be "unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material."  I haven't posted any contentious statements about any living person. I asked a question about this edit summary. Bryan Hopping T  19:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Search this article's archives for discussions about the link.  It's also been discussed in the other Barrett-related articles. --Ronz (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Sadly, no.  Try these to start: Talk:Quackwatch/Archive 4 Talk:Quackwatch/Archive 6 Talk:Stephen Barrett/Archive 2 Talk:Stephen Barrett/Archive 3 Talk:Stephen Barrett/Archive 4 Talk:Stephen Barrett/Archive 7 --Ronz (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is sad, and frustrating.  Thanks for directing me.  I also found that doing a google search of wikipedia brings up pages references this topic, many of which are related to discussions of this article or Dr. Barrett. quackpotwatch wiki/google search This link to an AfD is also useful: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Quackpotwatch Bryan Hopping T  21:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Having simply taken a look at the named site, it contains a number of unsubstantiated allegations and involves at least one criminal prosecution which the author seems to feel was unjustified. It should therefore be treated at best as a primary source and it would be hazardous to link given the potential defamatory nature of the material. —Whig (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See also WP:PROBLEMLINKS Avb 15:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  QPW banned on Wikipedia ? 

message: This looks like it might not be out of place as a general navbox, but why is there a navbox just for this one article? Is this a POV fork of an existing navbox? —Random832 19:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are referring to the pseudo-template at the bottom, there is a discussion of it a few threads up from here. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does this article have its own navbox? 

message: QuackGuru (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  a few links  

message: Removed here for consideration:
:National Institutes of Health's Dr. Lichuan Chen described many of [Quackwatch article author] Green's statements as "misrepresentations and misinterpretations"... as used in Green's articles on antineoplastons.Marc S. Micozzi, Editor (2006) SComplementary and Integrative Medicine in Cancer Care and Prevention: Foundations And Evidence-based Interventions, Springer Publishing Co., 
Saul Green is associated with Quackwatch, however he is not mentioned on the article page. The criticism reference above is taken from a book and appears to be criticism of Saul Green's 1992 paper as published in the Journal of the American Medical Association and not a direct criticism of Quackwatch. The ref given contains a link to Google book search.
Using a criticsm of Saul Green's work as a criticism of Quackwatch seems a bit iffy given that Green is not listed in the article as part of the organization. I say leave it out, but if it is to be included, then Green's association w/Quackwatch must be elsewhere in the article along with other members and their qualifications. Vsmith (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. The criticism specifically mentions "Quackwatch" by name. It is a criticism of a paper written for Quackwatch and published by Quackwatch. Our Wiki article states: The Quackwatch website contains many essays and researched viewpoints written for the non-specialist consumer by Barrett, other writers, and a board of advisors. Thus, criticism of the Quackwatch works of the "other writers" are open to be included in this article. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraph in the book which is the source for the tortured quote makes no mention of Quackwatch - the paragraph and Chen's remark is about Green's JAMA article. The Green-Quackwatch connection appears in an earlier paragraph. If we are going to crticize Green then he needs to be discussed elsewhere in the article as a writer/advisor with his qualifications. Vsmith (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I understand now. The Quackwatch article wasn't written by Saul green, but rather the Saul Green JAMA article was sourced in the Quackwatch article. The analysis attempts to discredit Sail Green's work and thus Quackwatch's article by association. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  does seem a bit tortuous (good word). Maybe something along the lines of "NIH <link> criticizes Green book <link> cited in QW article <link>" like that? But that said, there's plenty of real criticism of QW, on the grounds of excess and rhetoric. For example, in a nice parallel to how I might criticise SA for including accupuncture with homeopathy in the broad sweep of his broom, some criticise QW for harshness to some honest stuff that shouldn't be treated the same way as fraud or supersitition ("quackery"). It's perfectly rational to seek lower cost alternatives for pharmaceuticals, for example. I'm told that QW's hostility to "bioequivalents" is a bit harsh, for example, but to me it seemed their stand was a bit wishy-washy, and not so hostile. But indeed sourcing all these things is a big job and I appreciate those pursuing it. Pete St.John (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Green criticism 

message: Yes there is. As I mentioned before, it leads to linkfarming. The end result is that the more useful links get drowned out by the less useful ones. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 22:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify even more, linkfarms are lists containing external links, or entire articles consisting of nothing but links.  Neither applies in this case. --Ronz (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not true. The relevant portion of policy covers both internal and external linkfarms. In either case, that has no bearing on the arguments against this pseudotemplate. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 23:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no section of WP:NOT#LINK that I see as relevant to See also sections, or other lists of internal links within an article.  "2. Mere collections of internal links" does not apply, nor do I see how any of the others apply. --Ronz (talk) 23:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're the one who brought that section up, saying it applied to collections of external links as linkfarms. I just pointed out that it applied to internal link collections just as much. Anyways, you still haven't addressed any of the actual reasons given against the pseudotemplate or supplied any reasons for it. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 23:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds like we are agreed that it's not a linkfarm, right? --Ronz (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. I still say it's a linkfarm. I've seen nothing stating that a linkfarm must be external links. Can we at least agree that this is irrelevant, though? --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 23:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not a linkfarm according to WP:NOT#LINK.  There are many examples of other articles having similarly large lists of internal links.  You're saying it's irrelevant?  I feel like I've wasted my time here. --Ronz (talk) 00:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, at least we can agree this is a waste of time. Whether you call a dog's tail a leg or not, it won't help it walk. Similarly, whether you call this a linkfarm or not, it doesn't change whether it's good for the article. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 00:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "it doesn't change whether it's good for the article"  I thought you said it was irrelevant.  If it's irrelevant, then it's no argument for or against the inclusion of the information.  If it's not irrelevant, then strikout your past statements to indicate you've changed your mind, or otherwise do something that makes your viewpoint clear. --Ronz (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What you call it is irrelevant, and I'm done with discussing this. I'll go on calling it a linkfarm. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 00:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "it's no argument for or against the inclusion of the information" --Ronz (talk) 00:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

text: You're completely missing the point. I've repeated myself enough times already, so I won't do so again. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 01:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe I am, as I have just spent a lot of time reading what you said. I would appreciate it if you would take the time to try and catch my drift instead of a knee-jerk reaction within 2 minutes. Hint: I was not responding to you, as should be clear from my indentation. This was mainly my contribution to the discussion entitled "consensus or no consensus" - and I was repeating myself because other users feel that opinions and comments made earlier will evaporate within 14 days or so. Avb 01:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whether or not it is a true Link Farm seems to be temporarily (and perhaps permanently) irrelevant. What is currently relevant is that this pseudotemplate isn't a See also section nor is it a real navigational template. So the question is: What is it? -- Levine2112 discuss 04:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Redundant among other things.  The ad section links, About the site, often duplicate the External Links section links, for that double helping toward QW pov and (t)rite thinking linkspam.--I'clast (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Linkfarm?

message: I'll repeat my argument against this pseudotemplate one last time: It lends itself to getting more and more cluttered with links (witness Avb's suggestion to add more links to it to fix it). This drowns out any links that are more likely to be useful to the reader. A See Also section is useful when it provides a few articles that would definitely be useful. When it gets this long, people stop reading through it. Compare to the version I tried to place in a few days ago: . Doesn't that look like it would be much more useful to a reader?
Alright. That's my primary argument against the pseudotemplate. I have so far heard no arguments for it, and it all just seems to be "I like it!" If I don't receive any better arguments, I'll assume that's all it really is. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 17:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to agree with this sentiment. However, I think that there may be a place for the template in question to be created at Wikipedia and included at many different articles. Might I suggest Template:Quackery? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Levine suggested Template:Skepticism a while back, which might be more general-purpose. It already exists, but not in any usable shape (the fact that it is used nevertheless is... unfortunate). Now, would people agree to the idea of having a traditional See Also section in this article and then also including a navigational template? --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 21:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. It is time to remove it and replace the pseudo-template with a traditional See Also section per WP:ALSO. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: One last time...

message: If I understand the discussion right, this is not a normal WP template but something else - "pseudotemplate". If so, I believe that the readers would confuse this with a normal WP template. Please show me the relevant WP allowing a pseudotemplate to replace the See Also section?
(Ps. If this is a template it should be inserted in all articles mentioned.) MaxPont (talk) 08:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can turn this question around. Please show me the relevant WP forbidding a pseudotemplate to replace the See Also section. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, look at WP:ALSO and read the line "Links are presented in a bulleted list and should be listed in alphabetical order." Considering all the confrontation around this article I think the best way is for editors to adhere closely to WP and guidelines. MaxPont (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:IAR anybody? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I take that as a consession that you don't have support from Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines for including it. MaxPont (talk) 09:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

text:  I'd rather not ignore the rules here. That is a cop-out. -- Levine2112 discuss 05:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  OMG! Is this subject still being debated here? No wonder I've stayed away from it for awhile.... That template really has nothing to do with QW or its POV, and doesn't do much for the subject, which is QW. Get rid of it. -- Fyslee / talk 06:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:IAR is for when ignoring the rules would make the encyclopedia better. I've argued that this isn't the case here. Since it isn't clear-cut, it isn't really a good time to be applying it. To Fyslee: Part of the reason this is still going on is that the article was protected due to edit-warring over it. To everyone else: Judging by the outcome of all the discussion, I plan to remove it as soon as the protection expires. If you don't want this to happen, then please explain why so we can discuss your reasoning. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 00:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is better to ask ScienceApologist to remove the template. This article needs to be edited in a more collaborative spirit. MaxPont (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's a magnanimous offer. I suggest that you notify him on his talk page and let him know of this offer. If nothing happens within a day's time, then anyone can delete it. I'll support such a move. The template is an unusual inclusion on such a page about a specific website and organization, not about a concept that would make such a template relevant. As such it's not directly relevant. We already have a short listing of subjects in the article that are directly relevant and necessary to give context to the mission of QW. We simply don't need this template. -- Fyslee / talk 15:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That day has come and passed. I am going to remove it just once. If reverted, I expect a clear explanation here because it seems that we have a clear consensus to remove it. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia Policy for templates?

message: As requested, I will add a real template. QuackGuru (talk) 02:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unnecessary. -- Fyslee / talk 03:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  real template