Talk:Quackwatch/Archive 3

message: The people QW complain about obviously will not take kindly to it, right?  In order to keep a NPOV, I can't just say that these are just flames, point out the logical fallacies or errors in each, etc.  It already gave enough context for many of them to see what the criticism was and what the critic's tone is.  I expanded a couple to match, and made sure that it was stated that each critic was responding to a subject exposed on QW.  Summarizing the complaints at the top without judging it maintains NPOV.  I'm worried that the quoted content is itself not NPOV, but by showing where it's coming from it portrays the issue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Długosz (talk • contribs) 23:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My edits on Criticisms

message: http://www.quackpotwatch .org/ says, "The  "quackbuster" (his term for quackwatch) operation  is a conspiracy." right at the top of the main page.  
Someone deleted the clause summarizing Bolen's position claiming it's not supported by the references.  But the link to that is earlier in the same sentence.  If someone could clarify the reference, please lets discuss the best way to do this.
Another one on this page was more interesting, and brings up a question.  Basically, A criticized B for endorsing C who criticized D for saying X.  I added the X.  Does that need a reference on an article on B?  Does each link in the chain need its own reference??  I thought that a citation for C->D is sufficient.  Also, see the main article on D for more info is implied by making D a link.
Suggestions?
—Długosz December 21, 2006
:I think this points up the major problem with this page, which is that the "Criticism" section is way out of proportion, perhaps not surprisingly since the majority of involved editors on this page are anti-Quackwatch. There's way too much in the way of lengthy quotes from non-notable anti-Quackwatch types - notice that the "source" for nearly all of this criticism is typically the critic's personal website. I'd prefer to limit criticism to that which comes from reliable sources, or at the very least is not self-published. I mean, by the standards of this page, I could put up a website with a few initials after my name, claim Quackwatch is bogus, and be included as a "critic" and given a huge, disproportionate amount of airtime. There is legitimate criticism of Quackwatch worthy of inclusion, but it's hidden among all of these non-notable, self-published screeds. Further, there's absolutely no reason to go beyond "A criticized B [for C]" in your above schematic. Discussing Wilk vs. AMA is really inappropriate for an article on Quackwatch. This isn't a referendum on alternative medicine. It's a supposedly neutral, encyclopedic article about a Website. MastCell 19:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  When dealing with Bolen we run into a problem that has been addressed here at Wikipedia so severely as to get his article deleted (in spite of my objections) and his website considered so unreliable as to be unworthy of use in any situation here at Wikipedia. It simply fails all Wikipedia rules for websites used as sources or External links. The only exception allowed by the rules here is in an article about himself, if it existed. We have made exceptions in the cases where the link is to a court document not found elsewhere. The rest of his site is totally unsourced speculation and conspiracy theories stated as concrete fact, yet which he has admitted under deposition were "euphemism". -- Fyslee 19:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The criticism of this highly critical website is limited to less than half of this article. Proportionality is on a per article basis. Let's not forget that Quackwatch is highly critical, and backlash to their criticism can only be expected and is entirely notable and relevant to this article. We must represent all notable POV on this subject. I agree about Wilk. I quashed that whole section. It only seemed tangenetially relevant to this article. I agree that Bolen is not the best source, but his opinion of Quackwatch is highly notable and very public. So long as his "euphemisms" are pointed out as such and his statements are denoted as claims though, there shouldn't be much argument about leaving his criticisms here. Levine2112 19:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I would add Cranton and Sahelian to taht list as well. They are both MDs. Cranton is a Harvard Medical grad, has served as Cheif of Staff at U.S. Public Health hospital, and served as the editor-in-chief in a number of medical journals. Sahleian, unlike Barrett, is a board certified physician, has appeared on NBC Today, NBC Nightly News, CBS This Morning, Dateline NBC, and CNN, quoted in Newsweek, Modern Maturity, Health, USA Today, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, and Le Monde, and has sold over a million books translated into a number of languages globally. These aren't small-timers and their criticism of Quackwatch should not be discounted. This leaves only Bolen, who - while I agree is not a great source - is notable for his highly public grievances with Quackwatch... he runs "QuackWatchWatch" after all. I certainly think that Bolen's statements should be qualified enough so that the reader knows that they are dealing with pure opinion. Levine2112 20:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the issue isn't so much Cranton/Sahelian's MD degrees or board certification, or even how many shows have interviewed Sahelian. The issue is reliable sources, and both of their criticisms appear to be sourced to their own self-published websites. My feeling is that we should have some standards for which criticisms quoted at length in the body of the article. Right now, if I were to start a website listing my degrees and credentials and criticizing Quackwatch, I'd apparently meet the bar for inclusion in the body of the article - and that seems wrong. But these are my 2 cents; if no one else agrees, I can accept consensus. MastCell 21:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Using that reason, we could say that techically most of Quackwatch is self-published by Barrett and thus not usable. I think it is one thing if it is a personal site and another thing if it is a professional site. I would argue that Cranton's and Sahelian's (and even Barrett's) are of the latter kind. Levine2112 23:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support Sahelian and Cranton as professionally, conventionally well qualified, with remarks that illuminate both the subject and the different perspectives from other, notable impacted groups that claim biologically based therapies. We should only replace them with material that improves the perspective or slot for similar space. Bolen is of course loudest, and presented in such short form, perhaps more of an image asset for QW, but he is notable.--I'clast 03:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ref for Tim Bolen's Quackpotwatch ?

message: #Ray Sahelian B.Sc (nutrition), M.D. and Board certified in Family Medicine, is the author of health related books, including Natural Sex Boosters, an expert in nutrition and a proponent of supplements, [33] asks: "Why has Stephen Barrett, M.D. focused most of his attention on the nutritional industry and has hardly spent time pointing out the billions of dollars wasted each year by consumers on certain prescription and non-prescription pharmaceutical drugs?" 
#Peter Barry Chowka, journalist and a former adviser to the National Institutes of Health's Office of Alternative Medicine, has said that Barrett "seems to be putting down trying to be objective." 
#Timothy Patrick ( Tim ) Bolen is the webmaster of Quackpot Watch, a website that challenges Barrett's views on Alternative Medicine. Shot info 05:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here are some answers: Articles about Barrett and Quackwatch are largely the same because essentially Quackwatch is a one-man operation, and that man is Barrett. Barrett focuses attention on fraudulent aspects of alternative medicine instead of problems in the pharmaceutical industry because lots of others (e.g., Marcia Angell, Sidney Wolfe) are focusing attention on the pharmaceutical industry, and no one else is willing to be publicly critical of fraud in the alternative medicine and "nutraceutical" industries. Barrett does not seem to the rest of the world to be "putting down being objective"-- just to those whose scams or unsupportable claims he punctures. Bolen is the paid mouthpiece of one of the worst frauds in the alt med business-- to most of us, his slanderous opinions aren't worth 2 cents and I expect he will change them tomorrow if someone employs him to attack someone else. Putting his opinions in this article is like putting a paid political attack ad into an article about a politician as if it were completely reliable and unbiased information. alteripse 05:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Barrett does not seem to the rest of the world to be "putting down being objective"-- just to those whose scams or unsupportable claims he punctures. Pure pov opinion, if not insulting.  We've presented independent references that clearly show limitations to Barrett's objectivity as well as "factuality, fairness and scientific currency". "..doesn't seem to...world" indicates a great need to fill an information vacuum for such a less well-informed part of the world.--I'clast 07:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is the article about Barrett or Quackwatch?

message: 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. (User:Fyslee (real name removed)) runs their (his own private!!- Fyslee) Webring Operation of 90 blogs and websites each promoting the other. Fyslee (real name removed) 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 Fyslee (real name removed) 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 18:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor a forum for you to expand your grievances/feud with Stephen Barrett. Cross-posting rants like the above is disruptive. You've received innumerable suggestions and warnings, ranging from friendly to exasperated, and have apparently chosen to ignore them. At some point, the community's patience will be exhausted. Please consider contributing constructively. MastCell 20:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct. It is not a soapbox for Barrett to pick and choose what he wants to advertise about himself. For someone who goes after the licenses of board certified licensed doctors when he is non licensed and failed his boards and refused to retake them for several decades, and for someone who operates "credential watch" ... Wikipedia should definitely not allow his questionable operations to be soapboxed here. Ilena 17:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And we have policies and guidelines to prevent Barrett from doing so.  Your theories and accusations of Barrett's doings do not make you immune from those same policies and guidelines.  Take your soapbox elsewhere. --Ronz 17:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I propose this section be immediately moved to the archive as being off topic and disruptive. --Ronz 17:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm new to the scene.  For others who don't know what the feud is about (or that there was one), I'll share what I found: http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/bolen.html She "republished" messages from Bolen; that is, copied his writings (that Barrett was claiming was libel) to newsgroups.  —Długosz 03:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NCAHF / Quackwatch Operations

message: One thing that no one seems to have noticed, or pointed out, about
"QuackWatch" is the inherently ad hominem nature of it; the ad
hominem is built right into the name! The self-appointed
"Quack-Watchers" are in the business of watching "quacks". Anyone
they "watch" is by definition, and immediately, a "quack" (while
they are the noble "watchers", selflessly looking out for the
public interest). Said "quack" is tried, found guilty, and
sentenced to the general perception of marginality, scientific
unsoundness, worthlessness, "dubiousness", or worse (outright
fraud, etc.), right out of the box -- before the casual reader has
even finished reading a sentence, and before the serious reader
has had a chance to evaluate the evidence (if there is any).
There is something incredibly, outrageously slimy about this. The
obvious intention -- discernable from the name itself -- is to
smear, to throw mud, to villify. 
This is ENTIRELY APART from the matter of whether or not some of
the subjects of the "watching" might deserve, after careful
presentation and analysis of evidence, to be smeared or even
villified.
Repeat: The point above is ENTIRELY APART from the matter of
whether or not some of the subjects of the "watching" might
deserve, after careful presentation and analysis of evidence, to
be smeared or even villified. Indeed, some of them probably DO
deserve such treatment, and if so, should be so treated IN DUE
COURSE. But the very name of the operation cuts short that course;
the subjects are not given their due. They are certainly never
given any chance to speak for themselves, defend themselves or
respond to the criticisms and charges presented. They are
from the getgo simply "quacks" -- charlatans, shysters, hucksters,
con-men -- being sanctimoniously "watched" (denounced) by the
self-appointed "watchers" who are themselves, in a piece, judge,
jury and executioner.
A summary of this point should be included in the article. To
fail to include it would be a glaring omission of what is
without question a significant aspect of the whole matter.
-- Alan2012, aka: 65.48.22.104 16:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intrinsically Ad Hominem Nature of "QuackWatch" 

message: The article begins:
:Quackwatch is the primary website of Quackwatch, Inc., and is part of a network of websites dealing with related subjects. Its stated purpose is to "combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct," and its primary focus is on what it defines as quackery-related information that it claims is difficult or impossible to get elsewhere.Quackwatch - Mission Statement 
I think we need to rethink this.  First, is this article should be about the organization, not the website, which only exists to communicate the organization's material.  Given this, I suggest that the network of sites does not belong in the lede.  Given this, I am going to rewrite the opening sentence as follows:
:Quackwatch Quackwatch, Inc. is an organization dedicated to "combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct," with its primary focus on what it characterizes as quackery-related information.Quackwatch - Mission Statement 
Bucketsofg 17:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me. Levine2112 17:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening sentence 

message: I followed the link to Bolen's site at http://www.quackpotwatch .org and found "The "quackbuster" operation is a conspiracy.  It is a propaganda enterprise, one part crackpot, two parts evil".  This kind of attack-site should not be linked.  I am removing it.  If you disagree, form a consensus here about how to include it before re-introducing it.  Bucketsofg 17:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A consensus was already reached to include Bolen's critique and website here at the time of the AfD for the Quackpotwatch article. Basically, it was agreed that Bolen's site wasn't notable enough to have its own article on Wikipedia, but he should be mentioned on the Barrett/Quackwatch articles for being their most notable loudest critic. ;-)  Levine2112 17:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *I read through the discussion above and I see no consensus on this point.  And even if there were one, linking to a site that calls Barrett "evil" cannot but fail WP:RS or WP:NPOV.  (By the way, you should not be using popups to revert anything except vandalism.)  Bucketsofg 17:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was determined that his site was so bad that it not only didn't deserve an article here, but that any link to his site anywhere at Wikipedia violated Wikipedia's rules for inclusion of sites as resources, references, and external links (except when used as documentation in their own articles - which article was deleted!). In spite of this, an external link to Bolen's site has been given a free ride (even by myself). This means that I (whom Bolen criticizes) am in violation of Wikipedia policies by allowing it! An ironic situation, but a compromise to keep the peace. -- Fyslee 11:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  <nowiki>http://www.quackpotwatch .org/</nowiki> 

message: I removed "Watching the Quackwatcher - Syd Baumel" from critical links.  If you follow the link, you'll find what is described as a letter-to-the-editor that had been sent to salon.com but never published.   There is no way that this meets WP:RS and so has been removed. There may be other sites that belong in this section, so I've left the section header there.  Bucketsofg 17:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's find the other sites before deleting this one. Wiki's rules for external links are not as rigid as sources. I agree though, there should be a better example we can include here of a critical website about Quackwatch. Perhaps Chiro.org's "Watching the Quackwatchers" section? Levine2112 17:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, since there is no way that this link can survive any test of notability, it will have to go eventually.  Let's leave the section and delete the link.  You might try the chiro.org.  Bucketsofg 17:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  reliable sources 

message: I've trimmed out some of the material from the lede: much of what was here should be left for the body paragraphs below.  I think we need to have a quick "history of the organization" section next.  I'm ambivalent about the "criticisms" sentence in the lede (which I've removed), but am willing to hear why people think it belongs. Bucketsofg 17:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lead should contain an overview of the rest of the article. Levine2112 17:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *Yes and no.  What the lede should do is give the most notable facts: the article in a nutshell, so to speak.  While there will inevitably be a criticism section, is that criticism one of the handful of most notable things about this organization? Let's leave it for now, but can we find a way to make it less gratuitous?  Bucketsofg 18:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Lead should be a summary of 'all significant subjects in the article. If an item deserves its own heading, then it should certainly be included in the lead. It should be able to stand alone in such a manner that no one who then reads the article will be startled by totally new information not hinted at in the lead.  -- Fyslee 11:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Criticism and Quackwatch go hand and hand. It is gratuitous to call the site "award-winning" and that it is "dedicated" in the lead as well then. The site is controversial. It stirs up controversy seemingly on purpose. That they have critics is notable and should be including in the lead. Levine2112 20:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *But if you look below, Levine and I more or less agreed that the better approach is to exclude the 'award-winning' here.  I think its important to keep in mind that the point of the lede is to give to the reader the most important fact--what the organization is and what its goals are.  Now, the article is inevitably going to say that some people say quackwatch is a good thing and that others say it is a bad thing.  But that doesn't necessarily belong in the lede, and even if we decide it belongs the specific sentence that was there is so clunky that it looks like a pov-push. Bucketsofg 16:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *We don't need to decide this now.  I had taken "dedicated" as neutral (as in "their purpose is") rather than positive ("devoted", "committed"), but if it sounds off we can change it.  As for balance between 'award-winning' and 'criticism', perhaps both should go.  Bucketsofg 21:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a better word for "aiming"? Something "low brow" about using that word in taht context. (i.e. "I'm aiming to go get me a squirrel for supper.") :-) Levine2112 21:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yes, it's not terribly elegant, is it.  "committed to"? "endeavoring to"? "striving for"?  Bucketsofg 21:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Endeavoring" is the most applicable, I would think, of these three choices. Pretty neutral. Levine2112 21:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *The problem with 'endeavor' or 'try', etc., in these kinds of contexts is that they sometimes create the impression that they're unsuccessful ('he tries to be nice' often means he's not nice).  Does 'that aims' help?  Bucketsofg 21:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me. Levine2112 22:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Endeavor" is POV weasel wording from those who would imply lack of success. This is editorial POV inclusion. An NPOV way to do it would be to include their own claim, and make it obvious that it is their own statement. -- Fyslee 11:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:LEAD|Lead]] 

message: The end of the lede "which contains articles and other types of information related to consumer advice and strategies" is so vague to be useless.  Can we make it more specific?  Bucketsofg 21:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is a decent summary of what is to come in the rest of the article. But if you have suggestions to improve, I would mind trying them out at all. Oh, is there a reason you spell it "lede"? I am unfamiliar with this spelling. I am used to "lead". Levine2112 22:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "which contains …" 

message: "Quackwatch does not provide any evidence to support these claims." & "Most of these awards date from the late 1990s and earlier" are editorializing.  Shot info 02:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur.  Removing.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The statement "Most of these awards date from the late 1990s and earlier" refers to the awards mentioned in the article. That is a fact and not editoralizing and should be kept.  MaxPont 21:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a synthesis, so it's WP:OR rather than editorialziing.  It still shouldn't be kept.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a preposterous interpretation of  WP:OR. Of course it is possible to synthesize a set of small "fact primitives" such as years into a summary. MaxPont 11:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a synthesis of our selected awards, rather than of facts, making it doubly a synthesis.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "OUR" ?  Are you representing Quackwatch ?   MaxPont 17:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one represents anyone on Wikipedia. We are all Wikipedians. --ScienceApologist 17:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Let Arthur Rubin answer for himself MaxPont 18:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   SA speaks for me in this instance.  If most of the awards mentioned in the article date from the late 1990s, it may reflect "our" (Wikipedia's) selection of awards, so it's a synthesis and a self-reference.  Let the list speak for itself.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 08:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editorializing 

message: "I completely agree that Kauffman is a reliable source. This is a different tune than what Shot_Info was singing though; so claiming that "Nobody is saying that Kauffman isn't a reliable source" isn't true", now Levine, you are wrong and are displaying that you haven't taken any of the discussion points on board (strawman anybody).  You will find that it isn't that Kauffman isn't a reliable source....it's the source where he published his book (website) review.  BTW, 100% of the journals and publications I subscribe to do not do any peer review on their book and website reviews.  So again, here we are, the JSE is a dubious journal, and Kauffman's article (which is being held up as "better quality", for whatever “quality” equates to…) is probably not reviewed in any meaningful sense.  Points raised and continually ignored.  So far all other editors not part of this rapidly fading consensus are all arguing that the Kauffman review is equal to other criticism, because it is peer reviewed (evidence?) and the JSE has credibility (and the CSI endorses etc. etc.).  All "facts" overturned and yet, Kauffman's book review still appears in it's glorified position. Shot info 02:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is criticism, so it can be opinion too. In this case, highly specific, highly referenced from peer reviewed literature analyses by an author with "conventional" scientific & career credentials.  His analyses are much different in nature than the more general quotes that follow.--I'clast 03:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no debate about it's place in the criticism area (regardless of Levine's mischaracterization of my position).  But with the WP's editor's hat on, the format of the criticism section is unusual and ugly with a peculiar prominence given to one review.  Criticism is criticism, his review (let's call it what it is) is no different to that presented by other critics (ie/ Sahelian & Cranton).  Having it in the Criticism section is valid (without commenting on the review's quality, reliability, creditability or peer reviewed status per se) but it's prominence is odd within the article, and such a use is strange in similar articles in WP.  If editors wish to have such a predominate place to Kauffman's review, then it is recommended that an article about Kauffman is created.  Shot info 05:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kaufmann is a reliable critic of Quackwatch, but what he states is just as reliable as the other critics listed. Featuring him is a clear violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight. --ScienceApologist 09:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The other critics, often considered economically conflicted where Kauffman is more independent (prof emeritus),  did not attach long lists of peer reviewed references & carefully dissect individual QW papers. I consider your position a blind POV or POV pushing if you want to get down to it.--I'clast 10:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Such criteria for "independence of critics" is not a Wikipedia policy nor guideline. It is made up. If you want to use it to govern article content, you're going to have to get consensus for such a position. --ScienceApologist 10:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We already did a more massive consensus before you and Shot_info came blasting in, augumentatively ignoring hard facts, misapplying policies and denying/ignoring current mainstream references, making accusations.  As for "hating" QW, no I think QW would restore a lot of its credibility if would clean up the the outdated, unscientific POV, a pretty massive undertaking at this point. I have followed QW somewhat since the first Readers Digest article decades ago but later came to realize how badly such partisanship had damaged its medical related content. I still read the QW biographies to get the most negative view on different figures and then research for additional details.  I only got here because of the Kauffman debacle when NATTO added it in late September, otherwise having ignored the QW promotional series before.--I'clast 11:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yawn. I'm not interested in your opinions. You believe that Wikipedia should and shouldn't do certain things but haven't bothered to read the relevant policy and guidelines on these subjects. I encourage you to do so, because you'll find your advocacy very much displaced here. --ScienceApologist 11:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You pretty aggressively deny everything.--I'clast 11:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me, then, affirm, that you have been editting in contravention of WP:NPOV and WP:V in ways already outlined above. --ScienceApologist 16:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid Kaufmann is a possibly WP:RS, I can agree with neither SA nor I'clast completely.  I agree that SA's additions of affiliations of QW critics (including Kaufmann) with fringe science concepts are relevant, but I believe that Kaufmann's article should be given some preference to the other critics' articles, as it claims to be a website review.  I'll see what I can do. — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should a "claimed" website review receive preference? What other Wikipedia article uses such a rationale as a justification? --ScienceApologist 09:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kauffman's Glorified Book Review 

message: This slow PC is having troubles with the length of the talk page.  Any objections if there is some archiving done?  Shot info 05:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: It has been stated above:
* "The Nobel Prize qualative is there to show who Linus Pauling is and that Quackwatch is brave enough to even label someone that notable a quack."
Where has Quackwatch labeled him "a quack"?
Quackwatch criticizes many people and practices equal opportunity skepticism, as is evidenced by the fact than many MDs, scientists and other authorized "main stream" professionals get criticized for questionable or dubious actions, ideas, or practices that do not always fall under the definition of "quackery" maintained by Quackwatch. Criticism is not the same as labelling someone a "quack". Where is this done about LP? -- Fyslee 14:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several problems here. (1) Implicit association for the targets of his criticism, where for years, QW / Barrett have presented themselves as “experts” on “quackery” in healthcare, (2) implicit labeling of articles under the QW heading, (3) implied in the "The Dark Side...", showing such supposed intransigence in the face of "At least 16 well-designed, double-blind studies have shown that supplementation with vitamin C does not prevent colds" implies it despite Hemilia's papers over the last 12 years on errors in historical "mainstream" (meta-)analyses, and despite being methodologically deficient on vitamin C (vs 1-2 grams/hour when pre-/near sick), more when sick, (4) possible confusion of SB hats with the NCAHF's q-list, (5) it's hard to keep up with (or document) blinking light (on - there, off - not there), slipstreamed changes to websites such as occurred with SB's CSICOP, (6) others mention it, although whether quoted or was implied is hard to tell in passing.--I'clast 18:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This response didn't answer Fyslee's main question which was "Where has Quackwatch labeled him a quack?" If you want to debate, try a USENET group. Wikipedia isn't the place to do it. Please read WP:NOT. --ScienceApologist 09:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quackwatch has labelled (in its very name) as quacks EVERYONE to whom it directs such attention -- "The DARK SIDE...", etc.  (Woo woo! Shades of the evil Emperor in StarWars!). See comments above on the intrinsically ad hominem and possibly fascistic nature of "Quackwatch". -- Alan2012 16:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about Linus Pauling 

message: People seem to want to make a lot of hay out of JSE's status as a "peer reviewed" journal. User:Shot info made a request on my talkpage that I come here and address the issue.
JSE is a "discretionarily peer reviewed" journal inasmuch as JSE may provide proper review of some articles that are submitted. The reason is that SSE makes accomodation for fringe/pseudoscience in order to ensure "fairness". Oftentimes, if a reviewer has a problem with an article, the editor-in-chief will still publish the article as submitted but allow the reviewer to write comments for publication as well. This is a far less stringent arrangement than typical peer review. Most reviews of the sort that were offered by Kauffman are not peer reviewed because there is (ostensibly) no scientific data to address.
The article in question is written by Joel Kauffman, an organic chemist (not a medical doctor, human biologist, or nutritionist) who hawks his own  version of nutrition that include such dubious ideas as cholesterol and saturated fat skepticism (he doesn't believe that they are nutriotionally harmful) and fluoridation skepticism. A libertarian/conservative, Kauffman distrusts governmental and organizational control and maintains anti-orthodox bias on such issues as global warming in what can only be described as a philosophical refusal to defer to "authorities". The man prides himself for existing on the fringe of these scientific concepts and (maverick-styles) attacks those who attack the ideas he loves so well. While obviously more qualified and a bit more scientific than others on the fringe (he dislikes, for example, Kevin Trudeau's pseudoscience) healthy grains of salt are needed when presenting such criticism especially as the lead-in to the criticism section. I would think that demoting his work would be more appropriate than keepeing it as major point.
--ScienceApologist 13:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree and would appreciate some discussion about this before such a vast revision. All of what you say about Kauffman above is whay makes him the perfect person to analyze Quackwatch. He certainly has the qualifications and credentials. Kauffman's piece is set apart from the other criticisms because it is more that just one guy's remarks about Quackwatch. Please read his review. It is a scientific paper with detailed analyses weighed upon extremely reliable sources. In a word, it is different" from the other bits of criticism and thus should be set apart and highlight. This is the kind of criticism we should encourage in an article. Levine2112 18:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kauffman may or may not be "perfect" to evaluate QuackWatch. That's not really for us to decide. Neither is it relevant to evaluate his qualifications or credentials. Nobody is saying that Kauffman isn't a reliable source which is the only reason questioning credentials would be necessary. While you are entitled to your evaluative opinion as to what "sets his piece apart", that is not an editorially sound judgement. Kauffman's paper is not "scientific" because it's not written as a scientific paper: it's a website review. A "scientific" paper on a website would be one that looked at the website scientifically. This report by Kauffman is best described as a critical review from the perspective of primary sources. The criticism is not substantively different from other critics who cherry-pick research to justify their criticism of the mainstream. The kind of claim you are making here is akin to claims made by creationists that the Institute for Creation Research produces "scientific papers" while Answers in Genesis does not -- once you step away from the scientific community and scientific consensus and delve into the fringe, you are no longer bound by the rules of engagement in those institutions and scenarios. At Wikipedia, we should neither be encouraging nor discouraging any criticism. It is for us to describe not advocate. --ScienceApologist 18:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree that Kauffman is a reliable source. This is a different tune than what Shot_Info was singing though; so claiming that "Nobody is saying that Kauffman isn't a reliable source" isn't true. It is exactly what Shot_Info was saying. Kauffman's analysis is a review, but it is using primary sources and goes point-by-point and is a far different and more evaluative beast than any of the other criticisms. It should remain a breed apart. Again, we should be encouraging these types of evaluative criticisms rather than head toward ad hominem. Levine2112 19:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your evaluation of whether Kauffman's "evaluation" is better than the others is unverifiable and therefore not an editorially reasonable suggestion. He is rightly demoted to all the rest. --ScienceApologist 23:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is certainly more analytical, detailed and referenced, part of the editorial summarization process. It is WP:V because is published by an independent third party, a society, and it is even linkable. I see nothing about WP:V for placement. One other thing, not everything is "scientific", scholarly is another discussion.--I'clast 07:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is objection does not deal substantively with my points above. The fact is that there is nothing which separates this criticism from any of the others except for the personal opinions of editors. That is an inappropriate way of making a distinction because your opinion is not verifiable. See? --ScienceApologist 16:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: JSE, peer review, and Joel Kauffman

message: Response to: ScienceApologist 13:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find this kind of post to be totally out-of-line and off-topic. We are here to discuss article content, not to debate the finer points of how you think the world is, where you disagree with my postings on the talkpage, and what points you think you should EMPHASIZE by turning CAPS LOCK on. This is not USENET, it is Wikipedia. I'm not going to debate you, I'm only going to discuss what is appropriate encyclopedia content. If you want to join this discussion you are free to. --ScienceApologist 23:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't think any idiot can come on here and spew unsubstantiated accusations towards other users, yet I do find that this description may be self-applied. You might want to read-up on personal attacks before making an issue out of my "handle". Cheers. --ScienceApologist 06:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The question was: do you think any idiot can come on here and spew unsubstantiated accusations AT KAUFFMAN, such as you did. Why don't you answer the question? Cat got your tongue? -- Alan2012 17:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing I "spewed" was "unsubstantiated". Neither am I an "idiot". So I fail to see what bearing your question has on this conversation which is supposed to be about improving the article. --ScienceApologist 16:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Everything that you spewed was unsubstantiated. You have not substantiated, or even argued for, any of the assertions you made, above. I am prepared to believe that you are not an idiot. All you have to do is stop acting like one. -- Alan2012 16:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps not "unsubstantiated" since you have a POV source, rather similarly "contaminated with incomplete data, obsolete data, technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo", with an extra helping of nasty, may apply.--I'clast 18:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad we are in agreement on the substantive issues. --ScienceApologist 09:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not unsubstantiated? No, sorry, it was unsubstantiated. The post to which I responded -- "--ScienceApologist 13:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Point-By-Point Response to Emotional Outburst (unanswered as yet)

message: ScienceApologist wrote: "The rejection of [Pauling's] Vitamin C proposals by the mainstream is not only 
well-documented, it is uncontroversial."
Many mainstreamers have indeed rejected Pauling's vitamin C proposals. And they generally remain out of touch 
with the current literature. See below -- a Cochrane meta-analysis (most stringent possible), no less.
So, the issue then is: should we blindly accept and regurgitate prejudicial, uninformed opinions, such as those of Sir 
ScienceApologist and other ill-informed mainstreamers? Or do we go with the facts as presented in the best, most current
scientific literature available?  Questions, questions. Together, we can come up with quality ANSWERS to those questions!
.............................................
Snippet: "The CONSISTENT AND STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT BENEFITS on duration and severity for those using regular vitamin C prophylaxis indicates that vitamin C plays some role in respiratory defence mechanisms"
.............................................
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004 Oct 18;(4):CD000980.
Update of: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;(2):CD000980.
Vitamin C for preventing and treating the common cold.Douglas RM, Hemila H, D'Souza R, Chalker EB, Treacy B.
National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University, 34 Nungara Place, Aranda, ACT, Australia, 2614.
BACKGROUND: The role of oral vitamin C (ascorbic acid) in the prevention and treatment of the common cold has been a subject of controversy for at least sixty years. Public interest in the topic continues to be high and vitamin C continues to be widely sold and used as a preventive and therapeutic agent for this common ailment. OBJECTIVES: To discover whether oral vitamin C in doses of 200 mg or more daily, reduces the incidence, duration or severity of the common cold when used either as continuous prophylaxis or after the onset of cold symptoms. SEARCH STRATEGY: This updated review added to earlier searches, a full search of the following electronic databases: the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2004); MEDLINE (January 1966 to June 2004); and EMBASE (1990 to June 2004). SELECTION CRITERIA: Papers were excluded if a dose less than 200 mg daily of vitamin C was used; if there was no placebo comparison; if methods of outcome assessment were inadequately described; and if the report did not record any of the three study outcomes (incidence, duration or severity) in sufficient detail to enter into the meta-analysis. Three criteria of study quality were assessed: Jadad scores, placebo distinguish-ability, and allocation concealment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. 'Incidence' of colds during prophylaxis was assessed as the proportion of participants experiencing one or more colds during the study period. 'Duration' was the mean days of illness of cold episodes and 'severity' of these episodes was assessed by days confined indoors, off work or school. or by symptom severity scores. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-nine trial comparisons involving 11,077 study participants contributed to the meta-analysis on the relative risk (RR) of developing a cold while taking prophylaxis. The pooled RR was 0.96 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.00). A subgroup of six trials that involved a total of 642 marathon runners, skiers, and soldiers on sub-arctic exercises reported a pooled RR of 0.50 (95%CI 0.38 to 0.66).Thirty comparisons that involved 9,676 respiratory episodes contributed to the meta-analysis on common cold duration during prophylaxis . A consistent benefit was observed, representing a reduction in cold duration of 8% (95% CI 3% to 13%) for adult participants and 13.5% (95% CI 5% to 21%) for child participants.Fifteen trial comparisons that involved 7,045 respiratory episodes contributed to the meta-analysis of severity of episodes experienced while on prophylaxis. The pooled results revealed a difference favouring those on vitamin C when days confined to home and off work or school were taken as a measure of severity (p = 0.02), and when restricting to studies which used symptom severity scores (p = 0.16), and for the both measures of severity combined (p = 0.004).Seven trial comparisons that involved 3,294 respiratory episodes contributed to the meta-analysis of cold duration during therapy with vitamin C that was initiated after the onset of cold symptoms, and no significant difference from placebo was seen.Four trial comparisons that involved 2,753 respiratory episodes, contributed to the meta-analysis of cold severity during therapy and no significant difference from placebo was seen.In laboratory studies, differing methods of artificial transmission of virus to vitamin C or placebo treated volunteers in residential experiments gave different results. Volunteers infected by nasal installation showed small or no benefit from vitamin C, whereas a group who were infected more naturally, reported less severe symptom severity scores (p = 0.04). REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: The failure of vitamin C supplementation to reduce the incidence of colds in the normal population indicates that routine mega-dose prophylaxis is not rationally justified for community use. But evidence shows that it could be justified in persons exposed to brief periods of severe physical exercise and/or cold environments. Also, the consistent and statistically significant small benefits on duration and severity for those using regular vitamin C prophylaxis indicates that vitamin C plays some role in respiratory defence mechanisms. The trials in which vitamin C was introduced at the onset of colds as therapy did not show any benefit in doses up to 4 grams daily, but one large trial reported equivocal benefit from an 8 gram therapeutic dose at onset of symptoms.
PMID: 15495002
-- Alan2012 17:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoah... let's take a step back. It might be worth reviewing both what Wikipedia is not, as well as the part of the neutral point of view policy which states that "Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in." In other words, let's work on which sources are reliable (according to Wikipedia standards) and how to present them. Let's not engage in a debate about the relative quality of evidence for high-dose vitamin C. This isn't aimed at Alan2012 or ScienceApologist in particular - just a suggestion for staying productive. There are plenty of other outlets to debate and critique the science behind vitamin C - but this isn't one of them. Also, to all involved, let's step back and try to be civil about our disagreements. MastCell 19:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done, MastCell. A good illustration of why these tangents that the anti-quackwatch folks love to go on are not appropriate for this page. --ScienceApologist 09:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well done, Science(?)Apologist! A good illustration of how you NEVER respond with facts or take responsibility for what you yourself have stated. The tangent -- "The rejection of [Pauling's] vitamin C proposals..." -- was, of course, all yours. -- Alan2012 15:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Kauffman summary & reverts have gone well past mere contention.--I'clast 11:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's nice. However, your opinion on what the status of the discussion is in terms of advocacy does not help us decide what is appropriate for inclusion in the article. Remember, we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, not argue over what goes past "mere contention". --ScienceApologist 16:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncontroversial, mainstream opinion

message: The entire discussion about the “fringe” status of JSE  is beside the point. Assume that the Kaufmann article had been published in a non peer reviewed publication devoted to long deep articles written by journalists. For example Washington Monthly  (look at [] ) If so, the article had been an obvious reference in Wikipedia. The alleged “fringe” status of the Kaufmann article does not affect its relevance. It is well written and the critiques here have not managed to bring forward any substantial flaws, 
unreasonable or extreme claims, or deception in the article. Only ad hominem attacks on Kaufmann by the Wikipedia editor who claims to be a “Science Apologist”.   MaxPont 16:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the peer-review status of JSE is moot. The "fringe" status of the "article" is not really of any concern to the article content except that JSE is notable as a journal that publishes fringe science. No one is trying to "bring forward substantial flaws" with Kauffman's criticism of QuackWatch. We are simply trying to characterize his criticism in relation to other criticisms and in relation to his particular style and mode of advocacy. Don't get it twisted: trying to claim that Kauffman is somehow "the best" of all the criticisms is the non-NPOV idealization that is being disputed here. --ScienceApologist 16:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the most notably detailed. This and your "irrelevant" are gratuitiously tendentious, if not ad hominem.--I'clast 18:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? Can you point to any evidence that it is the most "notably detailed"? Or is this just your opinion again masquerading as fact? --ScienceApologist 09:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assume that JSE is not peer reviewed

message: Thanks for planting an editorial seed, Arthur. "Fringe" on these sounds so 1980s technology, different, controversial or another word would seem more NPOV.
:"LDL Cholesterol" alone, as so popularly advertised and tied to $25+ billion/yr for statins alone (more than all the supplements together), is iffy science. No significant long term mortality benefits at 7-8 yrs, heart attacks mostly replaced by cancer, violent deaths and perhaps CHF despite massive dropouts, indicating tolerance problems. Based on mortality correlations, the current mainstream medical thinking appears to be channeling toward inflammation and insulin levels as better predictors, never mind iron, HDL2, apolipoprotein B, Lp(a), homocysteine, and another hundred risk factors. Kauffman recognizes & discusses this. Statins appear to reduce inflammation too but a pretty expensive way with big side effects and little/no real provable mortality benefits long term.  This ties to his position on  statins and NIDDM.
:Pro certain "saturated fats" are controversial as trans fats were 15-20 years ago, but look up lauric acid and n-butyrate. For the diabetes/syndrome X crowd that Kauffman addresses (Myth #2, Low carbohydrate diets are unsafe and ineffective for losing weight), this is a less controversial area where low carb is more modern, choosing amongst fats and protein is a current diet & science discussion.
:"fluoride" Only under 12 is the small benefit, evidence based part; EPA is worried about heavy metal components in waste fluorosilicates applied to water; and apparently most of continental Western Europe is also "fringe". hmmm
Since his views are discussed in Malignant Medical Myths at length, these positions are probably best noted there, and less  poisonous in format.--I'clast 21:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection to the changes you've made to my changes so far today.  Others can sepak for themselves.  (I'm forced to admit uncertanty about which science is correct, although I can find no-one who recommends non-fluordated toothpaste unless the water supply is highly fluordated.).  I'm just trying to provide background which suggests that Barrett/QW may have attacked Kaufmann's work before Kaufmann reviewed the web site.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'clast has a weird bias that goes roughly like this: Anything that is supported by an industry that has a substantial economic footprint must be corrupt and bad science. It's a very populist sentiment, but it is neither reliable nor is it based in anything more than neoluddism. I encourage you to research this stuff more, Arthur. It is very clear who has the chip on their shoulder and who lacks the verifiable research. Your inclination to point out the conflicts of interest every critic of this website has is very admirable. --ScienceApologist 09:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Science(?)Apologist, have you ever cited any verifiable research -- or any published research at all -- anywhere, ever, in your whole life? For that matter, have you ever read a single scientific paper? Do you know what "Medline" is? Just curious. -- Alan2012 15:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: 'Apologist, I don't appreciate the constant heckling, baiting and attacks. Elsewhere, I have noted loud, credible, notable mainstream sources about corrupt and bad science affecting medicine & pharmaceuticals. I am not a populist, neoluddite, an ID creationist nor a technophobic pseudoskeptic who can't even read recent papers when linked, so don't keep treating me as such.  In my discussions, I have link-quoted a lot more mainstream, WP:V than certain editors that keep reverting valid material, with wild attacks & assertions. Frankly, the Criticism section is about just that, criticism, and if enough moon howling werwolves showed up, that might be notable too.  Unfortunately for you, Kauffman actually references more recent literature than you are implicitly familiar with, analytically questioning & plowing a lot of marketing fluff under by valid analysis techniques in the sense of Science rather than medical marketing hype trailing by decades. I've already demonstrated that a number current researchers dom't really believe the LDL cholesterol hypothesis as still promoted as a be-all, end-all to sell $25b+ pa of statins, questionable for long term mortality improvement, especially if the dropouts were accounted.  Also your "science" statements seem tainted by previous highly prejudicial personal attacks about Kauffman.  Those are incredible, the "chip...larger than...gut".--I'clast 15:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Judge me on the issues please, not your own interpretation of my motivations. Or, if you can't find it in your heart to do that, take it to dispute resolution. --ScienceApologist 17:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Judge you on the issues? We did that already. You have virtually nothing of substance to offer to this talk page. That was evident very early on, actually, though I'clast was much more patient than me, taking until now (above) to make observations about what is clearly your character. You owe him a debt for his notable forebearance.  -- Alan2012 19:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Science(?)Apologist, have you ever read or cited any published research -- anywhere, ever, in your whole life? Have you ever read a single scientific paper? Do you know what "Medline" is? Have you ever used a medical or science library? Do you know what the Enlightenment was? Do you know that "refusal to defer to authority" is integral to what science is about? Have you ever read anything about the philosophy and history of science? Have you ever taken a class in school, touching on science in any way (above, say, 8th grade level)? -- Alan2012 20:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well put. Civility needs to be maintained, regardless of POV regarding Kaufmann. -- Fyslee 22:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree. I think what works well is describing his website review as being of 8 article that he claims to "examine minutely" and then include his evaluation of those articles. That seems to be the most neutral presentation of the material possible. --ScienceApologist 13:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No more and no less, in an NPOV manner. -- Fyslee 13:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I was trying to suggest that Barrett/Quackwatch may have attacked Kaufmann's conclusions, (on, say, cholesterol), without necessarily attacking him by name.  Checking the details would be interesting, but probably not publishable here.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right. It would be interesting, but it would create an WP:OR violation in article space. We can hypothesize what prompted Kauffman to review Quackwatch, but we can't present synthesized speculation. Levine2112 22:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Fringe science"

message: I'm going to step out of my editor-role for a second and put on my admin-hat in order to remind you all about civility and the assumption of good faith: please remember to talk about the specific ideas at issue and content of edits and refrain from attributing motivations to one another.  It's always easier to see infringements of these principles when you are at the receiving end--so remember, too, to turn the other cheek.  People of strongly differing views who somehow find a way to work with one another can often create amazingly good articles.  Bucketsofg 17:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, User:Bucketsofg, and I thank you for the reminder. It would be wonderful if we could start off dealing substantively with article content instead of delving into personal attacks. I acknowledge that I can come across as abrasive and dismissive especially towards people who disagree with mainstream science, but I want everyone to know that my ideals for articles which touch on pseudoscientific subjects are delineated by WP:SCI, WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV#Undue weight, and Wikipedia:Neutral point  of view/FAQ#Pseudoscience. If we can start from these guiding principles I'm sure a good article will rise phoenix-like out of the disputes. --ScienceApologist 17:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree too. Yes, it would be wonderful to deal substantively with article content, without having to deal with uncontrolled prejudicial spouting (see section above: "5.3 Point-By-Point Response to Emotional Outburst"), and consistent refusal to take responsibility for one's own words, and consistent irrationality and (seemingly) calculated ignorance in general (see several sections, above; follow repartee). I, too, come off abrasive and dismissive towards people who will not read or think, and who persistently behave in an entirely emotion-driven fashion while claiming to be science- or evidence-oriented. -- Alan2012 20:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Mastcell, thanks for your comments. If you (or anyone) want to forestall this kind of thing, then please respond early and supportively to e.g. the post above, "5.3 Point-By-Point Response to Emotional Outburst". In that initial post, I called  ScienceApologist ("SA") onto the carpet for a succession of quite wildly irrational, prejudicial and/or ignorant comments. At that point I assumed good faith, intelligence and competence, and I made NO personal attack on SA; I responded very strictly and rationally to his precise words. I believe in giving everyone the benefit of the doubt, and I expected him to respond and set the record straight. But he did not respond; i.e. he failed to take responsibility for his own words. ((By the way: the "emotional outburst" in the title was added long AFTER the original event, in response to an editor who titled it something different -- "off topic" or the like. In other words, I did not characterize what SA said as "an emotional outburst" in the original response. At that point I did not want to provoke emotional reaction, and as I say I assumed intelligence, rationality, etc. -- assumptions which later proved ill-advised.))  THAT is when I started becoming, by degrees, abrasive -- and justifiably so. SA is the type who needs to be abraded (see threads above) in order to maintain a decent standard on Wikipedia, or anywhere. My question to SA is a question to all: "Can any idiot come in here and start spewing any kind of nonsense, and be tolerated, and continue to be taken seriously?" If you want to be the policeman here, Mastcell, (and that is fine), then you're going to have to step in EARLY and comment -- not about this late evolution of things, but about the early things (see 5.3) that RESULTED in this evolution (or devolution, if you will). For my own part, I am being the "policeman" that you, apparently, do not wish to be, by questioning SA's qualifications, knowledge, and ability to read and think (each of which is doubtful). So far he has shown no evidence of having any relevant knowledge or qualification to edit this article, or perhaps even any article. He is all bluster, prejudice and ignorance -- the precise opposite of the identity that he attempts to project ("Science"apologist). And indeed I am not the only one to have noticed this; see lengthy exchanges with I'clast and others, above. (Note the EXTREME patience and tolerance of I'clast -- which is, frankly, a waste of I'clast's valuable time. It should not be necessary for obviously intelligent and qualified people to go to such lengths to accomodate fools.) As for what changes in the article that I would like to see: I cannot say, specifically, but I can say generally that any changes suggested by SA should be dismissed without further ado, for reasons that are abundantly clear to any intelligent reader of the above exchanges. I do not think that changes suggested by I'clast et alia should be accepted uncritically. It would be great to have an intelligent and informed pro-quackwatch party on this talk page, following the issues carefully; perhaps this fellow Fyslee qualifies (I have not seen enough from him to say, as yet). Certainly SA does NOT qualify -- same as I do not qualify, though for much different reasons. -- Alan2012 17:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: PS - Speaking of the necessity for "intelligent and qualified people to accomodate fools", here's another example, now unfolding on this page: that of "GigiButterfly", who just popped up (or should I say fluttered in) (section below: "DoctorIsIn") and has commenced making edits without pausing for a moment to inquire of anyone or converse. He/she makes comments such as "You edits was wrong" [sic!]. (Reminiscent of "Is you is, or is you ain't, my baby?")  He/she also says "You have also ruined my reputation" -- following a scant 2-3 short comments in exchange!  So, the question is, how long must this idiot be tolerated? Where is the line drawn, if anywhere? Where are you, Mastcell, in this? If you want to be a good police-person, then you are obliged ACT and act early in such a case -- not simply lay back until the thing explodes and people start yelling insults. You are obliged to abrade where abrasion is due, in a controlled, impartial manner, before things spin out of control. (That is, IF you want to be a police-person. If you don't -- which is fine, of course -- then don't. But that also means don't butt-in when the fire that you failed to douse, early, begins to rage.)  In the case of SA, the line seems not to have been drawn anywhere; i.e. we are just to go on and on and ON, tolerating an unqualified and irresponsible nincompoop, and responding patiently to his drivel. Surely you do not wish to see Wikipedia turned into such a mockery, not to mention an incredible black hole for the time and energy of qualified editors. -- Alan2012 17:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well said Mastcell. There is a good reason for WP:NPA.  We never get anything accomplished when they start to fly. David D. (Talk) 19:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Mastcell:  My use of the word "police-person" was not intended to be pejorative, much less to reflect paranoia about "wiki police" (i.e. roving bands of fascistic censors, or whatever). Actually, I think police and even censors can be very good -- that is, if they're good at it. You assumed the role of police-person or censor by stepping in to the conversation at critical moments and telling others how to conduct themselves. It is fine with me if you want to be the police; I only ask that you endeavor to be GOOD at it. See my posts above for what I mean by that (EARLY/pre-emptive intervention, etc.).  I was as specific as I could be about how to improve the article, and gave my reasons why. The suggestions of some individuals on this page are worth a great deal more than others, and indeed some suggestions/comments should be dismissed outright. Also, I just posted a new section about peer review (see below: Peer Review as Article of Faith), with obvious implications for specific edits of the page.  My apologies to Gigibutterfly. I should have said that she was behaving LIKE an idiot, not that she WAS one (which of course I cannot know). That said, however, I still think that the serious contributors to this talk page deserve a lot better. And again, if you want to assume the role of police-person (which is fine), then you need to jump in early and douse the fire before it rages out of control. Step right in and tell Gigi to cut out the premature edits, without any convo with the sitting editorial group and discussion of the proposed changes. My awkward, late-stage police functionality is greatly inferior to your elegant, even-handed, early-stage functionality, the only catch being that you actually have to DO IT.  -- Alan2012 22:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't "want" to be the police; I just want to help you be a little more constructive and a little less ad hominem in your comments. Others are, I believe, addressing similar issues with GigiButterfly below. I agree that the suggestions of some are worth more than those of others, and that some should be dismissed outright. But that will be obvious from the content of the posts. It's unnecessary, and unconstructive, to badmouth the contributor. If a person posts nonsense or personal attacks, they'll eventually find themselves ignored or marginalized. And this is an article about Quackwatch. If you disagree with the concept of peer review, then the best place to discuss that is at peer review. MastCell 23:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civility, people 

message: He claims to be a "doctor", but what kind? -- Fyslee 14:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just found this document which claims he's got an honorary PhD. It also lists Gary Null with his dubious PhD.... The same list of "dr"s there is also used to sell the quack device on the website. Quite the list for investigation....;-) -- Fyslee 14:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about Burton Goldberg 

message: Here are a few more resources which I have found that may help with the editing of this and related article...
*American Society of Consultant Pharmacists
*Biobran Info
*MedScape
*JVSR
Levine2112 20:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More resources 

message: ScienceApologist, please read up on Avoiding Weasel Words and watch out for WP:3RR violations. Levine2112 04:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Levine, please read up on WP:NPOV. You are presenting a very biased view of Kauffman's research by removing any mention of the fact that he only cites work that is favorable to his conclusions in that article. -ScienceApologist 05:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny, I think Quackwatch is guilty of the same thing... it's called confirmation bias and Stephen Barrett and company do it all of the time. But unless you can find a source saying that Kauffman is guilty of this, then you can't put it in the article. It is a clear WP:OR violation. TheDoctorIsIn 05:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Total edit conflict! You took the words out of my mouth, good Doctor. Thanks. Levine2112 05:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Of course. ScienceApologist... you may want to take care and not start these edit wars. I think you are in violation of 3RR now on this matter. TheDoctorIsIn 05:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Sentence was reworded last night, check my last edit. GB's edits appear to have caused some confusion at a critical moment, I agree you are significantly different.--I'clast 14:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that. The wording was better. I took the quote directly from his disclaimer so there is no confusion as to exactly what he said. --ScienceApologist 14:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see nothing wrong with the way it is stated right now. Is it still a problem with somebody? --Dematt 17:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel Words