Talk:National Council Against Health Fraud/Archive 2

message: Hired as or for would be nice, reference.--I'clast 22:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we've done a good job recently of improving the King Bio section.  I dont understand the purpose or see value in adding, "NCAHF then hired it's own Vice President and former Chair Stephen Barrett and Wallace Sampson." --Ronz 22:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because they were paying themselves to be their own witnesses. Read the case. The judge goes into this in great length and why it seems like suspicious behavior. Levine2112 23:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: King Bio

message: Summarizing where I think we are so far:
We have no source that shows it's notability (so it should be removed per WP:V and WP:N). 
--Ronz 16:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But we have no source saying this is notable.  I'm not saying the information is not verifiable, only that the notabiliby is unsourced. --Ronz 18:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: As long as the speculation on this discussion page (and archives) are the only rationale, then it's OR. --Ronz 18:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: "and its current status is unknown" is not verifiable.  It's an admission of OR, and is completly unencyclopedic. --Ronz 18:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I mention him because other editors have.  The fact that it's currently not presented as criticism doesn't change the past discussion here. --Ronz 18:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Correct.  Thanks for agreeing we have no consensus.  But of course articles aren't filled with what hasn't achieved consensus, but what has.  I guess that this is a NOT issue as well. --Ronz 18:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  I disagree, so by definition there is no consensus.  Levine2112 also says there is no consensus.  Perhaps you should consider stopping instead.  Thanks for providing more information that this is an issue of OR and NPOV though. --Ronz 19:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "relevant for an entity claiming to be incorporated" the entity in question do not make this claim.  This is the point that you have been ignoring inasmuch as you ignore the fact that you don't need to be incorporated to claim non-profit status.  You are trying to make the claim that they are not incorporated to push your POV that it means something nefarious.  What I suggest and keep pointing out and you all keep ignoring because you are not looking at this outside of your POV.  Shot info 22:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  From Ilena's comment earlier "It is indeed notable if NCAHF is operating and collecting donation and advertising with no legal corporate status. This is a mockery of an "encyclopedia." ".  Since NCAHF can legally operate and collect donations and advertising without a "legal corporate status", this implies that in fact it is no longer notable.  Unless of course, there is a new legal fiction invented to make it notable. Shot info 23:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: So sorry to have to point out your error, but indeed, NCAHF does claim to be a corporation and does indeed collect donations.It further, claimed to be filing with California after their license was suspended (not dissolved) in California. Whoever chooses to deny these facts, seems to be acting in a disrespectful manner. Any legal entity can prove itself in the heartbeat of a hummingbird.  Ilena 23:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no problem with being in error, which is why I am pointing these things out.  I don't see anywhere in NCAHF literature (ie/ their website) where they make the claim to be incorporated, the only location I can find is on their tax return where they have "INC." after their name.  This is probably the fault of the accountant preparing the paperwork as I know that simple errors like this often crop up in my own experience and since the IRS hasn't stopped it, it would appear that the IRS does not mind.  It is not "proof" that the NCAHF is holding itself out to be incorporated.  As "any legal entity can prove itself in a hearbeat..." I will point out that partnerships and sole operators are next to impossible to "prove themselves" using information that Wikipedia finds verifiable.  This comment is a strawman and largely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Shot info 00:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: There are dated verifiable statements as to NCAHF status. (1) NCAHF, Inc. tax ext filings with MA address, (2) CA suspension 1993, (3) NCAHF, Inc. currently solicits membership & donation with MA address, (4) there is no MA registration on file is also a fact, whether or not there is some "intent to file" provision or not (these things are usually for 1-2 yrs of passive or inactive status, INAL, don't really care). These facts, changes and discrepancies, are notable and somewhat anomalous in and of themselves. Any changes in status ARE notable, you are free to add them.   Whether or not the article is absolutely most current is not required - as long as the facts that are known are also dated, they remain accurate, verifiable stmts of fact. Again, you or the NCAHF principals are free to update them with fresher, verifiable facts as available. As I said earlier this ISnotable to ordinary individual readers for ordinary reasons, whether or not NCAHF is "legal".--I'clast 00:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I find it extremely amusing that you are suspicious of my motives, and not a suspended California Corporation who still collects money in Massachusetts while claming the State of California is lying about their corporate status. This has been going on for over 41 months. Because of this, people who want to sue NCAHF have no legal way to do so. User:Ilena|Ilena]] 03:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bullocks, you are showing your ignorance on the matter if you think that a natural person or a corporation cannot be sued.  You have your own person as an example. BTW "while claming the State of California is lying about their corporate status" proof anybody?????? Shot info 05:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Baratz and Paul Lee claim that NCAHF is a legal California corporation while the State of California claims they are not. For Baratz and Lee to be correct, the State of California would have to be lying on their website for 3 1/2 years about their status. Ilena 15:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorporation Status/Massachusetts listing yet again 

message: I have been mocked for mentioning this posse ... seen it called a "satire page" ... when in fact, it is a group, which includes Barrett and Paul Lee and several others, who proclaim that they go after "net quacks" and that their official sites are ncahf.org an quackwatch.com. Here is an archived page: . I just checked, and within the last few weeks, they have removed the current site showing the Posse together. Here is an archived listing of their websites: Our web sites: www.quackwatch.com www.healthwatcher.net www.ratbags.com www.ncahf.org . This Posse was formed the same year as Barrett and Team launched several SLAPP suits against critics and those who practiced modalities which they disagreed with. These members are seen on blogs, usenet and various chatgroups in various disguises advertising NCAHF/QW and attacking the same people as the plaintiffs are suing. Anyone, like Barrett, who calls himself "the media" (isn't he humble) will use the various mediums to push their viewpoints and minimize their opposition. Have a lovely day and thank you. Ilena 16:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What does this have to do with the article?  Why are you disrupting the talk page?  I propose this section be immediately moved to the archive. --Ronz 16:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Disruption is in the eyes of the beholder. Many believe you were disruptive when you kept 'editing out' the evidence of NCAHF's non Corporate status. Thank you and Have a lovely Holiday. Ilena 18:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rag-tag Posse of Snake-Oil Vigilantes