Talk:Quackwatch/Archive 8

message: :Why not place the reflist at the top of the page instead?  Just as accessible.  WLU (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Interesting idea. Since this is a talk page, the usual rules don't apply and the main idea is to make them easily accessible. What do others think? -- Fyslee / talk 15:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would this be a matter for Wikipedia Talk:Talk page guidelines (not that anyone reads those pages)?  I have no objections to moving the reflist to the top.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 15:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't object either. A better idea might be if talk pages were modified to keep the reflist at the bottom. Who would we talk to about that. Anthon01 (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Support from three contributors, no real disadvantage, significant advantage of being able to add sections without extra steps?  Who would you need to talk to? I'll be bold if no-one else want to risk the possible smack-down :)  The only real disadvantage would be archiving, but anyone doing archiving would know enough to leave the section there.  WLU (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I meant who would we need to talk to regarding a software change the identifies the reflist and puts it automatically on the bottom of the page. It could be duplicated on the archives page. Anthon01 (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No idea, sounds like you'd have to talk to the wikimedia software developers and I doubt it'd be a priority - not often you see a talk page with  at the bottom.  Until then, any objections to me moving it to the top?  WLU (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  None at all. I too have thought it should be a built in function on talk pages. What is often forgotten by people who wonder why there is a references section on some talk pages, is the real purpose of talk pages - to discuss and develop article content, especially if controversial. The best way is to make a working trial run, refs and all. That way the text and refs are checked out and any mistakes are caught on the talk page before they end up in the article. It actually works quite well. -- Fyslee / talk 02:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The logical place for it is on the bottom. But because of the problems with new sections, I have 'no objection to moving it for now. Anthon01 (talk) 12:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: DONE Anthon01 (talk) 12:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving reflist to top 

message: I think "chiropractors" needs to be added to the short list in the following sentence: "Quackwatch has been regularly criticized by the groups it investigates, such as herbalists, homeopaths and other alternative medicine practitioners.[7]" Considering this article reads like an homage to Quackwatch and less an encyclopedia article, it would benefit first-time visitors to the page to learn that the organization still considers chiropracty to be quackery, even though the American Medical Association does not.
24.163.88.175 (talk) 06:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't the AMA consider Chiropractic to be quackery?  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  critics 

message: This controversial change added some BLP violations and some content about Barrett and not Quackwatch. QuackGuru 23:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please point to specifics. Where is BLP violated? Barrett, as the founder of Quackwatch, is quite relevant, and should be directly included in this article. The criticisms were all directed at Barrett/Quackwatch, quite specifically. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 23:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the refs are unreliable. This article is about Quackwatch. QuackGuru 23:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you be more specific? I only added two references. One is from Quackwatch itself; the other is from leading nutritionist Ray Sahelian, whose site gets much more traffic than Quackwatch. His criticism, which is directed at Barrett's work on Quackwatch, certainly fits. His article is called Quackwatch, and the first paragraph references "Barrett and Quackwatch". ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 23:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For example, the Sahelian, R. reference is a BLP violation. QuackGuru 23:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're going to have to be specific in that point, because I don't see it. And I mean I need to see a quote from the BLP rule that backs up your assertion. You need to be that specific. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 23:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Edited that criticism somewhat. What's your take on the revised edition? ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 23:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't see how it possibly meets BLP either.  Hasn't Sahelian been brought up and rejected multiple times before? --Ronz (talk) 04:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I already took out the Sahelian article. We're talking about Colgan and The Vitamin Pushers now. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 05:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Colgan reference is an alternative medicine supporter. Barrett criticizes alternative medicine. This is not a third-party ref. BLP is highly relevant while the BLP violation text is unrelated to Quackwatch. Nutritionist Dr. Colgan claims that one of Dr. Barrett's books, The Vitamin Pushers, hardly discusses supplements but is rather "filled with derisive statements about individuals and organizations in the health care and natural foods industry" and lumps scientists with obvious charlatans indiscriminately. This sentence is the definition of a BLP violation. QuackGuru 08:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe we've already brought up and rejected the Townsend Letter for Doctors multiple times. --Ronz (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Townsend Letter for Doctors is not WP:RS. QuackGuru 17:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

text: The sentence was completely redundant. To emphasize this point, I will be redundant: that first sentence and the sentence I removed say exactly the same thing. Wordiness should be avoided. You still have not responded to the fact that The Vitamin Pushers is sold by Quackwatch; the criticism by Colgan remains. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 08:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence that was removed was very interesting. It is irrelevant what Quackwatch sells on their website. A BLP is still a BLP violation. QuackGuru 08:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The book is published by Prometheus Books, not by Quackwatch. Quackwatch is not a publishing house. The book is sold many places, including at Quackwatch, which is quite natural considering that one of the authors (Barrett) is the primus motor there. -- Fyslee / talk 23:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Take it to WP:BLPN rather than refusing to review the prior discussions that led to the Townsend Letter being rejected as a source. --Ronz (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no consensus. Townsend Letters has not been rejected as a source so far as I know -- the source was linked when I came here. I just fleshed it out. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 18:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe this was resolved on BLPN a few months ago, but I can't find the reference, nor do I recall the resolution.  I lean toweard the Townsend Letter being rejected as an WP:RS, but I don't recall my reasoning.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here was my previous missing comment in case anyone wants to read it. We have common themes here. Things are missing from the article as well as the talk page. I don't see consensus for any of the recent controversial edits. QuackGuru 02:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

text:  I have dealt with the concerns raised above by restoring the last, stable, consensus version, thus undoing the controversial edits which, if appropriate at all, belong on the Barrett article. Those sources have already been dealt with on both articles and the current state of the articles, as regards use of those sources, are consensus versions. They should not be added again. -- Fyslee / talk 04:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored to the last stable version minus the colgan ref. There is no consensus for the controversial edits. QuackGuru 23:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Explain why we can't add information on the founder to the lead. This reverts good writing. Likely I will have to do some sort of dispute resolution for this. Does anyone else agree with QuackGuru that the changes he's reverted, referenced above, were bad? The first two sentences in the Critics section are redundant. Also, I'd like an administrator's advice on where I go to appeal this kind of tendentious editing. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 23:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP violations, unrelated content, and controversial changes 

message: This controversial edit added text to the lead about Barrett but this article is about Quackwatch. QuackGuru 08:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  the lead 

message: previous version
Quackwatch has been regularly criticized by the groups it investigates, such as herbalists, homeopaths and other alternative medicine practitioners.[7] A number of practitioners and supporters of alternative medicine criticize Quackwatch for its criticism of alternative medicine.[67][69][70] Of one of the criticisms, Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa wrote, "It appears that Quackwatch.com uses the emotional reaction of its critics to substantiate its position."[40]
David Hufford, Professor of Medical Humanities at the Penn State College of Medicine, wrote an opinion paper in which he asserts that Quackwatch would be more effective if it relied more on research and less on personal beliefs.[70] In regard to the debate over water fluoridation, an anti-fluoridation article in the National Review quotes a "generally informative and persuasive" Quackwatch article,[71] but criticizes its rhetorical style as "perhaps not the best way to win an argument, especially with serious-minded people."[72]
current version
Quackwatch has been regularly criticized by the groups it investigates, such as nutritionists, herbalists, homeopaths and other alternative medicine practitioners.[8][68][70] Of one of the criticisms, Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa wrote, "It appears that Quackwatch.com uses the emotional reaction of its critics to substantiate its position."[41] Nutritionist Dr. Colgan claims that one of Dr. Barrett's books, The Vitamin Pushers, hardly discusses supplements but is rather "filled with derisive statements about individuals and organizations in the health care and natural foods industry" and lumps scientists with obvious charlatans indiscriminately.[71]
David Hufford, Professor of Medical Humanities at the Penn State College of Medicine, wrote an opinion paper in which he asserts that Quackwatch would be more effective if it relied more on research and less on personal beliefs.[70] In regard to the debate over water fluoridation, an anti-fluoridation article in the National Review quotes a "generally informative and persuasive" Quackwatch article,[72] but criticizes its rhetorical style as "perhaps not the best way to win an argument, especially with serious-minded people."[73]
This controversial edit removed a sentence. A number of practitioners and supporters of alternative medicine criticize Quackwatch for its criticism of alternative medicine. I suggest all the recent controversial changes be reverted to the last stable version. Make small edits and save them and discuss substantial changes here. QuackGuru 08:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence was completely redundant. To emphasize this point, I will be redundant: that first sentence and the sentence I removed say exactly the same thing. Wordiness should be avoided. You still have not responded to the fact that The Vitamin Pushers is sold by Quackwatch; the criticism by Colgan remains. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 08:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence that was removed was very interesting. It is irrelevant what Quackwatch sells on their website. A BLP is still a BLP violation. QuackGuru 08:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The book is published by Prometheus Books, not by Quackwatch. Quackwatch is not a publishing house. The book is sold many places, including at Quackwatch, which is quite natural considering that one of the authors (Barrett) is the primus motor there. -- Fyslee / talk 23:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Take it to WP:BLPN rather than refusing to review the prior discussions that led to the Townsend Letter being rejected as a source. --Ronz (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no consensus. Townsend Letters has not been rejected as a source so far as I know -- the source was linked when I came here. I just fleshed it out. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 18:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe this was resolved on BLPN a few months ago, but I can't find the reference, nor do I recall the resolution.  I lean toweard the Townsend Letter being rejected as an WP:RS, but I don't recall my reasoning.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here was my previous missing comment in case anyone wants to read it. We have common themes here. Things are missing from the article as well as the talk page. I don't see consensus for any of the recent controversial edits. QuackGuru 02:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  missing sentence 

message: * Support NPOV and established consensus version. I recommend all of the controversial changes be reverted back to the last NPOV/consensus version. QuackGuru 04:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have dealt with the concerns raised above by restoring the last, stable, consensus version, thus undoing the controversial edits which, if appropriate at all, belong on the Barrett article. Those sources have already been dealt with on both articles and the current state of the articles, as regards use of those sources, are consensus versions. They should not be added again. -- Fyslee / talk 04:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored to the last stable version minus the colgan ref. There is no consensus for the controversial edits. QuackGuru 23:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Explain why we can't add information on the founder to the lead. This reverts good writing. Likely I will have to do some sort of dispute resolution for this. Does anyone else agree with QuackGuru that the changes he's reverted, referenced above, were bad? The first two sentences in the Critics section are redundant. Also, I'd like an administrator's advice on where I go to appeal this kind of tendentious editing. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 23:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  recommendations 

message: :my (second) opinion...
:allow me to break this down  into specific points, based on the diffs given above.
:#I see no reason to exclude the name of the author (Stephen Barrett) and link to his bio from the lead paragraph.  the Quackwatch home page itself clearly states "Operated by Stephen Barrett, M.D."
:#for the edits beginning on line 272, I think both versions are biased, but I prefer "were doubtful of the efficacy of such many alternative medicines, they continued stocking many remedies because..." in particular, I think that the term dubious is heavily loaded, particularly when placed in scare-quotes as it is.  perhaps you could use an edit such as this: "were doubtful of the efficacy of such many alternative medicines, they continued stocking them because..." this removes the scare-quoted words entirely.
:#I do agree that these two lines "Quackwatch has been regularly criticized by the groups it investigates, such as herbalists, homeopaths and other alternative medicine practitioners A number of practitioners and supporters of alternative medicine criticize Quackwatch for its criticism of alternative medicine." are redundant, and should be replaced by a single line, such as "Quackwatch has been regularly criticized by the groups it investigates, such as herbalists, homeopaths and other practitioners and supporters of alternative medicine." keeping all three citations.
:#I 'm not going to comment on the JSE quote, except to say that I could cut the hostility on this talk page with a knife.  Quackwatch, like anything else, has its good points and its bad points: please allow both sides appropriate representation.--Ludwigs2 (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Could not have said it better myself, Ludwigs2. I also encourage all users here to remember to comment on the contribution, not the contributor and strive for a neutral point of view in article content. A willingness to compromise is pretty much essential if you hope to avoid edit chaos and bickering. Bullzeye  (Ring for Service) 07:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:3O|Third opinion]]

message: Here are some examples that show JSE does not pass the rigors of BLP policy. Editing is based on Wikipedia policy.
#JSE is a fringe science journal because they attempt to rationalize UFOs while a true skeptic journal publication is critical and/skpetical of UFOs. The journal attempts to rationalize the evidence for the existance of UFOs. Moreover, JSE describes itself as a fringle journal because they assert on their website it is a "critical forum of rationality and observational evidence for the often strange claims at the fringes of science." Saying JSE is a skeptic's journal would entirely be original research. So what is the point? The journal is a "forum" for "rationality" of "the often strange claims at the fringes of science" which would make it a 'fringe science' journal. If any Wikipedian thinks the journal is not a fringe science journal, what kind of journal is it then? Keep in mind that current consensus for the JSE article is for it to remain in the fringe science category. Robert Todd Carroll of the Skeptic's DictionarySkepdic article on positive pseudo-skeptics stated in part: "In fact, the so-called Association for Skeptical Investigation is a group of pseudo-skeptical paranormal investigators and supporters who do not appreciate criticism of paranormal studies by truly genuine skeptics and critical thinkers. The only skepticism this group promotes is skepticism of critics and criticisms of paranormal studies." He also stated in part: "However, Gary Schwartz, in a published paper, refers to several of the deceased—including William James!—as “departed hypothesized co-investigators,” so perhaps the group considers the spirits of Keen and Truzzi as active investigators.Robert Todd Carroll "Internet Bunk: Skeptical Investigations." Skeptic's Dictionary The Society for Scientific Exploration was founded by Marcello Truzzi. The only conclusion demonstrated by the examples is a fringe science journal.
#If you believe the journal is not a fringe science journal, then what type of journal do you believe it is. Moreover, if you believe the journal is not a fringe journal then what is a fringe science journal (A definition of a fringe journal is requested). Please provide specific examples and descriptions of the differences of a fringe science journal versus JSE.
#If you believe JSE is a skeptic organization then please provide examples of JSE being the same as other skeptic organizations. 
#Kauffman is a person and therefore not formally peer-reviewed. We cannot use his asseration on it own face value. Moreover, his notability (or more precisely, lack of notability) is a straw-man argument. Is there even an article on Wikipedia on Kauffman? Per BLP policy, we insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability. Kauffman is not a third-party published source. If you disagree, please explain. When you cannot explain how Kauffman satisfies BLP policy, you (yes, I mean you) have conceded Kauffman is not a reliable third-party published source. This isn't my rule, this is Wikipedia's rule as required by BLP policy. Again, how in the world is Kauffman independant of a third-party published source satsifying to BLP policy. The answer is obvious. He does not satisfy BLP policy. BLP policy drives editing on Wikipedia articles on notable individuals. A couple of editors are asserting but are actually refusing to explain how Kauffman meets BLP policy. You must properly show and not assert based on Wikipedia policy. Again, how does Kauffman specifically meet BLP policy. Please explain by citing BLP policy. Do you agree to abide by BLP policy anyhow.
#The journal describes itself as a fringe journal on their website as well others do.Cross A (2004). The Flexibility of Scientific Rhetoric: A Case Study of UFO Researchers. Qualitative Sociology. Volume 27, Number 1 / March, 2004 They describe themselves as a fringe journal because they assert the rationalizing of "strange claims at the fringes of science." For example, Michael D. Lemonick wrote an article about the Society for Scientific Exploration called Science on the Fringe for Time Magazine.[10] My recent edit was not reverted because of any misleading statement. The other editor felt it was not necessary to say what the journal is and to, nevertheless, keep the description of what the journal is only after you went to the editor's talk page.
#Barrett studies quacks which would make him a skeptic. See at the bottom right hand corner of this article: American Skeptics. Barrett is in the category of American skeptics. The journal studies fringes which would make it a "fringe science" journal. For example, the journal studies for the rational evidence of UFOs, reincarnation, and crop circles.
#Moreover, the journal describes themselves as rationalizing "strange claims at the fringes of science." The point is that they "rationalize" the "fringes of science." Thats exactly what a fringe journal does. Please contact them directly. In fact, the journal is proud of being a fringe science journal. See what they will tell you about themselves. What is scientific about crop circles? Hmmm. The journal studies the so-called science of crop circles made by UFOs. Everything the journal does is obviously on the "fringes of science." Therefore, it is clearly a fringe science journal when they are a forum to "rationalize" the "fringes of science." For example, it is a group inclined toward belief in paranormal phenomena. The fringe journal clearly fails the rigors of BLP policy becuase it is not a third-party source. While Barrett criticizes various forms of alternative medicine topics, JSE attempts to rationalize alternative medical practices.
#This is an example of how the term peer-reviewed can easily be misused or misunderstood. The JSE is reviewed by a minority group of fringe supporters. This minority group who share the same fringe ideology, without any review from dissent, falls into the category of reviewed by true believers of the so-called rationale fringe of true believers and their self-serving bias. They are fringe supporters because they attempt to rationalize such things as UFOs. For further information about how JSE portrays themselves, please visit the website.
#See: Journal of Scientific Exploration. JSE is subject to review "at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief." If the paper is accepted "but there remain points of disagreement between authors and referee(s), the reviewer(s) may be given the option of having their opinion(s) published..." The journal clearly is subject to the discretion of a single person which is the Editor-in-Chief. Therefore, the journal clearly publishes opinions without always having editorial review. Furthmore, the journal is reviewed by a small group of fringe supporters who attempt to rationalize such things as UFOs at "the fringes of science." Hmmm.
#The journal represents unconventional views. For example: In established disciplines, concordance with accepted disciplinary paradigms is the chief guide in evaluating material for scholarly publication. On the matters of interest to the Society for Scientific Exploration, however, consensus does not prevail. Therefore the Journal of Scientific Exploration necessarily publishes claimed observations and proffered explanations that will seem more speculative or less plausible than in some mainstream disciplinary journals. See Refereeing at the JSE article.
#Please take a look at the Journal of Scientific Exploration at the bottom right hand corner. What do you see. Is it >> Fringe science journals? Specifically what category is the fringe science journal in? Also, what do you see is the first listing in the see also section?
#Per WEIGHT: We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well. If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. Views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all.
#Per BLP policy: The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article. Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.
#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material: Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). If the material is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply to its removal. Content may be re-inserted when it conforms to this policy. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel.
#Blocking: Editors who repeatedly add or restore unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons may be blocked for disruption. See the blocking policy. This is an official notice to all editors involved. This is a very serious matter.
#Multiple Wikipedians have deleted the Kauffman attack piece from the article. Avb, + ConfuciusOrnis, + Crohnie, + Fyslee, Orangemarlin, + QuackGuru, + Ronz, + Shot info + THF. As the discussion continued, Arthur Rubin, an administrator in good standing in the community, stated that JSE is clearly a fringe journal. According to policy, While the consensus process does not require posting to the discussion page, it can be useful. That means we do not have to continue to work on discussing this matter. Their points are based on valid reasons to exclude the POV material which is to be respected. Clearly there is no consensus to re-add the Kauffman/JSE bit to the article. It was removed for various reasons including, but not limited to, BLP policy, WEIGHT policy, and POV. It is considered highly disruptive to re-add BLP violations against consensus. Re-inserting BLP violations is against Wikipedia policy and by extention against Wikipedia. Any editor who continues to try the patience of the community by engaging in disruptive editing may be blocked for disruption in accordance with blocking policy or community banned.
Please provide specific responses to each and every point made above or we will consider that the editors have conceded that JSE fails to meet the inclusion criteria because the journal is not a reliable third-party source. (a) Per WEIGHT policy, the Kauffman criticism represents the view of a tiny minority, therefore it has no place in the article. (b) We have clearly shown based on Wikipedia's BLP policy that Kauffman as well as JSE are not third-party published sources. Thanks. QuackGuru 01:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you write that all up, or did you copy it from someone else? Aside from that question (which I really would like answered), it's clear that this article has been washed of all criticism in a way which violates WP:WEIGHT. The criticism of Quackwatch is widespread, and it has been done by many people with strong credentials. This should be reflected in the article -- and that is the best reason to add this website review to this article. I think I'll be doing a Request for Comment on this article, because it's clearly heavily biased in the pro-Quackwatch direction. Joel Kaufmann raises many good (obvious) points: QuackWatch is rife with inaccuracies, often does not cite sources correctly, usually cites only one side of research, and is filled with ad hominem attacks. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 02:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please answer all my above questions I wrote. If not, then the source is unreliable. QuackGuru 02:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  JSE is unreliable (BLP violation) 

message: Jossi - don't want to get tangled up in cross-editing here.  :-)  I think a separate criticism section would be appropriate for this article.  for now, I will rewrite the critiques (which I was planning on doing anyway) and reinsert them in the 'about the site' section where they were.  look it over (when I'm done), and tell me if you agree or not about separating them out.  --Ludwigs2 (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

text: There is no reason that I see to segregate "pro" and "con" viewpoints, and it is a good practice to place competing viewpoints alongside each other for a better NPOV presentation of the subject. I know that there are two schools of thought about this issue, and that is why WP:CRITICISM never made it to a guideline. Given this, it is then is an issue of consensus of editors about which style to use. (BTW, I see no side manner presentation of Jimbo's quote, and if the template survived AfD it only means that it is a good one) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. I kind of flew off the handle; obviously I don't really like that template, in large part because much of the usefulness of Wikipedia comes from being able to quickly identify disagreements and controversies, whether its a website, book, or politician. Glancing over this page more carefully, I agree; the two sections don't need to be separated. The Reception section is good, and forces a reader to review both the positive and negative reception together. And I can see how lots of criticism can be bundled into better sections: "inaccuracy" sections for books, scandal sections for politicians, ect. ImpIn | (t - c) 04:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was set to add a criticism section myself, but the way it reads now works for me too.  and I've gotta say, it's a pleasure to watch an experienced editor work. thank you Jossi.  :-) --Ludwigs2 (talk) 04:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism section

message: Note that that the criticism template not a policy. And I tried to edit that Jimbo quote, since it is presented in a one-sided manner. See the full quote here. The positive and critical reception should be separated, at least with subtitles. Note that the template Jossi linked to actually underwent an AfD because it is controversial itself. ImpIn | (t - c) 03:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no reason that I see to segregate "pro" and "con" viewpoints, and it is a good practice to place competing viewpoints alongside each other for a better NPOV presentation of the subject. I know that there are two schools of thought about this issue, and that is why WP:CRITICISM never made it to a guideline. Given this, it is then is an issue of consensus of editors about which style to use. (BTW, I see no side manner presentation of Jimbo's quote, and if the template survived AfD it only means that it is a good one) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. I kind of flew off the handle; obviously I don't really like that template, in large part because much of the usefulness of Wikipedia comes from being able to quickly identify disagreements and controversies, whether its a website, book, or politician. Glancing over this page more carefully, I agree; the two sections don't need to be separated. The Reception section is good, and forces a reader to review both the positive and negative reception together. And I can see how lots of criticism can be bundled into better sections: "inaccuracy" sections for books, scandal sections for politicians, ect. ImpIn | (t - c) 04:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was set to add a criticism section myself, but the way it reads now works for me too.  and I've gotta say, it's a pleasure to watch an experienced editor work. thank you Jossi.  :-) --Ludwigs2 (talk) 04:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism sections can remain

message: * Conflated all external viewpoints into a "Reception" section for better NPOV
* Added a couple of new sources, sourced to reputable publications
* Tightened the wording of the lead
* Removed the  tag.
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: *Changing "150+" to "many", since we give detailed numbers in the next sentence, and 150+ is poor style anyway.
Poor style, perhaps, but "many" is bad form too. Why not say, "more than 150"?
*The final sentence of the section into the "Responses" or "Reception" section later.
Enumerating the specialists? Doesn't make sense to me.
ScienceApologist (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for responding. On the first point, I would prefer "many" to "more than 150" because if you say "more than 150" and then follow it with the numbers in individual specialisms then the reader is tempted to start adding and comparing the results. That seriously interferes with readability. Either just "more than 150" or give the numbers in each specialism. Not both. Please can you see that this is not a POV issue but a question of good writing. On the second point, I'm sorry it didn't make sense to you. I am proposing that we move the final sentence in this section into the "Responses" section. It seems to belong better there. To remind you: a "Responses" section is more conducive to NPOV than a "Criticisms" section. Responses can be positive, negative or mixed. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see why my second proposal didn't make sense. Because someone has already deleted or moved the sentence I was referring to. Sorry, but I am trying to discuss points one by one in the middle of a revert war and it is bound to get confusing. I'm afraid I have another point to raise in regard to the sentences about the advisers. Let us choose a reference date. We have "now", then we have "as of 2003", then we have a reference to a site last accessed in 2007. Further, is it OK to use Barrett as the source for the number of advisers? Should we not find an independent source for such a statement or omit it? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't think WP:AVOID MAKING THE READER WANT TO DO ARITHMETIC is a valid reason to not want to include two enumerations. Sorry. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Also, read WP:ASOF ScienceApologist (talk) 15:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't think that there is any reason to think that Barrett is lying about the number of advisors he has. If you think that's the case, please ask at WP:RSN. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but it is a valid reason, as someone will tell us if we ever get this page to FA review. (Reasons why we shouldn't aim for that?) I agree that there is no reason Barrett should be lying about his advisers. But why has the page not been updated for five years? How many of these advisers have since retired? The trouble is, SA, that the closer people look at your arguments the less convincing they become. I think I will take this to RSN. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Point to the policy where it says that it is a valid reason. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

text:  I fully support RSN at this point. I also still see no valid reason why editors keep trying to remove any and all criticism. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe because you're trying to impose it? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions

message: Same story.  (Mostly) same editors.  Please stop. --Ronz (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restored to the last version by Fyslee. The article at that revision was neutral and well structured. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. The version after Fyslee's last edits was certainly the most neutral and well structured. I am  sad that the article had to get protected again. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion of ScienceApologist's use of the minor tag and Twinkle in his reversion moved to his Talk page. II | (t - c) 01:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How does this improve the article?  Shot info (talk) 01:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Time for article protection again?

message: The comment about Barrett and the reference to him is not required in the lede.  Recommend to the protecting admin that the reference to the status of the founder of Quackwatch is removed.  Shot info (talk) 01:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What specifically is the issue with the text as you see it? What are your recommended changes? -- Levine2112 discuss 02:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We can take out the "psychiatrist" bit, and the operated Quackwatch. But Stephen Barrett needs to noted front and center, as he has built this website from the ground up and written something like 90% of the content. II | (t - c) 02:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks II, no problems with Barrett staying in their (not arguing for that) but the removal of the trivia about the founder (per previous discussions and changes) is what was asked for.  Shot info (talk) 02:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: the lede

message: As a reminder here, this article and its talkpage fall within the scope of the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy case, and as such, uninvolved administrators have wide latitude in imposing discretionary sanctions here.  I am concerned by the recent incivility I have been seeing on the talkpage, so please take this as clear notice, that any editors who engage in further incivility, risk sanctions ranging from a page or topic-ban, up to and including having their account access blocked. If there are any questions, let me know, --Elonka 05:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: has been banned from editing all Homeopathy-related articles and talkpages, for one week. If he violates this ban, please let me or any other uninvolved administrator know, thanks. --Elonka 18:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reminder

message: A few issues with the version I just reverted away from:
#There were a lot of criticisms that were invented out of whole-cloth from nitpicking readings of articles that were generally positive. This is unacceptable pandering to critics of QW.
#The inclusion of a site review from JSE is not really reliable from a WP:REDFLAG perspective. Consider the source and all that.
#The legnthy descriptions of who said what made for an article that read more like a blog-screed than one that's in any way encyclopedic.
Keep it this way.
ScienceApologist (talk) 13:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Heavy-handed rhetoric and cherry-picked criticisms

message: I've reverted to re-add sources that were removed.  the removed sources were highly qualified, verifiable and reliable (routledge press being an obvious example) and no reason was given for removing them.  can you explain why those sources were removed?  --Ludwigs2 15:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What is going on? The material is well sourced and the structure of the article was discussed at length. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

text: My I remind editors that this page is under ArbCom probation? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've notified User:Elonka, an uninvolved admin, and have asked for full protection again. I really cannot see the reason for the neutral heading "Responses" to be removed. The incivil tone taken towards editors who are quite willing to discuss is also unnecessary. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Amen! -- Levine2112 discuss 16:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a bit of a stretch to call an admin who has page banned SA in the past "uninvolved", while she hasn't participated at this article, it sure looks like you're trying to bring in someone sympathetic.  I'd recommend putting up something on the admin notice board instead of contacting an individual admin.  --Minderbinder (talk) 17:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Bemusingly, there seems to be an avoidance to realise that Ludwigs is engaging in editwarring here - "temporary revert"  WTF?  And of course lets see what "uninvolved" actually involves...  Shot info (talk) 22:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

text: In response to the above questions, just because an admin bans or blocks an editor, does not make them "involved".  See WP:UNINVOLVED for more details, and feel free to ask if you would like more information. --Elonka 00:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say you were involved.  I said that if someone truly wants to bring in a truly uninvolved and impartial editor, it's better to post on the admin notice board than to seek out an admin who recently punished one of the people editing the article.  It doesn't help when six editors revert an article and the only one you warn is the one you have previously taken action against.  --Minderbinder (talk) 15:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed sources 

message: I notice that some of my previous talk page comments have been removed, and do not appear in the archives. They were from June, 2008 and so are too new for the latest archive. Does anyone know what has happened to them? - DigitalC (talk) 02:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Were they removed from your list of contributions too?Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently my recollection is hazy, and I didn't post the comments here, but rather over at WP:RS/N in regards to comments here. I also changed the description of the latest archive, since it DOES include posts from June. DigitalC (talk) 04:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: :::Elonka wrote in part: If there was a battle about a large section, perhaps try adding a much smaller section, and ensure that it is carefully sourced.
:::The information in the article has already been divided into different sections. There is currently no large section in the article.
:::I already explained the JSE ref has no consensus and the view of a tiny minority is a WEIGHT violation.
:::I don't think condensing the current information in the article is appropriate. The 'David Hufford' bit is currently mentioned in the article. QuackGuru 19:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can you please link to the consensus about the JSE ref? Thanks, Elonka 20:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I consider Elonka an involved editor based on the above comment and previous comment about the JSE ref. I cannot link to consensus for the JSE ref because I don't see any consensus to include the ref. QuackGuru 20:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: since there's no consensus, then I suppose we can re-open the JSE issue here.  what reasons do you have for excluding the reference?  it seems to be a reasonably reliable source.  --Ludwigs2 20:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I strongly recommend starting a thread at the reliable sources noticeboard about the source, to get outside opinions.  A thread at WP:FTN might also be a good idea. If someone starts such a thread, please link to it here, thanks. --Elonka 20:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Elonka continues to be an involved editor based on the above comment and other comments. After many previous discussions there is still no consensus and I strongly recommend we should not continue a discussion on this again. QuackGuru 00:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How is that involving yourself into the article? It's common knowledge to take it to RSN or FTN if something like this comes up for other, varied opinions that are beyond the scope of this article. Nothing wrong with that, and I am strongly encouraging it. seicer | talk | contribs 02:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: JSE article

message: Elonka and other uninvolved admins, the above "enforcement" is arbitary and in not in accordance with the ArbCom restrictions nor following Wikipedia policy.  Until WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT are part of the picture, you will find that you are going to have major problems with enforcing these restrictions no matter how much you think you are in the right.  The point of the edit restrictions is to de-escalate the WP:DRAMA but instead these restrictions are just going to see many calls over at AN/I - another RfC - and another ArbCom ruling.  Moar Dramaz yez?  Shot info (talk) 03:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the article has already been having major problems and "Dramaz", so if the restrictions don't work, it'll be status quo, eh?  :)  But seriously, it's worth a try.  These restrictions have been tried elsewhere, such as at Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah#Conditions for editing, and had considerable success in breaking the cycle of edit-warring.  At that article, reverts have stopped, the page has not been protected since the conditions were put in place, and no one had to be blocked, either!  So please, at least be willing to give the conditions a try for a while?  If it doesn't work, it doesn't work, but then again, it might work, so couldn't hurt, eh? Worst that happens is that the article gets messy for awhile, but that's easy enough to clean up, right? --Elonka 15:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On that page, reverts have stopped, the page is now unprotected, etc, all of which are good things. My one question is, have productive edits resumed, or has the page languished? (Asking because I don't know.) Antelan 15:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  In my view, yes, there is a lot of productive editing going on.  There are still disagreements, especially about the wording of the lead, so there is also an open Medcab case where things are being discussed. --Elonka 15:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. Here's to hoping that it works here, too. Antelan 17:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The Pillars of Wikipedia

message: ok, I've reworked some unimpeachable sources back into the article (three authors, all published at major academic presses).  as I mentioned before, I don't like the 'usefulness' section, because this forces me to rewrite the sources as saying that Quackwatch is less-than-useful, but I suppose those are the cards I've been dealt.  if anyone objects to these sources, please comment here; I'm happy to discuss reasonable changes.  --Ludwigs2 20:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you OK with the idea of a "Responses" section, Ludswigs? I'm wondering whether an RfC would be appropriate. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer having a 'responses'--Ludwigs2 20:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But not quite as minor as "retired psychiatrist" to describe someone whose article says he is just that. :-0 Itsmejudith (talk) 20:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Renaming the section 'responses' is vague and strange. QuackGuru 20:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 'vague and strange'??? how so?  besides which, neither vague nor strange is a policy issue, whereas 'biased' is - I mean, if 'Usefulness as a source' is not biased, then neither is 'Uselessness as a source', right?  ;-)  --Ludwigs2 19:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  re-adding sources 

message: What happened to the well sourced, balanced and NPOV section that was called "Reception"?  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Reception is a vague title and a lot of that information was not NPOV. Having a huge section is very silly and makes it difficult to read. QuackGuru 01:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Reception" as a section is widely used, and "i don't like it", or it is "silly" is not an argument. As for the sources, which one was not NPOV? I am restoring that section and look forward to specific concerns to be raised. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

text:  A "Reception" section that does not segregates pro and con viewpoints, and that rather presents all significant opinions on this site is the best way to reach NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  In terms of restoring sections, please be sure to acquaint yourself with the new #Conditions for editing on the article, especially that it is now under 0RR (no revert) restrictions. --Elonka 03:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I missed that, thanks. But note that I simply restored the "Reception" section. Is that a revert?  Or is it that this is a status quo page that one cannot edit? Please clarify. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's borderline, leaning towards revert.  On the one hand, the information wasn't put in with a simple use of the "undo" or "rollback" buttons.  However, the information re-added was clearly a word for word restoral of a section from a few days ago, and when it was re-added, it removed some  tags, but without adequately addressing the concerns. Since the conditions are fairly new, we can write it off as "the editor didn't know", but if such a thing happened again, then it would be regarded as a violation of restrictions. In the future, a better way to handle it would be to move more slowly, adding a few sentences at a time, and trying to find a compromise version, without just doing a copy/paste restoral. --Elonka 04:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Jossi had made no edits to the article since the restrictions were put in place, and it was reasonable to assume that Jossi did not know about the restrictions. ArbCom was clear that editors need to be informed: "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines."  Jossi has now been informed about it, both here and at his user talkpage, and has not made any reverts since he has been notified.  If any editors had concerns about his edit, they could have gone in and changed the text, and then the editing continues from there. --Elonka 14:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems I've heard something about ignorance of the law is no excuse... But I'm not saying Jossi should be sanctioned - just backing up the restrictions to level the playing field. Now that Jossi is fully aware of the restrictions then she can proceed along with the other editors to improve the article. Vsmith (talk) 15:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception section 

message: The lead was better before. Now there is too much WEIGHT being given to criticism. QuackGuru 19:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: can you specify, please?  the changes are minor (see this diff) - the addition of the sources, and some slight rewording.  --Ludwigs2 19:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  lead violation 

message: the Ernst and Best references in the 'Usefullness' section have gotten verification tags, but I'm not certain what needs to be verified here.  the books have ISBN numbers, and so exist...  I'm happy to provide; I just need to know what's desired.  --Ludwigs2 19:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend using the "quote" option in the citation template, to provide a brief quote from the book which verifies the information in the Wikipedia article. --Elonka 19:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  ok.  --Ludwigs2 19:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  verification tags 

message: can someone post a link to the consultant pharmacist review article, for verification purposes?  the online link (as far as I can tell) requires registration as a pharmacist, and the journal is not sufficiently prominent to make it into my University's database so I can't access it that way.  I'd like to read it and see what it actually says.  :-)  --Ludwigs2 20:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  consultant pharmacist review 

message: I would like to restore passages removed prior to the page protection - primarily some well-sourced criticism that was in the original references section - and rename that section to 'Reception.'  I don't think this will count as a revert (since those passages were removed prior to the restrictions being placed), but I'd prefer not to be unduly bold.  would that be acceptable under the current policy?  I specifically want to restore the 2.5 paragraphs starting with 'David Hufford' and ending with the reference to Joel Kaufmann.  --Ludwigs2 18:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Restoring the passages removed prior to page protection will count as a revert. The JSE ref has no consensus. Renaming the section to 'Reception' was reverted before and no good reason has been given for reverting to an odd title that does not match the information in that section. Lumping all the info into one section was reverted. Each section of information should have its own section and have a relevant title. QuackGuru 19:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would recommend proceeding slowly.  Try to identify the reasons that the information was removed in the past, and be sensitive to them. If there was a battle about a large section, perhaps try adding a much smaller section, and ensure that it is carefully sourced.  Then wait a day or two, and see what the response is.  If no one objects, gradually add other (sourced) information.  For anyone who does object to the added information, try to articulate exactly what your concerns are.  Are the sources bad?  Tag them. Is the information not accurately reflecting what is in the sources? Rewrite the text so it does. Is it too much information?  Rewrite it to condense it to something more succinct, and put in your edit summary something clear such as "condensing section, to give viewpoints appropriate weight".  Then if someone else disagrees with that, they could perhaps add a bit more, with another source to prove that the view is significant, and so forth. --Elonka 19:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for guidance