Talk:Quackwatch/Archive 4

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quackwatch&diff=102779963&oldid=102774375 —Preceding unsigned comment added by GigiButterfly (talk • contribs) 
:It isn't vandalism. Please review Wikipedia policy which I'clast has afforded you. Then read his reasoning for deleting the passage. Next step, is to discuss his reasoning here (not to start edit wars). Make sense? Levine2112 23:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this vandalism under our noses 

message: :(edit conflict) Perhaps indenting it one more level, making it clear that the "criticism" section is part of "noteriety notability"?  But the section is down to one paragraph.  If the "Notability" section were renamed "awards" or "awards and praise", then "criticism" would properly be parallel construction, so should be at the same level.
:In other words, the present
 4. Notability
::is acceptable, as would 
 4. Notability
   4.1 Criticism
::and
 4. Praise (or a section title to be named later)
 5. Criticism.
:: but
 4.  Notability
 5.  Criticism
::does not seem reasonable.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still like the one without the word criticism . I haven't heard from you. --Dematt 16:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You forgot "notable criticism". After parusing the article in its present form it doesn't appear to have any criticism. I know there is that para., but I feel it needs a heading in order to be visable to the casual reader.  --Hughgr 19:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headings 

message: I re-arranged the second and third sections somewhat.  I don't think I changed much content other than edited for weasel and peacock words that did seem to raise PoV issues.  If I changed anything that was important, feel free to put it back.  Hopefully, I've made some improvements in the two sections. --Dematt 18:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  re-arranged 

message: It seems to me that the Chowka quote should indeed be included, but I wonder whether it doesn't need a little context.  Here is the way it is now:
:Peter Barry Chowka, an investigative journalist and former adviser to the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, notes that Barrett "..seems to be putting down trying to be objective... But I personally think he's running against the tide of history."Donna Ladd, Diagnosing Medical Fraud May Require a Second Opinion, The Village Voice, June 23–29, 1999 available online
I suggest rewriting roughly as follows:
:Peter Chowka, an investigative journalist and former adviser to the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, remaked that Barrett's tendency to dismiss some alternate therapies out of hand without clinical evidence  "..seems to be putting down trying to be objective."Donna Ladd, Diagnosing Medical Fraud May Require a Second Opinion, The Village Voice, June 23–29, 1999 available online
I removed the "history running against him" as an editorialization that made sense in the article but doesn't add much here.   (That is, it is alluding to the fact that alternate therapies are becoming more accepted at every level of society and that Barrett is out of step--which is, I suppose, a fair comment from its perspective but doesn't warrent inclusion here.)  I'm going to make this change and you can edit some or all of it back.  Bogman2 19:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Souunds good to me. Levine2112 00:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with that. --Dematt 01:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chowka quote  

message: The JSE wikilink identifies and outlines the controversy around the site. "FriSci" at this level of detail is highly questionable, well poisoning again. You may want to restart work on this section again.--I'clast 05:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is important to both name the journal and describe it for the reader. We should name the journal simply because it provides a context, but since the Journal's title is potentially misleading it is important that we describe what it is a journal devoted to. The wording itself doesn't concern me so much, but we should be clear that JSE is devoted to subjects outside of the scientific mainstream. --ScienceApologist 06:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure the wording doesn't concern you too much, a lot of useful details have been chopped out.  There is a lot to describe to the reader. That is why the previous consensus version lasted over 2 months.--I'clast 06:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your current version works okay for me, though it usually isn't technically good practice to include an acronymn without saying what it stands for. Still, I'm not complaining. --ScienceApologist 06:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  waves 

message: When You Can’t Critique CBP In The Peer-Reviewed Literature, You Can Always Send Your Article To Quack Watch: Very intelligent, documented rebuttal to Quackwatch. Ilena 23:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Link to be Considered 

message: What about removing all the external links, favorable and unfavorable? I'm not clear that any of them is particularly substantial, or adds anything much to what's already in the article. The positive ones could conceivably be incorporated into the "praise" section, although neither is from a particularly notable source, so they should probably just be dropped. The negative ones could either should be incorporated, briefly, into the criticism section or dropped. MastCell 20:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I think the topic could justify stricter guidelines concerning external links. It's not a current event or similar topic where the information available is changing rapidly.  However, there are few reliable, secondary sources on the topic, so we're already having difficulty with external links.  Probably the best compromise is to hold the external links to the same standards as the references. --Ronz 21:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I strongly disagree, and am quite confused by your interpretation of WP:EL and related guidelines.  Others certainly think there are things wrong with the links.  Being "best available" does not exempt them from fitting guidelines and policy.  I cannot understand why you might think that "there is still a external links section with the same links repeated as required."  What's required and why? --Ronz 21:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There has not been a case made. We are not talking about Bolens site. Just MastCell's opinion that all the external links are "not substantial". -- Stbalbach 05:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: They are not all external to Chiro, some of the links are internal, it is an integral website onto its own. There are some good articles in there. -- Stbalbach 05:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not of a strong opinion about the Chiro.org site in particular - it's not really any better or worse than the other pro- and con- links that are there now. I guess my preference would be for stronger links on both sides, or getting rid of them all. For instance, the Village Voice article and Ray Sahelian's critique both make very valid criticisms of Quackwatch and Barrett - if you don't mind duplicating footnoted refs in the External Links, why not include those? Or even Kauffman's website review? Any of those is much more likely to strike an impartial reader as reasonable and valid than, say, an essay that begins with an implicit comparison between Stephen Barrett and Adolf Hitler. MastCell 03:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  All of those seem like reasonable external links to me. JoshuaZ 04:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: BTW a quote from Hitler does not mean a comparison is being made to Barrett and Hitler (would a quote by Einstein associate Barrett with Einstein? Marilyn Monroe?). The quote is there because of what the quote says, it's a famous quote and often used when discussing propaganda - the subject of the quote is what is important, the person who said it just gives the quote authority/believability. -- Stbalbach 05:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm still trying to get a feel for what links are found acceptable for this article and why.  It appears that the reason the quality of links is so low is that there are few good ones available, and that the topic is contentious.  Given that, I have to say that the list above has links that are definitely not acceptable.  There are links that are too far off topic, links to attack sites, links to linkfarms.  If links like these are going to be seriously suggested, I think we need to go with MastCell's original suggestion: get rid of all external links and only consider those that can be used as sources.  This article has existed long enough that these types of issues should have been resolved long ago.  --Ronz 16:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Other than aesthetic reasons, I wouldn't say the quality of these links are that terrible. You would need to go through each one and say exactly what policy they violate and provide some rationale - generalizations don't hold up. BTW I know you and MastCell seem to agree commonly and this has become an insular discussion with only a few people, if anything is done it will need to be opened up to a wider audience than what we currently have here. I would really like to see this article get more attention from a wider audience on Wikipedia, this discussion seems to be moving us forward in that direction, which is good, I'm glad you guys are brining these issues up.  -- Stbalbach 17:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the only ones I think are unacceptable out-of-hand on WP:EL grounds are the Usenet repost (from iahf.com), "The Big Lie" (which is mostly Vitamin C advocacy), and Ilena Rosenthal's site (see ongoing WP:RfArb). The others I wouldn't include because I don't think they add much beyond what's in the article, but I wouldn't say they violate any specific parts of WP:EL necessarily. I still think there's better criticism out there, as I mentioned above. I do agree that when these discussions become back-and-forth between a handful of editors, that opening it up to community input can be helpful. I think if we have a couple of clear alternatives for how to handle the external links on this article, we could open it up to an WP:RfC or somesuch to get outside input. Also, I think the "External Links" section of any controversial article ends up generating the most controversy, and adding the least value to the article - that's been my experience, and why I'm a minimalist about external links. MastCell 17:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep.  This is very basic interpretation of wiki policy.  If Stbalbach has a problem seeing this, then it's no wonder that this talk page is mired in trivial issues.  Even more reason to get rid of the external links. Sorry for the generalizations, but wasting time on trivial issues is counterproductive. Also, I think we're all experienced enough editors here to know that it is the responsibility of the editor that adds or proposes to add information to support the addition of that information.  --Ronz 16:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: A comment, reading through "Healthfreedomlaw" it appears that it is mainly about NCAHF and Stephen Barrett himself rather than about Quackwatch.  Personally I think it more satisfactory to be over at NCAHF and possibly Stephen Barrett however the latter may fail on WP:BLP as it is an attack site.  The "pro" site by Mendosa at least is a "review" of Quackwatch.  I am not familar with Medosa so I cannot comment on how "valid" his opinion is and/or whether it deserves a place here in WP.  Commments?? Shot info 22:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we need an RfC as Stbalbach suggests.  These are trivial issues from my perspective that should have been resolved long ago.  The claim of needing to balance favorable and non-favorable sites isn't any reason to ignore the guidelines concerning external links. --Ronz 00:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't feel strongly enough about any of the current links to argue them - I think given the issues, it's a reasonable compromise to have those three, and it's an improvement although not my first choice. I can live with the three that Stbalbach has listed, and would prefer to move on to other parts of this article and other articles to spending more time on the external links - but if others feel more strongly I respect that. MastCell 01:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I find the concept of "balance" as it relates to this article rather odd, it almost implies "give my minority view equal (or more) space as the majority view" which of course is not very encyclopaedic (IMO).  However, I have no problems with the three at the moment and agree with Ronz that they are trivial matters indeed, but matters that should be discussed rather than unilaterally changed.  Shot info 01:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other external links 

message: This edit by User:Charles Matthews replaced the contents of the talk page with the contents of /Archive 5. I'm assuming this was accidental, as it wiped out a significant amount of discussion, and have reverted it. If I'm missing something, and it was done for a reason, please let me know. MastCell 18:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like it was so that Charles Matthews could make a NLT warning.  I think we're fine with the talk page as it is now. --Ronz 19:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes they do, if they can follow the guidelines like everyone else. --Ronz 03:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GigiButterfly, I'm going to go ahead and say that all-caps edit summaries like "RESTORE EXTERNAL LINKS DELETED BY DELETIONISTS" are not constructive. I know you're relatively new, and I don't want to be harsh, but these are controversial articles and your approach could probably stand a little moderation. MastCell 03:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gigi, please post your discussions in here, the talkpage, rather than just deleting information from the article.  If you feel that the items in question should be deleted, propose it and it can be discussed.  Shot info 03:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange goings-on 

message: EXTERNAL LINKS BRING BALANCE. BIAS EDITORS DO NOT BELONG ON WIKIPEDIA. GigiButterfly 02:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes they do, if they can follow the guidelines like everyone else. --Ronz 03:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GigiButterfly, I'm going to go ahead and say that all-caps edit summaries like "RESTORE EXTERNAL LINKS DELETED BY DELETIONISTS" are not constructive. I know you're relatively new, and I don't want to be harsh, but these are controversial articles and your approach could probably stand a little moderation. MastCell 03:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gigi, please post your discussions in here, the talkpage, rather than just deleting information from the article.  If you feel that the items in question should be deleted, propose it and it can be discussed.  Shot info 03:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: BIAS EDITORS

message: Regarding the removal of this comment by Tim Bolen from the talk page. I thought the purpose of talk pages is to discuss problems with the article. Tim Bolen lays out a list of problems he sees with the article. -- Stbalbach 17:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in agreement with removing it. It's essentially an accusatory tirade, including a few claims that are misleading at best, all of which are totally unsourced, about a living person, from one of said person's enemies. With a dose of spamming for an attack site thrown in. Oh, and a legal threat. If you believe there were valid points about the article raised in that post, perhaps it would be best to summarize them, minus the inflammatory language. MastCell 17:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps reposting them and allowing discussion here would be more beneficial than a blanket removal. I agree with Stbalbach here and would like to add "Don't bite the newbie!". Also, I disagree with MastCell's deletion of Tim Bolen's website from the External Links section only because it was agreed upon in the decision to delete the article "Quackpotwatch" that a link to the actual site would remain in the external links of QuackWatch. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: What legal threat? -- Levine2112 discuss 22:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The last paragraph is a clear-cut legal threat. It even ends with "...So step carefully." (to remove any doubt). MastCell 23:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I interpreted it as a friendly warning about Barett -- Bolen was discussing someone who was recently sued by Barrett. -- Stbalbach 01:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. Nor are the clearly false statements about Barrett's license particularly useful. But there's an easy fix - go ahead and summarize the points he made which you believe are valid with regard to improving the article, and they can be discussed. MastCell 04:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of Tim Bolens comment from talk page

message: Quackwatch itself is a highly controversial attack site. QW and Barrett have been playing this rough game for decades. For example, QW has a long and vitriolic personal attack on Tim Bolen 
. Given that, it is not unfair that the arch-enemy of QW is linked. QW actually sets this harsh tone of voice itself. And regarding the alleged factual errors on Quackpotwatch (apart from the “delicenced” error). Do we have other reliable sources to support that claim apart from QWs own rebuttals? The Quackpotwatch site seems to be down, but when it is operational again the link should be restored. MaxPont 16:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  Again, the argument seems to be ignoring WP:NOT, WP:NPOV and the previous discussion by others.  --Ronz 16:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Remove I think it's a horrible site that just attacks plus according to what I have read so far it's against policy here to have this kind of site. --Crohnie 00:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why the Quackpotwatch link should stay

message: I don't feel that labelling editors pro or anti Barrett is helpful. I have been accused of being anti-Barrett. Nothing can be further from the truth. I would like to point out that I am nearly the only editors here who has attested to having ZERO conflict of interest with Stephen Barrett or Quackwatch. -- Levine2112 discuss 06:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I suggest that you start by encouraging other editors to drop the "pro" line.  Because with "pro" there is "anti".  BTW, pro and anti have nothing to do with COI (it is however a strawman).  And your edit record stands for itself (don't you think :-).  Shot info 06:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I haven't counted how many times Levine2112 has now used this COI straw man defense in a feigned "I'm innocent" attempt to defend his actual POV actions to the contrary, but his track record does indeed speak for itself. He has learned to be more careful with his utterances (which is fine and good), but those of us who remember his utterances from his earlier days aren't in any doubt about the animosity he feels towards Barrett, quackbusters, and scientific skeptics and the subjects of which they are skeptical (he defends those subjects). His actual editing still speaks louder than his straw man defense. He could learn alot from Dematt and become an inclusionist. -- Fyslee/talk 09:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Incredible. I am calling for peace and all you guys provide is war. Please note that I am calling for an end to both pro and anti labelling. Both. Not just anti. Both. Not just pro. Both. I mention my lack of any COI because I want you all to know that I have none, but in that statement I am not accusing anyone else here of having a COI (only that I am among the few who have attested to not having any COI here). That's all. Now please, everyone: Chill out and be kinder to one another. -- Levine2112 discuss 15:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds good to me. Thanks. -- Fyslee/talk 20:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: COI has nothing to do with the regular labelling of editors as "pro-Barrett".  Suggest that those who use the expression review WP:KETTLE and WP:COOL before resorting to the expression lest the logical use of "anti" be applied to those using the "pro-Barrett" moniker.  BTW, what purpose does it serve to continual trot out the COI flag? Shot info 04:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Provided that we can all agree not to use these labels or anything else which can be construed as a personal attack. -- Levine2112 discuss 06:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No provisos.  The discussion is insulting and disruptive.  Let's get it off this talk page. --Ronz 06:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you don't agree to stop with the labelling and personal attacks, Ronz? -- Levine2112 discuss 06:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti/Pro labelling inappropriate 

message: Noticed some serious problems with Dr. Saherian’s quotes and references in the Criticism section:
"Ray Sahelian, MD, an advocate of nutritional medicine, accused Quackwatch of failing to point out 'scams or inaccurate promotion and marketing practices by the pharmaceutical industry', even while praising Barrett for having done 'good research on many of the people involved in the alternative health industry, and has pointed out several instances of inaccuracies and scams.'[34][35][36]"
3 references are cited in support of the critical statement made about Quackwatch/Barrett, when it appears that only one is relevant; i.e. #36 which contains the material quoted in the article. Reference #35 is a link to the homepage of the site that contains #36 and is therefore redundant and should be deleted. Reference #34 refers to an offline book by Saherian that may or may not contain criticism of Quackwatch; it seems that this reference should also be deleted. 
The sentence containing the quotes from Sahelian is grammatically awkward and could incorrectly be read to mean that Saherian pointed out inaccuracies and scams on the Quackwatch website (which he did not). An easy solution would be to substitute “even while praising Barrett for having done“, with “and praised that Barrett has done…” However, for several other reasons, it should instead be deleted altogether.
*Inclusion of Saherian’s article seems to violate WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:BLP and WP:RS. The article looks like a personal attack page. Saherian's website (#35, a blatant e-commerce site that does not seem to meet WP:RS) does not appear to contain any reviews of other websites or individuals. The article does not contain any references and appears to be just shallow, unsubstantiated opinion with a bit of mudslinging. 
*Saherian’s article includes a personal attack on Barrett based on an alleged email from an unnamed individual; i.e. "I couldn't agree with you more regarding the ignorance and pretentiousness of Stephen Barrett". Clearly not encyclopedic-quality content.
*One of Saherian’s criticisms was that he thought Barrett was rude to him in an email but that is neither relevant nor encyclopedic, nor does it directly pertain to Quackwatch.
There appears to be sufficient reason to warrant removal of the Saherian quote. Rhode Island Red 23:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the quote probably doesn't belong here, but unfortunately I expect that you'll find it very difficult to remove. --Philosophus T 00:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Saherian Quote and References

message: I've deleted the following redirects:
*Quackpotwatch
*Tim Bolen
*Quackpotwatch.org
*Quackpot Watch
*Quackpot watch
All of which redirected to this page. Since this article does not mention Quackpotwatch (not an encyclopedic source), the redirects are inappropriate. They were initially redirects to the now-deleted Quackpotwatch article, so fall under speedy deletion criteria (R1, redirect to non-existent page). I've preserved all of the associated talk pages, though, since they contain potentially relevant discussion. If anyone strongly disagrees with this action or rationale, just let me know, and I'll be happy to undelete them and send them to redirects for discussion for a more formal evaluation. MastCell Talk 18:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quackpotwatch redirects