Talk:National Council Against Health Fraud/Archive 1

message: group has been criticized by many advocates of natural remedies. should include more information on criticism.
--204.78.10.224 17:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: First comments

message: Re-instituted an external link that cites a court case in which NCAHF lost and provides criticism of the organization. Unsure why it was deleted in the first place. Please explain. Wwindsor 01:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: QuackPotWatch link

message: Hi Fyslee. First of all, thanks for discussing it here. That link has also be instated by various editors. I'm not married to the phrasing of the criticisms and I believe improvement can be made. However, the criticism section is actually a little slim if anything, so I'm fairly comfortable with the current state of the article. The article doesn't even mention the somewhat dubious affiliations between Quackwatch, Chiroweb, and NCAHF.
The fact that the NCAHF has offered a public statement rebutting criticisms is more than enough proof of both the existence of criticisms and their notability. 
The criticism by Tim Bolen is notable in comparison to the overall notability of NCAHF. The court case against NCAHF is also notable. So, the assumption you made about my position being that only the court case is notable is mistaken.
There is more information that Tim Bolen provides other than the link in this article, which is adequately sourced (by comparison to the notability of this article). I am not open to removing the criticism section of the article or removing a link to relevant critical information. In regards to referencing each an every criticism, I believe I have summarised criticisms that are easily accessible. And I believe I have summarised them fairly (but I don't claim infallibility on summarising criticisms).
In direct response to your final question. No, I don't believe your suggested approach is even close to fair. The criticisms can only be as well sourced as the promotions are. If we are going to put a microscope up to the article we should approach every assertion the article makes, not merely the criticisms. So, if you want to source the following statements adequately I might consider rising to the challenge you posed, but I have a far better proposal at the bottom of this post.
# is a US-based voluntary private nonprofit health agency
* Are these traits proven or asserted? There are accusations of double dealing that this phrase doesn't adequately take into account.
# NCAHF unites consumers with health professionals, educators, researchers, attorneys, and others who believe that everyone has a stake in the quality of the health marketplace.
* POV? Who says NCAHF unites these groups? Chiropractic groups claim NCAHF create problems for their practices! So do many other groups who consider themselves health professionals. And who says all these people mentioned in the article have a stake in quality? There are many sources for stating some of these groups prioritise quality far below profits, brand-recognitioin and share price. This statement doesn't reflect these sources adequately.
# Membership is open to everyone
* Who says this is true? There are accusations out there of the opposite. Who are the members historically? What does membership guarantee?
My proposal
Overall, I suggest we leave the article much the same as it currently stands. It states the NCAHF position and it states the critical position and then states the counter to the critical position. This is a wonderful situation and is entirely encyclopedic. Some tidying might be in order but not whitewashing criticisms.
I hope that works for you. And again, I thank you for discussing it here. I hope I haven't said anything that offends you. I appreciate you being open about how close you are to this article and Tim Bolen. Peace. Metta Bubble 07:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply from Metta Bubble

message: Dear Metta Bubble, I fear that you have misunderstood my intentions. That's probably my own fault, since I'm rather long-winded.....;-) I am not at all interested in any removal of criticisms or whitewashing. Criticisms certainly do exist, but there are also false accusations in circulation. My concern is that the criticisms be verifiable, as per Wiki verifiability policy. If they aren't documented (it doesn't have to be as extensively as I suggested above), then they are editorial POV statements, a practice which isn't allowed here. Using that method, any editor can insert their own criticisms, praise, or accusations, all under the guise of someone else saying it. Without documentation, the words just stand there as POV statements provided by an editor. It's easy to imagine how this could lead to absurd situations, for example: "George Bush has been accused of torturing and eating babies." Without documentation that would stand as a very POV accusation, being included in an article by an editor, and thus the editor would be poisoning the well, which is probably the worst form of POV editing.
I'm just interested in: 
*1. Verifiable documentation for criticisms.
:They must be verifiable or be removed from the article. I believe they can easily be documented by the editors who have included them. If they are unwilling to provide the documentation, then the undocumented criticisms shouldn't be taken seriously, and are thus unworthy of inclusion. If they are documented, then it's another matter entirely. The editors who made the edits need to make up their minds. To protect their edits, they must verify them.
*2. Real criticisms, not undocumented ad hominem hate statements, libel, lies, spin doctoring, or conspiracy theories.
:That's the kind of stuff that Tim Bolen includes in practically all his newsletters. That's why his newsletters (the main content on the Quackpotwatch site) aren't reliable as documentation. He rarely, if ever, deals with the real issues raised by the NCAHF, such as the false claims made for products, false advertising, illegal practices, etc. He only seeks to undermine the NCAHF, for the purpose of defending those accused of making those false claims. He is paid to defend them, and he does it by attacking, rather than defending. That's called "poisoning the well", which is a particularly vicious tactic used to unwarrantedly and improperly divert attention (an ad hominem trick) and to detract from the reputation or authority of a person or source.
*3. Original documents do exist for documentation purposes.
:Since they are available, they should be used. The NCAHF makes charges, and they can be documented. The accusers make countercharges, and they can be documented. I could easily present both sides of this matter, but it's the editors of the "criticisms" section who need to start doing this work.
Your proposal
I basically agree with your proposal, but just need to have the above matters tended to. There should be no whitewashing. You have definitely not offended me, and I appreciate your candor. I am always open for constructive suggestions and criticism, and seek to play with open cards. You are always welcome to ask me questions about both sides of these matters, since I'm in a position to either answer you myself, or get the information from the involved parties. You can do so on my Talk page.  -- Fyslee 12:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fyslee's reply

message: Hi Fyslee. I liked your reply. You are completely free to edit anything you like. That's what a wiki is. 
Your comments on Tim Bolen and his motives are not indepedently verifiable. The only factor here is notability and verifiability. Bolen is a known critic of NCAHF and his opinion is verifiable no matter what you claim his motives are. I don't consider it hate speech any more than the NCAHF attacks on chiro and other professions can be considered hate speech.
This is a mute point of course because all this talk is simply over a small section of the article that both of us feel can be bettered:
* The NCAHF has been accused of attacking many professions and of using the guise of consumer advocacy to present false indictments of complementary and alternative medicines. Some critics have accused the NCAHF of being a front for pharmaceutical companies and corporate medical interests.
Although I feel it can be bettered, I think this wording is real and adequately sourced. Could you please put your suggested wording below and any references you'd like to add. How would you like it to read? Please let's just workshop this here and then we're done. Simple. If you don't want to suggest anything I'm fine with that too. I'm content with the article as is.
Peace. Metta Bubble 03:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism Statements

message: Dear Metta (may I call you that? It's very similar to a common Danish girl's name - Mette - which happens to be a cute name.)
I appreciate very much your professional and cooperative spirit in this matter. I'm not used to that here at Wikipedia. This is the way I envision that the editing of controversial subjects should be done. Even though editors have different viewpoints, it should still be possible to cooperate in the production of a good article that covers the various aspects of a subject.
Here is the current wording:
*The NCAHF has been accused of attacking many professions and of using the guise of consumer advocacy to present false indictments of complementary and alternative medicines. Some critics have accused the NCAHF of being a front for pharmaceutical companies and corporate medical interests.
There are basically four charges:
1. "attacking many professions": This should be easy to document, and I'll provide the proof myself in the revised version below.
2. "the guise of consumer advocacy": This is an ad hominem attack, without any proof, since such a charge cannot be proven. It's just a negative opinion. Interestingly I have never heard this charge before, so I would like to know the source. Since it can't be verified, it should be deleted. Otherwise it must be considred to be the contributing editor's POV, which can't allowed. If allowed to stand at all, it should at the very least have a linked source.
3. "present[ing] false indictments": This is also an ad hominem attack, without any proof or even examples. I have never heard this one either, so I would like to know the source. If it can't be verified with concrete examples, it should also be deleted.
4. "a front for......": This is an old conspiracy theory charge that has been rebutted many times, and no evidence has ever been presented for the charge. I'll accept it for now, since a good rebuttal is in place.
I guess the part I object to the most is the two words "guise" and "false." They are very POV statements, which stand there as accusations without any verification. The sources need to to be verified. All parts of a Wikipedia article are subject to the verifiability rule. If they can't be verified, they can summarily be deleted by any editor, and the deletes will be backed up by Wikipedia policies and administrators.
You write above:
*"Although I feel it can be bettered, I think this wording is real and adequately sourced."
I haven't seen the sources you refer to. Which ones are they? Please provide the links here.
I'm not sure what you mean by "real." As the statement stands, there is really only one serious ("real"?) charge (the first one), the rest are ad hominem attacks, so they hardly deserve to be in a criticism section. They are beneath that level. I guess we need to decide just how low we will go. They are predicated on the conspiracy theory ("front for.....") being true. Since it has been rebutted, they fall to the ground like a house of cards.
If there were really "serious" charges of inaccuracy, wrongdoing, or other matters that could be verified and rebutted (even if unsuccessfully), then such charges and rebuttals would deserve to be part of the article. Ad hominem attacks are unworthy of being taken seriously, and only make critics look frivolous and unserious, since they appear to not be able to deal with the issues, and thus revert to desperate attacks on the person.
Here is a proposed revision:
*The NCAHF has been accused of unfairly attacking some professions, among them acupuncture, chiropractic, herbal remedies, homeopathy, and naturopathy. Some critics have also accused the NCAHF of being a front for pharmaceutical companies and corporate medical interests. A natural consequence of belief in this conspiracy theory, is that some critics do not believe the NCAHF's "consumer protection" claims, and feel that it is only interested in attacking all forms of complementary and alternative medicine as a form of turf protection.
I believe the first charge is partially legitimate, and the others are worded so as to represent real charges, regardless of their legitimacy or illegitimacy. If there are any other "serious" charges, I'm sure someone will add them later......;-)
I deal with these charges and the people who make them all the time, so I have some understanding of this matter "from both sides of the fence." (I am myself a former user of alternative therapies, including having my own patients die.)
What do you think of the revision?
I also need some links to those sources you mention. -- Fyslee 22:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested Wording of Criticisms

message: Please don't make demands of users. I find it uncivil. Add more sources yourself if you want them. You mentioned you had enough materials above already to argue both sides of the article.
Also note, from the WP:V policy:
* The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth
Nobody here is asserting the NCAHF uses a guise, we are saying the NCAHF is accused of using a guise. Which is a verifiably true as a summary of criticial opposition. The simple fact is that the criticisms verifiably exist. A link has been provided that founds the views presented.
Regarding your suggested wording: Inline external links to rebuttals are unhelpful to a criticism section of any article, as are terms like "conspiracy theory". I've re-edited below what I find more reasonable:
*The NCAHF has been accused of using the guise of consumer advocacy to unfairly attack complementary and alternative medicine professions; among them acupuncture, chiropractic, herbal remedies, homeopathy, and naturopathy. Some critics have accused the NCAHF of being a front for pharmaceutical companies and corporate medical interests, dismissing the NCAHF's mission statement on consumer protection and claiming the NCAHF's real interest is in criticising alternative medicines as a form of turf protection.
Let's stay focused on the article and the wording. I think we're making progress. I note another editor has already added more information to the article. So you're getting your demands in a roundabout way. Metta Bubble 01:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested Wording (round 2)

message: In light of the recent discussions on the all inclusiveness of categories, should we be discussing skepticism and pseudoskepticism on this page? --Dematt 18:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny Dematt, I was just thinking the same thing!  If a notable source has raised the issue, sure.  I was just reading the article that redirects from pseudoskepticism and was somewhat amazed by how well Truzzi's criteria fit some would-be skeptics.  cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 07:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  skepticism and pseudoskepticism 

message: See Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#See_also, Wikipedia:Categorization#When_to_use_categories.  There is no need to make it explicit in the article, in fact See Also is specifically for related topics that are not already mentioned in the article.  As for CSICOP, I wasn't clear: .  Again, the citation is not necessary.  --Ronz 04:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The CSICOP lists it as a skeptical organization, but the organization does not itself claim to be one. In fact, the CSICOP lists about anything as a skeptical organization that would only remotely fit into this category: for example talk.origins (and not in the category here, either), although it is merely a usenet newsgroup. This classification is not appropriate. Let's stick to the organizations own profile. I propose different, better criteria: List in the category only those organizations listed as members of the International Network of Skeptical Organizations. This one also does not contain The National Council Against Health Fraud. What do you think? --Rtc 05:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Categories are used for articles that are related to the subject, not just for organizations. That's why you'll find Stephen Barrett and NCAHF also categorized under Quackery, since they deal with that subject. Categories are useful as a service to readers and the concept of "service" should be uppermost in our minds when categorizing. Just use common sense about what is actually happening, rather than some precise wording. If you want to make a category for official members of the International Network of Skeptical Organizations, be my guest. In that case, NCAHF could easily become a member organization. It would just be a formality. All the board members are active skeptics, and Barrett, the VP, has been listed by Skeptical Inquirer as one of the outstanding skeptics of the 20th century, and is a Fellow of CSICOP. The activities of NCAHF, Barrett, the other board members, and the other contributors to the website, can be fairly considered as skeptical activities. They use critical thinking when evaluating extraordinary claims, and seek to expose the claims for what they are. This is a common activity of scientific skeptics. -- Fyslee 11:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Skepticism - See Also, Cat

message: If Barrett has edited this article in the name of the NCAHF then it should be noted.NATTO 04:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine. The tag has been moved to the talk page where it belongs. -- Fyslee 06:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TAG 

message: Can we edit this to something that has at least a vaguely nPOV?  Unless there's a good secondary source for the generalizations, I think they should be removed.  Specific claims from primary sources can be kept, but Wikipedia is not the place to accumulate information from primary sources and synthesize statements on what those sources are saying overall.  Also, I'm not able to find the actual statement used from the article cited "These critics dismiss the NCAHF's mission statement on consumer protection by claiming the NCAHF's real interest is in criticising alternative medicines as a form of turf protection."  Can someone find it? --Ronz 19:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The citation for NHC discuss the "turf war" and cites Coulter's book as an example. Ronz, please point to specific generalizations or synthesized statements which you would like to see addressed. We'll make it through this. I promise. Levine2112 20:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I've read through that source and can't find anything that resembles the quote.  As for the generalizations, I mean the entire section, now that the Bolen quote is gone.  It's either relatively direct from a source or it's not suitable for Wikipedia.  Also, I noticed ref #6, the untitled one, is a bad link now - the site is still up so it probably just was moved.  --Ronz 23:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it is a direct quote from the article but rather an attempt to capture the gist of it with regards to NCAHF. Perhaps you would like to provide a better summary and capture the essence of what this article is saying about NCAHF specifically. I'm sure you could improve on what's there now. Levine2112 01:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed. --Ronz 15:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Absolutely not. I don't even understand why you removed the criticism you mentioned above. I asked if you wanted to rephrase it. Bottomline, NCAHF is a contraversial "organization" which stirs up its own trouble. The backlash is part of what makes NCAHF notable enough to warrant its own article. As for the lawsuits section, it is an example of what NCAHF has tried to do in the real world (and not just on their website's mission statement). I'd love to have some more actual examples of their work added here as well. The King Bio suit info is all cited from the presiding judge's summary judgement. Is a judge's written opinion not a reliable source? Levine2112 16:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've repeatedly brought up, I think we have WP:NOR violations here.  I removed the quote after our discussion for the very reasons I mentioned: editors are synthesizing summaries from primary sources, and creating NPOV problems in doing so.  There are reliable source issues that we're repeatedly having problems with as well, but just because a source is agreed reliable doesnt mean we can ignore NOR and NPOV.  Find a reliable, secondary (or a tertiary source) that supports your viewpoint, and we won't have these problems. --Ronz 18:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this mean that we would have to find reliable secondary and tertiary sources to cover NCAHF's history and mission statement, or are we to rely on what they have written first-hand on their site? Levine2112 19:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one has mentioned that they may violate NOR or NPOV.  I can't imagine how anyone who has read WP:NOR would think so. --Ronz 20:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The subject of an article is allowable as a source in its own article. This even applies to self-published sources in articles about themselves. So it certainly applies to corporate websites with multiple authors and fact checking. -- Fyslee 21:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. NCAHF is a primary source on itself. And the judge's opinion is a secondary source for describing the nature of NCAHF... just like anyone who provides a critique of NCAHF. Levine2112 04:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think court transcripts are considered primary sources, but WP:RS allows them:  "Wikipedia articles may use primary sources only if they have been published by a reliable publisher e.g. trial transcripts published by a court stenographer, and may use them only to make purely descriptive claims."  Also useful is WP:LIVING, which says "Where a fact has first been presented by a verifiable secondary source, it is acceptable to turn to open records as primary sources to augment the secondary source. Material that is related to their notability, such as court filings of someone notable in part for being involved in legal disputes, are allowable ... where they are publicly available and where that information has first been reported by a verifiable secondary source."  Here, it appears that the court transcripts are primary sources that augment the Beverly Hills Bar Association secondary source. regards, Jim Butler(talk) 06:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism Section & nPOV

message: I'm trying to keep the discussions of the different sections separate when appropriate, but to summarize, I think this section also violates WP:NOR and WP:NPOV for the same reasons mentioned above: the editors are using only primary sources and are synthesizing statements from the perspectives of those primary sources.  Why is there mention of SLAPP without the ruling on the issue?  Why are no other lawsuits mentioned? --Ronz 00:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ronz, maybe the wording is unclear:  my understanding is that King Bio moved to dismiss NCAHF's suit under the anti-SLAPP statute and the courts agreed.  I changed it to be clearer.  Here is the secondary source I am following.  If there are good V RS's for other suits, by all means let's put them in, but I urge against deletionism.  thx, Jim Butler(talk) 00:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Jim. Levine2112 04:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lawsuit Section - NOR & nPOV

message: Can someone explain to me why this organization is notable? Is there any coverage of it other than by itself or its direct opponents? JoshuaZ 02:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because of it's association with Quackwatch and Stephen Barrett. --Ronz 02:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability