Talk:Quackwatch/Archive 5

message: WP:WEIGHT is a part of WP:NPOV.  I see on this discussion page what I can only discribe as editors repeatedly, deliberately ignoring it to promote their own viewpoints.  Some of those editors have even gone so far as to admit this.  The only solution to this, short of AN/I and RFC/U, is to ignore these editors. --Ronz 18:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, some editors throw their weight around spewing policy acronyms in inappropriate ways. Also there are a lot of undiscussed connections to internet activism that are coming home to roost here, that make editing the article extremely difficult and time consuming.--I'clast 20:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *creak, creak, creak*.  Hey, what's that sound...surely it isn't yet another COI allegation being brought out of the closet????  Shot info 22:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:WEIGHT

message: I have thought about this for some time and here are my thoughts with examples:
Formats we normally shouldn't use for quotes, at least not on controversial subjects:
We should just stick to using the simple indent, with or without italics:
:In extracting the pure principles which he taught, we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms, as instruments of riches and power to themselves. I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill.
Why? Because the first two risk being misused to include POV emphasizing of some quotes. Either all quotes should be done that way, or none of them.
This cuts both ways (POV-wise) and to avoid any risk of accusations of using quote formats to subtly sneak in a POV emphasis, I think it best to use simple indents. On non-controversial subjects it's a matter of taste. -- Fyslee/talk 18:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now followed through with my proposed solution. Now all quotes, regardless of POV, are treated equal. -- Fyslee/talk 23:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote formats 

message: While I have no opinion or preference on inclusion/exclusion of the Ramsey text, I will say that if I see this article vacilating between versions much more I will likely protect it in whichever wrong version I happen to come across.  If you all can't come to some sort of consensus amongst yourselves then it is time for some form of dispute resolution.--Isotope23 talk 13:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm for article protection. --Ronz 17:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NOTE: Just so we are square here, Pseudoskepticism's preemptory removal a few weeks ago by an editor new to the QW article, first edit, was done without consensus, edit summary, or even any real discussion since then by him. Some of my effort to even communicate on other edits have been pretty summarily rebuffed, e.g. plain query,  editor's bold edit summary & disposition. Pseudoskepticism, a stable see also link since December last year, was also a part of a major, stable consensus in the spring where some of us allowed, perhaps against our better judgement, a shorter article to remove major chunks of criticism which Fyslee and several others then thought was very favorable.  The article has "mysteriously evolved" back toward the "QW ad". Pseudoskepticism *is* in the consensus version, and its continued removal is an edit war item against an established consensus.--I'clast 19:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Ronz and Isotope23, the article needs protection with all the edit warring going on about Ramsey.  Though, I think a consensus could be usable about this.  From the talk page there seems to be more who believe the footnote should not be in the article.  --CrohnieGalTalk 22:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit warring

message: I've protected the article from further editing given the back and forth version flipping that I've observed here.  I don't see any justification for the recent removal of the Pseudoskepticism link, so I added that back in, but I notice the last edit went to the "no Ramsey mention" version.  I have no opinion on whether or not the link or the Ramsey text should be here, but I'm going to request that you either come to some sort of workable consensus here or pursue dispute resolution.--Isotope23 talk 20:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Over the past two days, Stephen Barrett‎ has been edited even more briskly. Same parties as here, including several who apparently interpret the 3RR to mean that editors should revert on each issue twice daily. Might be worth managing both of these cases together. Cool Hand Luke 21:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected

message: Let's keep in mind WP:NPA and WP:AGF.  This tone of the conversation is not appropriate.  Discussions of my (or anyones) neutrality or Wiki experience are unnecessarily derisive and non-constructive.  Let's review WP:AGF, it means assume, as in to hold a position without any evidence.  I remind you that To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia,  i.e. not a joke.  So cut it with the investigations into User contributions and then subsequent discrediting.  This is a talk page, not an attack page.  I will AGF and proceed as though everyone here actually wants to make this article better.  We only disagree on how it is to be done. User:Hopping T  18:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assume Good Faith, No Personal Attacks

message: My opinion is that some of the editors disagree about the meaning of NPOV.  I am not an expert, but my feeling is that often neutrality is confused with objectivity.  Not all articles are purely objective, because they discuss subjective topics, but they may still present their topic neutrally.  Many articles treat entirely subjective topics, even very important articles like Metaphysics, Religion, Music, Nationalism or Art.  Such articles are not filled with references from peer-reviewed journals, yet this does not necessarily mark them as poorly sourced.  Though the discourse of Quackwatch uses the language and citations of objective science, it does so in an entirely subjective manner.  Barrett choses the subjects, who and what to discredit, who and what to promote, based on his own design.  Likewise, criticism of an entirely subjective site, will likewise be subjective.  With care, all of this can presented fairly, neutrally.  The editors here are being hypercritical of sourced criticism of the site. User:Hopping T  18:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  It's very apparent that some editors here are unable to apply NPOV.  It's been a problem with this and the other Barrett-related articles for close to two years if not longer. --Ronz 23:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: The Forbes quote says "Mostly attacking alternative medicines, homeopathy and chiropractors, the tone here can be rather harsh."  Even this source, which is praising the site, makes it clear, Quackwatch's purpose seems to be mostly "attacking" certain fields, and in a "harsh" tone at that.  It goes on to say that a CON of the site is its "listing" of doctors and organizations without any explanation, a rather serious accusation, akin to libel.  This type of commentary cannot be ignored, even though it is entirely subjective, it can and should be presented neutrally. User:Hopping T  18:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Attack site

message: UK: Search of searchmedica.co.uk SearchMedica - The GP's search engine. 
USA: Search of searchmedica.com.
I currently do not want to be involved in editing this article so I'm simply leaving this on its talk page for consideration and possibly perusal by its regulars. Avb 10:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: USA and UK lists of links to QW from (GP-selected) sites

message: Google Scholar indexes articles published on QW, together with cites by other indexed articles. See this search. Avb 10:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Google Scholar indexing

message: A simple lead sentence for the criticism improves this article. I simplified it to satisfy the inclusion critieria.  Mr.Guru  talk  16:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is WP:OR.  None of the sources given say that criticism comes from "alternative medicine supporters."  Further, the village voice reports that Health and Human Services official Dr. Thomas R. Eng & director of the HHS panel that reviewed Quackwatch "backed away from his Quackwatch endorsement, saying consumers should question Barrett's site as well as those it targets."  User:Hopping T  21:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, although it's undoubtably accurate, there's no source.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 23:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, glad we are in agreement. I undid the change. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  criticism intro sentence 

message: Can we compile a list of the suits that "Quackwatch" and Barrett have been a part of?  We could list them on this site, at least the notable ones. User:Hopping T  22:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The lawsuits were by Barrett, not Quackwatch, and are correctly listed there. Only one case I've looked up is currently ongoing, a federal suit similar to Barrett v. Rosenthal. The pre-Tim Bolen suits are not currently covered, but I'm aware of at least one (anyone remember it?) Cool Hand Luke 22:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: As I understand it, Quackwatch is not a legal entity separate from NCAHF (but I could be wrong) just publishes information, so the only relevant court cases would suits concerning specifically what was written on Quackwatch. I don't believe there are any. --Ronz 23:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We have "been there and done that" a long time ago. The cases are related to Barrett and one is related to NCAHF. Those matters have long since been dealt with on those articles. -- Fyslee/talk 04:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the Negrete case listed below the same as the one listed here? .com/quackwatch.html  Is this info at all reliable?  Does anyone have sourced information for these other cases? Obviously the one most relevant here are ones where Quackwatch is actually listed as a defendant, not just Barret.  Also, which of these cases is discussed on Quackwatch and/or involves activities related to the site?User:Hopping T  06:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, that is the Koren case. The reliability question hinges on the source. It is hosted on an adversarial site and both Bolen and Negrete are big adversaries of Barrett who are employed by (or have supported) a number of persons who have either been convicted of crimes or accused of such. Most have usually run afoul of the law, the FDA, the FTC, etc., without any prior involvement by Barrett. He usually just reports the cases and then they attack him personally for doing so. Some names that have been published in this connection are Kurt Donsbach, Hulda Clark, Tim Bolen, Stuart M. Suster, Douglas Phillips, Robban Sica, David Steenblock, and Eleazar M. Kadile. Bolen has been involved in these cases, and Negrete in some of them. Right now Negrete is dealing with Donsbach's latest losses in Mexico, where his Hospital Santa Monica has been closed yet again by the authorities. (These sources are V & RS for expansion of the Donsbach article here.) Quackwatch would not normally be named as a defendant in cases since it is the author of what is written that gets sued, not the website. Some of the cases are reported and discussed at Quackwatch or at CaseWatch, where court documents and depositions can be found. I have linked several of them above, and at the bottom of those pages you will usually find many more references which make very interesting reading. This is typical of Quackwatch articles, especially those written by Barrett. There is one current case which is of unknown status and therefore we can't write about it here, and that is the relatively new Harrison case which names Barrett, Botnick, and Quackwatch. It involves material written by Botnick that was hosted at Quackwatch. Of course it will be Barrett, and not Quackwatch, who will have to answer for that. When the case progresses further and we know if it will fly or not, we might be able to find V & RS that report it in an unbiased manner. If and when that happens, then we can mention it here. Some (including Ilena R.) would like us to already publish such things here, but we simply can't because of the rules here. We don't publish graffiti here. We'll just have to be patient and see what happens. If the "bird" (case) flies, we can shoot it down and serve it here using better sources than grafitti....;-) -- Fyslee/talk 17:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should the article mention the cases that are discussed on Quackwatch? Or the case where Quackwatch is a party?User:Hopping T  21:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because of long edit wars, AfDs, and endless discussions about this matter, it was decided to consolidate such information on the Barrett article since it usually concerns him, and not the website. He is the one in court, not a website. (Bytes can't testify....;-) That doesn't mean certain particular cases couldn't come along that might be placed here rather than there (not both places). They need to have progressed to the point that they are history so we have relatively unbiased V & RS to help us establish their WP:WEIGHT. We don't publish yellow journalism, graffiti, premature speculations, or perform original research cum investigative journalism. We only report history. -- Fyslee / talk 22:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate your tutelage regarding this page's history.  However, edits wars notwithstanding, it would seem "we" are not "report[ing] history" in this article, rather "we" are repeating verbatim the claims made about QW by the QW website, as if they were unbiased, verifiable, undisputed facts, which they are not. User:Hopping T  00:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wouldn't expect material at Quackwatch to be totally unbiased, and in fact would hope not. Quackwatch has a definite pro-EBM, anti-quackery bias based on an examination of both sides of the subject. Nobody with an opinion worth listening to is without some form of bias, which isn't exactly the same as prejudice (uninformed bias). Material is used from the subject's website (in this case the subject is Quackwatch) under the WP:SELFPUB policy, which is a portion of the WP:VERIFIABILITY policy: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." After that, attribution is what makes it NPOV. While we may not agree with something written on the site and even consider it untrue, we can't deny that the site verifiably writes it, so NPOV requires us to present it neutrally rather than advocate it by taking sides. Is there anything particular you dispute that needs to be changed? You can start a new section if that would be more appropriate, or continue here if it concerns the court cases, even though they are dealt with on the Barrett article. -- Fyslee / talk 00:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Appreciate the invitation. I really do.  But how is an editor expressing POV issues provocative?  I am expressing them.  This is well within WP guidelines to do so, given the many who expressed similar concerns here on this talk page, as well as at the AfD.  I've made a sincere effort to start building a consensus in Attempt to Build Consensus. My POV tag is likewise sincere. Let's work together. Beginning by not removing the tag until the dispute is resolved.User:Hopping T  05:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You mention there is a "dispute", and I am trying to get you to tell us the nature of that dispute, not in generalities, but specifically. Again I request that you tell us what your concerns are, and please be specific. -- Fyslee / talk 05:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oops! I failed to respond to your mention of the NPOV tag and why I considered it provocative. I would expect that my request for an explanation of your concerns would be answered here rather than an NPOV tag referring to a claimed dispute with unknown content. We usually add such tags after we have tried to discuss differences and have come to an impasse, and then  use the tag to call in previously uninvolved editors. I just felt the polite thing to do would be to respond to my query for elaboration of any concerns. -- Fyslee / talk 06:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for all the confusion.  The POV tag was not in response to any comment you made.  Nor was it a response to your request.  I tried to link the discussion of the POV issue directly from the tag, for clarity.  It links to the "Attempt to Build Consensus" section.   User:Hopping T  14:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for clearing that up for me. Now I understand. I have also indented your last comment there. I hadn't noticed it. I'll carry on the conversation down there. -- Fyslee / talk 16:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Court Cases 

message: Hopping, if your NPOV tag was inspired by your comment above, maybe, in light of my invitation (right above) to clear things up, it was a premature and provocative move.....? I expected a response here, rather than an NPOV tag, which in this case could be viewed as a POV editorializing addition to the article. Maybe I'm reading things wrong. Please enlighten us. What concerns do you have? Let's deal with them and improve the article. If there are any policy violations, then it needs to be addressed right here. -- Fyslee / talk 04:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Appreciate the invitation. I really do.  But how is an editor expressing POV issues provocative?  I am expressing them.  This is well within WP guidelines to do so, given the many who expressed similar concerns here on this talk page, as well as at the AfD.  I've made a sincere effort to start building a consensus in Attempt to Build Consensus. My POV tag is likewise sincere. Let's work together. Beginning by not removing the tag until the dispute is resolved.User:Hopping T  05:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You mention there is a "dispute", and I am trying to get you to tell us the nature of that dispute, not in generalities, but specifically. Again I request that you tell us what your concerns are, and please be specific. -- Fyslee / talk 05:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oops! I failed to respond to your mention of the NPOV tag and why I considered it provocative. I would expect that my request for an explanation of your concerns would be answered here rather than an NPOV tag referring to a claimed dispute with unknown content. We usually add such tags after we have tried to discuss differences and have come to an impasse, and then  use the tag to call in previously uninvolved editors. I just felt the polite thing to do would be to respond to my query for elaboration of any concerns. -- Fyslee / talk 06:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for all the confusion.  The POV tag was not in response to any comment you made.  Nor was it a response to your request.  I tried to link the discussion of the POV issue directly from the tag, for clarity.  It links to the "Attempt to Build Consensus" section.   User:Hopping T  14:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for clearing that up for me. Now I understand. I have also indented your last comment there. I hadn't noticed it. I'll carry on the conversation down there. -- Fyslee / talk 16:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: =====Ongoing=====
*Barrett v. Negrete, federal, on remand from Ninth Circuit. Was stayed for a long time awaiting Barrett v. Rosenthall.
=====Resolved=====
*Barrett v. Fonorow, dismissed by IL state court 2003 under CDA interpretation, aff'd 2003.
*Barrett v. Koren, dismissed in PA state court 2002, aff'd 2007.
*Barrett v. Mercola, settled after IL state judge found immunity did not apply. Supposedly for $50,000.
*Barrett v. Rosenthal, called Barrett v. Clark at the CA state trial court. Dismissed and aff'd in appellate court in regards to Barrett, and CA Supreme Court found that the CDA blocked claims for Barrett's co-plaintiff.
Added
*National Council Against Health Fraud, Inc. v. King Bio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (2003) "A private plaintiff (NCAHF) brought a representative action for unlawful competition and false advertising against a seller of homeopathic remedies. After the close of plaintiff's case-in-chief in a court trial, judgment was entered in favor of the seller." --Anthon01 (talk) 12:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Court Cases List

message: *Barrett v. Fonorow, dismissed by IL state court 2003 under CDA interpretation, aff'd 2003.
*Barrett v. Koren, dismissed in PA state court 2002, aff'd 2007.
*Barrett v. Mercola, settled after IL state judge found immunity did not apply. Supposedly for $50,000.
*Barrett v. Rosenthal, called Barrett v. Clark at the CA state trial court. Dismissed and aff'd in appellate court in regards to Barrett, and CA Supreme Court found that the CDA blocked claims for Barrett's co-plaintiff.
Added
*National Council Against Health Fraud, Inc. v. King Bio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (2003) "A private plaintiff (NCAHF) brought a representative action for unlawful competition and false advertising against a seller of homeopathic remedies. After the close of plaintiff's case-in-chief in a court trial, judgment was entered in favor of the seller." --Anthon01 (talk) 12:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Resolved

message: A review of the archives will help.  Shot info 00:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Stephen Barrett article says "The Quackwatch website is Barrett's main platform for describing and exposing for what he considers to be quackery and health fraud."  The QW website's second section is called "About Stephen Barrett," where extensive info about him is published, including his CV.  The QW homepage says "Operated by Stephen Barrett, M.D."  The content of these two articles significantly overlaps, and the many of the references for the SJ Barrett and QW articles are referring to QW as the source.  As per the AfD, I agree we need this content,  but I think we might want to consider putting all this info on place to clarify. QW is SJ Barrett's website, and SJ Barrett's publishes his writings on QW.User:Hopping T  03:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This merger is pointless. It's like saying that Terry Pratchett should be merged with Discworld. Adam Cuerden talk 04:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  This has been proposed several times and been rejected and then resolved in the current manner. Barrett is Barrett, but Quackwatch is much more than Barrett, therefore Quackwatch must be dealt with separately as both a website and an organization with myriad volunteers, resources, and allies. -- Fyslee/talk 04:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But it seems that(unlike Discworld), QW is just Barrett's personal platform for expressing his views.  More like a personal website.  Thoughts? User:Hopping T  13:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also diasgree with merger proposal. Quackwatch is more than just Stephen Barrett. It has roughly 100 editorial advisors/contributors and is more or less an online journal. Barrett may be a primary contributor to QW but it is clearly a separte entity and merits its own article distinct from that on Barrett. Rhode Island Red 14:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Rhode Island Red.  Also, wasn't this already decided that this article was useful but needed work when it was brought up for deletion?  Also, Dematt I don't think anyone who knows your editing style would think you were saying anything negative about anything you edit.  You are one of the fairest and honest editors I have had the pleasure to chat with.  --CrohnieGalTalk 14:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal

message: I'm just dumping this link here right now because it's waiting on my mouse to be copied somewhere:
* Quackbusters Inc.: Hot On The Heels Of Medical Hucksters
(There is of course no such organization as Quackbusters Inc..)
Maybe we can use some of the information here or in the NCAHF article. -- Fyslee / talk 06:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend to start a new section at this article called background.  Mr.Guru  talk  17:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ... or at the NCAHF article? -- Fyslee / talk 23:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or both articles? Or just get it started somewhere. Or enough talk and be bold.  Mr.Guru  talk  17:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Boldness is your weakness, so take it easy. -- Fyslee / talk 18:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tip my cap to you and let you get it started in any way you see fit. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  18:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of quackbusting 

message: I just read this page.  I am shocked.  I have been receiving emails from someone named Ilena for a few days suggesting sources that could be used on the Quackwatch page.  I had no idea who this person was, but I read some of the documents she sent me.  I realize she has attempted to use me as her proxy editor for the page.  Though I may share some of her views, particularly those critical of Barrett, and I respect her right to express herself, I find being contacted in this way disturbing.  I take WP policies seriously, all of them, because I think WP is cool as hell and I want to keep it that way. She failed to mention that she has been banned from these pages.  In the process, she put my credibility as an editor at risk.  That's seriously not cool.
I am willing to acknowledge that I could somehow be mistaken about this person's identity, or that I've misunderstood the findings of the arbitration committee, but from my current POV this seems clearly problematic.
On a personal note, there seems to be some very ancient twisted karma associated with this article and its editors.  Not sure what to make of it or how to respond.  I haven't encountered anything on this level here on WP before.User:Hopping T  07:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: O yeah, there was a whole world of pain associated with this ArbCom.  I'm not surprised that Ilena (presumably the same person) would do this.  I'm glad that you have seen through her, although it would be beneficial to WP if her other proxies would take note.  Shot info 07:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopping, your honesty is appreciated. Hat's off to you! Although many editors and Wikipedia itself have serious issues with Ilena R., the subjects she mentions may have merit here, but it's a matter of doing it by following the rules here, using V & RS, avoiding advocacy, and not using Wikipedia as a battleground for wars at Usenet. That's where she ran afoul of the system here (and blames Barrett for it all!). Personal attacks on other editors and using bad sources just don't fly here. -- Fyslee/talk 17:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal]] 

message: I figure a number of editors here might be interested in this:
* Link to RfC at alternative medicine. 
-- Fyslee / talk 19:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC alert 

message: Some of the sources listed do not fit that description. For example, healthfinder.org provides a link to this website, under this disclaimer: http://www.healthfinder.gov/aboutus/disclaimer.asp, which clearly means no endorsement whatsoever. I have not checked the other sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have two options: (a) if a source doesn't qualify for the section (the header being the inclusion criteria), it should be removed: (b) if the header just needs to be tweaked a bit to make it fit the contents, then do that. -- Fyslee / talk 15:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Exactly. Please do not revert good faith edits. If there is something incorrect with my edits, please let me know. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have not questioned your good faith efforts in any manner, but I am questioning their wisdom (or rather the manner in which they were done without extensive discussion from all sides), which is another matter entirely. My one revert was of a whole lot of edits of varying quality, some good and some questionable. Too many were made in a short time to deal with each of them one at a time. This article is a minefield balanced on a knife's edge and it's simply not wise to be bold when editing this article. This article and the Barrett article are the "canary in the mine" when dealing with subjects related to alternative medicine. That's why they are constantly under attack and have editors with strong feelings on each side. You will not find other articles in the health care field of such volatility, which is because of their notability and status - one is either for them or one hates them. There is no middle ground for those who know of them. One cannot criticize and expose quackery and healthfraud without getting very vocal enemies and also getting supporters. I am just trying to advise that caution should be exercised when editing here. We don't need more battles than necessary, and each edit is a potential starter of a third world war, so to speak. Two edits can create chaos. Three in a short time can have rather unforeseen consequences. It's become common here to start by getting consensus before actual changes of any consequence. -- Fyslee / talk 22:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for the pointers. I will take these into account in my future edits. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sources that mention Quackwatch as a credible or reliable source for consumer information"? 

message: Does that means that this article is locked? I am sure that this is not the case. Can those that keep reverting my edits explain how do you expect users to better this article? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here a diff for one specific edit  which I self reverted. What is wrong with that edit? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus version? 

message: # The lead needs to be expanded and NPOV'ed as per WP:LEAD
# The criticism section will be better merged into the rest of the article, rather than in a separate section
# Some of the statements in the "Credibility as a source" are not verifiable, for example, healthfinder.org provides a link to this website, under this disclaimer: http://www.healthfinder.gov/aboutus/disclaimer.asp, which clearly means no endorsement whatsoever.
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other issues 

message: Also, I have tried to find out what non-profit status Quackwatch Inc has, but I have failed to find them in GuideStar . Does anybody know what status it has? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this help?: Non-Profit (Non Stock) -- Fyslee / talk 05:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, Fyslee. What is confusing to me at this point is its relationship with NCAHF, which states in its website that QW is part of their company. NCAHF is a 501(c)(3), but QW is not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-profit status 

message: ==== Comment by  ====
* My question is very simple: can a source published in a peer reviewed journal be used to describe criticism of this website, which is in itself self-published and without editorial control, when it is this lack of editorial control and review that the criticism is based upon? See #Kauffman_critique for a summary of that source, as well as links to the journal in which it was published.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is intentional bias a reason to dismiss a source?  Is intentional bias verifiable, or just an editors's opinion? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Intentional bias could rationally be inferred from the journal's charter, but it is OR.  Unfortunately, that would mean, that to avoid WP:BIAS on our part, we need to include that section of the charter in the article, or at least prominantely in the citation. — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure, we can do that gently and without poisoning the well. Readers can always find more info by follwoing the wikilink. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How can we do it?  Leaving an unadorned reference seems inadequate.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Give it a go. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought I tried that a while back.  It was reverted clause-by-clause by the pro-alternative medicine cabal, until nothing was left.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: As far as I could read, the review was not about the website itself, but about several documents published on the website. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He calls it a "website review". Whether it is or not is up to interpretation of the reader, I suppose. ScienceApologist 18:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Do the advisors review the documents posted in the site? It does not seem so. See  All articles described in that review were signed by Stephen Barrett, M.D. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments by involved editors 

message: * My question is very simple: can a source published in a peer reviewed journal be used to describe criticism of this website, which is in itself self-published and without editorial control, when it is this lack of editorial control and review that the criticism is based upon? See #Kauffman_critique for a summary of that source, as well as links to the journal in which it was published.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by {{user|Jossi}} 

message: I still question whether the journal in question is peer-reviewed, and whether it, even if peer reviewed, may exhibit intentional bias against the site we're talking about.  So, the answer is still no, as far as I'm concerned, but JSE may not really be peer-reviewed nor may Quackwatch be necessarily SPS.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is intentional bias a reason to dismiss a source?  Is intentional bias verifiable, or just an editors's opinion? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Intentional bias could rationally be inferred from the journal's charter, but it is OR.  Unfortunately, that would mean, that to avoid WP:BIAS on our part, we need to include that section of the charter in the article, or at least prominantely in the citation. — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure, we can do that gently and without poisoning the well. Readers can always find more info by follwoing the wikilink. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How can we do it?  Leaving an unadorned reference seems inadequate.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Give it a go. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought I tried that a while back.  It was reverted clause-by-clause by the pro-alternative medicine cabal, until nothing was left.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: As far as I could read, the review was not about the website itself, but about several documents published on the website. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He calls it a "website review". Whether it is or not is up to interpretation of the reader, I suppose. ScienceApologist 18:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by  [[Arthur Rubin]] 

message: Quackwatch has a lengthy list of advisors, so it's not really a self-published source, and the JSE's "peer review" system is... not what is commonly understood by the name.  On the whole, it rather seems that saying the JSE is good for criticising Quackwatch is like saying that the Creation Science Quarterly is a good source for attacking, say, The Panda's Thumb (a collective evolution blog). Adam Cuerden talk 18:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do the advisors review the documents posted in the site? It does not seem so. See  All articles described in that review were signed by Stephen Barrett, M.D. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by Adam Cuerden

message: Yes Whig QuackWatch is notable. It is particularly notable for being a cover for a few agenda-driven individuals who masquerade as the "final word" of "almighty science" that sends down judgements on what is "legitimate" in the healing arts, and what is not. They have no qualms of conscience to condemn entire professions in the healing arts, while downplaying and closing their eyes to abuses in conventional medicine.
* One year ago a relative in Europe asked me to send him anything that I thought might help him in possibly lessening the severity of his irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). For the previous 5 years, no conventional medical treatments were of any help. I sent him a gift of 4 bottles of a specific type of licorice root extract, and 2 bottles of a concentrated mixture of probiotics (acidophylus strains). Several weeks later, he had complete relief of symptoms. One year later I received a report that he is still symptom-free. (I can already hear the shouts: "Testimonial!"  "Placebo!")
* There is a technique used in chiropractic known as "Applied Kinesiology" which is not what it is claimed to be, and is not scientifically replicable. Yet the use of this bogus method is not justification to condemn the entire chiropractic profession - merely because some use it. Yet there are some who have no qualms of conscience to condemn the entire profession. I know of many responsible and dedicated chiropractic physicians who do tremendous work (but I also know of hucksters who are in it for the money).
* There are questionable practices in conventional medicine. Examples:
** The recently toned down wide-spread prescribing of hormones (HRT) to practically all women over a certain age.
** The wide-spread current prescription fad to prescribe statin drugs to "reduce cholesterol" when there is no "scientific" basis for this practice, and indications that there may be harmful long term problems as a result.
I know of many responsible and dedicated medical doctors who do tremendous work (but I also know of hucksters who are in it for the money). Quackwatch states that it is a "Nonprofit corporation whose purpose is to combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, and fallacies." Yet it covers for the medical profession's shortcomings.
This article belongs in Wikipedia, since so much of the public and the media thinks the pronoucements of Quackwatch are the pronouncements of "science". However for the purposes of a NPOV article, the facts about what it really is should be included. Arion (talk) 02:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have citations? Otherwise ... Anthon01 (talk) 03:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course there are no citations, how else is the agenda hidden if it's like written down?  Shot info (talk) 06:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Unless you provide citations, you are wasting your time here. None of this will remain on the article page unless you can provide citations. Also, without citations, you are just using this talk page as a soapbox. Anthon01 (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:SOAP, yes. This is more appropriate for an e-mail or blog, not WP. —Whig (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I would ask that the first paragraph be kept as responsive. —Whig (talk) 17:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I think it would be worthwhile to separate the initial comment that way: the first paragraph from the rest of it. --Ronz (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quackwatch is notable as a consortium with an agenda