Talk:Quackwatch/Archive 10

message: SA has tagged another item: 
What is the problem with this one? Let's fix it so the tag can be removed. -- Fyslee (talk) 04:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I made this change. I don't see any point to stating the obvious. Any website should be examined. QuackGuru (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I recall this is a leftover from the days when critical editors were desperately seeking reliable sources that criticized Quackwatch. Most sources that criticize it aren't reliable, so that was a difficult matter for them. There is another obvious statement that isn't really a criticism, but an obvious fact about any website, and that is the "criticism" (phrased as a recommendation) that it be peer-reviewed. The problem is that websites are not peer-reviewed and no one expects them to be, so it was very odd to even consider using such a statement as a criticism, but they did attempt to twist it into a criticism. I see that it has been reworded to retain the fact that it was more of a helpful suggestion than a real criticism. -- Fyslee (talk) 06:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It was explaned before why it was removed. The edit summary also explained why it was removed. Any website should be examined. It was stating the obvious. QuackGuru (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I previoulsy explained why the text was removed despite the claim in the edit summary. QuackGuru (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed verification 2 

message: I have made a cleanup of the format of some references. There were two groups of references in the Notability section that really disturbed the readability. One group was 11 references in one spot! I don't mind 3-4, or even more if it's at the end of a paragraph, but 11 in between two sentences was just too many. I hope it looks better to you. -- Fyslee (talk) 04:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference cleanup 

message: Here is an interesting story written by a sheriff:
* PCSO Detectives Arrest Winter Haven Couple for Practicing Medicine without a License
He not only describes the whole case, but also uses Quackwatch as a source. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A thorough sheriff 

message: The article seems to be overwhelmingly positive to me. There is not a section about criticism by proponents of alternative medicine who can point to peer-reviewed studies (and we're seeing more and more of those) and thousands of years of use of herbal medicines by different cultures as evidence supporting their views. I'm also wary of any site that calls Dr. Andrew Weil a "quack" as he is highly esteemed in the medical community, especially for his dietary advice. He may not be perfect, but let's face it - we'd all be a hell of a lot healthier is we followed his advice. I took a course on medical ethnobotany and realized the arrogance of western medicine, despite it being wrong many times, and realized that I shared that arrogance in scoffing at things like Ayurvedic medicine, even though thousands of years of human studies support it. Quackwatch is a great example of that arrogance. When talking about medicine, we should be open minded and not throw anything off the table unless it is proven to be harmful. I WOULD be wary of Dr. Weil if, for example, he said cancer patients should use only alternative therapies and not things like chemotherapy or surgery, but he has said quite the opposite. Herbal remedies and antimitotic plants have never shown much use in fighting cancer so he's always told cancer patients to see their oncologist, and to use the herbal remedies only as a supplement to treatment, to reduce the side effects of the drugs. That doesn't sound like a quack to me. 76.254.55.160 (talk) 00:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:NPOV and WP:OR.  Just because an article appears "overwhelmingly positive" to someone, it doesn't mean that the article is not neutral. --Ronz (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: User:76.254.55.160, this talk page is about the article, not the subject of the article. Nowhere does the article call Dr Weil a quack (and neither does the Quackwatch website for that matter).There is no neutrality issue. User:Ronz told it as it is.  Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 01:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality Dispute 

message: Why is there a  here?  This article is about Quackwatch, not Stephen Barrett.  ?? --stmrlbs|talk 02:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The answer is very simple. This is the discussion page and it inevitably ends up with discussions about him and others. Some of the things that have been written here have not only violated the BLP policy, but been maliciously libelous. The BLP policy applies to all living persons, including article subjects, editors and people outside of Wikipedia, and covers everything written anywhere at Wikipedia, including userspace and subpages.   Brangifer (talk) 02:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  ok.  I understand that libelous statements about any living person are not allowed on any talk page in Wikipedia.  But, I was just wondering if there was a particular problem in the past with libelous statements here about stephen barrett, in order to justify the template.  Is this standard procedure for any person that creating/owning/running a site that is featured in Wikipedia?  I will have to check to see if there is an all points template for Jimbo for all of wikipedia!  Wait, there isn't a BLP template for the "wikipedia" article.  hmmm..  --stmrlbs|talk 04:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  There have been serious BLP problems. He has many enemies, some of whom are regular editors, and some of whom just pop in and leave messages and attacks. Brangifer (talk) 06:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP?  why here? 

message: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience apply to this article.  Please remember to focus on improving the article.  "Comment on content, not on the contributor" --Ronz (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Reminder

message: Any watching admin care to impose some sanctions?  Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience apply to this article. --Ronz (talk) 02:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Vsmith (talk) 13:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Time for Arbcom sanctions

message: This page has returned to the quote mine status it had when I last edited it. It is far, far better to summarize opinions without quotes. Using quotes is simply not encyclopedic unless the quotes themselves are notable (an example of notable quotes can be read at Brown Bunny#Cannes reception and reviews). Almost all of the quotes used in this article -- both pro and con -- are not particularly notable nor do they shed light on the subject and thus can be excised with summary style prose written in their place.
Lest you think this is an impossible task, I ask you to consider how I excised both positive and negative quotes from Eric Lerner, a similarly controversial article.
ScienceApologist (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Too many quotations make Jack a dull boy

message: Petergkeyes (talk) 06:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Until you came by, there was a general consensus as to what should be here.  That's why there's no discussion.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: where is the 2010 discussion?

message: Over the last few minutes, the article has been attracting copy-and-pastes from a five-year-old story at www.canlyme.com/quackwatch.html and elsewhere. I think that this is related to an attempt to discredit Quackwatch at Talk:Clayton College of Natural Health. -- Hoary (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it happens.  If they continue, they'll be blocked per WP:BATTLE, WP:BLP, and past ArbCom decisions. --Ronz (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Barrett versus CCNH

message: The last sentence of the first paragraph in the intro awkwardly wikilinks a long phrase.  
criticizing many forms of alternative medicine
It's not very common to wikilink more than one or two words.  I'm not exactly sure what the distinguishing feature of the link to a subsection of the alternative medicine article is, but it seems that the wikilink should be reworked some way. 69.142.154.10 (talk) 21:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awkward wikilink 

message: www.canlyme.com/quackwatch.html
:: According to that link, Quackwatch WAS discredited. If an editor attempted to add that information, he/she was not attempting to do anything but add relevant information to this wiki, right? Why have you reverted those edits?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.142.178 (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suspect you're referring to this edit, or one identical to it added at about the same time by various socks. There are several reasons, among them that it's not about Quackwatch but about Barrett. On that ground alone it doesn't belong in this article. It is also from an unreliable source, so we're not allowed to use it. It's also written in a misleading manner and only applies to a very limited situation in a portion of one lawsuit. It has no meaning or application in a general sense outside of that one limited situation or any other situation as it is being (mis)used. Note that we don't have the actual court record so we don't know the exact setting, and we're not allowed to use direct trial transcripts here anyway. It is only a report, without actual quotes, written by enemies of Barrett who are known to twist the reporting of events in a dishonest manner. It also borders on a violation of our WP:BLP policy. I hope that answers your question. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't read through the edits you reverted. I was just going by what you said in this talk discussion here. Did you delete the first part of this talk discussion just now? You should bring it back as the discussion is now ongoing. Thank you for answering my question. However I can't help but feel that you wish to censor negative information here. In you other post on this talk page you seemed to be arguing that the information from that link should not be included because it is "5 years old". However it is historical record and in no way outdated. And Barrett is the man behind Quackwatch. He is the main author and gatekeeper. A bias on his part is a bias on part of Quackwatch. The connection is obvious. To claim the link is "written in a misleading manner" (rather than simply "is misleading"?) is highly subjective. What I read, glancing through the link, was not limited as you say. As you said in your other post in this talk page discussion, the link says Barrett was not board certified, true, but the link says so much more. The author of the link being an enemy to Barrett has no bearing. Doesn't the link accuse Barret of being the one who "twists the reporting of events in a dishonest manner"? I understand the link cannot be sourced for wiki, but your objections outside of wp:reliability indicate to me that it is simply information you don't personally want. Anyway, you did answer my question, so thank you, again.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.142.178 (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure if you're confusing me with someone else  here or not, but I personally have no objection to mention of any of Barrett's lawsuits if we can use RS to do it. Unfortunately no RS deal with the subject, and we aren't allowed to do OR here by using primary sources like court records. That has been the problem for years on this, Barrett's and the NCAHF articles. I have no objection, it just has to be done according to policy. The fact that there are lawsuits is no secret and I certainly have no desire to keep it secret. That would be idiotic. Believe me, many have tried to find ways to include this information, myself included, but we've pretty much given up. It would require a change in our sourcing policies to do so, or coverage of the subject in reliable third party sources. We just can't find such sources. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  The previous conversation was not removed, however it was from July. It's generally not a good idea to try and restart a 6-month-old conversation. So, I moved your question into a new section, so it could get attention from folks. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discredited? 

message: : The following is copied from my talk page, since this discussion really belongs here. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: (1) Per WP:BRD, you should not restore your edit, but discuss the matter on the talk page until a consensus has been reached. So far your edit has been rejected twice. This restoration by you after twice being rejected was an act of edit warring. Not a wise move. Discussion is better. BRD isn't BRRD. Current status: We are now at D and it should stay that way until a consensus has been reached, or some other decision has been made. I suggest you just drop the matter.  -- Brangifer (talk) 07:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the suggestion. I shall indeed take it to talk unless you reconsider independently (in fact even if you do I think I should, to avoid pointless conflict with other correspondents; you are the second already. However, please mind your counting: I posted the text. Someone reverted. I contacted that person and reverted. You reverted back again. Schluss. That is ONE reversion. Right? Not even counting the fact that it was a correct and reasonable reversion.) Your tone in this matter is hardly friendly, but I don't know the appropriate abbreviation. In your reversion summary you even spoke of OR, leaving me totally nonplussed. OR!???! For relevantly reporting the presence of particular content at the site in question? JonRichfield (talk) 09:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

text: (2) The Village Voice and other content are secondary sources. We can include them, and have done so. It was difficult finding RS which criticize QW! Generally only very non-RS do so. The content you wish to add is a primary source. That page only has non-RS content (the cheers and jeers of whomever aren't RS here). It's simply not significant content. Mention of that page would only be of use as part of a description of the website, and there are literally thousands of pages. Which ones deserve mention? Why this one, which, of all those pages, happens to have ONLY non-reliable content?  -- Brangifer (talk) 07:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You and your predecessor in this discussion appear to be regarding the matter as a case of POV or partisan support of QW. That is curious in context, because there is no element of anything of the type in what I wrote. The title of the section is "Criticism", remember? You plausibly peak of its being difficult finding RS which criticize QW. I am glad to hear that of course, but it is hardly relevant, or if it is, then it is relevant that there is a range of positive and negative criticism. I do not discuss the pro or the con support. I do not evaluate it. I do not even quantify it. I mention its existence and supply a link. Its content is not material and therefore there is no question of whether it is a primary, secondary or imaginary source.  JonRichfield (talk) 09:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

text: (3) I don't see any point in you pushing this. If you have some policy-based reason, please produce it and I'll certainly reconsider. Otherwise this push is doomed. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I push this as a matter of policy certainly; it is my policy to make information available to readers in proper context and connection, together with the means to verify or (in part) evaluate it. If it is relevant to support it, then I supply sources, and of course they are, AFAIC not primary sources. The subject under attention is the QW site. I supplied information and a link concerning the site's content and status. Perhaps it would help to imagine a contrasting scenario. Suppose I had included the same text in the Homeopathy article, slightly edited to fit, but still referring to QW crits. That still would not have been OR, and it still would not have been primary sourcing, but it would definitely not have been sound material. It would be informal, unencyclopaedic, unsourced, unresearched, judgmental etc, and not in the slightest relevant to the status of the article. Does that put the matter in a different light? JonRichfield (talk) 09:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

text: No problem. Feel free to edit out any parts that you regard as conveying an unfortunate tone or context. JonRichfield (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quackwatch crits 

message: Seems an anon is a bit upset about Quackwatch and has decided to edit war using various ips to add what appears to be personal commentary based on disgruntled promoters of various quackery or whatever. If there are serious concerns about the page contents, then discuss it here. Vsmith (talk) 11:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that it needs to be restored. There are BLP violations involved here. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection 

message: I have warned  about their violations of BLP. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: We need permanent semi-protection of this sensitive article. It will always be a target for vandalism by quacks. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but does that entail anything special? Why not go ahead? JonRichfield (talk) 04:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: An admin needs to do it, you can ask at WP:RPP. They'll likely refuse since incidents of vandalism are few and far between. However, it is odd that all IP edits in the past year or so have been vandalism and the BLP consideration is not one to take lightly. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. I see. Thanks. I must admit that having seen the kind of spite that QW is target for, and the consistency of such attacks, I would have expected more such hits. However, I would have thought that when a large proportion of hits are sabotage, that would be an argument for protection. But don't look at me! I'm no admin. JonRichfield (talk) 06:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP violations