Talk:Quackwatch/Archive 6

message: I would appreciate if other involved editors can address User:ScienceApologist's concerns, as it seems that he does not have much of an appreciation for moving forward based on my arguments and writing. I will leave this as is, and come back to this discussion on Friday. Hope that by then you, that know him better, would have helped him to come to an agreement about the wording used for this material. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've NPOV concerns, mostly WEIGHT as well.  I'm not sure how to resolve them though.  The problem has to do with our selection of specific quotes from these sources in order to demonstrate criticism of Quackwatch.  The Hufford piece is especially problematic as it appears to be part of a two-part discussion/debate, where we're totally ignoring the context of the opposing side and the likelihood that the discussants may have taken their positions specifically to be entertaining and controversial. --Ronz 00:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So fix it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said, I'm not sure how.  On one hand, we want to balance the article.  On the other, we don't want to give more prominence to an opinion or other information beyond what it's due.  NPOV says we need independent, reliable sources to solve these problems, so one solution is to leave out anything where we don't have a reliable independent source.  However, there's a compromise that I've seen used before - putting some of the information in a note rather than in the body of the article. --Ronz 01:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: As far as Hufford, I think it's sufficient to note, in the footnote, that his paper is a counterpoint to another paper which took a different view of alt-med. Donna Ladd's Village Voice piece is also reputable enough to include. I think it's obvious that the piece is conveying Ladd's view of the situation rather than pronouncing the Ultimate Truth; but the Voice has a significant editorial oversight process and is not institutionally prejudiced against mainstream medicine so far as I can see (their coverage of the AIDS denialist movement was excellent). This is notable coverage of Quackwatch in a reliable source. MastCell Talk 19:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: I have incorporated the text as discussed above, with the hope that it reflects the result of the debate about the "criticism" material.
Other edits include:
* Merging of material from Barret's article related to the use of Quackwatch as a source
* Merging the criticism section to the appropriate section
* NPOVing the lead by adding a mention to the criticism, as per WP:LEAD
* Minor edits for spelling and grammar
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks pretty decent to me (I've done some minor cleanup). MastCell Talk 16:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, really well done. This article is better now that ever before. Thanks all. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I have avoided this page for some time now because it was going no where fast.  I just wanted to say the article shows a lot of good hard work toward improving.  It looks good, esp. since the first time I read this article.  Congratulations everyone, you have done some good hard work.  --CrohnieGalTalk 19:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow.. Great work!  And it looks like we might have a consensus, too.  I don't see anything I would change. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 03:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits 

message: While making extensive revisions (formatting refs, reading the two sourced articles, and finding wikilinks), I ran into an edit conflict with Levine2112 and later discovered that the edit (now superceded by my own edit) had been the following:
* "... but criticizes its comparison of anti-fluoridationists to Adolf Hitler ..."
Well, anyone reading the original source in context (shown above) will see that that is simply not true. The focus is on the tactic used by the anti-fluoridationists, and does not compare them with Hitler. It compares their "basic technique" with the big lie. That's all. The current version should be pretty accurate without any unwarranted slurs:
* In regard to the debate over water fluoridation, an anti-fluoridation article in the National Review quotes a "generally informative and persuasive" Quackwatch article,"Fluoridation: Don't Let the Poisonmongers Scare You!" Article adapted from The Health Robbers: A Close Look at Quackery in America, Bob Sprague, Mary Bernhardt, Stephen Barrett, M.D. but criticizes its reference to Hitler's "big lie" as "perhaps not the best way to win an argument, especially with serious-minded people." Indeed, there are anti-anti-fluoridationist whacks at QuackWatch.org. This site contains an article -- generally informative and persuasive -- that says, "The anti-fluoridationists' basic technique is the big lie. Made infamous by Hitler, it is simple to use, yet surprisingly effective." This is perhaps not the best way to win an argument, especially with serious-minded people.
-- Fyslee / talk 17:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That works for me. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good. I fully agree with you that the context needs to be included (in the ref) to make their point understandable. Even though I don't agree with their point and think it's a cheap shot, it is a criticism we can use here. There are good refs, sources, and wikilinks for any readers who want to investigate the matter. -- Fyslee / talk 17:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "discovered he had tried to slant the text into a direct slur against the three authors" - I resent this, Fyslee. I was not trying to slant or slur. I was merely spelling it out. By comparing the anti-fluors' technique to Hitler's technique, Quackwatch is comparing the anti-fluors to Hitler. If anyone was taking a cheap shot here, it is Quackwatch for making such a comparison. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My apologies. I have reworded it so as to avoid offensive wording. -- Fyslee / talk 01:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it reads better also.  I had trouble getting past the Hitler comment that I left the article.  --CrohnieGalTalk 22:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit conflict 

message: Almost halfway down this page is an interesting rebuttal to Barrett's Quackwatch essay on Weston Price and holistic dentistry. I don't know if there is anything usable in here for our article, so please take a look and let's discuss. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not see a reason not to include a short sentence about it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This seems to say that Barrett's Quackwatch article on Weston Price is filled with contradictions, false statements and moralistic overtones. That's what I get out of it anyhow. How should we word this? -- Levine2112 discuss 03:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ask one of the editors on your opposing POV to to do it... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an article in Wikipedia about his foundation in case someone didn't know.  It can be found here; .  I am still trying to finish reading the story at the above link so I can't comment or help, at least not yet. --CrohnieGalTalk 13:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well if anyone wants to take a first stab out at it... go for it. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weston Price 

message: How does the citation (Medical Sharks) at the end of this line support this statement?  -- Anthon01 (talk) 12:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't seem to. I am sure that there are better sources out there (if the criticism which follows isn't support enough). -- Levine2112 discuss 18:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, that cite alone isn't enough, but there are abundant refs in the article to justify the statement. The lead doesn't really have to have refs if it is done properly, since everything in the lead must be based on article content, and that content must be backed up by references. If there aren't any refs in the article to back up the statement, then it should be easy to find them, but I think we have them already. The statement needs to be there because it is a significant part of mentioning that Quackwatch is criticized, and that it is! -- Fyslee / talk 06:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure but the link is inaccurate. The link needs to be replaced or removed. --Anthon01 (talk) 10:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about Citation in Introduction 

message: "Another trivial criticism that some editors want to include in the article unsourced or poorly sourced.  WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV all apply here." --Ronz (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion... It is not trivial. It is not a criticism. It has been in the article unopposed for a long time. It is neither unsourced nor poorly sourced and therefore OR, V, and RS don't apply. I don't know what your NPOV issue is with this material and I am kindly requesting that you explain your rationale. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no comment about the sourcing at this time. However, in my opinion, the statement isn't trivial. For many readers peer-reviewed makes all the difference in the weight they assess to a sources POV. If Quackwatch was a peer-reviewed website, many would insist, and rightly so, that it be prominently placed in the text. Anthon01 (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "If Quackwatch was a peer-reviewed website, many would insist, and rightly so, that it be prominently placed in the text." I agree, but it's irrelevant.  There are an infinite number of facts about Quackwatch, that if true, would unquestionably need to be placed prominently in the article.  That does not mean that it's worth noting them when they are not true. --Ronz (talk) 22:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The point here is that QW itself notes that its articles are not peer reviewed but rather only subject to some kind of review upon an ambiguous request. Again it would be one thing if we were saying that QW is not a cookbook since nowhere on the QW site does it state this. But int he case of not being peer reviewed, QW does find this fact notable enough to list on their all-too-important Mission Statement page! -- Levine2112 discuss 18:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another trivial criticism

message: If this doesn't stop by the time I get home, I'm going to protect the article and start issuing 24 hour blocks. Discuss changes here. Adam Cuerden talk 18:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Adam, sorry that I reverted, but I didn't see this message from you until after I made the edit. It looks as though my reversion was made concurrent to your message here. That being said, I liked your last version and have reverted Ronz's back to that version. You have made an excellent point about "viewpoints" and I think it reads well now. I am satisfied. I am confused by Ronz assertion that this somehow fails to meet NPOV. Ronz, please explain. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry about it. I said "by when I get home" to make sure everyone had a chance to read this and calm down. PP is probably the way to go. Adam Cuerden talk 22:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I think we need a much longer protection, and have requested it.  This dispute is just another duplicate of the many, many, many we have had here, some of which have lasted for months because of outright refusal to follow WP:TALK and WP:CON. --Ronz (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war 

message: :Quackwatch's Mission Statement says that the articles are only "reviewed" upon some ambiguous request. This is precisely antithetical to the formal scientific peer review process; hence Quackwatch articles are not peer reviewed; hence this is proven, QED. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for providing a source! That doesn't meet WP:PROVEIT, since it doesn't contain "formal scientific peer review" or anything similar. --Ronz (talk) 22:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, just read peer review to learn all you need to know about peer review. It is a meticulous process which requires a heck of a lot more than just a review upon an ambiguous request. In my mind, WP:PROVEIT has been met. In your mind, it has not. Let's leave it at that. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Source precisely antithetical

message: This is the version currently protected, and the one that has been favored by one side of this edit war.
Quackwatch engages the services of 150+ scientific and technical advisors. As of 2003, 67 medical advisors, 12 dental advisors, 13 mental health advisors, 16 nutrition and food science advisors, 3 podiatry advisors, 8 veterinary advisors, and 33 "other scientific and technical advisors" were listed. Quackwatch.org's articles are not subjected to formal scientific peer review, but rather reviewed by the medical advisory board upon request.
*I have underlined the material not present in version 0b. They do not otherwise differ. —Random832 19:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Version 0a

message: I simply do not see why we should include bits about formal scientific peer review found in Version 0a and I'm finding it very hard to extend good faith to those arguing for such a version. It seems to me that the inclusion of such wording is simply there to make a point that QW isn't peer-reviewed even though it often points out how little peer-review evidence there is for the quackery it debunks and exposes. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am simply trying to keep relevant and verifiable information in this article. I am certainly not trying to make the point which you have outlined, but now that you mention it, it is interesting. However, I don't see how the manner in which this statement is currently included even insinuates such a point. I would suggest that you try harder to assume good faith and be careful when leveling such an accusation as WP:POINT in an already contentious environment. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please use some other term than "verifiable", since it's clearly not per WP:PROVEIT. --Ronz (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am more suspicious than ever now. It is very hard to assume good faith when the would-be-editors throw around hearsay accusations as below for justification for their designs on this article. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please tell me which statement you would like me to back with a source and I will try my best to provide you with one. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You've already read the request, but just haven't supplied the source that meets the criteria: Talk:Quackwatch#"No peer review" unverifiable?. --Ronz (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ...in your opinion. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say it's general consensus that you have failed to provide an adequate source at this point. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What argument is there for version 0a?

message: I noticed the disagreement over noting that this website isn't peer reviewed, and just want to say that in cases like this it's best to go with the sources. Do any of them mention the fact that Quackwatch is not peer reviewed? (Also I have to say, assuming that anyone is out to "smear" the site demonstrates a lack of good faith.)
I realize that those who want to point that out are simply trying to assure that Wikipedia isn't coming off as supporting the site for several valid reasons. However we're supposed to be bound by information which can be somehow cited and also verified. In short if it looks like this:
;Quackwatch:...is not a peer reviewed resource.Ideally a link to the source which says so.
Then it's ok to mention. If it looks like this though:
;Quackwatch:...is not a peer reviewed resource.
It should not be included. Anynobody 04:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anynobody, you have an excellent point but who could possibly be a more reliable source on whether or not Quackwatch is a peer reviewed resource than Quackwatch? Whig (talk) 04:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a criticism, and thus needs to be said in so many words, not synthesised. Adam Cuerden talk 12:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll clarify: it's a criticism - your group has said so much above, where you talked about the need to identify Harrison as a critic saying that. It is thus inappropriate to include it in the section on mission and scope, which is a neutral setting out of facts. If it is to be included in mission and scope, you need to do much better than a random webpage, you'll need to find some notable description of Quackwatch that feels this is key information about it. If you want it to be included as criticism, the bar is lower - perhaps not as low as Harrison - but it still can't go where it is. Adam Cuerden talk 16:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think it requires synthesis to state a fact that is clearly given by the source itself. We are allowed to rephrase, of course, if it does not require taking two or more sources and combining them. Whig (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is a neutral rephrasing, why is the only source that can be found that uses it a highly critical one? Put it in criticism, if it's agreed the source will hold up to the standards. Not here. Adam Cuerden talk 17:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you're talking about the same source. The argument is that QW itself says it. We are talking about rephrasing QW's own mission page statement. Anthon01 (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Personally,  I just used the phrasing which Anynobody was using for his example. I don't think it is a criticism so much as a simple fact, but I can see there are a diversity of opinions. Whig (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  Do you (Adam) see "is not a peer reviewed resource" as criticism.  Anthon01 (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only context we have for sources discussing QW not being a "peer reviewed source" are criticisms. Therefore, for us to include anything like this in a neutral description of the site is obvious violation of neutrality. If you want to contextualize how quacks who are criticized by QW like to complain that QW is "not peer reviewed", that makes sense. But stating this as a plain fact is misleading given the sources we have on the subject. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: [Edit conflict]As it's being suggested to be included there, particularly in some of Levine's phrasings, yes, I do think it's intended as a criticism. As to the claims of it being merely a rephrasing of Quackwatch, my response is: If it was a neutral rephrasing (which is doubtful, as it adds information not found in the original), I think we should be able to find neutral or positive sources that mention it. If it's a notable criticism, then we ought to be able to find better-quality or multiple negative sources that mention it. So, if you'll forgive the slightly vulgar phrase, "put up or shut up". Show that others find it important to mention that it's not peer-reviewed, and show that this description is used in a neutral manner. Otherwise, consider it for the criticism section, if you can show that multiple critics bring it up as a criticism. Adam Cuerden talk 18:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was under the impression that critical items were being integrated into the body of the whole article. As per Jossi, "the criticism section will be better merged into the rest of the article, rather than in a separate section."  Anthon01 (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems to me that if we agree it is accurate and verified by the original source then the question of specific phrasing is not a policy matter, but should be determined by the consensus of editors here. Whig (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah and Barrett says his review is better than peer-review, because if he were wrong he'd be getting sued over all the stuff he has said. Anthon01 (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: TheDoctorIsIn, you can reframe any debate dichotomously, but that's not a strong respons. You say "Quackwatch is peer-reviewed or not peer-reviewed." I might say, "A government is dictatorial or not dictatorial." Again, this may be true, but irrelevant. In response to your personal beliefs: because Quackwatch never claims to be peer-reviewed, and because its name is so colloquial, it is hardly their fault that you erroneously believed their articles to be peer-reviewed. Since that's original research, let's refocus on the article at hand: Does this article presently give you the impression that Quackwatch is some sort of refereed journal? Antelan talk 01:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  A government can be dictatorial, democratic, monarchal, theocratic, oligarchical and much more. . . a scientific paper can only be peer-review or not. Levine212 and AnthonO1 and others have a point. . . given the 150 medical advisor statement. . . given all of the articles on all of the subjects. . . given many of the articles cite peer-reviewed journals. . . given Quackwatch aims to give midical advice to the hoi polloi. . . yes the article would give me the impression Quackwatch is refereed. . . but the key sentence makes it clear. . . "no peer-review". Keep the sentence and there's no confusion. . . lose it and the article gives the impression Quackwatch is. TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is rather simple - dichotomy is in the eye of the beholder. A document can be peer-reviewed or not. If it is not peer-reviewed, it can be independently edited or not. And so on. You can frame the gov't discussion the same way: A government is a dictatorship or not. If not, it can be representative or not. And so on. My point is that you choose how you want to frame things, and the world is not so simple as "peer reviewed" or "not peer reviewed". The article does not portray Quackwatch of being peer reviewed, but by reading the article you do get the sense that the opinions espoused by Quackwatch are well-respected. This is because the sources report that important groups respect Quackwatch's opinions, while fringe groups tend to take issue with them. Antelan talk 01:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think an article request for comments would be helpful? Whig (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Their mission statement on their website  states: "Members of our medical advisory board review articles upon request." Whig (talk) 02:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. I think everyone has been operating under a misguided interpretation of that sentence from the Quackwatch website, but I think you've got it right. Antelan talk 05:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I took that statement to mean what everyone else has, that the review board reviews when Barrett request it. I also confirmed it with Barrett. --Anthon01 (talk) 02:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Additionally, the statement is "Members of our medical advisory board review articles upon request." not health claims or dubious techniques or something else to that effect. Anthon01 (talk) 04:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it the mission of Quackwatch to write reviews of articles published elsewhere? —Whig (talk) 04:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Because here is where the thread diverged. A post was added 02:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems arbitrary and confusing to me. —Whig (talk) 05:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry to confuse you, and assure you it isn't meant to be taken as arbitrary since at least one other thread here appears to have similar issues: Talk:Quackwatch#The "Peer Review" or lack thereof cite. Anynobody 06:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think so. The large majority of editors have been absent from this discussion over the weekend. We need to wait a bit longer. --Anthon01 (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What do the sources say?

message: WP:DNFTT only goes so far.  I think an RFC/U is in order.  Other thoughts? --Ronz (talk) 02:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, go for it. Anything to break out of cyclic arguments. Adam Cuerden talk 16:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is more than one user being disruptive here. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Off the top of my head. . . I can think of three editors in particular. :-) TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So can I, but I think there's only one editor in common between our respective lists.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 04:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Continued disruption of talk page

message: Do we really need six threads which are all virtually identical? Adam Cuerden talk 15:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ! 

message: #Is Quackwatch peer reviewed?
#:No, Quackwatch is not peer reviewed.  Quackwatch states that, "Members of our medical advisory board review articles upon request." 
#:--Ronz (talk) 18:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FAQ #0.1

message: We go with #Version 0b in the lead. If people want to discuss criticisms of QW's editorial policy in the context of criticism, we can do so, but that's a separate issue. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The way it reads now is much more informative. If you are unhappy with it, let's work out a compromise first which we can all agree not to change. Perhaps you can write how you believe the lack of peer review should read in the criticism section. That may be a healthy new step. -- Levine2112 discuss 16:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, who has criticized it for not being peer-reviewed? We need that to be able to go forward with putting that in the criticism section. You've claimed there have been cases of this and even lawsuits; so why not find some of those and come back with actual sources.—Random832 17:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Criticism? The way it reads now clearly reflects the status of QW articles. It is not a criticism, just a statement of fact. Perhaps you can help me understand why, from your POV, you believe it is criticism? --Anthon01 (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just the fact that only people who are opposed to QW in general bother to mention "not peer-reviewed". But, regardless of any POV: if there is no difference between what is on their mission statement and "not peer-reviewed", why are you insisting on that wording instead of what is actually present in their mission statement? On the other hand, if there is a difference, then using your preferred wording is original research.—Random832 21:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: In other words, if it's "just a statement of fact", why do you insist on wording it in a negative (I mean "negative" in the simple literal meaning, as your preferred wording is a phrase involving the word "not" attached to something generally seen as positive) way? You have not provided any source indicating that _anyone_ thinks that someone could reasonably think it might be peer-reviewed. —Random832 21:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because this is the way 'peer-review' is commonly worded. It either is or isn't' peer-review'. A reader will easily understand what that means. --Anthon01 (talk) 00:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Support: All the information in this Version 0b has been verified, while Version 0a has not, which is one of the primary disputes currently under discussion.  (See Talk:Quackwatch#"No peer review" unverifiable?) --Ronz (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Disagree: I still think our original understanding of the mission statement is correct, contra the notion that their mission is to review external papers upon request. We may want to survey that question itself. —Whig (talk) 17:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree with Whig. Version 0a has been completely verified. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. --Anthon01 (talk) 20:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personal verification of something is not enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. It needs to have reliable sources, not just original research, to be included. Antelan talk 00:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know that. I just mentioned it. Anthon01 (talk) 00:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Disagree: Just to be clear. It looks like 3 yeas and 3 neas so far. --Anthon01 (talk) 00:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a WP:VOTE.  I see 3 4 good arguments in support, nothing against.  Please provide rationale rather than just voting. --Ronz (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Support.  Version 0a is WP:OR, as no one has claimed it is peer reviewed, and no RS has stated it isn't.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Support. No weasel, just right. The other version is a mix of OR and SYNTH that doesn't belong. Antelan talk 00:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Support. One has better sprinkles and less sour cream Shot info (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Support. Without other sources, 0a is OR being used by editors critical of Quackwatch as a means of sneaking editorial denigration into the article, an obvious violation of NPOV. Facts are not mere facts. Propaganda is also facts. It is the setting and the way it is used that color those "facts". It is only critics/scientific illiterates would even consider associating the words "peer-reviewed", either positively ("is" peer-reviewed) or negatively (is "not" peer-reviewed) with Quackwatch. It is a moot point in the real, rational, world. What is stated at Quackwatch is sufficient. Let's just stick with it. -- Fyslee / talk 06:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Are the scientific and technical advisers mentioned is some other WP:RS such as the Time article? It doesn't appear to be. So why include that when all we have to support it is Quackwatch itself? I'd say because it is obviously notable. I would also say the same for Quackwatch's lack of peer review. It is obviously notable. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I would then go a step further with your proposal and add on something to the effect of: Though Quackwatch articles are not formally peer reviewed, Quackwatch says that they are reviewed by their advisory board upon request. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: In house articles (mostly Barrett written exposes) are reviewed. --Anthon01 (talk) 04:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How do you prove this? —Whig (talk) 05:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seems evident on its face. Most of the articles are written by Barrett. Barrett doesn't write exposes on articles, rather he writes articles on specific subjects related to Alt Med. --Anthon01 (talk) 05:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  Are there instances of Barrett's articles which were reviewed by the Quackwatch medical advisory board? —Whig (talk) 05:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes but he doesn't specify that on his website. Nothing verifiable expect his declaration. --Anthon01 (talk) 05:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  How can you say Yes, though? Is there some evidence you can cite? Some way of showing what Quackwatch actually does so that this part of the mission statement can be understood in only one possible way? —Whig (talk) 05:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  On the other hand is there any evidence Quackwatch has ever reviewed an external article? —Whig (talk) 05:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm asking for verification. Not original research. —Whig (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We verify by finding sources, so I'm agreeing with Anthon01's, "Nothing verifiable expect his declaration", though I don't agree to attributing it to Barrett rather than Quackwatch. --Ronz (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  While it's interesting to speculate, without starting with a reliable source, this is all speculation and OR and is a misuse of this talk page. Please take it to private user space. When you find a reliable source that discusses this matter, then bring it back here. -- Fyslee / talk 07:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Here's a resolution

message: Quackwatch says that it engages the services of 150+ scientific and technical advisors. As of 2003, 67 medical advisors, 12 dental advisors, 13 mental health advisors, 16 nutrition and food science advisors, 3 podiatry advisors, 8 veterinary advisors, and 33 "other scientific and technical advisors" were listed.
I apologize if this seems brusque, but to avoid confusion I'm going to be concise. The only mentions of article review occur in two places, the somewhat confusing statement on the Quackwatch mission page and the less than reliable rebuttals of "quacks". The latter obviously doesn't meet reliability standards and is in fact a self published source meaning it also fails verifiability.  Leaving the statement on Quackwatch's mission page, which if you look at it in context, is not as significant as some believe it to be and I'll explain. The context I mean is what it's listed under,
;Service Providers:
* Members of our medical advisory board review articles upon request.Also listed with the statement in question is information like,
* Our web-page design was developed by Marty Mapes of Boulder Information Services.
* Dr. Barrett's son Daniel Barrett, a software engineer, provides general technical support.
* Our Internet Service Provider is 10types, which provides outstanding equipment, service, and technical support.
* Programming of the WebGlimpse search engine is maintained by Adam Baratz.
* OnlyMyEmail provides SPAM protection.
* We also use the excellent services of SEVENtwentyfour, Inc., whose LinkWalker spider reports broken hyperlinks once a week.
None of these bolded points is mentioned in our article, and I don't see a reason to include the review comment because it's not mentioned in actual reliable sources like the ref'd Time article. If there are reliable sources out there which make an issue about the lack/process/definition of article reviews on Quackwatch then the subject would be something to write about. Interpreting their processes without citing a source is original research and thus not to be done. If mention of peer review absolutly must be made, then I suggest we do it by pointing out that one of Quackwatch's article's was published in a peer reviewed publication, the Journal of the American Medical Association by adding a statement like:
Quackwatch articles have been cited in the press, and one appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association.The Man Who Loves To Bust Quacks Time magazine Sunday, Apr. 22, 2001 By LEON JAROFF  Anynobody 07:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are the scientific and technical advisers mentioned is some other WP:RS such as the Time article? It doesn't appear to be. So why include that when all we have to support it is Quackwatch itself? I'd say because it is obviously notable. I would also say the same for Quackwatch's lack of peer review. It is obviously notable. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I would then go a step further with your proposal and add on something to the effect of: Though Quackwatch articles are not formally peer reviewed, Quackwatch says that they are reviewed by their advisory board upon request. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  0c with rationale 

message: Quackwatch states on their website, "Members of our medical advisory board review articles upon request." Quackwatch is a reliable source for the purpose of quoting or accurately rephrasing this statement, and no synthesis is required to do so. The question seems to revolve over what this statement actually means. I apologize for repeating this question again, but does Quackwatch review external articles upon request? —Whig (talk) 04:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In house articles (mostly Barrett written exposes) are reviewed. --Anthon01 (talk) 04:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How do you prove this? —Whig (talk) 05:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seems evident on its face. Most of the articles are written by Barrett. Barrett doesn't write exposes on articles, rather he writes articles on specific subjects related to Alt Med. --Anthon01 (talk) 05:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  Are there instances of Barrett's articles which were reviewed by the Quackwatch medical advisory board? —Whig (talk) 05:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes but he doesn't specify that on his website. Nothing verifiable expect his declaration. --Anthon01 (talk) 05:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  How can you say Yes, though? Is there some evidence you can cite? Some way of showing what Quackwatch actually does so that this part of the mission statement can be understood in only one possible way? —Whig (talk) 05:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  On the other hand is there any evidence Quackwatch has ever reviewed an external article? —Whig (talk) 05:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm asking for verification. Not original research. —Whig (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We verify by finding sources, so I'm agreeing with Anthon01's, "Nothing verifiable expect his declaration", though I don't agree to attributing it to Barrett rather than Quackwatch. --Ronz (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  While it's interesting to speculate, without starting with a reliable source, this is all speculation and OR and is a misuse of this talk page. Please take it to private user space. When you find a reliable source that discusses this matter, then bring it back here. -- Fyslee / talk 07:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What does Quackwatch mean?

message: Does Quackwatch review its own articles upon request or do they accept external articles for review?
:Attempting to figure out and post what we think Quackwatch means is original research. Anynobody 02:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is this? It seems obvious to most of us what Quackwatch means. Just because one person claims not to understand does not make it original research. —Whig (talk) 02:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Above, Anthon01 stated, "I also confirmed it with Barrett" regarding the meaning of this statement. If he could produce a copy of that email, it would be useful. Antelan talk 03:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just to be clear, Antelan: If Anthon01 or somebody produces an email from Quackwatch/Barrett which states that Quackwatch articles are not peer reviewed then you would at least agree that saying so in the article would not cause a WP:OR violation? -- Levine2112 discuss 03:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read more carefully, you'll see that this is not a "yes" or "no" question, so that wouldn't make any sense. The two possible answers are "Quackwatch reviews its own articles by request," or "Quackwatch reviews articles from outside sources by request." Antelan talk 19:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you assume it to be an WP:OR issue because of the source being personal communication? Anthon01 (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think that the OR guidelines would take issue with that, but I haven't run into this issue before. It's just a clarification of what's already said on the website, and the only person who can really clear that up is Barrett. So, again, can you provide me/us with a copy of that communication? Thanks, Antelan talk 20:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Will post in new section below. Anthon01 (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Please see FAQ #1. —Whig (talk) 07:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I am not sure that I agree. However, given the new source, perhaps this is irrelevant now. -- Levine2112 discuss 07:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: What does Quackwatch mean? 

message: Some basic advice for resolving disputes:
* Remain polite per WP:Civility.
* Solicit feedback and ask questions.
* Keep the discussion focused. Concentrate on a small set of related matters and resolve them to the satisfaction of all parties.
* Focus on the subject rather than on the personalities of the editors.
* Assume good faith of other editors.
--Ronz (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Getting unstuck

message: If not, we're getting close to all-out edit-warring again.  Anyone else for protection? --Ronz (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently we seem to have only one dissenter (ScienceApologist) for the peer review information in general. If he/she agrees to leave it in while we discuss his/her concerns, I don't think there will be much reason to edit war. The only issue I have currently is the banner which Ronz placed. I just want him to spell out his rationale. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I vote for waiting a little while, like a day :-) and see what we can get. I think some of us are reacting angrily to perceived attack; which makes some sense in the context, as we can surmise that QW has enemies, and quacks have enemies, so there is a real battle and we happen to be at one spot on one front. Meanwhile, thanks to Arthur Rubin's dilligence, I see I've made two reverts today. So I'll try to hold off. But I beg folks not to fight with knives, when we all want the article to be fair (even if it can't be perfect). It's OK to acknowledge dissent, even when misled or misinformed or kneejerk or ignorant or psychotic :-) But please try to act with respect for consensus. Pete St.John (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If his/her intent is to edit war then, yes. It is a blockable offense. I would also caution ScienceApologist to follow the decisions of his/her ArbCom which warns him/her about this kind of behavior. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I only made two edits in total to the article, I'm unclear as to what all this complaining is about. Certainly it is impossible for me to have violated WP:3RR. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not accusing you of violating 3RR, I'm checking that adding material can be covered by the policy, as well as literal reverts. So in my view todate: yes, you can in principle be blocked by 3RR if you continue with these types of edits; no, I'm not asking for that now; and yes, I consider your pugnaciousness to be misguided and disruptive. It is irrelevant that the quoted review is positive: the point is not about a consensus of reviewing, but the existence of a peer-review issue, and the ciation itself is factual, and it's germane, and all this has been discussed, so we have some degree of consenus. It by no means condemns QW of anything. We are not trying to condemn QW of anything. Answering a question addressed by one's opponent is not the same as conceding defeat. Pete St.John (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You haven't established that a "peer-review issue" even exists except on this talkpage which is not a verifiable source that we can use to establish the existence of any issue. I also consider your comment on my "pugnaciousness" to be a personal attack and I will ask that you remove it. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I read the entire page of discussion. I am flabbergasted that SA refuses to recognize consensus. I've been lurking for awhile & I felt know was as good a time as any to delurk. MaxPont (talk) 06:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: No you've made three against consensus without discussion on the talk page --Anthon01 (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree. I advocate patience as well. Speaking of which, does any feel that the responses given here are sufficient? I would appreciate some more input. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Time for article protection again?

message: I have a question about "website review." Does it mean a review of websites or a review published on a website? --Anthon01 (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The former. Do you think we should spell it out? Thoughts? Suggestions? -- Levine2112 discuss 22:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about we drop "website"? Would that make it more clear? ...in a review published in... -- Levine2112 discuss 22:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We could do that. The journal says it was published in the "Information Access" department of the journal. I had already changed posted to publish. --Anthon01 (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  it seems to have been both. We cite it as a review of a website. Incidentally, it's 8 years old (dated 1999); although the organization around QW is a good deal older, but the web has changed alot in 8 years. Pete St.John (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I mentioned it because a ... website review posted ... could sounds less 'credible' then ... a review published in ... --Anthon01 (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  How about in a review of the Quackwatch website published in... --Anthon01 (talk) 23:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  Actually Levine's suggestion implies that it is a review of the Quackwatch website. Perhaps that's good enough as it is more concise? --Anthon01 (talk) 23:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am in favor of being concise, provided that we are not compromising clarity (I don't think we would be here). -- Levine2112 discuss 23:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds good to me. --Anthon01 (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I went ahead and made the edit. --Anthon01 (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Website Review 

message: Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa, PharmD, in a website review posted in the The Consultant Pharmacist, gave QuackWatch a positive review for two articles on the site that discussed "natural remedies" available at pharmacies. Quackwatch reported that while pharmacists were unaware of the efficacy of such alternative medicines, they continued stocking them because the profit margins for such remedies were larger than conventional drugs. Of criticisms of Quackwatch, Nguyen-Khoa writes, "It appears that Quackwatch.com uses the emotional reaction of its critics to substantiate its position." Nguyen-Khoa also expressed some personal concern that most of the articles on the site were written by Stephen Barret noting as well that steps were being taken to rectify the problem. Nguyen-Khoa recommended that a mirror "academic counterpoint" and a more rigorous review process be put in place to improve the website as a resource. Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa, PharmD, "Quackwatch.com", The Consultant Pharmacist, July 1999. available online
;Comments
This version summarizes the main points of the review and contextualizes the criticisms. As such, it is able to present the reader with a fair summary of the review without pandering or cherry-picking quotes to push a point-of-view. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Version 1

message: "Despite its importance as the ultimate gatekeeper of scientific publication and funding, peer review is known to engender bias, incompetence, excessive expense, ineffectiveness, and corruption. A surfeit of publications has documented the deficiencies of this system." David Kaplan, How to Fix Peer Review, Science Advisory Board As I said yesterday, maybe the whole issue of peer review is a non-starter because of its vagueness and complexity of function/role and its obvious flaws. It clearly cuts both ways in the QW case. Peter morrell 07:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe this would be better taken to Talk:Peer review. —Whig (talk) 07:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see us arguing over whether peer review is a good thing in all cases or discussing its limitations. These may be good points in an article about peer review or in an article where its limitations are relevant. Can you say how you think the limitations of peer review are relevant to an article on Quackwatch? —Whig (talk) 10:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Peter M, a fallacy that I'm trying to resist, in this article, is that everything is either Good or Bad. A claw hammer is great for driving nails into wood; it's tragic if it's used to bash-in baby skulls. Formal Peer Review serves purposes and has flaws, like any tool. I certainly support peer-review for scientific publications and I have participated in the process from both sides (as a reviewed author, and as an anonymous reviewer chosen by an editor). That does not mean QW "is deficient because it is not peer-reviewed". I gave the example of Scientific American, which is not a peer-reviewed publication, but solicits original expository contributions from the authors of previously peer-reviewed papers. Ngyuen suggested (8 years ago) that QW would be improved if it instituted peer-review for itself. I do not endorse, or deny, that opinion; I haven't researched it. I do consider it a legitimate critique and can be given in lists of citable examples of pros and cons among public opinion. But it is very important for everyone to understand that the Scientific Method does not claim that if something passes peer-review, then it is Absolutely True for All Time. Every human process has imperfections and scientists are expected to welcome constructive criticism. Divine processes may have no imperfections, QW is certainly not divine and does not purport to be. Neither does the Institute for Advanced Study, last I checked :-) Pete St.John (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Function

message: ScienceApologist has brought an AN/I which I have construed to be relevant to the debate(s) here. Pete St.John (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AN/I 

message: I think this should have been posted here when the notice was first made: Wikipedia:RSN#Quackwatch --Ronz (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The independent reviewer there noted what many on this page have been saying - secondary sources, such as Quackwatch, would not be expected to submit to peer-review. This is a strange issue about which people are up in arms. Antelan talk 19:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Quackwatch is not only acting as a secondary source. Many of its comments are not from a primary source. Anthon01 (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Commentary in secondary sources is, of course, not from the primary sources. It is perfectly in keeping with acting as a secondary source. Antelan talk 20:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard