Talk:National Council Against Health Fraud/Archive 3

message: Let's look at this one sentence/clause at a time and please point out and explain in detail how a WP:OR and/or WP:NPOV violation is being committed:
*NCAHF, Inc. corresponds with, and solicits for, new members and donations from Massachuesetts.NCAHF Membership Application
:::Verifiable fact. No opinion. Levine2112 19:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not verifiable, NCAHF "Inc" does not exist.  This is OR in making the assumption that the only page in the entire website is the sole source of this claim.  The balance of the information suggests that this is incorrect.  Shot info 22:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NCAHF Inc does exist. Just look at the reference on this statement. The organization which one would mail their membership dues to is: National Council Against Health Fraud, Inc. It says this right on the page. How is this OR? I'm sure they are offically National Council Against Health Fraud, Inc., but for brevity they just call themselves NCAHF. They used the Inc. since 1977 when they first filed for a business licence in CA, according to that business portal search. Would this sentence be fine to you if we just dropped the "Inc."? Please clarify. Levine2112 23:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So if they exist, which state are they incorporated in?  We know that they aren't in two.  So is that notable?  Or is it OR to say "They are in MA, but aren't a corporation in MA"?  Shot info 23:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According tro that tax record (which I will search for in this talk page's archive) they are still filing in CA. Levine2112 23:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the link to the 2004 tax filing which shows them operating out of MA but still filing in CA.  Levine2112 23:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Verifiable fact. No opinion. Levine2112 19:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree Shot info 22:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Verifiable fact. No opinion. Levine2112 19:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this is verifiable, but it is also verifiable that it may not be registered in 48 other states.  So this is not notable.  It is OR to include point 1 and point 3.  Shot info 22:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But Mass. is where their office is. Hence, "not natively registered". However, I am unsure whether this is notable. Tons of corporations aren't natively incorporated. It is possible that while their office is in Mass., they are still (or wish to be still) incorporated in California. There's no problem with doing that. That's completely legal, unless nonprofits have different rules. Levine2112 23:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, it is not notable and have been laboring this point.  Shot info 23:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Piece by piece

message: This policy states we may not use primary sources for potentially (thank you, Ilena) defamatory information if there no reliable secondary sources for the information.  If it applies to groups and associations, as noted in a recent Arbcom case, this would require that the incorporation status section be removed.  This is still a close matter.  I don't see OR or NPOV violations, but the WP:BLP issue may require removal.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 14:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are welcome, Arthur. The State is the ultimate source of the legality or non legality of a corporation. Frankly, with all due respect, all of this blah blah about a verifiable fact about a suspended operation is a bit pathetic. Thank you. Ilena 15:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is pretty basic.  We are discussing corporate status, legally a fictional being, a creature of state, *not* a living person. Hence not a Biography of a Living Person, no BLP.--I'clast 19:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure Wiki's definition of a "living person" is not the same as U.S.C.'s definition of a "legal person"... though I appreciate the out-of-the-box thinking, Jance. But even for argument's sake, Arthur, if were to assume that NCAHF is a "living person", the CA state portal is an extremely reliable secondary source... you must admit. I'm sure their database is kept accurate to a least the week, let alone the 3 going on 4 years it has been since NCAHF license was suspended. Ilena, can you please post the link to that tax record again (or I can search this talk page's archive for it.)? Levine2112 23:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Neverrmind, Ilena. I found the link to that 2004 tax record which shows that they were still filing in CA despite being located in MA.  Levine2112 23:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:BLP]] 

message: Rather than arguing lets develop the consensus:
# Deletion
# Prune down to just CA status
# Keep 
# Add or increase
So far my reading of the above as Ronz with 1, myself wavering between 1 & 2, Arthur at 2, Levine between 2 and 3, I'cast at 3 and Ilena at 4.  Am I correct with my readings?  Shot info 22:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I can express an opinion... I "vote" 2.  I do not think it would be appropriate to leave the MA statement in there, without more information.  That is improper innuendo.  Also, if you keep #2, it might be a good idea to check the IRS, too.Jance 23:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is pretty accurate in terms of my feelings. While their lack of incorporation status in their home state of Mass. is verifiable, I am not convinced that this is notable. Their CA status however is entirely notable. Since it has been suspended since 2003, it is pretty obvious that this isn't just a clerical error. I know the state gov't is full of red tape, but I'm sure whatever the issue is, NCAHF could have fixed their business license status in 3 going on 4 years. Levine2112 23:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to be presumptuous, but can I point out that it appears we have a general consensus approaching 2?  It would appear that Levine, Jance, Arthur (Arthur, I don’t want to speak for your though) appear to clearly support this position and I am willing to support it (as I agree that it is notable albeit trivial but other articles have lots of trivia as well).   This leaves Ronz, I’clast and Illena to respond.  Shot info 23:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That being said, it might be nice to state where they are located... Peabody, Massachusetts... and leave out the "not natively incorporated" bit until someone explains why that is notable. Levine2112 00:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm cool with 2. Ilena 01:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow! we are close to a consensus... if not there already. Lose the Mass. bit and we are there. Sound good? Levine2112 01:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yep.Jance 01:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My position has not changed - I think it should be deleted (why is it back yet again?).  I'm going to seek a 3rd party perspective, since I still see the original research as being a problem.  However, if Arthur agrees as we're assuming, then I won't remove it because of issues of original research or consensus on those issues.  The NPOV issues still exist, but those should be discussed further before taking action. --Ronz 02:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude! We have a consensus here. There was give and take. I changed my mind of a few things. Even Ilena has been generous enough to give a little. There is no Original Research here... this is straight up verifiable facts. And this has been completely NPOVified now. Let's roll with this positive surge of cooperative spirit and let's move on. Again, good work! Levine2112 02:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I've explained my position. --Ronz 02:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry to be late; I concur with 2. Well done, Shot Info.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 03:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Jance 03:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sweet! Levine2112 03:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus?

message: There is still no proof that NCAHF is a legal operation ... "US based" is distraction ... non profits are based out of and licensed by individual states. There appears to be no proof of any current legal license for NCAHF, therefore, it may well not be a legal "private non profit" as claimed in their advertising. Ilena 18:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But there is no resource which actually states that they are operating illegally. An interpretation of the facts does seem to suggest that, but it we must interpret then we get into the WP:OR realm... Original Research. It we had a reliable source which specifically states that NCAHF is operated illegally, then we could say just that. If we had a reliable source that said it thought that NCAHF is operating illegally, then we can say that the source makes that claim. So unfortunately, even if in your heart of hearts you know that they are operating illegally, you can't post it on Wikipedia without a good reliable source stating so.  Levine2112 18:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand what you are saying Levine ... yet that isn't how it works. Any legal entity must prove their legality ... not someone has to prove their illegality. One can't prove a negative as I'm sure you know. Non profits are not "US based" ... they are based out of a State where they are supposed to be licensed. So ... even though they claim to be "US based" ... there is no proof that they are legal. If they are legal, and have a state license, it could be proven with one click at the appropriate state database. Viva la maccabees. Ilena 18:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I might be wrong about this, but I would assume that if we are going to state that something is illegal without a reliable source saying so, then we better be 100% sure of it. I'm going with the "innocent until proven guilty" philosophy here. Also, I would think that any company (legtal or not) which has its home office in the United States can call themselves "US based". But I may be wrong, if you are saying that there is some sort of a special provision for non-profits. Levine2112 18:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To say "illegal" would definitely be OR at this point w/o those WP:V/RS sources. However, the current half sentence form is poor, uninformative encyclopedia writing based on badly mangled interpretations of the rules.--I'clast 19:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggested rewrites? Levine2112 19:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I'm not suggesting saying that is is written that it is  "illegal." I would clarify however, that a legal entity needs and is able to prove itself so in a heartbeat. Maybe something like: NCAHF's corporate status in California was suspended in May, 2003. [3] No current state corporate status has been evidenced. Ilena 20:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And the problem with this second sentence is that it is unencyclopedic, proving a negative?  Have you tried the other 48 states and not to mention all the territories?  Mind you one of my original rewrites was "Its current corporate status is unknown" which in hindsight is bleh writing...  Anyway, this comes back to the original point I have been stating all along.  We all agree (except for I'clast) that it is OR to state anything other than what we know about CA, and then we have to ask ourselves, is it now N?  We have reached a consensus though so lets let fresh eyes and evidence have a look. Shot info 05:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: US-based

message: Per the external links guidelines, the number of links on controversial topics should not be weighted to the pro or con side - yet currently we have an imbalance of critical external links, many of which also contain large amounts of advertising, again in contravention of the external link policy. I'm trimming them down to one critical link to balance the NCAHF link - we could discuss which critical link should be included, but the current number is disproportionate and contravenes the guideline. Finally, assuming Ilena is Ilena Rosenthal, if she's here to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia and/or remove potentially defamatory information about herself, those things are encouraged. If she's here to insert negative, questionably sourced information about Stephen Barrett and all his enterprises at every possible turn, then it may be worth reviewing the conflict of interest policy as well as "Wikipedia is not a soapbox". Importing personal grudges or conflicts into Wikipedia is strongly discouraged. Besides, don't worry - there's already a surplus of anti-Barrett editors here. MastCell 20:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry ... what is it that I posted that is not sourced adequately for you? Ilena 21:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The edits have long moved past the telephone conversation to the "bare facts" Inc Status discussion.--I'clast 21:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that; Ilena had asked for an example of inadequate sourcing. I'd also reiterate the above, regarding conflicts of interest, WP:NOT, and the inadvisability of importing a feud between Barrett and Ilena to Wikipedia. MastCell 22:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I tagged the Criticism section - the first two bullets both suffer from "Some critics..." and "A criticism of NCAHF is...". They need to explicitly state who is making said criticism. See WP:WEASEL for the relevant guideline. MastCell 21:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry. I do not agree that the spamlinks advertising NCAHF AND quackwatch.com should remain and my critical site be censored. I have added it back and do not feel it should be removed without serious discussion and total consensus. Ilena 21:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, please review the external links guidelines. You are not being censored. If you would prefer your personal site to be the critical link of choice, then make it so, although insisting on the inclusion of your personal, self-published site which solicits donations raises serious issues of conflict of interest. The link to NCAHF is not spam in this context; again, please see the external links guidelines, which clearly states that "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any." I'm not making this up to harrass or censor you, and please don't take it that way. These are guidelines that have been agreed upon by the Wikipedia community. MastCell 21:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  COI is not the only issue. The rules here expressly prohibit posting links to ones own website. Others may do so. That would be a different matter. So the issue isn't just about the quality of the website (which is still an issue), but the very fact that Ilena keeps posting it herself, in contravention of the rules here. If anyone else wants to dirty their hands by doing it for her, it's their choice. -- Fyslee 21:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for pointing out the ambiguity, MastCell. I have clarified the critical sources, repaired the links and removed the "Weasel Words" tag. Levine2112 21:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. MastCell 21:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have still not established here that NCAHF is a legal entity. Do you have that evidence? If it isn't supplied, then this entire article becomes highly questionable since it is stated as a fact that this is a "non profit" although there is no evidence of this legal status. The consumer laws do not state that an operation must be proven to be illegal to stop them from operating. This operation has had 3 1/2 years since suspension in California to show evidence of its legality somewhere and has failed to do so to date. Ilena 21:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Paul Lee has again removed my critical link. It is not a vanity link but important and valid criticism for a very questionable operation with no apparent evidence of legality. Paul Lee claimed it October he would provide evidence of the legality and has failed to do so. I am replacing my critical link and see no reason to have it removed by Stephen Barrett's just resigned "assistant list manager." Ilena 22:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What don't you understand above? Can't you read? You are in direct violation of Wikipedia policy. Please stop. -- Fyslee 22:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You keep claiming I "would provide evidence." I only said I'd try. I have just about as much influence with them as you do, so your conspiracy theories just don't cut it. You write to them and try to get a response. I haven't gotten much help. -- Fyslee 22:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reinstated Ilena link. I attest that I have no connection with Ilena nor her foundation apart from Wikipedia. Levine2112 23:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: No matter the quality or subject of your site, it is against policy for YOU to post it. Period. -- Fyslee 22:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, according to you, if Barrett gets a monkey to advertise his site and put up links to it, that's legal in Wikipedia ... but if he does it instead of his monkey, it's not legal? How do we know it is the monkey and not Barrett posting his own links?Ilena 22:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Short answer, yes & yes. His Boy Scout honor & certain practicalities.--I'clast 03:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, please, please review Wikipedia's guideline on external links. This is a site about Barrett/NCAHF, so a link to the NCAHF website is appropriate. If this were an article about Ilena Rosenthal, then a link to your site would be appropriate. This is not a complex distinction. Constantly re-inserting your website into this article is wrong and a conflict of interest. If your website is really appropriate as an external link, someone will add it - as I pointed out, there's no shortage of anti-Barrett editors here. MastCell 22:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the problem with excluding Ilena link for reasons that what she has on her site is not factually accurate and is designed to mislead the public... we could say (and many have said) the exact same thing about all of Quackwatch. We have a handful of verifiable, notable critics on the Quackwatch article who say that Quackwatch is not factually accurate and is precisely designed to mislead the public. Bottomline, Ilena's site falls under point 4 of WP guidelines of what should be linked to: Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews. Considering her direct legal involvement with NCAHF, her site has content which is entirely relavent. Levine2112 23:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I was referring to the about 100 articles out there with Quackwatch listed as an external link. Am I to take it that I could remove all of those links too then? For instance, would the Quackwatch link (entitled "Homeopathy: The Ultimate Fake") on Homeopathy fall under the same rule for deletion? Levine2112 01:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, sorry for the misunderstanding on my part. I get it now. I don't have a strong feeling about QW as an external link, nor the homeopathy article, but you could certainly make a case on the talk page for removing the QW link from that article based on an interpretation of WP:EL, and if consensus exists, remove it. MastCell 02:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm.  I also do not have a strong feeling about this.  That said, one cannot fault Levine's logic here. Jance 04:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words 

message: Again I have Lee and Ronz ganging up and taking off my critical opinions of Barrett and threatening to ban me from Wikipedia for critical insight into this operation. This is clear censorship. Ilena 22:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong again. Stop attacking other editors when they explain policy to you. It's because of policy violations you're getting in constant trouble here. Try to learn and you'll have more success. I'll support you then. -- Fyslee 22:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is the root of the misunderstanding: Wikipedia is not a place for you to expound your critical opinions of Barrett. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and it's bound by policies which I and others are trying to explain to you. There is no organized conspiracy to censor you here; what you're perceiving as such is the reaction of unconnected editors who are seeing Wikipedia policies violated. Your importation of your feud with Barrett to Wikipedia has been highly disruptive. In general, we try to be nice to newcomers, but you've now had the relevant policies explained a number of times. MastCell 22:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a question - I don't know the answer.  Clearly, the subject of this article is Barrett.  Therefore, an external link to his home page is appropriate.  The same is not true of any personal website, including Ilena's.  My question is this:  while an external link of the man is clearly appropriate, is it acceptable to use the same website as reference within the article?Jance 00:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely if you want to write about NCAHF's viewpoint, since he's an officer and spokesperson for the company.  Beyond that, it becomes a slippery slope.  I don't think you can go far wrong if the page you're linking to has its own references that can be checked and verified, and the page just summarizes those references or gives NCAHF's viewpoint on those references.  Still, it can get slippery when it's one of the criticism pages.  Why not just discuss the specific references you have in mind? --Ronz 00:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would it only be slippery if it is on the criticism page?  I would think it could be a slippery slope in any section.  I actually don't have a specific example.  It was a general question.  Jance 01:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is entirely too much emphasis on Barrett here, Baratz is still Pres. Most of the signed papers at NCAHF seem to be authored by Wm Jarvis in California.  Historically I get the impression that W Jarvis ("retired" Pres?, CA nexus), J Renner (dec'd 2000 as then Pres) and V Herbert (bd member dec'd 2002, "trial expert") were much more active and central figures to NCAHF and NCHRI, at least in the 90s. It might be more encyclopedic to have the body counts (won, lost & who) on the NCAHF's "witch trials" e.g. Shari Lieberman, PhD, got her RD back with public acknowledgement of a faulty NCAHF attack. When was NCAHF or its predecessor founded (198-?). And, of course, I think that the corporate status is still an uninformative, prejudicial knee jerk.--I'clast 03:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just googled her, and what I found is alarming.  It does appear that NCAHF caused a lot of grief on an innocuous issue, without any grounds.  Jance 02:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Who decides what is Valid Criticism for a Questionable Operation????

message: Please stop. Despite Barrett's Ring Leader's claim that my link is "vanity" ... I am a valid critic of Quackwatch/NCAHF and there was NO consensus that my criticism should be censored here. I am a prevailing defendant against Barrett, have been quoted in the LA Times, Wired Magazine, MY DNA, WebMD, The Scientist among many other publications. I have been reading many articles in Wikipedia recently, and have seen how Barrett's teams fill articles with their criticisms while attempting to stifle criticisms against them. This is not Healthfraud/Wikipedia edition, and I have extremely valid criticisms to be aired against this questionable operation. Thank you.Ilena 15:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for confirming that you have a serious conflict of interest and that your placing of your link is a forbidden practice here. Your criticisms are another issue entirely, and if you present them properly, you may have more success and even get my support in including them. Continually violating Wikipedia policies to force your opinion and criticisms on articles here is not the way to do it. -- Fyslee 16:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You, Paul Lee have proven yourself to be a totally unreliable source of information regarding the questionable NCAHF. You have posted that they are a legal California Corporation several times ... totally and utterly unfounded. My criticism is valid and NO CONCENSUS has been reached to remove my link and I am reinstating it. Ilena 17:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The guideline is that as long as there is no consensus, the material in contention remains out. --Ronz 21:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text: This quote is but one of the 417,000 edits by User:Ilena oppose Barrett.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For Pete's sake... please stop, Ilena. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor is it a forum for you to import your grievances and feud with Stephen Barrett. You are behaving disruptively, and at some point the community's patience will expire. MastCell 20:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that I am being disruptive. I am standing up for my write to edit and not be censored. I agree, Wikipedia should not be a soapbox ... and that is what the NCAHF/QW Team is making it into. I was shocked to read the totally biased QW references throughout Wikipedia. Barrett hides behind people like Paul Lee. Without consensus, it has been claimed that my opinion is "personal" and unworthy of merit to be allowed on Wikipedia. I am the Director of The Humantics Foundation and head a large support group and have for over 11 years. We provide free information to thousands on the dangers of breast implants and related topics. Barrett's ACSH.org was one frontgroups (junkscience.com another) who spread the disinformation the industry wanted via flacks like Mike Fumento and Steve Milloy. These groups are all part of the webring Lee heads, promoting each other. It is widely believed that Barrett's meritless SLAPP suit against me (feud in WikiSpeak) was backed by industry who want to silence my viewpoint on implants. Remember, not even one word I wrote or reposted about Barrett was considered by any court to be even arguably defamatory. Losing plaintiff Polevoy and his flacks have claimed I am the "laughing stock" of the internet. This claim was made while he was calling himself "Vera Teasdale" in over 50 posts blasting Dr. Clark and myself. I have been quoted several times in the LA Times, in The Scientist, Journal of Nutrition and Health, Chemical & Engineering News, Wired, My DNA, and WebMD, to name but a few. I am very familiar with how Barrett uses people like Fyslee (Paul Lee) who gathers others to bully and intimidate. Thank you.Ilena 20:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vanity link issue 

message: Happiest of Holidays All.
After coming back to Wikipedia a few weeks ago, I've received a lot of additional information about the joint operation of NCAHF and Quackwatch. I believe there was an appeal earlier to join these two articles, and I fully support it. It is impossible to tell where one operation ends and the other begins. Barrett rules ... as NCAHF head of 'internet operations' as well as Chairman of QW. Paul Lee (fyslee) runs their Webring Operation of 90 blogs and websites each promoting the other. Lee appears to be stationed as a professional healthfraud 'editor' here on Wikipedia. I've seen him pounce on and revert valid edits within seconds of their appearance. I see he just quit his longtime job as "Assistant Listmaster" of the Healthfraud List. He has repeatedly claimed that NCAHF was a legal California Corporation and for months removed the links proving this was false. His performance on Wikipedia resembles a Barrett puppet, in my opinion.
QW/NCAHF claims to send over 11,000 subscribers their newsletter ... JOINTLY. Barrett runs the Healthfraud List with an iron hand and promotes both QW/NCAHF and their Webring. Barrett signs with adverts to both QW and NCAHF and in fact, their sites cross promote and reference each other. It is rare that he is not wearing both these hats for his published opinions. For these reasons, I vote that the two articles be combined. 
I recently visited several articles on Wikipedia and one would believe that it was QuackWatch / Wikipedia Branch. Single articles are  filled with Quackwatch POV ... while others were fought off by Paul Lee and others. 
Regarding the lack of legal corporate status in evidence ... the fact that hours and hours were wasted as people defending Barrett used every distraction and propaganda trick in the books is pure bullying. It is not a game for a non profit to prove their legal status. It could have been done in a heartbeat. The silliest game of all was for them to ask us to prove the negative that they were not incorporated in the other 49 states. I call that Quack Logic. 
One of Barrett's own published definitions of what he opines is quackery"... quackery could be broadly defined as
anything involving over promotion in the field of health." With 90 blogs and websites and thousands of articles circulated promoting QW/NCAHF, from someone with no current medical license and who has been called, by the Appelate Court of California, biased and unworthy of credibility'; speaks volumes as to his projection. Last count, there were over 417,000 pages promoting Barrett on a google search. Over promotion?
Further, I wish to readdress the fact of his failure to protect his patients by passing the Psychiatric Exams in several decades of "practice." This fact was only brought to light in the deposition of Barrett's losing SLAPP suit to Dr. Koren recently. Up until then, he had proclaimed himself an 'expert' in things by simple wiggling his nose or some other decider. For years, he was asked why he had never been board certified, and refused to admit that he had FAILED his boards in the 60's. This is relevant and a valid criticism of Barrett. He was licensed in the 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's ... many of them spent questioning and attacking the credentials of others. His are more than questionable. No board certification means LESS patient protection, LESS questions to his license. I believe around 85% of medical licensees protected their patients with board certification by the 90's ... why not Stephen Barrett?
After perusing Wikipedia ... it seems to me that rules are made up by those promoting Barrett about criticsm about him ... but censored regarding him. 
Thank you. Ilena 18:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This quote is but one of the 417,000 edits by User:Ilena oppose Barrett.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For Pete's sake... please stop, Ilena. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor is it a forum for you to import your grievances and feud with Stephen Barrett. You are behaving disruptively, and at some point the community's patience will expire. MastCell 20:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that I am being disruptive. I am standing up for my write to edit and not be censored. I agree, Wikipedia should not be a soapbox ... and that is what the NCAHF/QW Team is making it into. I was shocked to read the totally biased QW references throughout Wikipedia. Barrett hides behind people like Paul Lee. Without consensus, it has been claimed that my opinion is "personal" and unworthy of merit to be allowed on Wikipedia. I am the Director of The Humantics Foundation and head a large support group and have for over 11 years. We provide free information to thousands on the dangers of breast implants and related topics. Barrett's ACSH.org was one frontgroups (junkscience.com another) who spread the disinformation the industry wanted via flacks like Mike Fumento and Steve Milloy. These groups are all part of the webring Lee heads, promoting each other. It is widely believed that Barrett's meritless SLAPP suit against me (feud in WikiSpeak) was backed by industry who want to silence my viewpoint on implants. Remember, not even one word I wrote or reposted about Barrett was considered by any court to be even arguably defamatory. Losing plaintiff Polevoy and his flacks have claimed I am the "laughing stock" of the internet. This claim was made while he was calling himself "Vera Teasdale" in over 50 posts blasting Dr. Clark and myself. I have been quoted several times in the LA Times, in The Scientist, Journal of Nutrition and Health, Chemical & Engineering News, Wired, My DNA, and WebMD, to name but a few. I am very familiar with how Barrett uses people like Fyslee (Paul Lee) who gathers others to bully and intimidate. Thank you.Ilena 20:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NCAHF / QUACKWATCH OPERATIONS

message: Ilena, you continue to violate policy by making personal attacks on other editors and by failing to assume good faith. You continually impute motives to others based on your own conspiracy theories, you continually violate a number of policies here, and you fail to collaborate with other editors who have opposing POV. Until you learn to do that, Wikipedia is not a place for you. Take your battles back to Usenet, where anything goes. If you want to edit here, then play by the rules. If you do that, I'll be glad to cooperate with you.
Let's get a few things straight here:
* Barrett does not own me, control me, or work through me. I occasionally contact him to attempt to get information. Anyone here can do that, and possibly with better success than I have had. None of that is forbidden and it is actually something that editors should do. We should research our subjects and attempt to get documentation.
* The Anti-Quackery Ring is my own creation, and was inspired by no one else. Neither Barrett or the NCAHF has anything to do with it. It is not his or its ring in any way, shape or form, so stop lying about that matter. The Skeptic Ring was something I inherited from the previous ringmaster. It took some time for me to convince Barrett that Quackwatch should be a part of those rings. Web rings have little effect on the site visits of larger sites, while smaller sites get some benefit. He has absolutely no influence on the rings, and in fact there are some sites in them of which he is less than enthusiatistic, and in fact I share the feeling about some. Milloy's site is one of those I am ambivalent about. I have no idea what Barrett thinks about it, and I couldn't care less. I make the decisions there. Anyone want to take over as Ringmaster? Applications accepted.....;-)
* I am greatly saddened by the effect your abominable behavior has on the cause of women with breast implant issues. I sympathize with that cause, and I also sympathize with the women who are ashamed to have you in their company. You do more harm than good for them. While neither my mother nor both MIL (my FIL remarried) had implants, they all died of breast cancer, so I've had these tragedies far too close to take them lightly.
* Please show some evidence that you can act like an adult and learn something here. Many editors have repeatedly tried to teach you proper behavior here, yet you persist in violating various policies, including attacking other editors, assuming bad faith, promoting yourself, posting links to your website, and generally bringing your Usenet wars to Wikipedia. Please show that you have some common decency, courtesy, good manners, and some semblance of good ethics. We haven't seen it yet. You seem to think that because you got away with posting other people's lies and undocumented personal attacks, that it's okay to post them. Well, it's not. It's still wrong, even if you can legally do so. That's the moral dilemma you fail to understand. You just don't seem to have an understanding of ethics and morality. On that matter you and Bolen are very similar. It's a street thug mentality, and we don't need it here. Here we try to cooperate. The best articles are often created by editors with opposing POV who cooperate. -- Fyslee 00:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Paul Lee, you have proven yourself to be totally unworthy of credibility. You repeatedly lied that NCAHF was a legal California Corporation and vandalized my posts proving otherwise. You attacked me the moment I posted NON POV links and you continue to fill my talkpage with your delusions. Regarding my breast implant advocacy: I have helped thousands of women find biased information on breast implants, we have provided several implant removals, and your criticism of my advocacy is just more propaganda. I have been quoted in Wired Magazine, The Scientist, the LA Times (several times, Chemical & Engineering News, US Today, US magazine, Washington Post, Washington Times, San Diego Business Journal, to name a few. Your attempts to separate yourself from Barrett are laughable. He runs the internet operations of NCAHF/QW with you handling the Web ring. Who are you to call others "quacks" ????? You and your "Quack Files." Ilena 02:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just read your lie that I "got away with posting other people's lies" ... what a load of nonsense. Every court backed me that not one word I wrote or reposted about Barrett was even arguably libelous. YOU think you know whether or not Terry Polevoy stalked Ms McPhee? Were you there? Did you see him on Usenet calling himself "Vera Teasdale" and attacking Dr. Clark and myself? Why is Polevoy obsessed with the physical location of young Adam Dreamhealer? There is no evidence that I posted anyone's lies ... only repeated nonsense by you and others of the Rag-tag Posse of Snakeoil Vigilantes. Ilena 02:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ilena, this is ridiculous.  Because a statement is not libelous does not mean it is true, or appropriate, either.  And Fyslee, it doesn't mean it is a lie.   I thought I had seen some ridiculous things on Wikipedia, but this beats all.  Ilena, if you think you are convincing or helping anyone by spewing venom, you are sadly mistaken.  Do you blame anyone from responding when you accuse them of conspiracies and lies and god knows what else?  I suppose I will be added now to your 'hate' list, but I feel a need to say what I think here.  And I think it is outrageous. And no, I am not getting paid by Barrett, or Fyslee, or manufacturers, or anyone else.  I am calling it like I see it.  And all of this looks flat-out insane.Jance 05:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is insane ... especially the Rag-tag Posse of Snake-oil Vigilantes which includes Barrett and Grell and Polevoy and Paul Lee. Yes indeed, Terry Polevoy, the losing plaintiff, WAS caught donning the disguise of "Vera Teasdale" to attack me and Dr. Clark. It may not have happened to you and you don't want to believe it .. but it's 100% verifiable and factual. You may also be unaware that Barrett, ever so humbly called himself "the media" in Time Magazine. If you don't bebelieve that ACSH.org (where Barrett is an "advisor" (God help the advised) has been paid to create disinformation in the breast implant world, you are being naive (at best). PR is a huge business ... ACSH and junkscience.com and all their quacky frontgroups have indeed been working together (or conspiring since you like that word) to put out as much propaganda as possible on the 'safety' of breast implants. Have a lovely day. Ilena 15:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ilena, the topic is your behavior.  Care to address the topic?  Your continued attacks on Barrett and editors here are the very reason your behavior is being called into question. --Ronz 18:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please let me update your information. My edits were removed from the moment I came to Wikipedia exposing NCAHF's questionable corporate status. State records were called POV and removed by you and others. When I first began to read here ... Barrett Vs Rosenthal was unrecognizable to the facts of the case. Jance has done an admirable job of getting the basics of this article correct. I am very familiar with being ganged up by people defending Stephen Barrett and his questionable operations and his "feuds" (SLAPP suits that go for over 6 years and end up in The Supreme Court of California). Thank you and have a lovely holiday. Ilena 20:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, what does this have to do with your behavior?  Is it just you indirect way of saying you don't want to discuss it, you don't care, or the situation justifies it? --Ronz 20:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is interesting that for someone who claims to be such an activist with regard to breast implants, Ilena doesn't seem to spend any time editing the article.  Yet, Jance, who seems to take much in step with Ilena's views on matters, spends a lot of time editing the article in question.  --Curtis Bledsoe 17:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stop with the personal attacks

message: This has gone on long enough. I've posted to the admin noticeboard regarding Ilena's persistent disruptive editing. MastCell 18:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you need to slow down a little. If I understand part of the orignial underlying provocation problems here, it seems that Ilena has details about her WP:BLP treatment that have been in conflict with the Wiki articles surrounding SB/QW/NCAHF and may have been given short shrift.--I'clast 01:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What details? I'm all for removing anything that violates WP:BLP right away. But Ilena's focus has been to use Wikipedia as a front in her war against Barrett (which is totally inappropriate), ignore policy left and right, and keep pushing a link to her personal site. I don't agree that Ilena was "provoked"; if anything, she's been given quite a bit of slack per WP:DBTN, and shown no inclination to respect Wikipedia's policies. But again, if there's a specific WP:BLP concern, let's hear it - without all the abuse/linkspamming/soapboxing/incivility/etc. MastCell 03:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: She said that her legal victory is quite misrepresented in treatment. I personally am not up to speed on that issue.  One also could make a case that there is a second warring front on the Barrett story, just much more Wiki saavy. Now I agree that she has to come to conform and needs to learn the culture if not the rules, but I am not big on training by attack / Wikilawyering when there seem to be outstanding issues.  One issue may be resolving if the last edit holds.--I'clast 05:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it misrepresented?  The cases she is involved in are accurately described.  eg see Barrett v. Rosenthal.  All the cases are summarized, with court holdings or resolution.Jance 07:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that IR feels that that the Wiki articles on her legal victory do not convey & portray her legal outcome correctly *to the average reader*, and that it comes across that her legal victories were based on technicalities of SLAPP & CDA'96 rather than non-defamatory statements per se, especially in the Barrett v. Rosenthal article, although ruled non-defamatory is mentioned in the SB article. Here is Fyslee agreeing...you got away with posting other people's lies... with this point (I am not looking to kick Fyslee, just that the analyses reported here have stakes).  IR previously complained that the California courts cleared her on a number of points or levels not adequately described here.  Of course NPOV, RS and a representative legal analysis is a problem for us to follow in detail here. Her other issues focus on the accurate incorporation staus on NCAHF (we may be getting close) and that all 3 articles drift into pro-QW sentiment now and over delete less favorable information.--I'clast 13:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Barrett v. Rosenthal was only based on CDA and it was hardly a 'technicality'.  The issue as to whether or not IR made non-defamatory statement against Polvenoy 'per se' was NOT before the court.  There was one sentence in a concurring opinion where the judge, in dicta, agreed with a lower court that IR did not defame Barrett.  That remains in the article on Barrett.  There is absolutely no reason to include it  in Barrett v. Rosenthal (although it was discussed in the section on the lower court opinion).  The concurring dicta was left in Stephen Barrett to appease IR --there is no encyclopedic reason to leave it.  Any non-defamation as against Barrett was never an issue in BvR - it was settled in the lower court and not appealed!  It is not even part of the opinion.  So please explain why exactly you or she want to rewrite the case?  If she wanted to appeal the factual issue of the Polvenoy statement, she should have told her attorney to raise that issue before the CA supreme court.  That was not raised.  Once again, only one issue was even before the court - her immunity under the CDA.  And you or she now calls that a technicality???Jance 15:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comments. Like I said, I am not up to speed on the nuts & bolts of IR's case. I somewhat followed the various conversations on her legal situation and this seemed to be a comment & a factor in IR's response about perceptions of her results.--I'clast 21:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The NCAHF corporate status was incorrecty stated.  In MA, the corporation must register with the AG (Division of Charities) and get a 'certificate' before it solicits donations from the public.  It does not appear as if that has occurred, so NCAHF can not natively operate (soliciting funds), natively or otherwise.Jance 16:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admin noticeboard post