Talk:Stephen Barrett/Archive 4

message: NATTO, please tell me what you feel is the difference between these terms? -- Fyslee 21:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Delicensed vs. unlicensed

message: * The FDA warning letter was sent with regards to three products formulated by Dr. Sahelian and sold on a web site called www.physicianformulas.com.
Upon further research by looking at the website in question we can find that:
1- Physician Formulas is a nutraceutical company with headquarters in Irvine, California, and customer care centers in several locations including Nebraska, Iowa, and California.
2- they carry high quality products from several respected supplement manufacturers and by world renowned and respected doctors and herbalists including medical doctor and best selling author Ray Sahelian, M.D., who formulated several products listed below for the Physician Formulas label. These products are available on our website, other websites including amazon.com, and in select health food stores.
Thus the website www.physicianformulas.com does not appear to be owned by Dr. Sahelian but is a distributor selling numerous products including some formulated by Dr. Sahelian.
When asked Dr. Sahelian had this to say: " I like Wikipedia but it bothers me that everytime I read information on this site I start thinking in the back of my mind whether all the info is accurate. In this case, it is not. The FDA should have addressed the letter to the CEO of Physician Formulas, not to me. The products I formulate are sold on several web sites. Therefore, the whole sentence should be removed regarding the FDA part, and we would appreciate it if you could do so. "
I have edited this section of the article to try to keep it NPOV as those who posted the item originally did so in a way to attack Dr. Sahelian because of his polite response to Dr. Barrett's e-mail, the tone of which can be seen from the reference.
I thus raise the above issue to be addressed by editors. NATTO 22:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, the statement is factual, he was warned by the FDA about making misleading claims on his website.  I am not opposed to alerting the wording to include "dietary supplements" rather than "drugs," however that he was warned is amply documented.  I see no reason to allow people to whitewash well documented material which may cast them in a negative light.  --TeaDrinker 23:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the version removed here is fairly neutral.  I have not reverted the change until we can get consensus on the talk page, however.  --TeaDrinker 23:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The following version: He recently received a warning letter from the FDA regarding three products sold on one of his website that did not comply with existing FDA regulation. He was also warned about the improper use of disease claims in the form of personal testimonials."FDA warning letter is the one I edited for NPOV but that was before I checked the website www.physicianformulas.com  and realized that it was not in fact Dr. Sahelian website.NATTO 00:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It's neutrality is not being called into question. It's the truth of the statement which is questionable, if we are to take Dr. Sahelian on his word. Also, as NATTO has pointed out, the statement at least had one verifiable error. Dr. Sahelian didn't sell his products on his website, but through a third party's site. Again, this is if we are taking Dr. Sahelian's word on this. Levine2112 00:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Wikipedia's general method for dealing with such material should work here: report the verifiable information.  He did recieve such a letter, with the contents as described.  I don't think it would be wise to try ourselves to determine if the letter was appropriate and/or correct in its factual statements.  That would stike me as original research.  We can, however, indicate that he does not agree with the facts of the letter, however saying he recieved such a letter is verifiable.  Perhaps we could add cf. in the ref and link to Sahelian's statement as well.  --TeaDrinker 00:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are right.  We report what is verifiable.  What is verifiable here is that Sahelian has been criticised by the FDA for aspects of his marketing. The truth of precisely how this was marketed, or what he did to provoke this, is a matter for an article on Sahelian.  The criticism is relevant in the context of his relationship to  Barrett. Guy 21:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The letter was adressed to Sahelian. Inferences as to precisely who is responsible for the misrepresentation is original research unless you can source it from an independent reliable secondary source. Verifiability, not truth, is the thing here. Guy 21:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wow... I was under the impression that when living persons are concerned that extra care was needed to be taken so that not only the information was verifiable but actually factually correct. So if I understand correctly it is OK to place information that we know is untrue simply because we can find a document that says it.... Finally I have not place anything on the article that was based on OR and did not suggest we did but simply removed a phrase that was factually incorrect because based on a document that contained an error, i.e it was addressed to the wrong person,according to Dr. Sahelian. This was supported by the evidence but, again, I did not say we should placed that in the article. Please let me know if factual truth is not relevant in WP. I would like that clearly confirmed.
Also I have also looked at the FDA website and could not find the letter from the main page. NATTO 00:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Ahh, understanding more fully now.... I must say I half agree with JzG/Guy-- it is original research of a sort to check up on the claims independently.  However I can also see his disputing the factual accuarcy of the letter as relevant, and while perhaps not a strictly reliable source, a mention of his disputting the claim perhaps could be included (a footnote perhaps).  I do think the criticism is sufficiently well sourced to meet bio of living peoplem, so I don't see it as a major impediment.  --TeaDrinker 06:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes.  If we state the facts and avoid drawing inferences, then we are in the clear.  The fact does appear to be significant in context.  Guy 11:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: * Since it has been established that the FDA letter was sent in error to Dr. Sahelian, I am puzzled by this insistence to write this item in the article. Is it to attack Dr. Sahelian ? If you read his reply to the e-mail of Dr. Barrett, he was very polite and measured in his response. What is the point of writing such an item followed by a disclaimer stating the the letter should have been addressed to the CEO of the website www.physicianformulas.com, which is not the web site of Dr. Sahelian. It should be noted also that this letter does not appear to be accessible from the FDA page listing such letters. I looked at the letters sent during that month and it is nowhere to be seen. NATTO 12:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Sahelian and FDA warning letter 

message: The text below was moved from Levine talk page as it is relevant to this article:
On my talk page and elsewhere, he calls himself Barrett's "Assistant Listmaster".--Hughgr 03:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assistant Listmaster 

message: Fyslee, it this your blog Confessions of a Quackbuster ? NATTO 23:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is. Just like many other people I am active on the internet and have websites, including blogs. You're welcome to ask specific questions about any of the topics you find there. -- Fyslee 20:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confessions of a Quackbuster 

message: All of which would be so much more credible if it wasn't for the self-evident fact that some of these critics are charlatans. Whihc is why I want to collect the criticisms by person. Guy 10:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You appear to perceive your own bias as neutrality, and make accusations on that basis.  This is a common human failing.  Guy 10:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Which, of course, you are devoid of... By the way I do not claim to be neutral and never said so, that is your own conclusion. However It is well known that Dr. Barrett is a controversial figure and that there are two sides to the issue. Some editors are hard at work at presenting one side so there is a need for counter-balance, based on verifiable, factual information, both ways NATTO 11:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from Guy's talk page as it regards this article 

message: This para:
: Dr. Joel M. Kauffman, B.S., Ph.D. of the Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry at University of the Sciences in Philadelphia did an independant review of the Quackwatch website and wrote " The use of this website is not recommended. It could be deleterious to your health." Website Review - Alternative Medicine -Watching the watchdogs at Quackwatch 
# Since he is not a medic, what credentials fit him to judge the quality of a site pertaining to medical issues?
# It's not obvious what his motivation was for investigating the site
# This belongs if anywhere at [{Quackwatch]] since it primarily addresses the site not the person.
Guy 10:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Please read the review. Since there is section on Quackwatch in the SB article. The conclusion of the review on the website is a valid item. It is verifiable and the reviewer and those involved in the review are well identified, He is a qualified scientist and the way he did the review is well explained. If Barrett can make public comments about modalities he has no training in at all ( M.D. are not trained in all health modalities ) then Kauffman can make a review on the QW site on issues he is qualified to, this is well explained in the review. NATTO 11:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kaufman 

message: Please stop and refer to WP:MOS. Jokestress 00:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure?  If you use the  cite option  is looks like this:  cite option  So it would appear that italicised quotes is standard for some people. David D. (Talk) 00:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:MOS#Quotations. Jokestress 00:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can live with that, but i don't think this is a black and white thing. David D. (Talk) 00:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm comfortable either way. I just saw the trend going toward italicizing on this article, so I wanted to normalize it for the entire page. I believe that is what NATTO was trying to do as well. Just trying to keep it consistent on the page. Levine2112 00:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NATTO's idiosyncratic formatting (like the insistence on bulleting talk page replies) should not be setting any stylistic precedent. Jokestress 00:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I probably italicised quotes too, I do it quite often.  I don't think this has anything to do with one individual.  Look at other articles.  Italicising quotes is quite common despite the MOS. Actually, bulleting talk pages is not unheard of either. Lets not argue about this and just agree on a standard for this page.  i have no strong opinon and can go either way. David D. (Talk) 01:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I really don't think this is worth condemning anyone over. Nor should we drag this out. I don't care either way, so Jokestress please do whatever you want. Levine2112 01:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  I think that to italicise quotes makes them more readable as they more clearly stand out form the rest of the text so reader know immediately that it is a quote and not text from a WP editor. Before some quotes were in italics and others not. Simply trying to make the article more readable but I will not start a debate on it. NATTO 01:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whoever keeps italicizing quotations 

message: I moved the Salhelian quote where he holds Barrett up to his own definition of quackery to the portion of our article which deals with questioning Barrett's qualifications within the alternative medicine fields. Levine2112 17:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Holding Barrett up to his own standards

message: :* Guy removed the comments from the article written by Donna Ladd because of sensationalism. The Village Voice is a credible internet publication anc the comments were not sensational at all. Barrett was quoted and what was commented on is factual. The item should be re-inserted in the article. NATTO 03:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section it is under is: Accusations of bias and lack of objectivity. Seems to me that the article and the chosen passages from said article suit the section perfectly. Levine2112 04:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article from Donna Ladd in the Village voice 

message: I'm wondering why the reference names have been removed here:    
Such removal is rather risky, since it can (1) destroy other links in the same article. It also (2) makes the reference list longer than necessary, and one (3) cannot see how many times a single reference is used. Please restore them. -- Fyslee 20:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They were functional, and now they are either gone or duplicated unnecessarily. -- Fyslee 05:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of reference names 

message: * I think we should also look at the critics websites to make sure they meet [WP:EP]]. It might also be a good idea to seprate them in two groups : the critics involved in litigation and the others. Any comments ? NATTO 21:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that they should be grouped according to the topic of criticism. It keeps it on point. Levine2112 01:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to Barrett's critic 

message: * Quackwatch
* Homeowatch
* Credential_Watch
* Chirobase
—Preceding unsigned comment added by  Steth (talk • contribs) 
:Quackwatch definitely passes the smell test.  Isn't that the original organisation pre web site era? The others are presumabably spinoff web sites, or are they independent entities? David D. (Talk) 22:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * It looks like three of the above are only a title with a very short description and not real articles. Since they are all spinoffs of QW, there is really no purpose for these to be in WP, in my opinion. They should be removed. As far as the QW article, it is a proper article. However much of the information in it is already in the SB article. In fact it could be argued the QW is almost an alter ego for SB. As written earlier it is more like a blog than a true consumer information website. Should the QW article be also deleted ? NATTO 23:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe QW and the Barrett article should be merged? The others are not notable and should be deleted. Levine2112 23:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Merging the QW article with the SB article sounds like a reasonable solution since the SB article contains information on QW as well as the NCAHF. NATTO 23:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Just to be clear. I suggest that the QW article be merged into the SB article since most if not all the information on the QW article is already in the SB article and that QW is basically the toll SB uses to express himself on the web. This said some editors may say that QW is better known and more notable so that merging the SB article into QW would be better. The fact is that people who read QW know that it is the workj of SB since his name is prominently displayed at the top. NATTO 00:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: A note to all who edit here, I have begun merger proposals for Quackwatch, Stephen Barrett and the NCAHF articles. The discussions for these proposals can be found on the Quackwatch talk page. Please chime in. Thanks! Levine2112 00:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The process is already under way. And I assume good faith in that I suspect that Fyslee, like me, eats a much healthier breakfast than coffee and Danish. Coffee being a stimulant and a Danish being empty, high glycemic carbohydrates. Together, without any protein, you are sure to send your body into insulin shock. Me, personally, I go for freshly juiced organic vegetables and some raw (unpasteurized) cheese. It ain't Coco-Puffs, but I'm cuckoo for it anyhow. Levine2112 04:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit clash with levine) Just put them up for AfD.  That way they will get an objective hearing. David D. (Talk) 04:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: re: Homeowatch, Credential_Watch, Chirobase in Wikipedia: just QW spamlinks--I'clast 05:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Put them up for AfD if you like, but I've removed the s as not giving a "reason" to delete the articles; at most, it could justify a merge.  (There may be something else here that doesn't pass the smell test.) — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 13:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Arthur, will you handle the merge? Or at least try to add to those paltry articles. They either need to be helped, merged or deleted. YOu clearly don't want them deleted, so please take the next steps. Thanks. Levine2112 17:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know why i didn't think of it before.  They can be merged into quackwatch and instead of deleting each of them let them exist as redirects to Quackwatch. David D. (Talk) 18:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article mentioned above are not real article, just a name with a very brief description. That is clear to anyone. NATTO 20:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm confused?  I agree and that's why i think a redirect would be appropriate. Do you think the redirects should be avoided? David D. (Talk) 20:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  Redirect to QW or Barrett ? QW website already offers access to all the secondary sites. Reader have access to the website through a link in the QW article. Is it one of  WP purpose to help promote QW secondary sites ? Especially when the "article" you wish to redirect are not even real articles... NATTO 21:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suggest they are all redirected to the QW article. I had not considered it as a way to promote the QW article.  Its pretty standard stuff to redirect articles.  It is even done for common typos on a subject. For example all these pages: QuackWatch , Quackbusters , Quackpot watch , Quackpot Watch ,  Quackpotwatch.org ,  Tim Bolen ,  Patrick Timothy Bolen,  and Quackpotwatch  all currently redirect to QW.  i don't see why Homeowatch, Credential_Watch and Chirobase would not redirect to the page since they are mentioned there. David D. (Talk) 21:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a bold move and just redirected all three to Quackwatch.  Hope this is appropriate, it seems much better than the acrimony that may occur going through AfD. David D. (Talk) 21:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: * David , I see your point. It is logical so I can go along with that.NATTO 22:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do these pass the smell test for articles?  Looking for feedback 

message: That was QW, I am not aware any agreement was made pertaining to SB's article.  The overlapping SB & QW articles were also under consideration for merger Friday.  Exclusion of the Kauffman reference here will be moving toward a Steve B hagiography.  Here, in this Wiki article, the Kauffman's analysis was being used as source of corroboration with respect to comments by a targetted MD of SB's.  To avoid reader fatigue, the Kauffman presentation is, & should be, different. The Kauffman paper is highly relevant to SB because 5/8 of the articles analyzed *are authored* by SB.--I'clast 05:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An angle where specific comments from Kaufmann on the Barrett authored articles might be the best route here. However, it is not unprecedented to have repeat information in two related articles. David D. (Talk) 06:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I would like to see Kauffman's review here. After all, he is reviewing SB's work and SB's site. Kauffman's analysis is extremely relevant to both the SB and the QW articles. Levine2112 06:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An pointer to the minimalist version on QW would be appropriate.  After all, it is a review of QW; personalities are supposed to be left out.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 06:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While i agree the review is about QW, and so the summary at the end of the review is not appropriate for the SB page, throughout the review he makes specific comments about each of the eight articles.  It is clear that such comments pertaining to Barretts own writing are appropriate as a criticism with respect to the quality of the his articles for QW. David D. (Talk) 06:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. Reading through Kauffman's review, it seems that his main criticism about Barrett is his objectivity. Kauffman points out numerous instances where Barrett only cites the side of the research which supports his conclusions and seemingly ignores any evidence to the contrary. I think that this is a valid criticism of Barrett's work and should be included in the SB article. I think it would be perfect in the section where Barrett's objectivity is questions and Confirmation bias is discussed. It seems very applicable. Agreed? Levine2112 06:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  I agree that info about the review belongs also to the SB article for the reasons given above. Also Barrett claims to be an expert in medical communications. Kauffman shows that in the 5 articles he wrote, that the medical information is not up to par. I have re-introduced in the article. If it is to be removed again it should be because a majority of editors have agreed to remove it. NATTO 07:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It still seems only weakly connected to the article, but it seems enough for now.  I won't remove it unless it becomes unencyclopedic for other reasons, or with consensus.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 07:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kauffman paper at SB

message: The tag was placed by Fyslee a while ago. Any comments about it at this stage. Should it be left in and if so why ? NATTO 08:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Time for that tage to go. Of course this section isn't neutral; it contains criticisms. However, it does so in a model WP way, by citing and referencing reliable sources without adding further commentary about the subject other than what those sources say. Levine2112 16:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Any other comments ? NATTO 19:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag above the critic section 

message: I am concerned that of the 60 or so references cited as verifiable sources about Stephen Barrett, 20 (a third) are to websites owned, operated and written by Stephen Barrett.
IMO, it is not reliable to verify something about a subject by going to a website that was written by the subject. Would these references be considered to be objective? There are certainly too many of these instances in this article.
This is not about reducing the numerous free advertisements for Stephen Barrett Enterprises. (Donations gladly accepted!) although there seem to be far to many on WP. But rather, I question the reliability of such sources because of my concern for maintaining truth and accuracy in this encyclopedic endeavor. 
That is why I am seeking feedback.  Thanks, Steth 23:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't seem excessive, considering the number of comments taken from websites created to be critical of QW and SB.  Of course, primary sources should be included where QW and affiliate sites, and anti-SB sites are the secondary source.  We also must remember WP:LIVING, so the secondary sources are also required.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 23:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree to a point with Steth that it is an issue. We need more independent quality references in the article, in fact in many WP articles. Quoting Barrett ad nauseanum is far from that level of reference. Another point omitted by Arthur is that the references to web sites critical of Barrett are in the Critics section and not everywhere in the article.NATTO 00:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this pass the smell test? 

message: It has been very clearly agreed that any item that has to do with litigation in this article is to be referenced to a high standard, most preferably by legal documents. Of course the ways things are it seems that anything goes. Certainly not boding well for editing at WP.NATTO 00:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't recall the agreement, but I don't think it's a good idea, and I don't think I've violated it.  Under WP:BLP, it seems that we need both primary and secondary sources for anything we say about the litigation, and I'm not sure the secondary sources can be from a party.  (This would eliminate a number of the QW litigation notes, as the source quoted is often the website of an opposing party.)  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 01:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Arthur you cannot recall it because you have been editing this article for a short time only ( if I am correct only since the merger issue arose but I may be wrong ). It was agreed a long time ago. You have not violated it but Fyslee who was privy to the agreement has. Every quote in the litigation is from a legal document and usually from judges ( please have a look at the document if you wish ). The document can be posted on QW or another website. It does not matter as long as the document is real and from a relevant court case. It is not always possible to access court archives on the net and QW does post many such legal documents. NATTO 01:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In your large delete you removed material that had been there for a long time. What I added was a from a biographical article that is a verifiable source, and it is relevant to the subject of litigation and libel suits. It was not a legal case, and therefore court documents were not relevant. It mentions a legal matter, and the court document is referenced. Very interesting reading. As far as the "agreement," while I agree that we should use court documents in the relevant circumstances whenever possible, no agreement between editors that is not backed up by Wikipedia policy or that violates those policies is valid. Policies also change, and their interpretation changes. The groupings of editors changes as well, so any binding nature of such agreements is only temporary in nature, and is open to revision at any time. I still support using the best sources available, but an agreement that is used to exclude valuable information, when its inclusion does not violate policy, is a questionable agreement, or at least a questionable use of the agreement. -- Fyslee 04:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So if I understand correctly follow the agreement when it is suits the editors and ignore it when it does not, claiming that, anyway, it is OK with one's interpretation of WP policy. Then you will not mind if I start adding information in the litigation section that is referenced by other documents than court documents. After all I can use the same excuse as you do. Hey what is the point of making agreements between editors if they can be "dumped" at will. Lets just follow WP policy, or probably lets just follow our own interpretation of WP policy. I have now seen two such agreements that have been "dishonoured". And by the way we all know what Barrett says on his website, everybody can read it, it is on 22 different websites, why not while you are at it, recopy everything in WP so that could be a mirror site to QW and co. WHy bother about giving another point of view... WP policy ? Bah you can choose to interpret it your way after all. NATTO 07:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle." Be careful with your pointing fingers, because none of us is innocent, and certainly not yourself. You do (or choose to) not "understand correctly," and (considering the mocking tone of your comment) I doubt that any explanation that doesn't end up giving you control of the direction of all editing here will do much good. There are several POV to be presented here, and they should be accomodated. -- Fyslee 19:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Continue to enjoy yourself :-) NATTO 19:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. The same to you..;-) -- Fyslee 20:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did not even get a smile :-) in return.... :-( NATTO 20:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Litigation section and non legal references 

message: It turns out that the JAMA item is simply an information flyer for physicians to dispense to their patients. There is no explanation or evidence given to support the listing so it is merely a POV expressed by someone at JAMA - no even a real article in the Journal so not peer-reviewed. As for the Forbes listing, after checking the reference, it is clear that they never gave QW their " Best of the Web" rating, as was stated in the article previously. They did list QW on the Web Site Review list but it was listed second to last at the bottom, way below the Favourite and Best of the Web sites. ( They did give the web site of Dr. Weil their Best of the Web rating... Interesting since QW is critical of Weil ). If that is the best that can be provided to support the reliability, accuracy and overall quality of the information and advice given on QW, then it is not convincing at all, especially compared to the extensive and well referenced review done by Joel Kauffman.  Any skeptic worth his salt can see that. NATTO 08:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The information presented here (if you are correct about JAMA and Forbes) reflects that statement, given only those statements which are considered WP:RS, supports your view.  However, there are accurate statements which a skeptic should be able to rely on which cannot be included here.  FWIW, those QW articles which I have independently investigated seem better supported than Kaufmann's article — which I have read — and any person or group which calls Chopra New Age censored is fine with me.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks For signing your post this time. Of course you are allowed your POV and it is loud and clear. Anyone can look at the JAMA flyer and will see that it is not a peer-reviewed article of the type published in JAMA or any other reputable Journal. It is more an aside , the sort of thing that you see in many professional journals. like a list of interesting websites or tidbits of news. As for Forbes they never picked QW for either their Forbes Favorite or Forbes Best of the Web, the website that have been so selected are clearly identified. As far as the QW articles that you have investigated: what were the topics of the article ? Finally your opinion of Chopra is noted and not really relevant in this context. NATTO 21:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  User:NATTO seems to be a practitioner of one of the fields which SB considers misguided, which may explain his/her point of view.  And the JAMA piece appears to be an editorial position rather than a peer-reviewed paper.  Perhaps not as good, but still worthy of note.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 06:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Arthur Rubin seems quick to drawn premature conclusions, not a good sign. Glad to see that you at least recognise that the JAMA item is not a peer-reviewed scientific article ( althought that is quite obvious to anyone anyway ). I agree it is worthy of note as long as the nature of the item is properly described. Finally you have not answered my question about the QW articles that you have reviewed.NATTO 07:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NATTO continues to use straw man attacks to squeeze negativity out of a positive situation. Answered here. How about just keeping it simple and letting the facts speak for themselves, without adding editorial OR? -- Fyslee 22:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  JAMA , honours and review of QW 

message: :: As per WP:NPOV : all Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing significant views fairly and without bias. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. Readers are left to form their own opinions. 
::QW is putting forward one POV about Weil, that is he is not recommmendable. The other POV from Forbes is that he is quite respectable. That is totally in line with WP policy so giving the both POV about Weil is relevant and acceptable in this article because is name is mentioned in the article.NATTO 07:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not an article about Well.  If there were a secondary source specifically about SB's attitude toward Weil, that might be relevent balance.  14:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair enough. Instead of getting into a debate on Weil in this article. I have removed the phrase. Readers can look at article on Weil where I have placed the information. NATTO 15:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Weil 

message: "the State of Massachusetts has no listing for NCAHF." 
Why is this point relevant for an article about the subject? Shot info 04:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has no relevance in this article. It is just one more of those kinds of unencyclopedic details added by detractors to ensure that a negative POV is obvious. It's use here is thus a violation of NPOV. -- Fyslee 07:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Or maybe the relevance is that Barrett is a founder of the NCAHF and that the legal status of the NCAHF is unknown since it cannot be found in the registry of the state in question. Of course the NCAHF was originally legally registered in California but following the courts decisions in the King Bio case ( the NCAHF lost ), it closed shop ( one can wonder why? ) and moved in Massachusetts, where it does not appear to be registered.... NATTO 07:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So, because something is unknown, it's relevant?  Who's your source for it being unknown?  Who's your source for it being notable? --Ronz 20:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that questioning the mythical existence of this "non-profit" is better off on the NCAHF. While Barrett is the founder and VP and board member, the questionable nature of this organization may only be tangetially relevant to this article. Providing the wikilink to NCAHF (as is done) where the information about the lack of recognition by the state of Massachusettes exists is certainly okay by me. Levine2112 23:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. It is relevant, but not here. (I'm in the process of contacting some people to find out what's the score and will provide the information when I get it.) -- Fyslee 09:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NCAHF "listing" relevance?