Talk:Quackwatch/Archive 9

message: I'm having a hard time seeing the distinction between the 'recognition' and 'usefulness as a source' sections, when I look at the content.  should they be combined?  --Ludwigs2 02:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: QuackGuru - I see no need for two sections for the 'Public viewpoint', but apparently you do,  can you please explain why you think two sections are necessary for this relatively small amount of information?  --Ludwigs2 18:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk:Quackwatch#specific information and ease of reading. QuackGuru 18:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  combine sections? 

message: ::: 
The National Review is a source that generally should be looked on with some skepticism as they carry with them a serious political bent and are explicitly subjective and partisan in their writing. Since the intersection of science and politics is very tenuous in the area of alt. medicine, it is likely that the National Review is somewhat orthogonal as a source, but nevertheless, it is provocative enough to deserve removal. Let's stick to sources that are at least paying lip service to objectivity. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: National Review is RS, SA, whether you approve of their politics or not. Political magazines often have a slant but they can still be reliable. As I'm sure you know, the standard way to deal with this is to ensure they are balanced. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It has nothing to do with whether I agree with its politics or not. If it was an article from The Nation or The Daily Kos I would make the same objection. I'm just saying that obviously subjective sources should be excised as in such situations authors are not acting as "objective" reporters but instead are employed to promote the particular editorial opinion of the publication board. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

text: And we actually also happen to have the Village Voice, with quite a different political outlook. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the Village Voice is not the same thing as the National Review. It is not a political periodical and there is no statement of political belief or explicit subjectivity associated with the mission statement of the newspaper. The National Review is a strictly subjective work meant to advance opinion rather than attempt to report objectively. You might accuse the Village Voice of having a different "political outlook", but as a periodical it is not explicitly political. Still, I'm not altogether opposed to looking at the Village Voice as a source more carefully. I'm not convinced that Donna Ladd is all that useful as an attributed person. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand corrected. Quite a different outlook, generally. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  With proper attribution of the opinion, I do not see why this source will not be useful. After all, the politics of medicine are quite obvious, irregardless of the opinion of the National Review. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Removing a source, was a violation of the #Conditions for editing.  In the future, don't remove sources, but instead modify the information from that source (perhaps as Jossi suggested), or else tag the source as unreliable, with  (verify credibility) so that it can be discussed.  But wholesale removal of sources is discouraged unless there is consensus to remove the source, or there is some other blatant issue going on (such as BLP). --Elonka 17:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Only one source removed

message: A recent edit by Itsmejudith moved several refs, and this has created an unfortunate and highly unusual situation which can't easily be reverted, since too many other edits have intervened. It should have been immediately reverted. We are sleeping on the job! Refs should and are normally placed immediately after the word or phrase to which they apply. Moving them all into a jumble at the end of a sentence or paragraph screws up the documentation process. How are readers to know which part of a sentence the ref applies? Verifiability is important here, and refs should not be separated from their reason for existence. That's why we do it the way we do. Please don't allow this to happen again in the future. This is going to be difficult to undo, but it needs to be done, preferably by Itsmejudith -- Fyslee / talk 06:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that under the restricted conditions of editing this article, no reverts will be permitted at this time.  Petergkeyes (talk) 06:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Leave it for the uninvolved admins to fix.  Shot info (talk) 08:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't mean to mess up the encyclopedia. Who says that references should be placed mid-way through a sentence? When I was involved in getting Islam to FA we were told to move all the refs to the ends of the sentences, so I did that here. I'll double and treble check on this one. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:CITE "Material may be referenced mid-sentence, but inline citations are usually placed at the end of a sentence or paragraph. " I'll look in other places too. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:IAR, in the case of multiple references which support different (and contradictory) points of a sentence or paragraph, it's important that the references reside near (immediately after, per the MoS) the statements referenced.  I haven't checked whether the specific sentences Fyslee is complaining about have that problem, but there are many self-contradictory sentences in this article, because the different clauses are supported by different references.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 13:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see that as a problem, because I kept the references in the original order. Say I replaced "According to A, pigs can fly (ref to A), but according to B, they can't. (ref to B)", with "According to A, pigs can fly, but according to B, they can't.(refs to A and B). The reader can still see which is which. Now some of the cases I changed were much more complicated than that. Might this not indicate that there is room for improvement in the style? Namely: there are a number of lists; is that good? Having spent so much blood, sweat and tears on this article - about a topic I could hardly care less about - I would like to see the job through and get the article towards GA or even FA. Anyone else up for it? Itsmejudith (talk) 13:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've left a message on the talk page of WP:CITE asking if I should self-revert. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had a message directing me towards advice that citations don't have to be at the end of sentences. I've asked the editor to come and have a look here at the results of my efforts, as I'm still not clear whether reversion is called for. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think that mass reversion is possible. Individual restorations would be in order. Thanks for taking this like a good sport. -- Fyslee / talk 06:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unfortunate moving of refs 

message: I received a copy of this review, and edited the article to reflect it's position correctly, but I think it now has way too much weight in the article.  I mean, it's an 8 paragraph review in a minor journal that at best reflects the opinion of pharmacists, but it's carrying a whole lot prominence in this article.  any suggestions about how that can be adjusted?  --Ludwigs2 17:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Remove it. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't. It's one of the only truly reliable and external sources the article has. I will shorten it and you and SA can see if you like the result. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Already shortened. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And I did shorten it and kept it reasonably balanced and now it is far too long again and unbalanced. What a lot of unnecessary effort. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  consultant pharmacist review 

message: I got tired of seeing only negative comments cherry-picked from Nguyen-Khoa's article, so I wrote a properly weighted review. Future edits should be made to keep the characterization that is currently being described here. Do not put spin on the remarks, do not include only negatively construed comments, and make sure the fact that the reviewer himself is negatively disposed towards the alt. med. critics of Barrett comes through. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I already wrote a properly weighted review that did not do any of the things you mention. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

text: That's a huge amount of quotation; I'm not sure we should be giving that much weight to the minutiae of one doctor's review, and we certainly don't need verbatim four-line quotations. We should be able to summarise the article in a balanced way in a much smaller paragraph. --McGeddon (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, I see what's happened. Ludwigs obtained the full text of the article and made a summary but said it was still too long. I then cut it down to the bare bones. Quackguru removed a phrase that I would argue was key to matching the balance of praise and criticism in the original. (The author does not give QW unqualified praise. If he had had to award a number of stars he would probably have given three out of five. Not four. But we can discuss that.) Then Jossi added a further mention of the same article in a different section. Then someone deleted my bit (altered by Guruji) as repetitive. Now we are warring about Jossi's version, which I would agree was slanted towards the negative. Without any reference to the work that was done so long ago (15 July). Elonka, can you help us to stop going round and round and to agree a consensus version on the talk page. Would RfC be useful at this point? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

text: (Edit conflict) McGeddon, would you like to look at the wording I put in on the 15th? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ugh - our bit on the 'consultant pharmacist' review is almost as long as the frigging review!  I'm going to go and cut it way back, because this is ridiculous.  --Ludwigs2 19:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I for one am happy with the result. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Weight in consultant pharmacist article

message: This is not "referenced in scholarly journals" (or a journal, since I moved another citation to a journal to the "Reviews" section). It is a very brief mention of QW's viewpoint along with another "watchdog", in the news section of the journal, not in a refereed paper. I don't think it's a notable mention and would like permission to delete it. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Judith, I'm not sure I understand you. I hope that you aren't raising the bar for inclusion to something above what is required for all articles here. We are mixing various reports, awards, commentaries, positive and negative mentions, etc., all in one section. That wasn't originally the case, but that's where we are now. Each mention stands on its own merits and is sourced. Proper attribution should take care of the rest, and that should be good enough. Now if this mention is in the wrong section, then let's find a better spot for it, rather than just deleting it. The section is important because it was specifically created to meet the demands by detractors for proof of the notability of the website, as a condition for even keeping the article here. (Yes, believe it or not, this article has survived AfD's! That's how far they have gone.) Any attempts to water this down contribute towards their goal of attacking a source that attacks their pet ideas. That's unwikipedian behavior and I'm sure you don't intend to unwittingly participate in such unworthy endeavors, which is why I'm sharing this history with you. -- Fyslee / talk 05:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for sharing it Fyslee. Of course I don't want to raise the bar here above what is usual for articles. If people would like to look, my model for a contentious article is Bat Ye'or. There - after massive amounts of edit-warring - consensus has settled on some very notable positive mentions and some notable/scholarly negative ones. It is left to the reader to work out how much credit to attach to each. Please note that I don't think this topic ought to be anything like as contentious or that we are aiming for 50-50 positive-negative. If we are reflecting the balance "out there", then the result will be quite different from that on the Bat Ye'or page. There are more positive than negative references to QW, and those critiques that we do have are not written in anything like as scathing terms as those about that controversial writer. I'm also bearing in mind that conciseness is a virtue: QW is this, does that, this person for this purpose said this, that person writing in that context said that, a few more notable comments, notes, external links, see also, categories. No POV-pushing from any side. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Journal of the National Cancer Institute'' 

message: This article reads like a turf war, folks. Almost every sentence is so contested, that the overall presentation reads even schizophrenically at times. When sentences cancel out each other, how can a reader even begin to understand the article in the first place? Understand that editors here are working under a lot of pressure, but readable copy for a encyclopedia is also crucial. I'm no grammar major, but I can read, and this article is best described as a working draft -- but it's on the front page. Can it be formatted to be read better at least while the finer points are duked out? FResearcher (talk) 02:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Go ahead and be bold.  Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly.  --Elonka 02:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Elonka, due to this article being a No Man's Land of two main warring factions, and I a new face, it's best that I don't touch the article itself (and upset an editor who's worked on a section for months). I'm suggesting that existing editors to go back and proof read their work, so that as a working copy, any third party that comes to this page can make sense of the article. There's too many sentences that literally cancel each other's citation out. When two sides war over how to make a sausage and it's ingredients, often they forget that other folks will have to eat it. But what looks good on the production floor, doesn't for third parties who aren't into sausage making (and probably throw up at the sight of it!). This is a friendly "heads up", that between the duking out of sources, that the readability side shouldn't be regarded as what happens after the sausage is made itself. Those Googling sources will come by, and these third parties deserve fine sausages to eat, even if the sausage itself is a hot link with an extra side of Cayenne. FResearcher (talk) 13:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: FResearcher - I actually agree with you.  In fact, if you want to go through and make this a decent read I will support you to the best of my abilities.  it will get you in some hot water, yes: various people - you'll see who - will try to attack you in the hopes of provoking an unreasoned response, all in an attempt to get you blocked.  just ignore them, because it's mostly smoke - leave a note on my talk page about anything that worries you.  politics on wikipedia is mostly stuck at the grammar school level (tease someone until they get mad, then rat them out to the teacher (errr.. admins) as though it's all their fault).  it's sad, but there's not much you can do about it except learn the ropes, keep your cool, and keep at it.  :-)  --Ludwigs2 21:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Readability 

message: Re: , I think we can easily verify:
* "was asked by editors of the Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics"
* "to give a presentation as the counterpoint for Dr. Lawrence J. Schneidermanthe s presentation"
* "which argued that "alternative medicine" is not medicine at all"
I'm not so sure about:
* "since he is known for advocating for tolerance of alternative medicine as a culture"
--Ronz (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored the info above that I think is easily verifiable and not in contention.  I also moved his title to the footnote as it is in the other as a compromise to the previous discussions on this issue.  Note that the footnote actually contains a reference for the information about the symposium. --Ronz (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The information above is in contention. It is not easily verifiable, and it is not relevant to Quackwatch. The professor's credentials should be restored.  Petergkeyes (talk) 10:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's not relevant, then I guess the source and all relevant information should be removed as well.  Otherwise, we need to be sure we present it per NPOV, which is what we've been doing.  Have you read the previous discussions on this? Seems like you're asking us to ignore NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 02:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this entirely "uncited, unsourced original research"?

message: One thing I have noticed is that the manner in which quotes are formatted is sometimes different in the same articles many places here at Wikipedia. That applies here as well. This is an unfortunate way in which editorial POV can creep into an article. An editor can insert a quote and make it more noticeable than other quotes. It may even happen with no ulterior motives than personal preference for a certain method of formatting, but it's still not right. Some quotes are indented in the simple and normal ":" or "*" manners and others are indented and formatted using the  or  template formats.
I think all quotes should use the simple wiki markup ":" or "*" methods of indenting, unless there is some special reason not related to editorial POV for doing otherwise. It isn't proper to highlight some quotes in big quote boxes, while others are kept more obscure, sometimes even hidden as part of the inline text, even though the quotes are several lines long. I think MOS allows both methods, but I find it to be misused at times, and would rather avoid making POV differences.
I have undone such formatting (the last two methods) in several places where I have found it, but will wait for comments before doing it here. I would like to simplify the existing blockquotes in this article. What think ye? -- Fyslee / talk 04:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Any responses? If not, I'll proceed as suggested. -- Fyslee / talk 05:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. -- Fyslee / talk 19:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I had been thinking of replying but hadn't quite figured out what to say yet.  However, I think it looks better the way you've formatted it with colons, so it's still indented but without coloured boxes.  (Or do I not need to bother saying this because nobody's allowed to revert it anyway?just kidding) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting of quotes 

message: We're writing an encyclopedia article.  Searching high and low for sources that mention Quackwatch, then finding ways to add them into the article is not how encyclopedia articles are written when the sources are from primary sources not mentioned by any other sources.  
Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. --Ronz (talk) 23:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If they are from RS, they can potentially be useful. -- Fyslee / talk 06:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Absolutely, but without the secondary sources to support them, we almost guarantee ourselves WP:OR problems.  NPOV problems as well if the primary sources since we'll have difficulty presenting the information in a balanced manner without relevant independent sources to guide us. --Ronz (talk) 15:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: We're not writing newspaper article here

message: I propose to do the following edits:  
*In the lead, change the wikilink of "criticizing many forms of alternative medicine" so that only the words "alternative medicine" are within the double square brackets, since that give the reader a better idea of where the link is going; 
*In the Reviews section, join the second, third and fourth paragraphs into one paragraph;
*Also in the Reviews section, move the "Donna Ladd" paragraph up to become the second paragraph of that section.
Let me know if any of these would be considered reverts, or feel free to comment on whether to make these changes. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's any consulation I consider them edits (that thing we do here) rather than undefined reverts.  A read thru your changes are fine by me as they are relatively minor and improve readibility somewhat.  Shot info (talk) 02:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: LOLwell, I'm not going to search the whole page history to see if the paragraphs ever happened to be in that other order, etc. But if I happened to stumble onto something people had been edtiwarring about ... oh, yeah, I forgot, there couldn't have been any edit wars. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor edits

message: I have restored the sept 10th version, per the discussion above.  NOW let's discuss the proposed changes.  --Ludwigs2 22:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your revert has ignored my previous comment. You have not explained your removal of references. Please stop. QuackGuru 22:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: restored

message: I suggest that the regulars who like to revert without any discussion on this talk page hold themselves voluntarily to WP:1RR. --Ronz (talk) 16:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't think that a limit on reverts will do all that much here but I also don't see it as a problem.  What I do see here though are editors removing new information added to the article that appears to be reverting of the editor and not the edit itself.  There is no policy that I am aware of that an editor has to first post new refs to the talk page to get a consensus before adding it to the article.  My personal observation is that the reversion to the older version should be undone with the new edits to stay in.  If someone has a problem then let them bring the questions to the talk page and find a solution as to how the new information should be added or removed.  I don't think that reverting just to revert is a good way to make the article move forward. If the new refs violate policy like WP:BLP or any other urgent policy, then of course it should be immediately reverted.  But if there is no urgency to remove then why edit war over it?  How about everyone just take a deep breath and try to calm down.  The edits summaries clearly show history (bad history unfortunately) between the editors doing reverts.  I think that maybe everyone should try to think about how they would feel if the edit summaries were directed at them in such a way that it would discount their attempts to edit.  Please try to remember that what we try to do here is write an article with core policies in mind.  Please, again let’s not see the article locked down do to stubborn pride.  I really think that all the editors that edit here should by now know how to work together to get the article going in the right direction.  Of course this is just my opinion and I did leave here because of the behaviors seen today by editors.  Lastly, everyone try to calm down and put away the old feelings and start working in a collaborative way without the warring, it would be best all the way around for Wikipedia and the sanity of everyone.  Thank you for listening to me, I'll go away again as I do not want to intrude, I am just hoping to help a little here.  Good health to all, --CrohnieGalTalk 18:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion instead of edit-warring

message: * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quackwatch&diff=prev&oldid=239669348
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quackwatch&diff=prev&oldid=239665417
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quackwatch&diff=prev&oldid=239682155
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quackwatch&diff=prev&oldid=239856502 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quackwatch&diff=239870134&oldid=239856502
* An editor has made about four reverts in a 24 hour period after being warned about edit warring. What is most odd is that all the edits were marked as minor. QuackGuru 21:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: At least one of those was removing a WP:BLP violation, and the last was by an apparent consensus.  But you can bring to WP:AN3 if you want to.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks as though it already has been reported. I added your points re: BLP and CON. But if you want to chime in there as well, it may be useful. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edit-warring

message: I have placed User:Levine2112 on 0rr for this article based on the threat to edit war  above. Any reverts by said user to this article will result in a block. User has been notified. Also posted to WP:ANI. Other users should proceed with caution. Vsmith (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There was notification at this talk page.Talk:Quackwatch/Archive 12#Notice Here is evidence Levine2112 is aware of the probation.User talk:Levine2112/archive7#Homeopathy article probation notification User talk:Levine2112/archive7#Article Probation .28civility.29 The user has been warned before. QuackGuru 22:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, that's a different warning.  The Homeopathy article was under a "community probation" for a time, but then that was superseded by the ArbCom case.  See also the list at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation, which has been inactive since early July (when the ArbCom case was finalized). Though it's interesting that Levine2112's name isn't on that page either. Is there another log somewhere? --Elonka 23:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Notification of warning of 0rr

message: Can someone explain why an article published in a symposium about Evaluating Complementary and Alternative Medicine: The Limits of Science and Scientists is not relevant to this article?  Is that "undue criticism"?, why?  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read this edit summary. QuackGuru 23:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is being discussed in the above thread #Verification requested. --Elonka 00:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tx. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Evaluating Complementary and Alternative Medicine: The Limits of Science and Scientists

message: Following up here, could we get a comprehensive list of the problematic sections of this article?  What would need to happen, for the tags to be removed? --Elonka 00:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My main concerns, which I've discussed multiple times in most, if not all, of the Barrett-related articles are 1) the problem of presenting information without proper context or otherwise not presenting it in a manner that meets WP:UNDUE and 2) the problem of presenting information from primary sources where we have no corresponding secondary or tertiary sources, violating WP:PSTS.  While we've made progress addressing these problems, I find they are usually at the heart of most of the disputes here, including the recent editing and discussions related the the Hufford reference. --Ronz (talk) 01:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality tag

message: In order to try and clarify everyone's point of view on whether or not to include the Hufford source in the article, could everyone please weigh in here, one opinion per editor?  This is not a vote (See WP:POLL), but it may help to clarify everyone's current stance.  For example, each person could say "Keep" or "Remove", followed by a sentence or two on why you think that.  Again, this isn't a vote, so just saying "keep" or "remove" without an explanation, will have no weight.  But hopefully if we can get all the opinions in one place, it'll make things easier to sort out. Thanks, --Elonka 23:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw poll: Hufford

message: (response to Kaiwhakahaere's comment) Slap a verify tag on it or just pull it out (your call).  Shot info (talk) 01:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll discussion

message: ScienceApologist has gone ahead and removed the Hufford piece  claiming that it was agreed upon on this discussion page to do so. As we are only at the Straw Poll stage of DR, I frankly don't see how he could have concluded this. Thoughts of what to do? Should his edit be reverted? Should he be disciplined for reverting yet again and not participating in these ongoing proceedings? He has already been cautioned for edit warring in regards to a similar set of edits. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If SA is correct as to the content of the article, (I am unable to check), the reference shouldn't be here; not because of any question of relevancy, but because the only reference to QW is a quote of Kaufmann.  Would reinserting the reference with  be more appropriate?  I agree that SA is being tendenatious, but this time, he's clearly right.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You agree with his position that the information should be removed. I understand. However do you see that given that there is disagreement about whether or not the text meets some "relevancy" standard" and that the discussion is on-going, that he removal at this time is premature and thus disruptive to the DR process? I am not sure about the "verification failed" caveat at this time, because I don't know how that applies. Is there some verification issue with the Hufford text? -- Levine2112 discuss 21:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems to be a dispute as to the context.  It appears that the excerpt of Hufford's article related to QW is a "review" of Kaufmann's review of QW, so should only be listed under Kaufmann.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  What do you mean by "should only be listed under Kaufmann"? -- Levine2112 discuss 21:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with the Hufford removal because as it was written it failed verification, was not a review, and only briefly mentioned QW. The editors who want to continue to add controversial material as well as unverified content to the article have a hard time understanding the reasons it was removed. QuackGuru 21:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

text: There's no compromise possible. Hufford must go because he doesn't really offer a review of Quackwatch. Cherry-picking a few sentences that criticize QW by implication is the sorriest of sourcing. Besides, the article wasn't properly reviewed. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am curious about what Arthur means by "should only be listed under Kaufmann". Perhaps there is a course for compromise there. I always think compromise is possible. I don't think the "the article wasn't properly reviewed" argument really holds water. None of Quackwatch's articles are properly reviewed yet they are used as source all throughout Wikipedia. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Classic WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. We already agreed not to include Kaufmann here. By the same token we agree not to include Hufford. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (Third try, third different browser.)  It appears that Hufford's reference to QW is only quoting Kaufmann, so there's no reason to include this reference in the article.   tag was appropriate, but  or  might have been better, if they existed.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could I please see a link to the Kaufmann discussion, with consensus about not including him?  Thanks, --Elonka 18:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I beleive that you will find that no such consensus exists. It was one of those long, on-going battles which I beleive kind-of sort-of ended with a compromise to include Hufford's reference to Kaufmann rather than just Kaufmann. The main issue with Kaufmann was that his review of Quackwatch was published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, which - though peer-reviewed by an impressive editorial board - was deemed "unreliable" by the opposition here. However, since Hufford quoted the review in a more reliable source, Hufford was allowed in the article in place of Kaufmann. I believe that this is the way it went down. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be helpful if you would provide differences to support your conclusions. QuackGuru 19:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  What conclusions? I am only giving my opinion of what I think happened. Mostly, I feel that the Kaufmann dispute ended because the supporters of inclusion got burned out after months of stonewalling from the detractors. Here you can read a little bit about what I am saying. I still think that Kaufmann should be included in this article. It is the only thorough website review from a scientific viewpoint that we know of. The basis for exclusion of this source seems to have been tantamount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes 

message: : This section is for the use of uninvolved administrators in managing the dispute on this page
====Uninvolved admins====
* 
* 
* 
====Editors notified of ArbCom restrictions====
: The following active editors on this page have been formally notified of the potential of discretionary sanctions, per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy or Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience.
*  (administrator participating as involved editor)
* 
* 
* 
* 
*  
* 
====Other frequent editors on this page====
: Note: Being listed here does not imply that these editors were disruptive. It is simply for reference, a list of those editors who have recently been actively engaged with this article.
* 
*  (administrator participating as involved editor)
* 
* 
* 
*  
*  
*  
*  (administrator participating as involved editor)
*  
* 
====Admin log====
* Conditions established: 18:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone, admin or editor, who has questions or comments on any of the above, may post here.
====Restrictions followup====
As a followup, the above #Conditions for editing expired on August 30.  The article seems to have stabilized since then, which is great, and I congratulate everyone involved.  :)  I don't personally see any reason to renew the conditions, and recommend that we just archive this entire section.  Does anyone else feel that the conditions should be renewed and/or changed, or do you feel that they've done their job?  --Elonka 19:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Job well done. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, restrictions get lifted and it's the civil POV pushers who get blocked/banned.  Wonder why that is?? Shot info (talk) 22:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

text: FWIW, I think you should stick to 3RR - and come down heavy on those editors who do the "up to 3 rv per day" trick.  You know who they are - some of them have been recently blocked.  In that way normal editing can resume, and when a little edit war breaks out (which it will) then you can step in to block the editor that starts it (not the other one or both).  Sure, after a couple of edit wars and a couple of blocks - normality will resume without the need for EP.  And if there are editors who edit war, get blocked, edit war, get blocked, then go for a Community Sanction on AN/I.  Sure it's a bit more work for admins, but hey, what else is the mop and bucket really for?  Shot info (talk) 23:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Administrative notes

message: * Conditions established: 18:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Admin log

message: As a followup, the above #Conditions for editing expired on August 30.  The article seems to have stabilized since then, which is great, and I congratulate everyone involved.  :)  I don't personally see any reason to renew the conditions, and recommend that we just archive this entire section.  Does anyone else feel that the conditions should be renewed and/or changed, or do you feel that they've done their job?  --Elonka 19:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Job well done. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, restrictions get lifted and it's the civil POV pushers who get blocked/banned.  Wonder why that is?? Shot info (talk) 22:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

text: FWIW, I think you should stick to 3RR - and come down heavy on those editors who do the "up to 3 rv per day" trick.  You know who they are - some of them have been recently blocked.  In that way normal editing can resume, and when a little edit war breaks out (which it will) then you can step in to block the editor that starts it (not the other one or both).  Sure, after a couple of edit wars and a couple of blocks - normality will resume without the need for EP.  And if there are editors who edit war, get blocked, edit war, get blocked, then go for a Community Sanction on AN/I.  Sure it's a bit more work for admins, but hey, what else is the mop and bucket really for?  Shot info (talk) 23:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Restrictions followup

message: Two things, 1 - Elonka "warned" SA prior to slapping her Elonka Policy back on the page - yet we see her adding in the warning into the list above - why is it acceptable to have no restriction, then a warning, then restrictions, then assume that warning is included...perhaps to pre-emptively "get" an editor?  And 2 - would Elonka care to explain the reasoning why Quackwatch falls under the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy?  Shot info (talk) 23:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are currently no active restrictions on this article.  The last conditions expired on August 30. --Elonka 23:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So this "ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) cautioned about disruption and edit-warring.[15] --Elonka 23:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  When restrictions were first placed on this article, the most relevant case was the Homeopathy case, which applied to "articles which relate to homeopathy, broadly interpreted".  Which definitely includes Quackwatch, since the site covers homeopathy.  Since then, however, a newer and more appropriate case, the Pseudoscience case, has become active as of late July 2008.  The discretionary sanctions available under either case (Homeopathy or Pseudoscience) are identical, so it doesn't really matter which case is used. I've stuck with the Homeopathy case for continuity's sake, though I see that some admins are starting to warn under Pseudoscience, which is fine.  It is not uncommon for a disputed article (or editor) to be within the scope of multiple cases. --Elonka 00:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So it the application of the ArbCom case doesn't relate to the article in question, but (in this particlar case) relates to the 3rd party website?  So using this logic, this implies that the ArbCom case can be pushed out to any organisation that mentions the word even if the word is only tangentially used in the article?  FWIW, it would be interesting to see those editors who would disagree that QW comes under the Pseudoscience ArbCom restrictions, because Quackwatch covers pseudoscience, especially as they fight to stop their particular form of woo from being identified as pseudoscience :-) Shot info (talk) 02:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  When ArbCom said "broadly interpreted", their intent (as I understand it) was to give tools to uninvolved administrators, to help reduce disruption to the project. So whether it's the "homeopathy" or "pseudoscience" ArbCom case isn't really the point, since the potential discretionary sanctions are identical.  To give a general example:  If there were an article in a chronic state of edit-warring, and an administrator used the Homeopathy discretionary sanctions to help stabilize the article, even though the article was only weakly-related to homeopathy, ArbCom would probably support those sanctions.  The goal of the sanctions is to reduce disruption to the project, with the minimum of amount of administrator intervention necessary.  In fact, I would point out something that some people seem to be missing: In the several weeks that the #Conditions for editing were in effect on the Quackwatch article, not a single editor was banned or blocked, and the article never required the protection toggle.  Before the Conditions, the article had been in and out of protection for months.  During the Conditions, there were definitely warnings issued to several editors, but the editors heeded those warnings, and no further administrator action was required.  Which I see as a good thing: No editors had to deal with the "black mark" of a block in their logs, and the article stayed open to editing by everyone.  Without the discretionary sanctions, what probably would have happened would have been for the article to continue to go in and out of a nobody-can-edit "protection" state, and/or various editors would have been completely blocked from Wikipedia.  I personally dislike blocks except as a last resort, because when we block an editor, we lose all the other good edits that they may be providing in other non-disputed areas.  Plus it puts that black mark in their record, which stays with them permanently, long after the original dispute is forgotten.  So, when all that fuss can be avoided with just an admin-issued nudge here and there, I see that as a better solution.  In all the times that I have used discretionary sanctions, I'd say in 90%+ of situations, all I needed to do was post a note or caution to someone's talkpage.  Actual bans or blocks have been very very rare. --Elonka 21:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your clarification.  No doubt the Community is very interested in seeing your particular interpretation of what the ArbCom is attempting to do.  FWIW, everything that you suggest is a good thing and as a result of your implemention of EP can be performed by any admin using the existing set of policies.  All your actions did (as discussed in your RfC) was to shut down the article.  Shot info (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Two things

message: Ludwigs2 made a controversial edit by removing well sourced material. Ludwigs2 should be notified about the sanctions. QuackGuru 04:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What is controversial about that edit? Any specifics? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think QG is implying that Ludwig2's edit equates (or even exceeds) edits made by himself that have been sanctioned (or rather warned) over.  But it was two days ago, which seems to be a lifetime ago <shrugs>.  But here in Wikiwonderland, strange things sometimes occur :-).  Shot info (talk) 04:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  QG brings up a good point that Ludwigs2 hadn't been formally notified of any ArbCom case.  Which is indeed one of those "Wikiwonderland" things, that someone can be blocked for a week without any notification, but can't be banned from a single article unless they've been formally cautioned first.  Ah well, I've posted the notification, so it's all moot now. --Elonka 04:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not one but two controversial edits were made in a short time period. The edit restored text that was suggested by Hufford. It seems to be taken out of context and was not a review. QuackGuru 01:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Controversial? What is controversial about a peer reviewed article? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Read my previous comment. Also see Talk:Quackwatch#Straw poll: Hufford. QuackGuru 02:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is another controversial edit. The content is about Barrett and not Quackwatch. The Quackwatch part fails verification. Why was this added to this article when it is about Barrett and not Quackwatch. QuackGuru 03:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nope. The source has that wording: "Quackwatch has had some reversals in the courts". If a source describes Quackwatch as having reversals in court, we report that.  You may disagree with my edits, as well as present arguments, but please, stop characterizing my edits as "controversial".≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no evidence Quackwatch went to court. It was Barrett and not Quackwatch that went to court. The way it is currently written is misleading. If it is fixed it would explain it was Barrett. Why was this added to this article when it was Barrett and not Quackwatch. QuackGuru 03:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  See WP:V. We report what sources say on a subject. Read the book. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Quackwatch never filed any court cases. Barrett does not equal Quackwatch. QuackGuru 03:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I would have to concur with QG here Jossi.  To the best of my knowledge QW never had any court action.  Instead it was Barrett as an individual, or in conjunction with a team of people.  I have a feeling that the source may be conflagrating Barrett and QW together which in itself is problematic (as the discussion about Hufford also articulates). Shot info (talk) 03:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that there is a need to discuss this segregation between Barrett and Quackwatch articles. I believe that such segregation is artificial and has no merit, but I am willing to hear arguments against my assessment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

text: The same pattern with the Hufford piece is happening again with this latest problematic edit. QuackGuru 04:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm.  A source which says "QW sued" might possibly be included, but only with the caveat that the source is clearly incorrect. in so stating.  (This is without reviewing this particular reference.  It may be it's not notable or reliable in regard to Barrett, either.)  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 12:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversial edit 

message: I have yet to understand why there are two articles. After all, the notability of Barrett is directly related to his website (no website, not notable). So why do we have two articles? And if there are grounds for two articles, what is the rationale for segregating content to either article?  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe (without double checking the archieves) that this has come up a couple of times before.  And in any case, Barrett has now separate notability for a rather spectacular court case called Barrett v. Rosenthal Shot info (talk) 03:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This Barrett v. Rosenthal tiny article is in mainspace. Stephen Barrett is more notable than a tiny article that problably would not survive an AFD. QuackGuru 04:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That article needs to be merged with Stephen Barrett. As for the previous discussions about separate articles, I would be interested in reading them. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Go crazy, the archieves are there.  Shot info (talk) 05:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's just wrong.  Barrett v. Rosenthal is a notable court case, being the first appealate ruling that the CDA's provisions apply to protect individual content providers from suits related to intentional (but not collusive) reprinting of defamatory material.  merging it to Barrett is clearly inappropriate.  If anywhere, it should be merged to Ilena Rosenthal, but she's managed to prevent any such article from being written by vandalism.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 12:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Merging any of the articles would be a very bad idea. This has been discussed pretty thoroughly before and clearly rejected. Reviving it would just be disruptive. Let's move on to other matters. -- Fyslee / talk 05:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barrett's article and this article 

message: Some editors have been asserting that all the lawsuits are related to Barrett, but a cursory look into sources available online, Quackwatch, Inc. and Quackwatch.com have been named in lawsuits. Any comments? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you provide such sources? I believe that what we need for inclusion is more than just a court record, but some sort of coverage by a third-party source. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, please provide sources. I know of one lawsuit (filed by Hulda Clark) that named the Quackwatch website, some other websites, and a few internet discussion groups, as well as a long list of people, but that lawsuit was dropped before going to court. People can be sued, not websites. -- Fyslee / talk 06:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lawsuits 

message: Here are two refs that might be of interest. QuackGuru 18:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refs 

message: Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa, a pharmacist, reviewed Quackwatch in the The Consultant Pharmacist. Nguyen-Khoa characterized Quackwatch as "relevant for both consumers and professionals", though he felt that the presence of so many single-author articles by Barrett "leaves one sensing a lack of fair balance in his condemnation of many dubious health therapies. Steps to correct this are under way, as many reputable professionals have signed on to populate the site in their areas of expertise." Nguyen-Khoa remarked that the implementation of a peer review process would benefit the site, and since the review one has been implemented.
=== Comments on pharmacist bit ===
This is a bit too long because it contains duplication. Thoughts? QuackGuru 18:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a go at consolidating that paragraph in the efforts I mentioned below.  I agree it was clumsy and wordy, and think I improved it.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's OK. We have done this before several times of course. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pharmacist bit 

message: This is a bit too long because it contains duplication. Thoughts? QuackGuru 18:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a go at consolidating that paragraph in the efforts I mentioned below.  I agree it was clumsy and wordy, and think I improved it.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's OK. We have done this before several times of course. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on pharmacist bit