Talk:Quackwatch/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Donna Ladd quote

What was wrong with it and the way it was presented? Itsmejudith (talk) 12:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The text used and sourced to that reference didn't match. It wasn't even a "quote", per your heading:

• "Donna Ladd, a journalist, in an article in the Village Voice, suggested that Quackwatch's notability might be influenced by the economic competition between the medical industry and alternative sources."

If the source is to be used, then we need a better wording. I'm not sure what the intention of the one who included it was, so I'm not sure how to fix it. If it was just a slightly poor paraphrase, I'd fix it and keep it, but I just can't find anything in the source to justify that wording. If you can do so, please restore an improved version. I have nothing against the source being used, it just needs to be used properly. The source is still (properly) used two other times to justify the inclusion of other information. -- Fyslee (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Failed verification

This section still fails verification:

• Waltraud Ernst, Professor in the History of Medicine at Oxford Brookes University, points out Barrett's thoroughness and care in advocating against hucksterism, and how it ends up downplaying alternative forms of healthcare, as well as faith, persuasion, spirituality, and cognition, in the treatment of diseases.

Can anyone clear this up or delete it? -- Fyslee (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain why? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoever placed the tag must know. They must have examined the source (unavailable to me) and found the sentence is not a true representation of the source. Is that the case? Who can help? -- Fyslee (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I may be mistaken but I think User:Jossi added this info in. But my understanding is the editor retired. Hope this helps, Deletion is probably the best. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

There are two matters here: (1) The part I question is "... as well as faith, persuasion, spirituality, and cognition,..." That sounds like a claim without foundation. The rest of the quote seems to be an accurate depiction of what Barrett does. (2) The other matter is why the tag was originally placed there. Someone with access to the source apparently didn't consider the sentence to be an accurate representation of the source. Who has access to the source so we can check? Without verification, the last part, being of questionable accuracy, needs to be deleted. Better yet would be to verify what's going on, rather than deleting. But the tag has been there for a long time without verification, and it can't remain much longer without us doing our duty and deleting the content. -- Fyslee (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I just found Google Book's page. When searching for "Barrett", lots of short phrases with Barrett's name can be found, but I don't find this quote.....Hmmm, now I'm finding something (searching as I write here...). Yes, there is a phrase describing "they" (not just Barrett)

• "scientific status, they overlook the important point that faith. persuasion, spirituality and cognition can be potent forces in the treatment process" p. 230

Looking at page 230 itself gives the context. "They" refers to "anti-quackery leaders like Barrett". Waltraud is waxing eloquent with her personal views on the subject of quackery, and many of her comments in the book show that she is very favorable to alternative medicine, and is thus critical of those who criticize it. That she may often be incorrect is a distinct possibility.[1]. The current wording not only adopts Waltraud's wording, but presents it as fact. That's not proper. It's just her opinion, and it's not directed solely at Barrett, but is a general criticism of those who are critical of alternative medicine. The very next paragraph praises Barrett, but goes on to set up a straw man that may or may not be accurate. It's still her general opinion about anyone critical of alt med.

Much of what she writes about Barrett is actually excellent recommendation and can be quoted to give balance. -- Fyslee (talk) 20:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Failed verification 2

SA has tagged another item: [2]

What is the problem with this one? Let's fix it so the tag can be removed. -- Fyslee (talk) 04:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I made this change. I don't see any point to stating the obvious. Any website should be examined. QuackGuru (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

As I recall this is a leftover from the days when critical editors were desperately seeking reliable sources that criticized Quackwatch. Most sources that criticize it aren't reliable, so that was a difficult matter for them. There is another obvious statement that isn't really a criticism, but an obvious fact about any website, and that is the "criticism" (phrased as a recommendation) that it be peer-reviewed. The problem is that websites are not peer-reviewed and no one expects them to be, so it was very odd to even consider using such a statement as a criticism, but they did attempt to twist it into a criticism. I see that it has been reworded to retain the fact that it was more of a helpful suggestion than a real criticism. -- Fyslee (talk) 06:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It was explaned before why it was removed. The edit summary also explained why it was removed. Any website should be examined. It was stating the obvious. QuackGuru (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I previoulsy explained why the text was removed despite the claim in the edit summary. QuackGuru (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiDashboard

Who owns this article?

[3]

some transparency.

--Fothergill Volkensniff IV (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It appears that Fothergill Volkensniff IV isn't honest enough or interested in "transparency" enough to deal with a criticism of the way he has worded his entry above. Since he deleted it from his talk page, I'm going to place it here:

• You might consider refactoring your "own" comment. It is a direct ("who") WP:OWNERSHIP accusatory question directed against unnamed editors. It thus fails to AGF and is a personal attack. Many editors have that article on their watchlists since it is one of the most significant articles related to alternative medicine, health fraud, quackery, consumer protection, evidence-based medicine, and medical ethics. As for myself, I happen to currently "have 3,523 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages)." There is at least one other tool that provides that same information. It's interesting to look at, but once is enough unless there really are serious ownership issues with an article. That does happen occasionally on controversial articles. If you want an example, try placing your message (using better wording) on the Mucoid plaque article. To use the tool in a proper manner, one has to examine ownership in the context of individual edits that are jealously guarded, whole articles that are guarded by their creators, etc. Merely looking at the statistics doesn't really provide any useful information other than giving a hint as to which time period to look at, usually in connection with edit wars. An examination will then need to be made to determine whether the edits in question are POV edits that are repeatedly inserted or guarded, or whether they are being reverted. The ones making the most edits could be on either side of that equation and those defending the encyclopedia would not be guilty of "ownership" regardless of their number of edits. Source link, which also includes advice

-- Fyslee (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Selective citation of sources

This revert from QuackGuru removed a semi-critical statement but left praise from the same source. Seems like a classic POV-push to me. QG's edit summary in no way refutes the passage he removed, and Barrett is not transparent about which of his articles are reviewed and by whom. And in any case, per WP:NOTTRUTH, a good source gets cited whether we think it's wrong or not.

There are at least three RS's criticizing Quackwatch (the one above, Ladd's article in the Village Voice, and an offline source by DJ Hufford), and none are mentioned here. That's unbalanced. I'll add in the latter two (verbatim from Stephen Barrett), and will wait a tasteful period of time before reverting QG unless a decent rationale is given not to. --Middle 8 (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. QuackGuru is deleting the negative part of the review, keeping the positive part of the review. Then, QuackGuru is adding only one of 2 highlighted articles. QuackGuru adds the highlight article about pharmacy stocking questionable supplements because of higher profit, yet excluding the 2nd highlighted article, “Misuse of Compounding,” deals with the substitution of available prescription products with formulations prepared from bulk products.. for the same reason - higher profit. QuackGuru's inclusion of only positive points and deletion of anything negative is editing to perpetuate a personal bias.

Stmrlbs (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to add, the reasoning why Joel Best's work is excluded is deeply flawed. he's a perfectly reliable source, who takes an appropriately scientific stand on the issues involved. --Ludwigs2 20:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I read Arthur's edit summary and just said "ok, sounds good", but I'd forgotten that there is nothing in WP that says RS's must meet WP:N. --Middle 8 (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

And googling, it turns out Best meets WP:PROF [4], and hence is "notable" under our policies. So he's an RS for sure. Is his statement germaine? Sure it is, especially when Barrett says consumers aren't qualified to critically analyze stuff and that they should trust him. Best says, specifically about Barrett, nope, that's not so good. Yep, I would argue that's relevant, and adequately weighted (source has good academic creds). regards, Middle 8 (talk) 02:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP requires higher standards, I'm afraid. Also, if the statement is about Barrett, it doesn't belong in this article. (I need to check further.) We've already rejected the NIH endorsement of QW on the grounds of relevance. Balance suggests we reject criticism of a similar tangential relevance. However, I'll re-check the reference, and I may add it if — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

BLP? sorry, but I doubt it. I've seen the BLP issue on this article come and go on this article pretty much as required to exclude criticism and include praise. if you want to start raising it again, fine; but I'll make certain that it is applied uniformly (which, mind you, may entail some fairly extensive rewrites). in the meantime, I'll re-check the reference myself. --Ludwigs2 03:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

ok, I checked through the history to this version (which is the last time I verified Best's work) [5]. what I wrote then was Joel Best asserts that sites such a quackwatch that are "devoted to particular social issues or types of data" may "vary in their concerns and underlying ideologies, and their critiques should be examined critically rather than simply being accepted". how is that a BLP issue? --Ludwigs2 03:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Ludwigs2 entirely. BLP doesn't even enter into it, which is pretty obvious once one reads the proposed text. Neither this nor Ludwigs2's wording above is even in the ballpark of a BLP concern. When a respected academic renders considered criticism of a website, that's an RS, not a BLP problem. Also, Quackwatch criticizes the ideas of living people all the time; these have been cited on WP, and I don't remember any sort "BLP violation" argument sticking. --Middle 8 (talk) 06:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I must agree that this isn't a BLP issue. Keep in mind that Best's very neutral comments about "sites devoted to particular social issues or types of data", including Quackwatch among them, aren't really a criticism, but common sense that applies across the board. If we were to include ordinary common sense as a criticism, then we'd be getting too close to a SYNTH/NPOV violation, maybe not by actual wording, but by editorially determined placement of the information in the article. Since we are blending praise and criticism under a neutral heading, this may not be a problem. If the quote is twisted into a criticism by inclusion or deletion of certain elements, that would also be problematic.

Since old refs that have been removed long ago after long and arduous edit wars and the resulting truces, this restoration is a revival of those edit wars. This is very unfortunate and borders on disruption, since these issues were settled long ago.

Please be very careful. This caution applies to both QG (please avoid the appearance of whitewashing), and to the enemies of QW (please avoid the appearance of smearing tactics by the desperate use of noncriticisms or unnotable and weak "criticisms" as if they really amounted to anything significant). I think it's time to start adding more supportive refs.... -- Fyslee (talk) 06:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Fyslee: frankly, I object to the phrase 'enemies of Quackwatch', and I'll go so far as to say that kind of senseless polarization is what caused all of the previous troubles on this article. As far as I'm concerned (and I believe this is supported by reliable sources), Quackwatch is a decent, well-intentioned, but clearly partisan site that often pursues its 'mission' with a (self-admitted) disregard for scientific rigor and proper consideration. The site is essentially a sex offender registry for alternative medicines, except there's no due process for how a practice gets on or off QW's naughty list (as far as I can tell, Barrett has sole discretion over what is and isn't included). I have no interest in trashing QW or Barrett; if I had any personal desires about this, it would be to encourage QW to take a more balanced and scientific approach to its task, which would benefit everyone (including the AltMed world, which could use someone willing to do proper scientific vetting). The fact that a handful of editors have put extensive - and occasionally uncivil and overbearing - efforts into framing quackwatch as irreproachably noble, unimpeachably scientific, and universally approved in not my issue. I am not an 'enemy' of quackwatch (or an AltMed supporter, or a fringe pov-pusher, or any of the other things that I've been called on this talk page) for opposing that kind of bias.

In short, enough of that kind of talk. Please respect that. --Ludwigs2 15:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

@Fyslee: I would never knowingly disrupt an article. Although I followed Stephen Barrett closely for awhile, I've never followed this article much. I thought that the stuff I brought up was pretty mundane. Sorry if I inadvertently stepped in an old land mine. On the bright side, fresh input may improve the article. I agree that sources like Best aren't necessarily critical in the pejorative sense; my ES was sloppy, and I should have been clear that I meant "critical" in the more generic sense of taking stock of something. Best does this, and his lack of apparent partisanship is all the more reason why including him shouldn't be controversial. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I have generally been more liberal about inclusion of criticisms than some other pro-QW editors here, but have often been silent and let them battle it out. If they could come up with convincing arguments, the better for them, but I have usually just stayed out of the fray. I oppose whitewashing, and that's what I see to some degree here. There was no need to touch this article, which was quiet and peaceful, thus stirring up a hornets nest and starting edit wars. My comments above were generic to all editors on either side of the question. We have indeed a number of editors who have or do edit this article who have expressed very negative and even hateful thoughts about QW and Barrett. Where one finds oneself on the scale is evident from ones editing history, which speaks for itself. Some editors have come to a much more informed and mature understanding during the time they have edited here, while others haven't, and some on both sides have been blocked or banned. I am only appealing to both sides for a reasonable approach. I am all for inclusion of criticism, but it should be reasonable and constructive criticism, and not what we used to have here all the time, which were gross BLP violations and libelous statements. Fortunately we got rid of that type of stuff, but it took a long time. Now let's find good quality criticisms and include them. What are good quality criticisms? Those which are accurate, not based on misunderstandings or straw men. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

yes, I know, and I agree. my apologies for snapping at you with that earlier post; I still have some left over resentments from my last experiences on this page. You're one of the better editors I've had the pleasure of working with, even if I don't always agree with you, so no sense in fuming in your direction. let's get back to basics, see if we can figure things out here, and then I'm going to take this page off my watchlist. --Ludwigs2 03:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

@Fyslee again: yes, well said. Don't hesitate to let me know if anything I added misses the mark. The Chowka quote from Village Voice, for example, makes a good point but I can also see that it sounds a little snippy. Happy to tweak, if need be. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 06:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

BLP violation and irrelevant information

As previously explained, there are BLP violations and irrelevant text recently added to this article. I suggest the editor who added the obvious WP:BLP violations and irrelevant text to remove it from the article. QuackGuru (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, QG, but you'll have to explain in what way there is a BLP violation here. there's no evidence of it that I can see. please clarify. --Ludwigs2 18:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

There is evidence of a BLP violation and irrelevant information was added to this article. Please read the cmt again. QuackGuru (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

that is just a diff of Arthur saying that BLP issues have higher standards. there's no indication of what BLP violation (if any) he is referring to. I don't disagree that BLP is important, but I don't see any indication that it applies anywhere on this article. please clarify if it does. --Ludwigs2 20:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Most editors don't seem to believe there is a BLP problem here, but certainly we can bring it in front of BLP/N if anyone wants to. As for QG's other concerns, please provide mainspace diffs, and we can discuss. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 23:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Most editors don't seem to believe there is a BLP problem here is a false statement. Adding one-sided misleading text against Stephen Barrett is a BLP violation. It was decided by consensus to not include irrelevant criticism against Stephen Barret for this article because this article is about Quackwatch, not Criticism of Stephen Barrett. QuackGuru (talk) 02:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

QG, you are now conflating/inflating/diverting this into three different issues: (1) a BLP violation (but you won't provide a diff to the actual mainspace edit in question; (2) irrelevant text added; (3) this is about QW, not Barrett.

Let's get back to your original charge and stick to THAT one. No more diversions. Please provide a diff to the mainspace BLP violation. That will give us the exact wording in question, the time, and the editor who did it. Until then, this is just smoke and mirrors, and not a BLP violation. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: I agree with Fyslee, and will go a bit further. You completely ignored my reasonable request, and made a false statement about editorial opinion. Enough of that. Please re-read WP:IDHT and take it to heart. I'll be frank: I've seen you doing IDHT for some time; it's considered disruptive; it wastes valuable time; I have little patience for it; and I won't hesitate to raise the issue to the community (as an RfC/U or on ANI, etc.) if you keep it up. I don't want you to be sanctioned; I just want you to change course and follow widely-accepted standards of discussion.

Like I said, you need to provide diffs if you want editors to reconsider or remove material, and explain why you think the material is misleading. As for BLP: Myself, Fyslee and Ludwigs2 have all opined above that there is no BLP problem; Arthur Rubin raised the question but has so far rendered no definite opinion. As for purported consensus in the past, let's see diffs or links to relevant archived discussion, and then let's reconcile it with emerging consensus from the present, active group of editors. --Middle 8 (talk) 03:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Here are the diffs.[6][7]. I have checked the archives. I don't see any consensus for including the material from relevant archived discussion. Incuding only critiques against Stephen Barrett is considered a BLP violation. The other problem with the text is that it is almost exclusively about Stephen Barret. But this article is about Quackwatch. As previously explained, it is not relevant to this article. QuackGuru (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

QG, we don't need consensus for including properly sourced material. if you think there's a BLP violation here, then you need to demonstrate that it exists, otherwise there isn't one by default. --Ludwigs2 18:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

As previously explained, the critiques against Stephen Barrett is considered a BLP violation and it is not relevant to this page to include information and unbalanced text about Stephen Barrett. QuackGuru (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

:::::QG: I'm reverting your edits again. I looked at both the links your provided - one is simple a link to this talk page (which doesn't explain anything) and the other is a link to a discussion in which you and

Adding irrelevant text against Stephen Barrett is the most obvious BLP violation to identity. QuackGuru (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

striking the previous entry - it got sent before I finished. QG: I'm reverting your edits again. I looked at both the links your provided in your edit summary - one is simply a link to this talk page (which doesn't explain anything) and the other is a link to a discussion in which you and ScienceApologist remove this book citation, because you somehow come to the conclusion that it was a citation to a website. what's up with that? further, your two links above merely point to claims that other editors have made without showing any basis for those claims. let me be clear: please provide actual reasons why these valid sources should be removed. do not give diffs of other editors saying they should be removed; do not give diffs of other editors discussing the matter. Please discuss the matter yourself, so that we can see your reasons for wanting this change. Do not remove properly sourced material without an appropriate discussion of the issues on the talk page. thanks. --Ludwigs2 19:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: please give a diff for this 'irrelevant text against Stephen Barrett'. --Ludwigs2 19:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I previously provided diffs to mainspace about the BLP violations and irrelevant text. No reason has been given to to include critiques against Stephen Barrett when this article is about Quackwatch. QuackGuru (talk) 19:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

An editor claims I did not provide any explanation for removal of the text but I previously explained my reasons. For example, the text is not about Quackwatch. QuackGuru (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That is a false claim on its face; the material you removed specifically does mention Quackwatch, as well as Barrett in his capacity as publisher/author. Not only is there no BLP violation, but to argue falsely that the Best and Ladd refs are "not about Quackwatch" is more WP:IDHT and, by definition, a WP:TE violation. Again, please respect your fellow editors and don't do that. --Middle 8 (talk) 07:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The diffs provided above are quite simply not a violation of BLP, take it to BLPN if you feel otherwise 70.71.22.45 (talk) 01:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

(undent)QG, the B in BLP stands for 'biography'. Barrett's work on Quackwatch is part of the QW purpose and public record; it is not biographical information, any more than President Obama's support or opposition of a Senate bill would be considered biographical information. BLP is intended to prevent scandalous or unpleasant private information from appearing on Wikipedia, and getting the foundation sued. but criticism of material that Barrett posted on a public website (with the full intention of it being read by others) is not private information.

I mean seriously - make this argument one more time, and I may use it myself to nominate the quackwatch article for speedy deletion on the grounds it violates BLP for altmed practitioners. --Ludwigs2 19:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Although BLP can apply to non-biography articles which include biographical information, I cannot possibly see how BLP applies to any of the statements in question. WP:IDHT seems relevant all of sudden. :-) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Levine2112. I see no BLP violation here. To expand on his explanation of the BLP policy, it was originally intended for biographical articles but quickly was expanded in practice to include any (1) unsourced AND (2) negative information about ANY living person, on- or off-wiki, including Wikipedia editors. If an edit contains even the most negative information, it may still be allowed if it is properly sourced. Information that would be considered very libelous is found here at Wikipedia because it is properly sourced (and thus is not libel, since the truth is not libel). Improper sources, OTOH, will contain truly libelous (untrue) information, and we can't use them, for obvious reasons. Such sites are often blacklisted here as attack sites.

It is a very extensive policy that is used in conjunction with our harassment and outing polices, and many editors have been indef banned for violating it in more severe situations. Ordinary infractions with no especially odious intent that are dealt with easily by editors usually don't result in such drastic sanctions, but if an editor edit wars such inclusions, the price they pay for doing so can be pretty high. -- Fyslee (talk) 06:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

About Quackwatch, not about Stephen Barrett

This is possibly a valid concern, so each addition needs to be examined separately. We have long since decided that matters need to be kept separate. There was far too much duplication of information between the articles, and anyone seeking information in one article would likely read the other, so there was no hiding of information by removing it from one article and moving it to the other. I believe that is still a good principle to follow here and I encourage editors, especially the newer ones, to examine each edit and determine which article it "best" belongs in, even if it partially can apply to both. Then place it there and trust that readers will find it. These articles are lightning rods and many readers are very interested in examining these matters, and they can be trusted to do their research using both articles. -- Fyslee (talk) 06:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

err... this has probably been raised before (sorry, I wasn't aware until I saw this post that Stephen Barrett was an article), but it seems to me that these articles ought to be merged into Quackwatch. Barrett is only notable for his QW work - if it wasn't for the notoriety of QW, Barrett would just be another retired guy with an interesting internet hobby. I don't see that we need anything more than a minimal biography. do you? I could go either way with it, personally, but I wanted to raise the issue for discussion.

that being said, I don't think this is a difficult concern to address. Barrett's vocation is a public and political opposition to health care fraud. anything reliable sources say about his approach to this topic is factual information about a political position, which can't ever really be considered private biographical information. I mean, it's not like Rush Limbaugh or Michael Moore can complain if people say (for instance) that their logic is flawed; they entered into the public realm to make a point, and their logic around that point is an integral part of the issue. same with Barrett. we retain anything that's an analytic critique, and exclude whatever is groundlessly mean. everything should be fine. --Ludwigs2 16:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this has been raised before quite officially, multiple times, and shot down each time very decisively. There are significant enough differences to justify keeping two articles. Quackwatch is far more than Barrett, just as the JAMA is far more than Catherine DeAngelis, the Editor in Chief. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

oh, I was actually thinking the other way (folding Barrett's article into quackwatch, because QW is clearly notable, but I'm not sure how notable SB is aside from his participation in QW). but if it's been burned to a crisp in previous discussions, no need to raise it again. --Ludwigs2 03:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of reasons for why they have been kept separate, but one of them is that Barrett has been sued, while one can't sue a website, although one suit (that was quickly dropped...) actually attempted to sue it and some other websites, and some discussion groups as well, including an obvious spoof group. Go figure! Barrett's notability is indeed largely connected to QW, but he has, as himself, been an advisor for government committees, consumer protection agencies, universities, etc., and is notable as an author, among other things. Quackwatch just happens to be the most notable of the many activities that make him notable, pretty much all related to consumer protection. (For example, the "Consumer Health Digest" currently has 11,754 subscribers. You can subscribe at QW. Very interesting reading.) If you search the archives of both articles, you will find mention of the merge discussions, AfDs, and RfCs related to this matter. We have been there and done that. -- Fyslee (talk) 04:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree, merging not a good idea. But on duplication: does WP have a policy about duplicating material across articles with overlapping topics? It appears not to (see Village Pump discussion). Since Barrett is the central figure at Quackwatch, it's only natural that some discussions of QW would mention Barrett, and vice versa. In the absence of a policy/guideline I'd suggest a common-sense approach of reducing duplication but not being rigid about eliminating it. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 06:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

in practice, it seems that duplicate material is not a problem, unless it becomes (a) extensive enough that it might call for a merge or split, or (b) the content starts to diverge into something resembling a POV-fork. It's best, I think, to keep it minimal, but it seems to be a judgement call more than anything else. --Ludwigs2 19:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I basically agree. A certain amount of very limited duplication is probably unavoidable. We'll just need to use common sense. -- Fyslee (talk) 04:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Reference cleanup

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

A thorough sheriff

Here is an interesting story written by a sheriff:

• PCSO Detectives Arrest Winter Haven Couple for Practicing Medicine without a License

He not only describes the whole case, but also uses Quackwatch as a source. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute

The article seems to be overwhelmingly positive to me. There is not a section about criticism by proponents of alternative medicine who can point to peer-reviewed studies (and we're seeing more and more of those) and thousands of years of use of herbal medicines by different cultures as evidence supporting their views. I'm also wary of any site that calls Dr. Andrew Weil a "quack" as he is highly esteemed in the medical community, especially for his dietary advice. He may not be perfect, but let's face it - we'd all be a hell of a lot healthier is we followed his advice. I took a course on medical ethnobotany and realized the arrogance of western medicine, despite it being wrong many times, and realized that I shared that arrogance in scoffing at things like Ayurvedic medicine, even though thousands of years of human studies support it. Quackwatch is a great example of that arrogance. When talking about medicine, we should be open minded and not throw anything off the table unless it is proven to be harmful. I WOULD be wary of Dr. Weil if, for example, he said cancer patients should use only alternative therapies and not things like chemotherapy or surgery, but he has said quite the opposite. Herbal remedies and antimitotic plants have never shown much use in fighting cancer so he's always told cancer patients to see their oncologist, and to use the herbal remedies only as a supplement to treatment, to reduce the side effects of the drugs. That doesn't sound like a quack to me. 76.254.55.160 (talk) 00:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Just because an article appears "overwhelmingly positive" to someone, it doesn't mean that the article is not neutral. --Ronz (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

User:76.254.55.160, this talk page is about the article, not the subject of the article. Nowhere does the article call Dr Weil a quack (and neither does the Quackwatch website for that matter).There is no neutrality issue. User:Ronz told it as it is. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 01:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

BLP? why here?

Why is there a {{BLP}} here? This article is about Quackwatch, not Stephen Barrett.  ?? --stmrlbs|talk 02:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The answer is very simple. This is the discussion page and it inevitably ends up with discussions about him and others. Some of the things that have been written here have not only violated the BLP policy, but been maliciously libelous. The BLP policy applies to all living persons, including article subjects, editors and people outside of Wikipedia, and covers everything written anywhere at Wikipedia, including userspace and subpages. Brangifer (talk) 02:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

ok. I understand that libelous statements about any living person are not allowed on any talk page in Wikipedia. But, I was just wondering if there was a particular problem in the past with libelous statements here about stephen barrett, in order to justify the template. Is this standard procedure for any person that creating/owning/running a site that is featured in Wikipedia? I will have to check to see if there is an all points template for Jimbo for all of wikipedia! Wait, there isn't a BLP template for the "wikipedia" article. hmmm.. --stmrlbs|talk 04:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

There have been serious BLP problems. He has many enemies, some of whom are regular editors, and some of whom just pop in and leave messages and attacks. Brangifer (talk) 06:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Nguyen Review

This is the review Nguyen review on Quackwatch: [8] The representation of Nguyen review in this article only includes the positive part, and barely touches on the limitations of the Quackwatch site. I didn't expect all the criticisms to be listed.. but there is mention of what is being corrected (other reviewers) without even saying what Nguyen's original comment was (too many articles by Barrett). Also, Nguyen highlights 2 cases of interest to pharmacists, one involving the selling of alternative medicines, and one story about pharmacists compounding readily available prescriptions because they can use cheaper ingredients. Quackguru includes only the article pertaining to alternative medicine, but drops the other. When I added both and added what Nguyen states as the limitations of the site, first Quackguru said it was too long. Perhaps - but the stories of interest to pharmacists could be moved to the pharmacist article. The comments about the site should remain as this article is about Quackwatch, and this section is SITE reviews.

Also, the review vaguely mentions a Peer review process being implemented on Quackwatch that I can find nothing about. I could not even find the phrase "peer reviewed" or "peer review" even used on Quackwatch unless it was in relation to other sites/articles/people.

Therefore, I am removing the story about the pharmacists selling of alternative medicine - and including some of Nguyen's comments on the limitations of the site, for a more balanced synopsis of the review. --stmrlbs|talk 07:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain which websites have a peer review and how this is relevant. QuackGuru (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC

Come on, Quackguru.. most, if not all articles published in any kind of scientific/medical journals go through peer review by experts in the field and COI is a big concern. Look at peer review - which brings up one of the criteria for reviewers, if you wish to have a halfway decent reviewing process:

A conflict of interest arises when a reviewer and author have a disproportionate amount of respect (or disrespect) for each other. As an alternative to single-masked and double-masked review, authors and reviewers are encouraged to declare their conflicts of interest when the names of authors and sometimes reviewers are known to the other. When conflicts are reported, the conflicting reviewer is prohibited from reviewing and discussing the manuscript. The incentive for reviewers to declare their conflicts of interest is a matter of professional ethics and individual integrity. While their reviews are not public, these reviews are a matter of record and the reviewer's credibility depends upon how they represent themselves among their peers.

--stmrlbs|talk 21:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

If it wasn't relevant, then why would Nguyen mention it? Hmm. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 21:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Peer review is not a standard for any research article appearing on a website. QuackGuru (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Standard or not, Nguyen felt that in terms of the research articles appearing on the Quackwatch website, the lack of peer review merited her criticism. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 21:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Peer review is not a standard for any research article appearing on a website. QuackGuru (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you are going to have to spell out for me why that statement is at all relevant to this discussion about including a reliably sourced criticism into this article. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 22:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Peer review is not a standard for any research article appearing on a website. QuackGuru (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Shouting doesn't make your words relevant. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 22:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Peer review is not a standard for any research article appearing on a website. QuackGuru (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Funny. Any size or format you write it, it still isn't relevant to this discussion. That's so weird. When you're ready to carry on with a comprehensible conversation, I'll be back. Until then, feel free to carry on. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 23:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No specific response was made to my relevant comment. "Peer review is not a standard for any research article appearing on a website." QuackGuru (talk) 23:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Quackguru, anyone can investigate something, write a critique, reference it, call it research, and put it on a website. You might consider that "legitimate" - but most of the scientific community would not agree with you. They require a bit more - to say the least. That is what Nguyen is saying - that while Quackwatch might be entertaining, and make some good points - it does not really meet the standards of legitimate research. --stmrlbs|talk 01:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's be clear here, that is definitely not what Nguyen is saying. --Ronz (talk) 01:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

What do you think Nguyen is saying here:

For all the praise the site has won from reputable reviewers and rating services, the presence of so many articles from one author (Dr. 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. A giant step toward true legitimacy would involve active peer review of the articles to be published, a logical transition for a site that relies on so much of the accepted medical literature as its foundation. Further, an area for academic counterpoint would be a good addition. As stated, Dr. Barrett often inserts his strong opinions directly into sections of an article already well supported by the literature. Although entertaining, this direct commentary may be viewed by some as less than professional medical writing and may be better reserved for its own section.

--stmrlbs|talk 03:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

the Nguyen review

Because Quackguru can't justify his changes.. he is just engaging in revert war and trying to describe his changes as "rewrites". They are not. He just removes anything negative and adds positive parts which is POV pushing. Nguyen has both positive and negative in her review with recommendations on how to improve the site, and the review should represent that. --stmrlbs|talk 19:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I see QuackGuru continues to edit war here without ever addressing anything of substance in this discussion. This is troublesome. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 22:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Quackguru is editwarring again with these POV edits:

1. he only includes the highlight article that talks about alternative medicine, and drops the other highlighted article that talks about pharmacists compounding readily available preparations because they can substitute cheaper ingredients.
2. he repositions Nguyen's remarks about Peer Review just before the statement about steps being taken to add more writers on the site, so that it appears that the steps will address the peer review problem. The steps have nothing to do with the peer review. Quackwatch does not have peer review.
3. he keeps adding anything positive in the article and fighting anything negative from the article, so that the review is getting longer and longer - this after he reverted my edits for "wordiness"
4. the review the way Quackguru has written it does not makes sense.

--stmrlbs|talk 07:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The odd changes to the article are not NPOV and not neutral in tone. QuackGuru (talk) 07:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I explained my changes. How about you explaining your changes? Frankly, I'm beginning to think this needs to go to the NPOV noticeboard or Content board. Quackguru is just doing his usual edit warring with no discussion of his changes. I've explained twice (previous discussion and now this), and he just ignores it for the most part. --stmrlbs|talk 16:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Peer review is a tiny minority opinion and not worth mentioning. Peer review is not a standard for any research article appearing on a consumer protection organization website. The view that consumer protection website should be peer review is a tiny minorty and a WP:WEIGHT violation. QuackGuru (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not following your grammar. How is "peer review" a tiny minority opinion? Nguyen is not writing about consumer protection organization websites in general, but rather commenting specifically on Quackwatch. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 20:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

How is "peer review" a tiny minority opinion? Peer review is not a standard for any research article appearing on a consumer protection organization website. The view that consumer protection website should be peer review is a tiny minorty and a WP:WEIGHT violation. QuackGuru (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I understand what you are trying to say now. However, I still disagree with you because Nguyen is not writing about consumer protection organization websites in general, but rather commenting specifically on Quackwatch. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 20:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think what you saying is that you agree with me because it is not standard for any research article appearing on a consumer protection organization website to peer review. Nguyen is commenting specifically on Quackwatch, a consumer organization. It is not standard for a consumer protection organization to have a peer review. A tiny minority opinion is a WP:WEIGHT violation. QuackGuru (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope. That what you wish I were saying. But that is not what I am saying at all. :-) -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 21:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

No rebuttal argument was made because you agree that it is a minority view for a consumer organization to have a peer review. See WP:WEIGHT. QuackGuru (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. Whether it is a minority view that a consumer organization website should be peer reviewed is irrelevant to this conversation. We are discussing Quackwatch specifically because Nguyen is discussing Quackwatch specifically. I'm sorry if I don't play your game of "Follow the Red Herring", but I prefer to keep Straw men out in the field scaring crows. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 21:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

No rebuttal argument was made again. It is a minority view that a consumer organization website such as Quackwatch should be peer reviewed is relevant to this conversation per WP:WEIGHT. QuackGuru (talk) 21:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

To quote from the wikipedia article, Peer Review, peer review is intended to prevent the dissemination of irrelevant findings, unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations, and personal views. It is a measure used to prevent personal bias in an article that is presented as research. Bias is one of the main criticisms of Quackwatch, and Nguyen is just saying that the fact that so many articles are written by Barrett, with no peer review lends credence to the criticism of bias in the site. Nguyen was just saying that adding more articles written by other authors and putting the articles through peer review would make the articles more "legitimate". It is not a requirement of any critique written on the web, but people are going to put more worth into an article that has gone through peer review.

But, the point is, it doesn't matter whether you think it is relevant or not. This is about what Nguyen thought was relevant about Quackwatch. It is about Nguyen's review, not your opinion of the review. --stmrlbs|talk 20:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The proverbial nail has been hit on the head! -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 21:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

See WP:WEIGHT: Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

The point is it is about Nguyen's review is a minority view for any research article appearing on a consumer protection organization website such as Quackwatch to be peer review. QuackGuru (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The depths of WP:NOR which your analysis violates is staggering. What you seem to be ingnoring is that whether or not a consumer organization website should be peer reviewed is irrelevant to this conversation. We, like Nguyen, are discussing Quackwatch specifically. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 21:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a review by American Society of Consultant Pharmacists will be taken as a view from a "significant minority". In fact, it should carry more weight as a review from a mainstream source- a publication of a medical association, at that. "The Consultant Pharmacist® is the official monthly peer-reviewed journal of the American Society of Consultant Pharmacists (ASCP). Circulation: 11,000." --stmrlbs|talk 21:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The opinion itself is a tiny minority. It is a minority view that a consumer organization website such as Quackwatch should be peer reviewed. It cannot bear the WP:WEIGHT. QuackGuru (talk) 21:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

QG, it is a majority view that the scientific community puts more trust in articles that are peer reviewed. --stmrlbs|talk 21:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

But the opinion is still a tiny minority view. We must respect WP:WEIGHT. QuackGuru (talk) 21:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Which is it? Do you think it is a minority viewpoint that the scientific community puts more trust in articles that are peer reviewed? Or do you think that the American Society of Consultant Pharmacists represents a minority viewpoint? -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 00:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

What do you think. Anyhow, per WP:WEIGHT it is a minority opinion. QuackGuru (talk) 02:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Well in answer to my questions. I don't that it's a minority viewpoint that the scientific community puts more trust in articles that are peer reviewed. I think that's a majority opinion. And I think that the American Society of Consultant Pharmacists represents enough people that theirs could hardly be called a minority opinion either. So what do you think? Whose and which opinion are you stating is a minority one? Because it is not clear to me what you are saying. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 02:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The opinion itself is a tiny minority. See WP:WEIGHT. QuackGuru (talk) 03:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The opinion is published by the American Society of Consultant Pharmacists. How have arrived at your conclusion that it is a minority opinion? -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 03:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

We read WP:WEIGHT. QuackGuru (talk) 03:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I did. But my question still isn't answered. Allow me to rephrase it for in the hopes that you will give me a straight answer this time: How have you arrived at the conclusion that an opinion published by the the American Society of Consultant Pharmacists represents a minority opinion? -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 03:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article."

I think we can agree editors should respect Wikipedia's WP:WEIGHT. The view is held by a tiny minority. QuackGuru (talk) 03:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I am confused. Who is the tiny minority that holds this view? Where is the documentation showing that this view is held by a tiny minority? -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 04:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Barrett is criticising pharmacists and now the pharmacist Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa wrote an attack piece against Barrett's Quackwatch. This is not neutral the way it is written in this article and it is a minority view that a Quackwatch consumer organization website should be peer reviewed. QuackGuru (talk) 04:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

That analysis relies on original research on your part and is not an acceptable rationale to label an opinion a tiny minority viewpoint. The American Society of Consultant Pharmacists does not represent a tiny minority viewpoint. Quite the opposite. If you feel that the review is opinionated, well maybe that's because it is a critical review. Are we to get rid of all Wikipedia article content sourced to critical reviews now? I don't think you'll find much support for this position. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 04:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The American Society of Consultant Pharmacists is not a "tiny minority", no matter what Quackguru wishes. Not only is it not a "tiny minority", but it is a large mainstream organization of a mainstream medical group. However, looking through the many reviews that are in the section of Site Reviews, I do think that they should be re-evaluated per WP:Weight. For instance, how is a brief description of a site in an internet directory that gets paid for reviews a majority view? Why hasn't this been questioned? How much weight should ""Thing to do online". The Rough Guide To The Internet" carry? And how is a review by "John Macdonald presents the Talking of Books show on Dubai Eye" published in Khaleej Times a majority view? How about a "site review" from "Chronic Pain For Dummies"? OR "Low-Carb Dieting For Dummies"? I'm glad you brought up WP:Weight because I think these reviews need a closer look. --stmrlbs|talk 04:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Claiming that a Quackwatch consumer organization website should be peer reviewed is a tiny minority view not held by others. QuackGuru (talk) 04:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

so says you, a very tiny minority. --stmrlbs|talk 04:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The tiny minority opinion should be fixed. The claim that consumer organization websites such as Quackwatch should be peer reviewed is a tiny minority view. The Nguyen review is twice as long as other views in this article. This is a violation of WP:WEIGHT. QuackGuru (talk) 17:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Your "tiny minority opinion" argument doesn't seem to hold any water with anyone. Do you care to concede that it has no foundation? If so, I'd be happy to move on and discuss the length of the Nguyen review coverage in this article. These are two different issues which you have brought up and it would be better to resolve the first one before moving on. Thanks. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 17:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

My argument hold ups to your vague non-arguments. You seem to have acknowledged that the long review you reverted to is too long. There is one issue here and it is the WP:WEIGHT violation. QuackGuru (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I have not acknowledged anything about the length of the coverage of that review. I just don't want to be discussing two different arguments by you at the same time. Your argument on the table currently is that the review published by the American Society of Consultant Pharmacists represents a tiny minority opinion. Thus far, you have not been able to convince anyone to agree with you on your position. If you are willing to concede that your argument has no merit, then we can move on and discuss whether or not we are affording too much space to the Nguyen review. Let's tackle this one argument at a time so as not to make this discussion convoluted. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 18:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I was convincing that the view was a tiny minoirty. Do you understand the length of the coverage of that review is too long. See WP:WEIGHT. QuackGuru (talk) 18:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Then the fact remains that you haven't been able to convince anyone but yourself. As much as I'd love to move on and discuss your concerns about coverage length, I am unwilling to do so until you clearly state that you are dropping your baseless "tiny minority" argument. Again, let's take this one argument at a time. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 18:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Based on your previous comments I think I did convince you it is a tiny minoirty opinion. QuackGuru (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me be clear then: You did not convince me. Not even a little bit. If anything because of this discussion, I am even more positive that your argument is incorrect. So the question remains: Are you ready to move on then by stating that your "tiny minoirty opinion" argument is groundless? -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 18:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I did convince you but you have come up with a new non-argument. The review is too long but you want to discuss it later. That's okay if you don't want to discuss it. No argument has been made to keep the review twice as long as other reviews. Per WP:WEIGHT it should be shortened. QuackGuru (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You did not convince. If you'd like to start an WP:RfC or some other WP:DR method to get more opinions on your "tiny minority" argument, please feel free (just let me know what you do when you do it). As of now, you are the only one holding the position that a review published by the American Society of Consultant Pharmacists represents a tiny minority opinion. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 19:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think at least another editor disagreed with including the minoirty view. Check the archives. This is an old issue. It is a minority view for a Quackwatch consumer protection organization should have to be peer reviewed. QuackGuru (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This is your argument to support, so if there's any legwork involved, it's on you, brother. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 19:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not only my argument. You reverted another editor recently and another editor previously disagreed with the inclusion of peer reviewed. The review is too long which should not be ignored. QuackGuru (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, if you'd like to start an WP:RfC or some other WP:DR method, please feel free. Until then, I am considering this matter "on hold" temporarily and "resolved" in the long-term. I'll be back when you have something new to say. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 19:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Most editors disagree with you. You reverted an editor recently and an editor previously disputed the peer review. I also disagree with. QuackGuru (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

i see no evidence that this is a minority view... maybe 2112 is correct and u should start a RFC about this? 70.71.22.45 (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe editors should respect Wikipedia's WP:WEIGHT and stop ignoring the review is too long. QuackGuru (talk) 20:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No specific objection was made to shorten the long review. QuackGuru (talk) 01:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I made this change to fix the article. QuackGuru (talk) 01:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. If you would like to address any of the issues you had with any edits which you reverted, please do so. However, until you concede that your "tiny minority" argument is groundless, I am still reluctant to carry on further discussion with you. Again, please consider any of the WP:DR methods I've offered to you. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 01:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You removed references that were not from google search. A list of articles on many forms of alternative medicine on the American Cancer Society website that use Quackwatch as a source.[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] The review is too long. If you don't want to discuss it that is okay with me. No specific objection was made to shorten the long review. See WP:WEIGHT. QuackGuru (talk) 01:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I want to discuss it but will not until you drop the baseless "tiny minority" argument. All you have to say is "I want to drop my 'tiny minority' argument. I understand that no one else supports it and I am ready to move on and discuss WEIGHT." Feel free to use your own words but the meaning should be the same. Until then, please refrain from edit warring. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 01:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Other editors have objected to the peer review text. See the archives and the edit history of the article. This is an old issue. The review is too long and should be shortened. I understand that other editors are against including the text and it is time to move on. QuackGuru (talk) 01:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Claiming that a Quackwatch consumer organization website should be peer reviewed is a tiny minority view not held by others. The review is twice as long as other reviews. The ref is contradicitng itself when it says "Steps to correct this are under way, as many reputable professionals have signed on to populate the site in their areas of expertise." The attribution in the lead is unnecessary. The quotes and ref is the attribution. QuackGuru (talk) 06:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

a reference is a reference not attribution and u have still failed to show that it is a minority view 70.71.22.45 (talk) 07:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Quackguru, you are deliberately misquoting Nguyen to justify your reverts. Nguyen never said that there was a requirement that a consumer organization website had to be peer reviewed. Nguyen said, and I quote from her review, "A giant step toward true legitimacy would involve active peer review of the articles to be published, a logical transition for a site that relies on so much of the accepted medical literature as its foundation.". Nguyen is making suggestions on improving the credibility of the site as a reliable source of information. You say this is a tiny minority view, and yet, even here on wikipedia, the criteria for a reliable source is, as per WP:Reliable source and WP:Verifiability:

* Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available.

* In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable the source is.

So, even Wikipedia adheres to the idea that the peer review process makes a site/article more credible/reliable/legitimate. This is a majority view on how to improve the credibility of a site/article. Nguyen's suggestion that peer review would improve the credibility of the site was not at all "fringe" - in fact it is a very common concept. It definitely is not a tiny minority" view. Not even on Wikipedia. --stmrlbs|talk 07:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand the ref is contradicitng itself when it says "Steps to correct this are under way, as many reputable professionals have signed on to populate the site in their areas of expertise." QuackGuru (talk) 08:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

That is referring to Nguyen's comment about so many articles being written by Barrett. Hence, more people are being brought in to write articles. But this has nothing to do with peer review. The articles are still not peer reviewed. --stmrlbs|talk 08:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The attribution added to the lead is unnecessary. The quotes and ref is the attribution.

When the source is contradicting something should be include that contradiction. Peer review has nothing to do with a consumer protection organization. There are numerous Quackwatch reviews. None mention peer review except one. A peer review is still not relevant to a consumer organization. The view that organizations such as Quackwatch should be peer reviewed is a tiny minority view. QuackGuru (talk) 08:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Again.. it doesn't matter how you feel about Nguyen's comments. The part of the review is supposed to be what about Nguyen's review - about Nguyen's assessment of Quackwatch. This is not about your feelings about Nguyen's review. --stmrlbs|talk 08:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You have not specifically replied to my comment and we can't ignore WP:WEIGHT. The paragraph should not be twice as long as other reviews. QuackGuru (talk) 08:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

u have not specifically provided any convincing argument that Nguyen's view is a tiny minority viewpoint, something that other editors disagree with. simply repeating yourself doesnt make it true and does not advance the discussion or help resolve the issue 70.71.22.45 (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You have ignored my comments. That is not helpful. When editors ignore my comments and do not have a specific response then I assume my arguments were very convincing. See WP:IDHT. QuackGuru (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

QuackGuru brought up this matter at AN/I yesterday. I clicked the link, saw some obvious problems, and removed them, leaving what I found to be one of the only properly balanced criticisms on the page. Here we have a reviewer who identifies a fault of the site, and then goes on to explain that steps are being taken; in effect, she herself (i learned her gender reading a bit of the drama back here)... she herself makes for a balanced review, identifying strengths and weaknesses. I left the weaknesses in, but this morning, I found that QuackGuru had white-washed them. I have to ask - is QuackGuru associated with Quackwatch? If so, then we should ban him from the page for his obvious, and oft expressed through edits, COI. If not, he still needs to back down, he's acting with a great deal of OWN in defending his preferred edits and opposing any community editing, collaboration or compromise. I made my edits as an uninvolved party; his comment linking to this was a snarky aside to another person's AN/I report, thus, in effect, a 3O style edit. His immediate reversion shows he doens't want outside help, he wants to run this page. Very disappointing conduct. ThuranX (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I have previously revealed my true identity to an admin who has edited this talk page and monitored editors on this page. The COI allegations are false. QuackGuru (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for offering your WP:3PO. I am deeply apologetic that you had to wade through the drivel discussion above to make your rather astute assessment. I have often wondered as well if QuackGuru is somehow affiliated with Quackwatch. His behavior here certainly demonstrates a strong allegiance to the organization, if not some sort of formal tie to it. This ownership style which he demonstrates over this article though is unfortunately not limited to here. He is in the practice of abusing the limitations of WP:3RR by edit warring across a variety of articles (here and here and here for instance). I don't want to get into that here though, as this is not the place to do so. Perhaps an RfC/U is warranted.

Anyhow, thanks again. If you wouldn't mind, do you care to comment on QuackGuru's specific argument here? QuackGuru seems to believe that Nguyen is the only one criticizing Quackwatch for its lack of peer review, and therefore her position represents a tiny minority viewpoint and thus can be excluded. This seems like an incorrect interpretation of WP:WEIGHT, but I wouldn't mind hearing a third-party opinion on it. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 17:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Do consumer protection organizations like Quackwatch should be peer reviewed. Are there any consumer organizations that have been peer reviewed. The information is not relevant to a consumer protection organization and the opinion is a tiny minority. Her position represents a tiny minority viewpoint when it is not held by others and it is not relevant to a consumer organization. See WP:WEIGHT. QuackGuru (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Quackwatch is a small fish in a huge ocean; that it has received as much attention as it has is almost disproportionate to its standing on the internet. That it gets a mixed review is bound to happen under such a lens. Now, it may be that the majority of sites truly give only good comments, but that, again isn't enough to show that no negatives should be reported here if they exist. Nguyen takes the time to make such a detailed evaluation of one of the millions of websites on the planet and that everyone else hasn't gotten to QW yet isn't justification for removing it, given that it's not a hit piece nor hatchet job. QuackGuru's contention that since every reviewer hasn't made note of the flaws of the site, we can't use those who have, is absurd. By that metric, we should never use criticism of any idea, because surely not every reviewer contemporary to either the event or later retrospective reviews also reviewed it, therefore we can't be balanced. Instead, I should point out that QuackGuru seems intent on ONLY allowing the part of Nguyen's review in which is positive. Should he really hate Nguyen's review so much, he should instead remove the entire thing. No, this is about QuackGuru ensuring that WP's page on QW is only the good stuff. He's got a bucket of white paint out and he's brushing it on furiously here. No, I'm done debating here. The material should be in, but I don't OWN this page like QuackGuru does, and I suspect that he's highly motivated to keep it that way. ThuranX (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks again for the WP:3PO. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 01:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with the points ThuranX made. I think Nguyen's review is one of the more comprehensive reviews, commenting on both the positive aspects of Quackwatch and the limitations, and giving suggestions on improving those limitations. I think it should be fairly represented in the Site review section. It certainly should have as much presence as a brief description from an internet directory, or a blurb that is copied right from the Quackwatch site - which is what some of these reviews are. An Administrator commented that something that would improve this article would be more outside editors. Even though I realize you are not here to stay, I appreciate you taking the time to read through all this and comment. Thanks. --stmrlbs|talk 23:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Good faith is essential to Consensus-building

See WP:CON: Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. This can happen through discussion, editing, or more often, a combination of the two. Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together in a civil manner. Developing consensus requires special attention to neutrality and verifiability in an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree on.

Editors who assume bad faith are not part of the consensus process according to Wikipedia's WP:CONSENSUS. Consensus only works among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort. QuackGuru (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You mean like the good faith you exhibited by slapping "suspected sockpuppets of stmrlbs" on a bunch of IPs, but never really asking for a checkuser, even though several people, including the people you were accusing and some administrators told you to take it to the sockpuppet notice board [29]? I see that you again put these templates on these IPs again right after the Quackwatch page was protected? [30][31][32][33][34][35][36]. How do I spell WP:Harass?  :: This type of behavior is not reasonable, nor conducive to building consensus with other editors.. to say the least. --stmrlbs|talk 20:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The Nguyen review is twice as long as other reviews

An editor deleted my comments without my permission. QuackGuru (talk) 03:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment moved because it was ignored. QuackGuru (talk) 07:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Editors should not delete my comments without my permission. QuackGuru (talk) 03:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• The attribution added to the lead is unnecessary. The quotes and ref is the attribution. I understand the ref is contradicitng itself when it says "Steps to correct this are under way, as many reputable professionals have signed on to populate the site in their areas of expertise." When the source is contradicting itself we should not include that contradiction. Peer review has nothing to do with a consumer protection organization. There are numerous Quackwatch reviews. None mention peer review except one. A peer review is still not relevant to a consumer organization. The view that organizations such as Quackwatch should be peer reviewed is a tiny minority view. Editors have not specifically replied to my comments. The paragraph should not be twice as long as other reviews with spray painted graffiti. If editors think that the Nguyen review should be twice as long as other reivews please make your arguments or we must comply in accordance with WP:WEIGHT. QuackGuru (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Editors have specifically and repeatedly replied to all of your comments. Again, your "tiny minority view" is without foundation or support. A third-party has commented and disagreed with your rationale. It is time to move on. Will you please? Just say that you will move on and then feel free to discuss whatever else is bothering you about this article. But the arguments about Nguyen's review representing only a tiny minority opinion should end now. Okay? -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 01:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Editors have not specifically replied to my comments. Editors have repeatedly ignored my comments like you just did. No specific reason has been given to have this review twice as long as other reviews. QuackGuru (talk) 07:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• The attribution added to the lead is unnecessary. The quotes and ref is the attribution. I understand the ref is contradicitng itself when it says "Steps to correct this are under way, as many reputable professionals have signed on to populate the site in their areas of expertise." When the source is contradicting itself we should not include that contradiction. Peer review has nothing to do with a consumer protection organization. There are numerous Quackwatch reviews. None mention peer review except one. A peer review is still not relevant to a consumer organization. The view that organizations such as Quackwatch should be peer reviewed is a tiny minority view. Editors have not specifically replied to my comments. The paragraph should not be twice as long as other reviews with spray painted graffiti. If editors think that the Nguyen review should be twice as long as other reivews please make your arguments or we must comply in accordance with WP:WEIGHT.
• Since I felt my comments were ignored I have reposted it here for discussion. QuackGuru (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

And yet, multiple editors already told you they think it should be in. Is it your intention to restart this every time you get a conclusion that isn't in accordance with your desires, thus conducting a Civil POV Push? ThuranX (talk) 02:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The Nguyen review is longer than the others because it is more complex, no? I see no problem with its length, nor do I see a problem with the "contradiction" - it's a complex review. The only problem is that it was published in 1999 - how has Qwackwatch evolved during those 10 years? Have the criticisms been dealt with? What you need is more up-to-date info and sources regarding this issue. Rather than edit warring over supposed problems with "twice as long" trivia and the "peer review" issue, provide more recent info and relevant criticism. I'd suggest QG should seek out more recent info and maybe even "write for the enemy" here. Vsmith (talk) 02:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I did find another source on this issue but it was deleted from the article. I assume editors prefer the older source in the article instead of this newer source. QuackGuru (talk) 03:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with that review being added (after protection period ends). But it doesn't address peer review. --stmrlbs|talk 05:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It does address how the website is being reviewed by a newer source. "Using a worldwide network of volunteers and expert advisors,..." This review felt it was not relevant to discuss peer review. QuackGuru (talk) 06:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Vsmith. Brangifer (talk) 18:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Nguyen stated that so many articles are written by one author (Barrett) left one sensing a lack of fair balance in Barrett's condemnation of many dubious health therapies. According to Nguyen-Khoa "Steps to correct this are under way, as many reputable professionals have signed on to populate the site in their areas of expertise."

This information was written in 1999. A newer review says "Using a worldwide network of volunteers and expert advisors,..."[37] We can delete the dated information and add the newer information. QuackGuru (talk) 01:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

no.. "Using a worldwide network of volunteers and expert advisors" is not a peer review. So, even though it is a valid addition, it will not replace the Nguyen review. Please, QuackGuru, look up Peer Review to see what it means. I don't think you can address this, unless you understand the meaning of peer review in the way that Nguyen was talking about. --stmrlbs|talk 04:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Nguyen stated that so many articles are written by one author (Barrett) left one sensing a lack of fair balance in Barrett's condemnation of many dubious health therapies. According to Nguyen-Khoa "Steps to correct this are under way, as many reputable professionals have signed on to populate the site in their areas of expertise."

Since you did not address my proposal your argument is irrelevant. Newer information shows the older information is incorrect. The newer source shows there are "a worldwide network of volunteers and expert advisors".[38] No reason has been given to keep the older information when newer information shows that do have expert advisors. The older ref claims "Steps to correct this are under way" but the newer ref says "Using a worldwide network of volunteers and expert advisors"... That means steps have already been taken and they have experts to review the site. QuackGuru (talk) 04:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. I am done arguing with you. I will take it for an outside opinion if it comes to that. --stmrlbs|talk 05:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

That is not an argument. No argument was made to keep older information when the newer information covers the same topic of expert advisors. QuackGuru (talk) 05:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The Nguyen review, although dated, is a detailed review and should be retained. The OJIN review you linked to has only a brief blurb re: Quackwatch and is itself rather dated (2002). It could be included, but not to replace the older, more comprehensive, Nguyen review. I also note the Quackwatch medical advisors page is also 6 years old. Newer information, both from Quackwatch and reviews is needed. Rather than arguing, why not find more up-to-date relevant info and more comprehensive reviews - positive or negative. QuackGuru appears to want only positive statements and that is problematic. Work for a neutral presentation here. Heh, and maybe suggest to Quackwatch, that their info pages are out of date. Vsmith (talk) 12:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with all your points and think these are good suggestions. --stmrlbs|talk 00:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Reminder

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

Everyone, please stop the discussions about editors behavior and instead focus on content. --Ronz (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Do we need partial page protection?

I'm assuming 86.146.119.24 and 86.134.240.225 are the same editor, edit-warring through a dynamic ip, though I'm not completely sure of this. Partial page protection would stop ips and any new editors from editing the article. --Ronz (talk) 22:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

if u do, plz dont protect the talk page... 70.71.22.45 (talk) 03:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Protection would be for the article only, to encourage more discussion here on the talk page. --Ronz (talk) 03:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

In about 35 hours an editor has made six reverts and has ignored my comments. Discussion does not work on talk or explaining in my edit summary my edit. QuackGuru (talk) 06:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Quackguru, you were the first to start reverting my edits up to the limit of 3 reverts repeatedly 6 days ago, starting here [39], because you do not want this statement from Nguyen's review, "Nguyen-Khoa stated that the implementation of a peer review process would improve the site's legitimacy." in the Wikipedia article, even though it was a valid sourced statement in Nguyen's review, and even though I had both positive and negative parts of the review. I explained my edits on the talk page [40]. You have used every excuse under the sun to hide your reverts - [article too long, then after saying I made the review too long, you added a bunch of stuff, then tried to delete the peer review statement again. Now you are back to saying it is too long and just deleting all negative parts. You claim that the opinion that peer review would improve Quackwatch is a tiny minority view, citing WP:Weight, but you have done nothing to document your claim. You just assume since you said it, this somehow gives you the right to just start edit warring again. You have now returned to reverting my edit to take out all the critical parts of Nguyen's review and leave only the positive, leaving summary edits of "NPOV". This is obviously not NPOV, but your attempt to make it seem so. In fact, this is what your last revert did [41]. If this continues, I will have no choice but to take it to the noticeboard. --stmrlbs|talk 07:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Protected due to extended editwarring. Work it out here. Vsmith (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You say thanks when the article was protected after the IP sock made this edit. Hmm. QuackGuru (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/166.191.225.235

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/166.205.131.73

There is an IP who has been following me around to various articles or there is a sock among us. Ronz does not see any evidence but supports protection after the IP made the edit to this article. QuackGuru (talk) 20:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

QuackGuru, Shell said that she was going to check ALL IPs for sockpuppetry. That includes the new IPs that were making the same reverts you were. I think checking all IPs is a very good idea, don't you? --stmrlbs|talk 21:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. VERY good idea. Thanks, Shell. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 01:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Brangifer (talk) 04:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Time for Arbcom sanctions

Any watching admin care to impose some sanctions? Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience apply to this article. --Ronz (talk) 02:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Vsmith (talk) 13:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Unprotected following Shell's sanctions. Vsmith (talk) 13:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

NPOV concerns

I disagree with Ronz's good-faith revert of my recent edit. There was some discussion of it on my user talk page, and I agree that it would be good to discuss further here. As I mentioned, I don't think that it's a BLP violation to include criticism of Barrett, particularly from good sources like the Village Voice and Time Magazine. We're already using those sources here, and ignoring the critical comments in them runs contrary to NPOV. I see nothing in Wikipedia:Blp#Criticism_and_praise that would contraindicate including either Peter Barry Chowka or Deepak Chopra (original text below; we can modify it):

"He seems to be putting down trying to be objective," says Peter Barry Chowka, a former adviser to the National Institutes of Health's Office of Alternative Medicine. "Quackwatch.com is consistently provocative and entertaining and occasionally informative," Chowka added. "But I personally think he's running against the tide of history. But that's his problem, not ours."[42]

Barrett is underwhelmed by today's New Age celebrities. Dr. Andrew Weil, for example, is "very slick but makes glaring errors and hardly ever admits anything is quackery. I call him a 'rubber ducky.'" Deepak Chopra he dismisses as a purveyor of "Ayurvedic mumbo jumbo." (Chopra, for his part, calls Barrett "a self-appointed vigilante for the suppression of curiosity."[43]

Both of these quotes are included in articles that look like a fair balance of criticism and praise. Neither is ad hominem.

I share User:Stmrlbs' concern that the article has drifted into a positive coatrack for Barrett/Quackwatch, apparently in part via the efforts of User:Quackguru. I'm sure we can work it out in a calm, non-revert-warring way. Thoughts? regards, Middle 8 (talk) 06:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest taking this to WP:BLPN. Chopra's comment is most certainly ad hominem, which is probably why the author only mentioned it passing, placing it in parenthesis. --Ronz (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. What about Chowka -- should we ask about that at the same time? regards, Middle 8 (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. The Chowka quote isn't such a blatant problem though. For the case of Chowka, my concerns are that it violates, "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability" and "whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject."

I'm not going to check, but hasn't this been discussed before? --Ronz (talk) 02:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure it has, but consensus can change, and no harm in revisiting it as long as it doesn't bog down. No rush; I really hate editing Barrett/QW stuff because some editors (not you) seem get all riled up. I'm happy to wait for User:Stmrlbs to work out his computer woes. Take care, Ronz. cheers, Middle 8 (talk) 06:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

"Her". She once clarified that she is not "Saint Mr. Pounds". Hans Adler 10:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Hans. But I realize that my handle, chosen as string of the first letters of nicknames for me is rather inscrutable as far as gender. Plus, hard to pronounce and remember. I create a handle differently now. I've thought of changing it, but I understand that Wikipedia doesn't encourage that. "Saint Mr. Pounds".. LOL. --stmrlbs|talk 17:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Hans, for the correction. I gotta get used to singular they; that's really the most practical English-language solution, imo. (Xe isn't bad, either, but it's been co-opted by the forces of evil in a bozo nightmare.) BTW, Stmrlbs, your handle is fine -- especially now that I have that amusing albeit inaccurate mnemonic ;-) -- but if you do want to change, it's not really discouraged and is pretty easy. User:2over0 changed out of personal preference, and it was fine. Anyway, I'm having health issues in real life and feeling extremely unmotivated to post about a contentious subject at RSN; anyone else want to go ahead and do it? best, Middle 8 (talk) 02:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Too many quotations make Jack a dull boy

This page has returned to the quote mine status it had when I last edited it. It is far, far better to summarize opinions without quotes. Using quotes is simply not encyclopedic unless the quotes themselves are notable (an example of notable quotes can be read at Brown Bunny#Cannes reception and reviews). Almost all of the quotes used in this article -- both pro and con -- are not particularly notable nor do they shed light on the subject and thus can be excised with summary style prose written in their place.

Lest you think this is an impossible task, I ask you to consider how I excised both positive and negative quotes from Eric Lerner, a similarly controversial article.

ScienceApologist (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

where is the 2010 discussion?

Petergkeyes (talk) 06:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Until you came by, there was a general consensus as to what should be here. That's why there's no discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Seasoned Cooking cite

The following sentence makes an overly broad statement. "It is consistently praised as a top source for screening medical information on the web." Clarifying who makes the claim makes the statement much more reasonable. "In September of 2001, Seasoned Cooking stated that Quackwatch is consistently praised as a top source for screening medical information on the web." Petergkeyes (talk) 06:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It is consistently praised. If you want to clarify that statement, we then need to list the 7-10 organisations which praise it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Balderdash. Here are 3 sources from the web who clearly do not praise QW as a top source for screening medical information:

http://www.raysahelian.com/quackwatch.html

http://www.thenhf.com/newsflash_02.htm

http://faqbreastimplant.com/silicone-breast-implants/barrett-quackwatch-is-a-threat-to-breast-implant-community-1895566.html

7-10 orgs does not equal consistent praise. Many orgs do not praise QW as a top source for screening medical information on the web. Petergkeyes (talk) 22:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The three links you have above, not one is a reliable source. To add to that, Tim Bolin's in barred from use here at the project. You need reliable sources to quote to get this conversation going. Otherwise this has been discussed to death in the past years. HTH, --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Barrett versus CCNH

Over the last few minutes, the article has been attracting copy-and-pastes from a five-year-old story at www.canlyme.com/quackwatch.html and elsewhere. I think that this is related to an attempt to discredit Quackwatch at Talk:Clayton College of Natural Health. -- Hoary (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it happens. If they continue, they'll be blocked per WP:BATTLE, WP:BLP, and past ArbCom decisions. --Ronz (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Awkward wikilink

The last sentence of the first paragraph in the intro awkwardly wikilinks a long phrase.

criticizing many forms of alternative medicine

It's not very common to wikilink more than one or two words. I'm not exactly sure what the distinguishing feature of the link to a subsection of the alternative medicine article is, but it seems that the wikilink should be reworked some way. 69.142.154.10 (talk) 21:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Discredited?

www.canlyme.com/quackwatch.html

According to that link, Quackwatch WAS discredited. If an editor attempted to add that information, he/she was not attempting to do anything but add relevant information to this wiki, right? Why have you reverted those edits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.142.178 (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I suspect you're referring to this edit, or one identical to it added at about the same time by various socks. There are several reasons, among them that it's not about Quackwatch but about Barrett. On that ground alone it doesn't belong in this article. It is also from an unreliable source, so we're not allowed to use it. It's also written in a misleading manner and only applies to a very limited situation in a portion of one lawsuit. It has no meaning or application in a general sense outside of that one limited situation or any other situation as it is being (mis)used. Note that we don't have the actual court record so we don't know the exact setting, and we're not allowed to use direct trial transcripts here anyway. It is only a report, without actual quotes, written by enemies of Barrett who are known to twist the reporting of events in a dishonest manner. It also borders on a violation of our WP:BLP policy. I hope that answers your question. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't read through the edits you reverted. I was just going by what you said in this talk discussion here. Did you delete the first part of this talk discussion just now? You should bring it back as the discussion is now ongoing. Thank you for answering my question. However I can't help but feel that you wish to censor negative information here. In you other post on this talk page you seemed to be arguing that the information from that link should not be included because it is "5 years old". However it is historical record and in no way outdated. And Barrett is the man behind Quackwatch. He is the main author and gatekeeper. A bias on his part is a bias on part of Quackwatch. The connection is obvious. To claim the link is "written in a misleading manner" (rather than simply "is misleading"?) is highly subjective. What I read, glancing through the link, was not limited as you say. As you said in your other post in this talk page discussion, the link says Barrett was not board certified, true, but the link says so much more. The author of the link being an enemy to Barrett has no bearing. Doesn't the link accuse Barret of being the one who "twists the reporting of events in a dishonest manner"? I understand the link cannot be sourced for wiki, but your objections outside of wp:reliability indicate to me that it is simply information you don't personally want. Anyway, you did answer my question, so thank you, again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.142.178 (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're confusing me with someone else here or not, but I personally have no objection to mention of any of Barrett's lawsuits if we can use RS to do it. Unfortunately no RS deal with the subject, and we aren't allowed to do OR here by using primary sources like court records. That has been the problem for years on this, Barrett's and the NCAHF articles. I have no objection, it just has to be done according to policy. The fact that there are lawsuits is no secret and I certainly have no desire to keep it secret. That would be idiotic. Believe me, many have tried to find ways to include this information, myself included, but we've pretty much given up. It would require a change in our sourcing policies to do so, or coverage of the subject in reliable third party sources. We just can't find such sources. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The previous conversation was not removed, however it was from July. It's generally not a good idea to try and restart a 6-month-old conversation. So, I moved your question into a new section, so it could get attention from folks. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

There is a large section titled "Site Reviews" however the first paragraph is not a review, and it duplicates information ALREADY duplicated earlier in the article. All the reviews are pro-Quackwatch and provide no information about Quackwatck (they all laud Qauckwatch with nebulous or generic praise). I don't see how anything here is at all noteworthy. It certainly isn't informative. The body of the article already describes Quackwatch as highly regarded by mainstream media. As is, this wiki would be improved by simply eliminating this section.

However, this wiki is conspicuously lacking a criticism section. I came here after reading about Quackwatch elsewhere on the net. There's no shortage of criticism. A lot of criticism can certainly be verified. Bare with me, I may have details wrong:

(WP:BLP violation removed --Ronz (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC))

The information about Barrett is important because Barrett is the author of the lion's share of articles on Quackwatch and is the gatekeeper for the rest. Obviously a website's bias (or potential bias) is standard and unavoidable criticism material. Secondly, this information may raise the question of how does a man with no known source of substantial income file so many lawsuits on behalf of his non-profit website. Readers may be prompted to investigate, which is after all, the goal of a criticism section, right?

Therefore I suggest the "Site Reviews" section be halved and balanced with criticism. Perhaps the criticism section could state that the website's founder Seven Barrett has been called under fire in all sorts of legal cases, then, with a redirect to the Steven Barret wiki. Though, the Steven Barrett wiki too is devoid of any criticism. Odd... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.142.178 (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Your entire argument is full of "may, may, may" which we at Wikipedia call original research. Until you can find reliable sources to back up your claims, we won't include it in the article. Further, we generally frown on separate criticism sections, preferring to integrate any notable criticism into the article itself. Our job isn't to "prompt" readers "to investigate," it's to provide encyclopedic information based on reliable third-party sources. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

For the benefit of our anon IP, a little history might be of interest. There have been various spurious attempts to delete this article, including this archived AfD. Those making such attempts have used claims that Quackwatch wasn't notable enough, or that it was fringe and not accepted by mainstream medicine, or any number of other weird attempts by enemies to delete the article. This forced editors to (very easily) find even more reliable sources that deal with the matter. The numerous RS easily document its notability and that it is overwhelmingly positively received by mainstream medicine, consumer protection agencies, law enforcement, insurance firms, universities, government, etc.. It's nearly impossible to find any criticism from such sources, and we've really tried!

There are a few minor criticisms which were found. Really, using such sources as criticism is scraping the bottom of the barrel in desperation to find negativity. Otherwise criticism comes from quacks, scammers, convicted criminals, and other alternative medicine cranks who have been criticized. In several of the most notable cases the critics hadn't even been mentioned or criticized by Quackwatch or Barrett at all, but launched their own vicious attacks, thus drawing responses from Barrett, the NCAHF, and/or members of the medical and scientific communities. The continued and ongoing attacks by the former publicist of Hulda Clark (now deceased from cancer) is a notable example. Likewise attacks by IR. There had been no mention of them before they launched their own attacks. Because they carried their attacks to Wikipedia and used it as a battleground and causing much disruption, they are both banned from Wikipedia. Their websites also happen to be of such deceptive quality that they are actually blacklisted!

Since you are obviously getting your information from such sources (they originated those wordings), I suggest you read this article and all of its sources to get the other side of the properly-documented story. That's "real" information, in contrast to the spin and deception put out by your sources. Quite a few of the things you mention in your now-deleted libelous BLP violation are total lies or gross distortions of fact. There are a couple items that have a very distant relationship with something true, but again they are very distorted so as to give a misleading impression. Keep in mind that your sources are promoters of very dubious ideas and in some cases stand to profit by making criticisms against their detractors.

Nearly all criticisms are published in self-published sources of poor quality without fact checking, and thus aren't considered reliable sources for use here. That leaves an overwhelmingly positive impression, and that's because RS leave that impression in the real world. That cranks and scam artists leave a negative impression in the real world and many people are fooled by them is simply proof that lies are being used in the battle waged against mainstream medicine by alternative medicine. Wikipedia doesn't get involved in that battle and it doesn't use poor sources. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This is an interesting issue. Quackwatch certainly has its share of critics in the medical profession and among scientists as well. However, it is not exactly a big news website. Most of the criticism one encounters is going to be in forums, in person (among doctors), etc. But the crtiticism is absolutely out there. I don't know how one resolves this, since you aren't going to find a new york times article on the criticism or anything (since its just not a well known enough website). I've even spoken with contributors who have issues with the website's methodology.

A major criticism I hear, is it often lumps legitimate topics (that simply don't have enough data or research, in with diet scams and other real quackery. An example of this is sick building syndrome (which it labels quack). However researchers are starting to learn more about new building and weatherizing methods that may in fact be impacting peoples health (there are serious studies on this matter). But its simply too early to conclude one way or the other. In a sense, the website treats absence of evidence, as evidence of absence, in cases where its too early to tell. 24.61.171.248 (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

You say that it "has its share of critics in the medical profession and among scientists as well." That may well be true, and I'd certainly like to see such criticisms so we can include them. We have seen a couple criticisms in RS from such sources, but they are usually minor ones about differences of opinion, not about the validity of the site in general. I have my personal criticisms too, but Barrett won't listen. I've emailed him a few times over the years, but usually get rebuffed with a few words and that's it. There are style issues etc..

I just looked up its mention of "sick building syndrome" and those mentions are often in connection with trial documents and FTC/FDA warning letters, IOW Quackwatch is merely reporting what others have said. Quackwatch is skeptical of the way the diagnosis is often overused, used vaguely, and isn't well-defined. There is no doubt that exposure to toxins, molds, etc. can cause serious health problems, but I don't think Quackwatch completely denies that since it's pretty well documented. It's just an area where dubious persons take advantage of sick people. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you will find any good published criticisms. Like I said, it just isn't a big enough site to get an article on its critics. Most of what you hear is from contributors and medical professionals who disagree with his positions, methods, etc. Not saying it should be included.

One of my issues with Quack Watch, is in the MCS article it essentially says most people seeking treatment for the illness (or a large number of them) are just suffering from psychosomatic problems. While I agree MCS is a dubious diagnosis, I believe most people presenting with those symptoms have a real illness, that just hasn't been diagnosed. I applaud quack watch for pointing out the real quacks out there. But I don't like that they are so dismissive of real suffering. 24.61.171.248 (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the major point above is what purpose do the reviews serve here except to promote quackwatch? Its a pointless informational section, looks very cheap, tabloid and *is* profoundly bias. It does wiki no favours at all. In fact it does quackwatch no favours at all. To anyone of any nouse it just shows some people with invested interests are in control of this article. I suggest this section is removed. Cjwilky (talk) 03:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

objection to misquotation

Hello, I do object to the following reference in the write-up (and ask the editors to remove the passage, replacing it with a correct and properly referenced passage one):

"Waltraud Ernst, Professor in the History of Medicine at Oxford Brookes University,[74] has some personal objections to the work of those who criticize alternative medicine, but she still commends "Barrett's concern for unsubstantiated promotion and hype," and states that "Barrett's concern for fraudulent and potentially dangerous medical practices is important."[75]"

My reasons are: 1. I do not express "personal objections" in my academic work. To say so is libel. I am a professional academic who bases her work on evidence that can be substantiated. 2. The writer seems to refer to a CHAPTER published in a book edited by me and ought to refer to the page number that is quoted.It is unprofessional to provide insufficent reference details.

Could the editors kindly rectify the errors asap.

Yours sincerely, Waltraud Ernst, Professor in the History of Medicine and editor of "Plural Medicine, Tradition and Modernity" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.182.159 (talk) 09:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Although WP:COI should discourage you from editing material (indirectly) about yourself, I don't think it would be out of line for you to tag the material you question.

Whether your objection is "personal" or "professional" seems a matter of opinion. You might still tag it with {{disputed-inline}}, and perhaps your dispute would be resolved.

I would agree with you about the page number, though, except that it specifies page 230. If you are the editor of that book, and the author of the chapter is not you, you might edit the reference to include the chapter name and chapter author. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Would anyone object to the removal of the adjective "personal" from the sentence quoted above? I think it would be entirely appropriate to have it read: "Waltraud Ernst, ... has some objections to..." I don't see any need for this article to explicitly describe the objections as either "personal" or "professional." In fact, I think it represents a more neutral POV without the adjective. Dawn Bard (talk) 15:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's get the sourcing corrected first. Right now it's not clear if we're confusing the editor of the book with the author of the specific chapter. --Ronz (talk) 15:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

"Personal" is not necessarily contrary to "professional"? I read this logic rather as "personal opinion" vs. opinion representing that of a group of people. e.g. department, business, section or industry. Some people are spokespersons for groups and yet may disagree with the message they are delivering.

Secondly, is anybody sure this message author is authentic and doesn't her personal opinion stated contradict the message expressed? 99.251.114.120 (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Quackwatch crits

The following is copied from my talk page, since this discussion really belongs here. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

You reverted mention of the Cheers and Jeers page in Quackwatch. The given reason was "Editorial use of a primary source without any inspiration from a secondary source? OR?" How on earth do you make that out? The section is "Criticism". The section mentions criticisms from the likes of "The Village Voice" and "alternative medicine" without editorial comment. All the deleted text did was to mention a far wider range of crits both positive and negative. It provided no evaluation positive or negative. Please explain why I should not revert your deletion. JonRichfield (talk) 06:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

(1) Per WP:BRD, you should not restore your edit, but discuss the matter on the talk page until a consensus has been reached. So far your edit has been rejected twice. This restoration by you after twice being rejected was an act of edit warring. Not a wise move. Discussion is better. BRD isn't BRRD. Current status: We are now at D and it should stay that way until a consensus has been reached, or some other decision has been made. I suggest you just drop the matter. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I shall indeed take it to talk unless you reconsider independently (in fact even if you do I think I should, to avoid pointless conflict with other correspondents; you are the second already. However, please mind your counting: I posted the text. Someone reverted. I contacted that person and reverted. You reverted back again. Schluss. That is ONE reversion. Right? Not even counting the fact that it was a correct and reasonable reversion.) Your tone in this matter is hardly friendly, but I don't know the appropriate abbreviation. In your reversion summary you even spoke of OR, leaving me totally nonplussed. OR!???! For relevantly reporting the presence of particular content at the site in question? JonRichfield (talk) 09:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

(2) The Village Voice and other content are secondary sources. We can include them, and have done so. It was difficult finding RS which criticize QW! Generally only very non-RS do so. The content you wish to add is a primary source. That page only has non-RS content (the cheers and jeers of whomever aren't RS here). It's simply not significant content. Mention of that page would only be of use as part of a description of the website, and there are literally thousands of pages. Which ones deserve mention? Why this one, which, of all those pages, happens to have ONLY non-reliable content? -- Brangifer (talk) 07:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

You and your predecessor in this discussion appear to be regarding the matter as a case of POV or partisan support of QW. That is curious in context, because there is no element of anything of the type in what I wrote. The title of the section is "Criticism", remember? You plausibly peak of its being difficult finding RS which criticize QW. I am glad to hear that of course, but it is hardly relevant, or if it is, then it is relevant that there is a range of positive and negative criticism. I do not discuss the pro or the con support. I do not evaluate it. I do not even quantify it. I mention its existence and supply a link. Its content is not material and therefore there is no question of whether it is a primary, secondary or imaginary source. JonRichfield (talk) 09:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

(3) I don't see any point in you pushing this. If you have some policy-based reason, please produce it and I'll certainly reconsider. Otherwise this push is doomed. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

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

This discussion should be happening at the QW talk page. Maybe I should copy this thread to that spot and continue. How about it? -- Brangifer (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

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

The edits are to a primary source (the QW website) with no secondary source to establish weight. There is also extra commentary about what the external comments mean, which is clear OR. I see no evidence this addition is of any encyclopedic value. Yobol (talk) 02:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

My apologies about editorializing

I apologize about editorializing (although I disagree with BullRangifer's claim that any sources were misused). I can only plead that I was (relatively) new at the time... I have, however, put back in the material directly supported by the source (namely, that they don't claim resveratrol to be unlikely to ever get research backing - they say it may). Allens (talk | contribs) 08:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing it, but I've reread the QW article and I still don't see it. What exact wording are you looking at? I suspect we're interpreting things differently, or I'm just missing it. Please help me. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Specifically, where does it state: "... but states may have such backing in the future."? -- Brangifer (talk) 05:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Please take a look at the material below under "My edits" - it contains this. (I can certainly retype it here if you'd like in order not to split the discussion too much; should I?) I can see the possibility that we're interpreting things differently, yes (my interpretation is of course correct as always ;-}). I had thought the logic was within the WP:PRIMARY guidelines, but perhaps not? Allens (talk | contribs) 06:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please copy it here. Then we can compare your edit with the exact quote(s) from the source and see if they are harmonious. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

"but states may have such backing in the future" in regard to resveratrol: The source states, among other things, that:

"laboratory tests have demonstrated that resveratrol might help prevent cardiovascular disease and cancer"

"Resveratrol appears to produce some of the same effects as calorie-restricted diets that have reduced the incidence of age-related diseases in animals. Whether it has any benefit in humans remains to be established"

"only human clinical trials can determine whether supplementation is useful for humans"

The above, and the rest of the article (e.g., the article title - "Don't Believe the Hype", not "Don't Believe It"), appear to indicate that they believe human clinical trials would be worthwhile; QuackWatch argues against such trials in many other cases. "States" is, however, perhaps too strong a word.

As an aside (probably too close to OR to put into the article), I also note that this language is in marked contrast to most or all of the rest of what Quackwatch critiques, for which they argue (correctly in most cases IMO) that something has been disproven already, that it doesn't make enough (scientific) sense to justify research (such as most of CAM), or both (Iridology and Chiropractic - via Chirobase - being examples of "both"; see [44] and [45], for example). A summary of this can be found at [46] in their definition of quackery ("the promotion of unsubstantiated methods that lack a scientifically plausible rationale"), which should really be part of this article, as a more accurate replacement for "misleading, fraudulent, or ineffective" and "questionable, dubious, and/or dangerous" in the section "Site Content". Allens (talk | contribs) 18:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I still don't see it "stated". I think you're inferring something. It might be there, and it might not, IOW it's OR to infer and state it here. I think the current wording is accurate enough, since they do object to its only having animal studies: "It also argues against resveratrol, which it deems to have inadequate research backing." They have other objections, but we don't need to list all of them.

As to the rest of your comment, I don't recall QW arguing against human trials for things that hold promise. On the contrary. They do argue against human trials for things that have no reasonable chance of success, because that would be a waste of resources. Maybe that's what you're referring to. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

My edits

Arthur Rubin has requested that I justify my edits, claiming that most of them are "just wrong". Let's see:

• "aren't effective" -> "fail to work"; elimination of contraction as per MOS.

Not even close. You appear to edit under valid reasons but then sneak edit other issues under the same title. Deceptive. "aren't effective" implies some cases may succeed but statistically the majority or a significnt quantity fail. "Fail to work", implies no cases succeed. Perhaps examinining text for more than 4-5 seconds each edit would help quality. This isn't a marathon. 99.251.114.120 (talk) 03:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Umm... you're contradicting yourself. Either I meant to change the meaning (I didn't) or I was editing without having noticed that interpretation (true, although I seriously doubt a reader would either); you really can't accuse me of both covert motives and too-hasty editing. (And the modification records indicate a pause of 5 minutes between one edit and that one.) Hmm... how about "fail to work consistently"? WP:CONTRACTION does advise against contractions when there is another way to put it. Allens (talk | contribs) 06:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for the sexageneric error. While policies state the contraction should not be there a sniper has reverted my attempt at agreement with you. You have my blessing but only for the contraction and not the change in the phrase meaning attempted. 99.251.114.120 (talk) 14:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• "but states may have such backing in the future" in regard to resveratrol: The source states:

• "laboratory tests have demonstrated that resveratrol might help prevent cardiovascular disease and cancer"
• "Resveratrol appears to produce some of the same effects as calorie-restricted diets that have reduced the incidence of age-related diseases in animals. Whether it has any benefit in humans remains to be established"
• "only human clinical trials can determine whether supplementation is useful for humans"

• "alternative names or": Do you have evidence that the sites in question are mirrors, as opposed to alternative names? I'm also dubious that this information (about the existence of these alternative names/mirrors) should be included in the first place.
• "personal": This is a disputed BLP matter; further backing, as in a quote from the original source, is needed. "Personal", without further evidence, appears to be editorializing.

Of these, a total of one (the second) is reasonably an area of disagreement IMO. I'd appreciate it if Arthur Rubin would retract his edit comment. Allens (talk | contribs) 09:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by this "alternative names" business. A website (IOW not hosted by QW, but a translation hosted by someone else) is generally called a "mirror". The other websites only have a fraction of the content, but still have translated some of the better articles. The last time I looked (some time ago) that's what they were, and merely linking to them is reference/proof enough. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Seems an anon is a bit upset about Quackwatch and has decided to edit war using various ips to add what appears to be personal commentary based on disgruntled promoters of various quackery or whatever. If there are serious concerns about the page contents, then discuss it here. Vsmith (talk) 11:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

It appears that it needs to be restored. There are BLP violations involved here. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

BLP violations

I have warned 72.161.65.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) about their violations of BLP. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

We need permanent semi-protection of this sensitive article. It will always be a target for vandalism by quacks. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, but does that entail anything special? Why not go ahead? JonRichfield (talk) 04:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

An admin needs to do it, you can ask at WP:RPP. They'll likely refuse since incidents of vandalism are few and far between. However, it is odd that all IP edits in the past year or so have been vandalism and the BLP consideration is not one to take lightly. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah. I see. Thanks. I must admit that having seen the kind of spite that QW is target for, and the consistency of such attacks, I would have expected more such hits. However, I would have thought that when a large proportion of hits are sabotage, that would be an argument for protection. But don't look at me! I'm no admin. JonRichfield (talk) 06:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)