Talk:Quackwatch/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Medicine

In the section “See also”, it links to “Medicine”. Medicine is a very broad field. Should this article, whose subject is very narrow, a specific website, link to something so broad?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 05:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

You are correct.  Fixed -- Brangifer (talk) 05:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Negative

Under the section “Criticism”, it mentions, “negative research”. What exactly is that? The article isn't very clear. Perhaps there should be a separate article “Negative research”.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 05:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Here is Ladd's wording, which has been summarize fairly accurately:

• "Barrett depends heavily on negative research and case studies in which alternative therapies do not work, but he says that most case studies that show positive results of alternative therapies are unreliable."

It simply means research which shows that alternative medicine doesn't work, or works more poorly than claimed. Such research is usually shown to be of high quality when one checks its methodology, independently of the results. The research which is very favorable is nearly always poorly done research with poor methodology, such as no control group, small sample size, etc.. When well-done research shows an alternative method really works, and replication does the same, then that method is no longer classified as "alternative", but becomes "medicine".

Maybe we could tweak the paraphrase to make the meaning more clear. I'll look at it. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Take a look now and see if it's better. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Alt med

I think alternative medicine is deliberately suppressed by vested interests. This is plausible, given how much Big Pharma potentially stands to lose. This is supported by many sources, such as the book, Suppressed Inventions and Other Discoveries by Jonathan Eisen. See Free energy suppression and Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell for similar stories regarding energy; in fact, I genuinely believe that free energy is suppressed, based information from many sources and some phenomena that can only be explained, so far as I know, with free energy theories. My lifetime goal is to overcome free energy suppression.

Anyway, I think suppression of alternative medicine should be investigated, along with the question of whether Quackwatch is too critical of alternative medicine.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 05:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

It has been investigated. There are those who believe as you do. The onus is on alternative medicine to scientifically prove their methods to be effective before making claims of efficacy. That's a problem.

But....we're getting into a discussion that is not for this page, since this is not a discussion forum. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

My lifetime goal is to suppress free energy and frame people who support it as crazy weirdos. I'm pleased to say that I'm succeeding. But you keep working at your lifetime goal, Solomon from Finland, and I'll keep working at mine. I'm sure some day you'll be successful in convincing people that Shell Oil destroyed a perpetual motion machine fueled by horse urine (or whatever you believe) Sterling.M.Archer (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I actually have a theory for the mechanism of action, it's homeopathy. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately our free energy suppression isn't working very well, and my last pay check from Big Pharma-Grain-Military complex-Illumanti panel of Reptoids bounced! Apparently there is this thing called the "internet", and anyone can, like, just post any free energy device they want on it, and people can then try and recreate it! The bastards! IRWolfie- (talk) 09:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Well done for establishing your level of scientific expertise. It is hard to take someone seriously when they simultaneously believe in perpetual motion machines (by the way, you can download the plans for proposed devices online, and try and build it; put up or shut up, go away until you are using one to power your house, you can sell electricity to the grid in most countries by the way). My original intended comment was a lot less civil but I will resist the temptation and not call you scientifically illiterate, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

==Wiki article "dietary supplements

is a complete mess. Can anybody visit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.204.142.171 (talk) 01:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Criticism

BRangifer, the source does not support the text. in that context, your revert rationale does not make much sense, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific, since I don't know exactly what you mean. Here is the content you removed (and which I restored):

• Donna Ladd, a journalist with The Village Voice, says Barrett's criticism of alternative medicine relies heavily on negative research in which alternative therapies are shown to not work, rejecting most positive case studies as unreliable. She wrote that Barrett insists that most alternative therapies simply should be disregarded without further research: "A lot of things don't need to be tested [because] they simply don't make any sense," he says, pointing to homeopathy, chiropractic, and acupuncture as examples of alternative treatments with no plausible mechanism of action.<ref name="Ladd"/>

This was your edit summary:

• "That's not what the source says, it says "t he says that most case studies that show positive results of alternative therapies are unreliable. " That is very different than the implication here)"

Please explain so we can get some harmony between the source and our summarization of the source. Outright deletion has previously been determined to be detrimental to the article because it's hard to find any criticism of Barrett and Quackwatch in RS. We don't want to fuel the conspiracy theories that Wikipedia editors censor all criticism of Quackwatch. We actually do wish to provide examples of serious criticism, even if they are misguided. This was about as close as could be found. Otherwise nearly all criticism is from various quacks and pushers of nonsense, and they are all found in unreliable sources that don't qualify for use at Wikipedia under nearly any circumstance. Even though we may not agree with Ladd and consider her misguided, this is an example of criticism from a RS. Without this the article can end up looking like a sales brochure, and that would violate NPOV. Here is a direct link to the Village Voice article. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The statement "Barrett depends heavily on negative research and case studies in which alternative therapies do not work, but he says that most case studies that show positive results of alternative therapies are unreliable. " is not criticism. Saying this is criticism does not make sense. It merely reports what Barrett uses, and his opinion about most of the positive case studies. This has been turned into criticism in the article and thus twists Donna Ladd's reporting of what Barrett said. This is being used to imply that Quackwatch dismisses evidence when it does not and to imply that Ladd's article is a criticism piece when it is not. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

That's an interesting interpretation which I've never heard before, and that after many editors, including enemies of QW, have commented on how to use that source. It is definitely a criticism of QW, although misguided. QW does dismiss poor quality evidence, but Ladd and other believers in alternative medicine believe that this is an unfair bias, when it's actually the proper thing to do. Readers can interpret it as they wish, and they likely will. Now if you can find a RS which comments on Ladd's misunderstanding of why QW does this, that might be good content to add to this section. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

No I don't agree that its a criticism. You have already interpreted the text by the way you phrase it which deviates form the source, and by placing it in the criticism section. I suggest sticking more closely to the source (with paraphrasing) and moving it out of the criticism section. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome to your opinion, but you're the first I can recall who has ever held that interpretation against the collective opinion of other editors (IOW it wasn't me alone who did it). You're also welcome to start an RfC for such a change. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Brangifer, you are citing unnamed people for this in some past conversation that you say happened. Can you stick to justifying the actual text rather than referring to past discussions that happened at some unknown time: consensus can change. Do you have any evidence that Ladd is a believer in alternative medicine? Ladd did not say Barrett rejects most positive studies as unreliable, rather she said, that he said it! That is a subtle distinction. Do you have any evidence or reason to think this that the linked article is in fact criticism? I don't want to waste time having an RfC when we haven't fully discussed the issue. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Above I wrote: " QW does dismiss poor quality evidence,..." By "poor quality" I mean the studies which were "positive studies". Barrett admits rejecting such studies because they are usually unreliable and of poor quality. The higher the quality of the studies, the more they tend to reject alternative medical methods and claims. Here is a description of an example:

• A May 2012 editorial in the Swiss Medical Weekly by David Martin Shaw described a 2011 government report on homeopathy. He described it as "a case study of research misconduct":

"This paper analyses the report and concludes that it is scientifically, logically and ethically flawed. Specifically, it contains no new evidence and misinterprets studies previously exposed as weak; creates a new standard of evidence designed to make homeopathy appear effective; and attempts to discredit randomised controlled trials as the gold standard of evidence. Most importantly, almost all the authors have conflicts of interest, despite their claim that none exist. If anything, the report proves that homeopaths are willing to distort evidence in order to support their beliefs, and its authors appear to have breached Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences principles governing scientific integrity."ref

That's typical of the "positive studies" which Barrett rejects, and for good reason. Ladd's statement is criticism because she, along with believers in alternative medicine, think that Barrett rejects the studies because they are positive, and not because they are of poor quality. Barrett, as a man of science, rejects poor quality studies, and they happen to favor alt med. Science and good quality research always win in the end.

Since you won't believe me when I say that what Ladd wrote on that point is a form of criticism, then go ahead and start an RfC. Let's see what others think, whether they agree with you that it is not criticism, or if they think it is. You will need to exercise due diligence before starting. First investigate the talk page archives for the many discussions about this quote from Ladd. Then you may or may not decide to have that RfC....

I have started many RfCs throughout the years, so when you get to that point, if you need some help, just ask. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Swiss Medical Weekly is irrelevant to what we are discussing. We are discussing an issue of a claim which is in the article which is not in a source. You are stating what simply isn't in the source: "she, along with believers in alternative medicine, think that Barrett rejects the studies because they are positive". The source categorically does not state that. It says "he says that most case studies that show positive results of alternative therapies are unreliable", that is completely different, nowhere does she indicate that this is wrong and she is merely repeating what he has said. Barrett does not admit rejecting studies because they are positive, he rejects poor studies, where most studies that show positive results happen to be unreliable. The effect might be the same, but the approach is very different. I'm having trouble understanding how you can justify your comments in the face of no support in the source. The idea that we have to include some criticism, no matter how dubiuos, so the article doesn't look like a sales brochure is truly peculiar. It's like saying we should shoe horn criticism into American Academy of Arts and Sciences because it looks like a sale brochure otherwise. No, we establish what the most reliable secondary sources say, and then assign weight accordingly,

I think I can manage to start an RfC. Of course as you are aware, there is zero expectation from the guidelines for me to check the archives looking for some illusive mentions of Ladd in the deep recesses of time back 4 years ago in 2009. If you think there is something of relevance, bring it forward. Consensus can change. I am expect to discuss the issue with people on the talk page, that is all. I consider an RFC necessary if you would open yourself up to actually discussing the specific text and to specifically justify your position based on the text. Anyway, an RfC is unnecessary when a third opinion or notifying a related wikiproject would make a lot more sense and waste a lot less time. I'll consider dropping a note on a relevant wikiproject, say wikiproject medicine to get a third opinion. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

You write: "Barrett does not admit rejecting studies because they are positive, he rejects poor studies, where most studies that show positive results happen to be unreliable. The effect might be the same, but the approach is very different." Exactly! Finally we are on the same page. That's what I've been saying. As far as practicing due diligence, I just wanted to save you any embarrassment. My bad. Inclusion of that content was discussed extensively, and a search for Ladd's name produces six results. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I notice MastCell was in the early conversations in 2007. Perhaps you would consider him a good person for a third opinion? Personally I think that someone initially used the Ladd source as criticism and it was assumed from there that it must be criticism. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

You may be right. It was always discussed as a criticism. BTW, I like your latest edit. In that case, where would you like to move that paragraph? Give it a try. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I moved it to Quackwatch#Site_reviews. Not that I think that is the best place, but I want to improve that section anyway since its hard to read and intend to do so, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

References

Series of problematic edits

A long series of tags left by A1candidate, some based on not recognizing the allowed use of primary sources on articles about themselves, has left many tags that don't belong. Some need to be removed, and others need to have the sources found, possibly at the Internet Archive. It's so many that it's tempting to just wholesale revert and ask for justification in each case, all per BRD. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Even though we are not required to fix linkrot, I have found working links and I think I have fixed all the issues which were tagged. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Success generates creation?

"The success of Quackwatch has generated the creation of 21 other related sites" we say. Sourced to something that says "The success of Quackwatch has spawned two new sites from the author", and a list of QW's 21 current subsidiary sites. Come on guys, if this kind of thing was being done on the Woo therapy page, there'd be a bloodbath. (Plus: it sound like management-speak) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of thing that was bugging me - the application of WP policy and editor scrutiny seems to have not been applied equally in this case. Herbxue (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually what probably happened is that this article has been neglected for years and content under old policies is hanging around. If you go to the history and click view 500 it takes you back to 24 March 2009. On say astrology it takes you back to 21 July 2012. Look at the sources, do a search for "retrieved". You will see that many of the website sources added were done in 2007. Pseudoscience and fringe articles get more editing attention than mainstream articles due to issues with POV pushing. i.e the act of POV pushing sometimes leads to increased scrutiny which improves the article content and leads to better looking articles with better sourcing and structure, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad we're looking at what the sources say, rather than editing the article to personal preferences expressed on this talk page.

As I indicated in my edit summary, there is SYN. I was, of course, referring to the discrepancy between the source saying 2 and the current 21 sites. Can find a way to keep the mention of the success of the site contributing to it's expansion without violating SYN? --Ronz (talk) 23:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Put the 2 into context with when the linked article was written and just say "As of 2013 there are 21 affiliated websites." This avoids a synthesis as it does not explicitly link with the previous sentence. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I just looked at the history and reverted back to the simpler version to get rid of any improper synthesis, but didn't realize a discussion was occurring. I hope this solves the problem. A simple, factual statement serves the purpose. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Fluff piece

Wow this article is really an endorsement, a fluffy love letter to Stephen Barrett. I find it telling that he is looking out for "dangerous" medical practices, but not bothering to investigate opiods, elective surgery, or psych meds (i.e. the medical practices that actually kill people). The "criticism" section has been completely neutered.

Also, I was (seriously) pleased to read in the edit summaries that primary sources and "common sense" are considered valid justification for edits to this article (!!!) Brangifer can I quote you on those edit summaries in some of my favorite articles? I would really love to get away with that too. Herbxue (talk) 05:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there a particular edit or piece of content you can point to that you think needs looking-at or fixing? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's start with the assumption that self-praise on the QW blog is a reliable source that allows WP to present such claims as fact (as in the lead: "Quackwatch has won many awards". Herbxue (talk) 05:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

In articles about themselves, primary sources are allowed within reason, and it is actually nearly impossible to accurately write such an article without finding documentation from the original source. Common "knowledge" is normally exempted from the requirements for sourcing. "Common sense" is something else and actually rather rare . Disruptive editors will sometimes just tag anything they question, when a casual knowledge of the subject actually suffices. The problem is with the editor, not the article.

Now back to Alexbrn's question..... -- Brangifer (talk) 05:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The question of awards, praise, and very favorable mention is covered quite well in the article. There is no serious question about the accuracy of the claims. Only pushers of fringe POV question the favorable status of QW in mainstream science and medicine. I suggest you read the entire article and the sources quite carefully before you embarrass yourself anymore. The last time someone did that we just added more of the same. It was quite easy to do. Look up Pyrrhic victory and Streisand effect. Needless to say, such persons stopped objecting. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

As far as criticism goes, if you can find serious criticism in RS, please provide it. We'd love to include it. Believe me, we've tried for years, but it's hard to find such criticism. 99% of criticism is found on unreliable or even blacklisted sources. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps killing two birds with one stone, I notice the 2004 Good Web Guide both verifies one of the awards and criticizes Quackwatch on the grounds that it "tends to define what is possible only in terms of what science has managed to 'prove' to date". Which may or may not be damning, depending on where you're coming from. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Technically this is damning and should be included in the article through a sourced citation. It indicates that Quackwatch takes no notice of more recent theories and hypotheses, or what our article on fringe science calls "cutting edge science". Dimadick (talk) 09:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Not really. For one thing, being on the cutting edge means you're on the wrong side of the knife... For the second, that's actually how Wikipedia works. We always "follow", often at a good distance, behind what RS say. We never lead the way with new information, including scientific discoveries. Good science is conservative, and so is Barrett and QW. When new medical knowledge is established, QW articles get updated. Some which are outdated may not even exist anymore, or they have been revised to include new data. That's the proper way to do things. If QW were to trumpet new knowledge too quickly, they would often end up having to backtrack, because most new knowledge ends up being a false lead that proves to be a disappointment. That's exactly what quacks do, and make money by selling such poorly supported "new" knowledge. Barrett knows better than to do that. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't take a genius to see that this article is an endorsement, and you (Brangifer) have just admitted that you will bury any attempt to find critical sources with even more supportive sources. Hardly an argument for neutrality. Here's where it gets fun: Any website I find (such as quackpotwatch.com) with critical arguments will be shot down as unreliable, because they are blogs, but the blog that praises itself is a reliable primary source? Doesn't that strike you as a recipe for a lack of neutrality? Herbxue (talk) 06:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I really don't think the "Seasoned Cooking" website is a great source to give the existence of QW's awards extra credibility, I'd prefer to use something like the Good Web Guide as mentioned above. But, yes, in general this article does need some criticism of QW, and it would be good to find some. Perhaps the holistic angle might be fruitful: surely there are people out there who think the whole in more than the sum of its parts and QW's narrow empirical approach misses that. If that's articulated somewhere that could be interesting ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Herbxue, I wrote criticism from "RS", not blacklisted sources. That source is so filled with libelous and inaccurate material (conspiracy theories created out of whole cloth) that it is blacklisted here (so the software will reject attempts to save it), not because it's a blog, and, BTW, QW is anything but a blog. You apparently don't know what that is. Even if it were a blog, it would still be considered usable, within limits, as documentation for information about itself. You really need to get up to speed on our sourcing requirements. As an acupuncturist, I can understand why you don't like Barrett's and all other scientific skeptics' opinion of acupuncture, but don't let that blind you to the good that Barrett and QW do at exposing scams and unscientific practices. That's what has earned them a good reputation with government agencies, libraries, educational institutions, organizations like the American Cancer Society, and many other scientific and medical sources. That is also what has earned them an intense and burning hatred from the fringe, and you sit squarely in that fringe. Try to distance yourself from that nasty part of the fringe for a moment when editing.

Now please stick to the subject of improving the article. Make some good suggestions we can work with. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, you are coming about this the wrong way. You have determined that the Quackwatch article should be negative independent of the sources, and more than likely the sources you get will be unreliable because the criticism is usually from quacks. Start by following the standard sourcing approach that everyone else uses rather than using unreliable fringe sources, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. We know that criticism exists, and if found in RS it should be included to avoid accusations of violating NPOV, which requires we cover all significant sides of the story, including negative sides. The "problem" for haters of QW is that RS do not criticize QW. The only criticisms we can find are in terribly unreliable ones. The only ones we could find in RS were minor criticisms and they are linked. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a problem is that people are looking for negative things reliable sources say about Quackwatch and picking those (even if that means highlighting only a specific part of an article), rather than looking for what reliable sources say about Quackwatch, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

That actually cuts both ways and applies to positive things that are written as well. We should include both, but RS don't normally criticize QW, which happens to be a good indication of the high regard with which it is held, and the quality of its work. Only quacks, scammers, and those who believe extremely unreliable disinformation (nearly all originating from ONE source) hate QW. The mainstream looks favorably upon it. Since libel lawsuits are extremely hard to win in the USA, Barrett has usually failed to prevail, although Joseph Mercola did settle out of court for $50,000 for his mistake of rebroadcasting libelous assertions from that ONE source. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, duly noted. I will keep an eye out for reliable sources with critique of Barrett to improve the article. I did not realize how much work Brangifer has already done to include critique as well as praise. Herbxue (talk) 16:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

We have a principle here called writing for the enemy which I try to follow, and although I am definitely a fan of Barrett's work (NOT of the man, who can be rather brusque) and of QW, I also follow NPOV and resist attempts to whitewash this article. That's not proper on pseudoscience subjects, and it's not proper here. It cuts both ways, so if serious criticism is found in RS, we should consider including it here. I've always done that here. There have been many long and hard battles over this issue. Sometimes I have been silent and let the parties fight it out, figuring that if Barrett's enemies had good enough policy arguments to win, I'd back their inclusion of good sources, but they usually lost because they failed to understand policy and their sources sucked. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Criticism that should be in the article

In 1990, Chriopractors won a 14 year battle with the AMA to finally be treated not as quacks but as alternative health practitioners. (Simple historical fact, here's the link...) http://www.dynamicchiropractic.com/mpacms/dc/article.php?id=45524 or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilk_v._American_Medical_Association However, that didn't make Dr. Barrett back off of Chiropractor, Dr. Koren. I admit, it's late where I am, so I'll leave the hunt for the court records up to you. Here's the article: http://www.anh-europe.org/news/quackbuster-stephen-barrett-md-loses-appeal-and-leaves-home-town Maybe Steven Barrett's problem is that he's just an old guy with fixed opinions? Maybe he's old and scared for his fellow old people who really are attacked by scams a lot. I know my elderly relatives are innundated by scam mail, scam phone calls, and their computer gets virused up faster than any other. Elderly people are targets, so Quackwatch is a phenomenon of the aged protecting themselves, but I think it's also paranoid and out of date. 24.225.67.129 (talk) 08:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The ANH is a pseudoscience advocacy group, so they are not a reliable source, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't consider Quackwatch to be a reliable source either. He makes wild accusations that sound like debunking but actually aren't. Like asking rhetorical questions. "What is rebalancing? How does one know they need to be rebalanced?" he asks in the Gary Null article on the Quackwatch site. OK, so he is unaware of what Dr. Null means by that, but he could just go to youtube and find the Seven Steps videos and find out for free. There's no need to act like he is acting, that is, as if Dr. Null is trying to fool people because he's not, and in many cases, he is simply bullying fellow doctors who he doesn't consider "his type" which in this case means, "not our kind."

The guy running Quackwatch is a retired psychiatrist, and he's attacking chiropractors, nutritionists, people selling protein supplements to bodybuilders? What does he know about that? He has all the time in the world to attack working people. Your lazyness to not look things up (find a reliable source, as you say) is your own problem. I gave you the tip of the iceberg. (Hint: Google news archive will give you more on this guy than just a basic search.) Maybe I'll get around to it, maybe not, I've got a life to live. I'll be sure to update here if I do because the article is locked. 24.225.67.129 (talk) 14:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

See WP:NOTFORUM. TippyGoomba (talk) 14:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Also please read the article: "The site is developed with the assistance from a worldwide network of volunteers and expert advisors", and "In 2003, Quackwatch listed 150 scientific and technical advisors: 67 medical advisors, 12 dental advisors, 13 mental health advisors, 16 nutrition and food science advisors, 3 podiatry advisors, 8 veterinary advisors, and 33 other "scientific and technical advisors" were listed". Also please focus on the specific edits you propose. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I removed another reference to this same article from Talk:Gary Null as being a libelous quote from a libelous web site. This comment is not libelous, being "opinion", but it's still not constructive. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Very biased and unbalanced article

This article reads with a complete praise of this enterprise as if the Gods above have created it. Where is the Criticisms section? I hope the one small sentence "A number of practitioners and supporters of alternative medicine oppose Barrett and Quackwatch", isn't the only mention of numerous websites disagreeing with this one man enterprise. I see no mention of Tim Bolen leading a major crusade against him or LLena ??? (forgot name) and her lawsuit still chasing him for money awarded from the old corporation by some US Judge to reimburse for legal costs and damages, after their fiasco. etc., etc. I think a few strong proponents of this article involved here are familiar with that one. One stinkin' line of criticism, at the bottom, in a section of 20-30 paragraphs of praise is not a balanced or honest review for the public to read about this enterprise. Most enterprise companies don't even last on Wikipedia for long before somebody has them removed as not notable. Are we just promoting this endeavor or reporting both sides for public knowledge? 72.138.186.80 (talk) 00:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

We follow WP:NPOV. Choosing two "sides" is inappropriate. --Ronz (talk) 00:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

That would appear correct according to Wikipedia guidelines and hundreds of other article formats so I am reinserting the section title so that unbiased editors have a place to add some critical views, balancing the excessive bias in the article. Some are necessary to demonstrate balance in the article. Surely you are not stating there are no criticisms of the enterprise the article is disclosing? There seem to be a lot of concern on this talk page about this excessive bias. The section title identifying one minor statement is a good start. Please adhere to your stated guidelines as they apply to all editors, not just one supporting your opinions or COI, if any. A title doesn't choose any side and your comment seems like nonsense. Care to clarify your statement with some valid reason? 72.138.186.80 (talk) 02:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

This is not a forum. Is a specific edit being proposed here? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 02:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

For now, restoring the "Criticism" section appears to be the proposal. Doing so violates NPOV, specifically WP:STRUCTURE. --Ronz (talk) 02:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Criticism sections are deprecated. They occasionally exist, but are frowned upon. That doesn't mean that criticism is not allowed. On the contrary. The problem for your position is that we have been searching for years for criticism from reliable sources, but have found very little. Most criticism is from extremely unreliable sources, some, for example by TB, are so bad they are even blacklisted. We don't allow libelous sources here. They are more unreliable than Faux "News", if that is possible . So it comes back to our basic policy of using RS. If you can find RS (which we haven't already considered, and it's only 2-3 which exist) which express criticism, please bring them here and we can discuss how they can be included. We are not against including criticism, but it must be of a substantive nature and from RS. Minor "I don't like his style" aren't worth using. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Advisors - who are they

The text frequently mentions "advisors" without being specific. I think we should have a section about the advisors, what their qualifications are and how they are selected. The some goes for volunteers. AadaamS (talk) 09:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok so the advisors are mentioned in the Mission and scope section. I think they ought to have a section of their own, named "Staff/Personnell/Contributors" or some other suitable name. Any thoughts? AadaamS (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

No, "the advisors" are not mentioned, only mentioned that supposedly 150 advisers exist, and there is no way to verify this.Davea0511 (talk) 04:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

What secondary sources are there? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

No need to require advisors or accreditation as long as their personal opinions on medical matters are not referenced in any wikipedia medical articles. For the moment Quackwatch is qualified and noted by the FDA and others as a very effective information dissemination service, but not for their own personal opinions about quackiness of certain people. It seems many think they are actually accredited to make statements with weight equal to say the AMA or NCI, but they aren't as long as they keep the accreditation and affiliations with certain medical advisors anonymous. If they wan't their actual opinions referenced in the wikipedia they need accreditation for expertise in those areas ("website recommended as accurate by FDA" doesn't cut it). Until then we should take appropriate actions to fix all wikipedia entries with respect to WP:RS, WP:USERGENERATED, and especially WP:MC wherever Quackwatch is made the reference instead of a more WP:MC source. Quackwatch fails these criteria miserably.Davea0511 (talk) 04:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Sentence makes no sense

"The site focuses on combating health-related frauds, myths, fads, and fallacies that is hard to find elsewhere.[55]"

Does anyone have the exact quote out of the cited book? This sentence makes no sense as is. It's also present in the lede, where it is more complete. --Mg009 (talk) 00:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I can't see the entire quote, but it's likely a slight misquote of QW itself:

• "Quackwatch, Inc. is a nonprofit corporation whose purpose is to combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, and fallacies. Its primary focus is on quackery-related information that is difficult or impossible to get elsewhere."

I'm guessing it left out the words I have bolded, leaving a sentence with poor grammar. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Over 60% of this article is promotion for the website.

Are the Influence and Site Review sections really necessary?

There are 17 paragraphs in the Site Review sections. Maybe this amount of coverage is appropriate for say, Citizen Kane or Vertigo, but not for this website. This section should be deleted or renamed "Criticism". A gleaming quote from "The Good Web Guide" of 2004 is not notable. Nor is a 4-line quote from Low-Carb Dieting for Dummies, published 2003. The Influence section should be about halved in length, eg the "Gold standard in 2007 feasibility study" section would be adequately summarised in a sentence.

I would assume these two sections were mostly written by somebody involved in the site. Who would be such a fan of the site to write a sentence such as: 'Cunningham and Marcason in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association described Quackwatch as "useful".' 86.185.6.233 (talk) 14:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

"Are the Influence and Site Review sections really necessary?" - Yes, it is the purpose of the encyclopedia to put content into real world context and so the content in those sections is completely appropriate and necessary for a proper article. Could there be a different approach to presenting that content? perhaps - do you have a suggestion? Remember that WP:BALASPS is policy and affects how we present content.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions for improving the article? Do you have any evidence that somebody involved with the site has mostly written the sections you mentioned? I disagree with your assessment by the way - as Quackwatch exists as a website, it is no surprise that most of the article is about that website. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

You are too generous, 90% of this article is marketing. This is a promotional entry. I added a couple of sentences at the end, after the last sentence, "A number of practitioners and supporters of alternative medicine oppose Barrett and Quackwatch," using the same references and within 2 minutes it was deleted by the RedPenOfDoom..... I don't have time or interest in a flame war and will not personally persue, but this entry as written does not belong in Wikipedia.

My suggested edit: A number of practitioners and supporters of alternative medicine oppose Barrett and Quackwatch. Critics cite Dr. Barrett’s decidedly orthodox point of view, exclusive targeting of alternative therapies, heavy reliance on the statements of large traditional organizations, and statements such as, “"A lot of things don't need to be tested [because] they simply don't make any sense,” as indicating a lack of scientific integrity. [possible libel removed by Ronz (talk) 17:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)] Seabreezes1 (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

You're deeply into BLP-violating attacks on Barrett now. Please note that this article is under Arbcom oversite for this very reason. --Ronz (talk) 17:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Ahh - agree that last sentence was inappropriate as he is a living person. However, I suggest other sentence I added should stand. Let me try modifying it just a bit: "Critics cite Dr. Barrett’s decidedly orthodox point of view, exclusive targeting of alternative therapies, heavy reliance on the statements of large traditional organizations, and statements such as, “"A lot of things don't need to be tested [because] they simply don't make any sense,” as indicating a lack of impartiality." I'm not interested in pursuing, but do suggest as someone who uses wikipedia for accurate information, that I was surprised by the glowing recommendations for this site. Seabreezes1 (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

And who are these "critics" that hold these views? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

e/c:You need reliable sources telling us what critics, why criticising nonsense indicates a lack of impartiality, why the critics think that statements from large organisations are unreasonably relied upon. Hand wavy "I think there is a lack of impartiality" doesn't cut the mustard. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Quackwatch discussion in WT:MEDRS#Is Quackwatch a reliable source?

Seems to be quiet for now but FYI: WT:MEDRS#Is Quackwatch a reliable source? Jim1138 (talk) 00:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Site reviews section

While I'm probably going to avoid participating in the discussion, as I previously have done concerning this section, I think this series of edits bring up some points that might be worth discussing: [1]...[2]. I reverted because they mirror past NPOV and BATTLE problems of trying to discount the subject matter. --Ronz (talk) 01:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

People descriptions

@DrChrissy:, edits like this and this are not a good idea. Those guys don't have articles so it's (even more) necessary to describe who they are, to provide context. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 10:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

That is sort of my point. If these researchers do not have articles, then they are not really notable. If they are not notable, their details should not be included. I stopped short of deleting their names. Perhaps I should have done this?DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

No. People do not have to be "notable" for their works to be cited, if those works are published in reliable sources. It is necessary to use their names, even if they're not notable, so that we have properly attributed their findings or opinions (instead of using weasel words like "some researchers find that..."). So we use their names and also add a short description of who they are, for context. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 12:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

In addition to this, the entire "no article = no notability" premise is incorrect. It could just as well be that no one has spent the time to create an article about the subject. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

It is easy enough to simply state the findings without the researchers names or details/affiliations. That is what is usually done for conciseness and encyclopaedic style.DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, against Wikipedia guidelines. See WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Quackwatch as a source on WP and how that applies to this article

Quackwatch is frequently used as a source on WP. Therefore, we must be extremely careful to present a balanced view of the web-site/blog in this article. The Quackwatch site says that not all of its articles are peer-reviewed. I believe readers of this article shoud know this, however, my edits to indicate this are being reverted. I propose that a comment should appear in the article somewhere, that not all Quackwatch articles are peer-reviewed.DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Weight is established by coverage in reliable secondary sources, not what editors personally "believe" readers should know. Alexbrn (talk) 00:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

How do you classify Quackwatch - is it a primary, secondary or tertiary source?DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but this talk page is to be used for the improvement of this article, not to discuss how Quackwatch is used as a source within Wikipedia, and certainly not as a battleground to contest its use. Arbcom enforcement applies here. --Ronz (talk) 01:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Obviously a source can only be classified as primary or secondary in respect of some specified content. See WP:PSTS. Quackwatch is a primary source for content on Quackwatch. Alexbrn (talk) 01:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

More importantly, there is strong consensus on Wikipedia that Quackwatch is a reliable and notable source for a skeptical viewpoint on many topics within alternative medicine as well as related topics. --Ronz (talk) 01:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

This thread starts out by expecting something unreasonable. Since when is a website peer reviewed? Readers of websites don't expect that. They only expect that of scientific journals. To even raise the question or mention it is a ploy to raise doubt in the mind of the reader. It's like asking "When did you stop beating your wife?" It's an absurd assumption designed to poison the well and should be laid to rest. It gets no weight here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

A statement regarding (a lack of) peer-review is intended as information for the reader. We see fit to supply readers with information about peer-review in the lede hereAnimal Behaviour (journal), hereScience (journal) and hereJAMA (journal) (just the first 3 journals I looked at), but people above are arguing it should be hidden (censored?) on this article. How can this possibly be appropriate.DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

You have just demonstrated my point ("They only expect that of scientific journals."). Note that those are all scientific journals, where peer review is expected. QW is not a scientific journal, just as the New York Times, Mercola.com, and NaturalNews, are not scientific journals. We don't expect any of them to be peer reviewed. Only if they were to claim to be peer reviewed, when they aren't, would we mention the matter. We don't go around poisoning the well. That's POV editing. We don't insert our own POV into articles. Editors are supposed to stay neutral in their presentation of the content and POV found in sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Why are we wasting time here? Let's get a formal Arbcom enforcement notice to DrChrissy, then have the account considered for a block if these disruptions continue.--Ronz (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Opposition to Barrett and Quackwatch

Removed from article because of BLP (V, OR, NOT) concerns:

A number of practitioners and supporters of alternative medicine oppose Barrett and Quackwatch.

It's not clear that this material is verified by the sources, nor encyclopedic. The Sahelian source has no place here, but I'm unclear how the Village Voice article supports the content. I cannot access the other. Can someone quote from it? --Ronz (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Similar text is still in the article. See "The organization has often been challenged by supporters and practitioners of the various forms of alternative medicine that are criticized on the website.[99][111]" QuackGuru (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The Ray Sahelian source is low quality and did not contribute significantly to the article. I have updated the village voice ref and was able to access the full text of the hufford piece at http://lme.sagepub.com/content/31/2/198.full.pdf+html. pages 204-205 cover quackwatch. Dialectric (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

References

Primary sources

Yes, primary sources can be used to cite simple facts, but if no non-primary source mentions the content, it's not worth mentioning in a Wikipedia article using Wikipedia voice. I came here from the talk page discussion of the Media Bias/Fact Check article, where primary-sourced content such as this, and media mentions such as [3] [4] [5], were removed. I noticed that this article suffered from similar issues.

Also, primary sources are not the only issue I am concerned with. I opted to tag the article instead of removing the inadequately sourced content myself because other editors may be able to find better sources that mention the content. Wholesale reverting of my edit was unproductive. feminist (talk) 05:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

You've misused the tags, I'm afraid. The OR tag is for unsourced content where a Wikipedia editor made an original assertion, not referenced material. Likewise, the WHOM tag is for unsourced content where there is unclear attribution. We can discuss the references here, but those just weren't the right tags for this situation. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

"but if no non-primary source mentions the content, it's not worth mentioning in a Wikipedia article using Wikipedia voice" this is simply not true. We can build a basic description of an organization, its activities, its membership, even if secondary sources don't cover it in great details. Maybe 2-3 Quackwatch affiliates are individually discussed in secondary sources, but the article is poorer if we don't mention that, currently, 21 such affiliates exist, on a variety of specialized topics. Whether or not to discuss individual affiliates is where WP:DUE applies, but we can characterize them in bulk if we stick to basic facts (e.g. 21 affiliates exist) and don't exceed our sources (i.e. start to claim that those affiliates caused an increase in pseudoscientific awareness in the general public, or some such, without external sources). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Removing the Khaleej Times paragraph

I have searched extensively for the deadlinked Khaleej Times reference "The Shame of SHAM" and turned up nothing. That wouldn't be a problem except that the line attributed to John Macdonald in 2009, a voice of reason on everything from the efficacy of alternative medicine to the validity of advice from best-selling diet gurus, and the various forms of medical quackery being perpetrated on gullible consumers, is far too similar to a line written by Marjorie Rosen for Biography Magazine in 1998: Biography Magazine spoke to Barrett about issues ranging from the efficacy of alternative medicine to the validity of advice from best-selling diet gurus, and the various forms of medical quackery he says are being perpetrated on the consumer today.[6] I suppose it's possible that the the MacDonald piece is an updated reprint of the Rosen piece or something; but in the absence of an accessible source, I'm going to remove that paragraph. Cheers, gnu57 10:24, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussions about the status of QW here at Wikipedia

For some odd reason, existing discussions have not been announced here, which is a big violation of our usual practice. There are two major places where participation is encouraged:

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is Quackwatch an SPS and thus not allowed as a source on BLPs?
• Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#SPS and Quackwatch

BullRangifer (talk) 16:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)