Talk:Quackwatch/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Barrett's response to my question

Email from Nov 28, 2007

“ >Hi,

>I have been reading your site. I find the information helpful and enlightening. I'm thinking about using some of your information and citing your site. Are you reports peer-reviewed? I've been looking on the site, and have not been able to find that.

I write mainly in a magazine style. Some articles undergo expert review. Most do not. It depends on the nature of the information and how well I know the subject matter. There is also continuous post-publication "review" in which articles may be modified in response to reader suggestions. Our most recent peer-reviewed article is http://www.dentalwatch.org/questionable/sargenti/overview.html --

Stephen Barrett, M.D. Board Chairman, Quackwatch, Inc.
... some contact info removed by ScienceApologist

---

removed links

>Have you considered posting the review status of your internet articles on the articles themselves? That way if I cite an article I will be able to state that it is or isn't peer-reviewed.

No, it would take too much time. In addition, peer review doesn't ensure accuracy. It's only as good as the reviewers. The best indicator of accuracy of my writing might is probably something you would not think about. Our sites probably criticize more people and products than any other sites on the Internet. If I weren't exceeding careful, we would have been sued into oblivion long ago.

”

Anthon01 (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for posting that. This answers the question, from above, of whether "review" means that they review outside articles upon request, or internal articles upon request (the answer is the latter). Cheers, Antelan ^talk 20:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought personal emails were not allowed. Am I misinformed? --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The email wasn't used for anything at all in this case, so no harm done. Generally, email won't meet WP:RS or WP:V. --Ronz (talk) 00:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

An idea

Why not just remove all of the Mission Statement? It's really not that important. Along with the removal of the Mission Statement remove the names of those who are supposed to be keeping watch over articles. IMHO, all of this is unnecessary, the title Mission and scope. If that is removed then the warring hopefully will stop, at least about this. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that's an idea worth considering. Anthon01 (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm in favor of anything that makes this article have less text at this point. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned by this statement. Do you feel that we should remove notable information just for the sake of removing information? —Whig (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I want to remove non-notable information. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note that WP:N is not concerned with material in an article but rather concerned with the notability of the article subject as a whole. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 05:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Crohnie I think you've got a great point. Antelan ^talk 17:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I've been in favor of such approaches for a very long time now. Since the last time I mentioned this is archived, I'm just going to copy it:

Ronz 22:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC) says, "There's one very important point that's made many times in the discussion archives that hasn't been mentioned in this latest round of discussions: Quackwatch, Stephen Barrett, and NCAHF are only barely notable. They certainly are all notable, and as independent entities, but there are very few independent, reliable sources that indicate they're notable. (There have been many discussions for deletion and/or merging, which is not the point.) Because there is so little written about them in usable sources, it's very easy to get frustrated looking for usable sources supporting details about them. In the case of both praise and criticisms (and just about anything else), we often find ourselves in a position where there are none we can use at all. This is to be expected given that they're barely notable to begin with. When we push the limits of NPOV, RS, and related policies/guidelines, it's useful to remember that perhaps the information isn't important enough to present at all." --Ronz (talk) 17:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair points, I agree. I have been presuming that there was notability, but if this is in question maybe the article is in need of some trimming. How should we assess notability in this case? —Whig (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV addresses how to determine proper weight, which is what we're discussing here. "Notability" is usually only used when discussing entire articles. --Ronz (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

What I have noticed in many of these "notability" and "reliable sources" arguments is that there is a double standard repeatedly being applied by some. If the article references support their POV, then they argue for their inclusion. If the article references are contrary to their POV, they argue for their exclusion. That is my observation over the last 14 months of editing Wikipedia. Arion (talk) 18:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I think when someone raises notability or reliable sources objections, they should be heard, regardless of their perceived bias. —Whig (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree that they should "they should be heard", but there should not be continual reversions that ignore the other side of the issue, without consensus nor discussion. Arion (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

So do you think Quackwatch is very notable, and why or why not? —Whig (talk) 21:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I know you are not asking me Whig but I hope it's ok to answer. I for one think it is notable. It has a lot of information on it that can't be found else where and being a Crohn's person and on a Crohn's group (s)I know others with IBD who have used QW to help them a lot. It sure helped me when I first got diagnosed and was hit with peddlers of things that only would have emptied my wallet. This is only one reason why I think it's notable. Everyone just has to use common sense with what they use it for. --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

While I have no intrinsic objections to removing information about who the advisors for QW are, I don't think that they need to be removed in an absolute sense. QuackGuru reinstated the list in the history section. That seems to me, at least, to be a more appropriate location than the scope section. Anthon01 seems to think that this text cannot show up in the article ever. I'm really not too fond of this kind of approach. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I think it does belong where it is at now, the history section.--CrohnieGal^Talk 12:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

So you believe the same text that played a pivotal role in this "peer-review" deadlock and that you suggested should be removed to stop the conflict, is now ok in another section? Seems like I misunderstood what this agreement was about. Anthon01 (talk) 13:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

And how does the listing of current advisers belong in the history section? Anthon01 (talk) 13:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion having it in the history is in the past tense so it should be ok there. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I am done here again. The constant arguing is unnecessary and unproductive thus I will move on. Good luck all of you, I hope you find some peace. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually the statement is in the present tense, Quackwatch now engages the services of 150+ scientific and technical advisors. Thanks for trying. Anthon01 (talk) 15:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Anthon01, as you can see from inspecting Crohniegal's history on this page, she speaks with a candid, nonstrategic voice. She should be treated with more respect and deference than I think you're giving her. Scaring off neutral and thoughtful parties is not what we need to do on this page. What is more, you are arguing some issues from both sides, depending on what suits you in the moment. When I removed the advisor list and note about peer-review, you stated, "I don't know that a consensus has been reached on the current text." Now, you fall back on "Seems like I misunderstood what this agreement was about." So you both argue that there was and was not agreement on the removal of the text, depending on how it suits you in the moment. I am pointing this out not to attack you, but to help you realize that this type of editing makes it difficult for the less-involved editors to take part in this discussion. Antelan ^talk 20:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding what is going on with my edits. I have not attacked or disrepected CrohnieGal in any way. You characterization is unfair and inflammatory. First you come to ScienceApologist's defense on his talk page and now to CrohnieGal? I would appreciate it if you would stop. Your attempts to qualify my edits as 'aggressive' or 'disrepectful' as you did on ScienceApologist's talk page, and now here is unappreciated and bordering on harassment. Anthon01 (talk) 15:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I said I don't know that a consensus has been reached on the current text. because a large number of editors were not present and/or not enough time had passed. Seems like I misunderstood what this agreement was about because it was an agreement not a consensus. Note agreement vs. consensus. Finally CrohnieGal, and ScientificApologist were both present when that agreement (not yet consensus) was discussed. Your qualifications "aggressive" and "disrespectful" or are unjustified. Finally, you chose to attack me instead of respond to my "And how does the listing of current advisers belong in the history section" question. Anthon01 (talk) 16:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch is notable as a consortium with an agenda (cont)

Yes Whig QuackWatch is notable. It is particularly notable for being a cover for a few agenda-driven individuals who masquerade as the "final word" of "almighty science" that sends down judgements on what is "legitimate" in the healing arts, and what is not. They have no qualms of conscience to condemn entire professions in the healing arts, while downplaying and closing their eyes to abuses in conventional medicine. Arion 3x3 (talk) 15:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Please review the talk page guidelines before commenting further in this vein. MastCell ^Talk 17:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

A large body of off topic text was archived by Ronz. [1] --Anthon01 (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Reverting due to lack of discussion

Anthon, your recent revert from "recognition" to "as a source" had an edit comment that made it seem like you reverted simply because it hadn't been discussed on the talk page first. Even though I think I agree with the effect of the revert, if that was the reason, please don't use it in the future. --Philosophus ^T 14:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned that it is a contentious page and ask the reader to 'read the talk page' so he could familiarize himself with recent discussions. Could you think of a better summary? Anthon01 (talk) 15:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Protection

I've requested protection.[2] I think there's too much reverting going on, and it doesn't help that the discussion has been decentralized across so much of the project. Cool Hand Luke 08:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

un-WP:MULTI

In an attempt to unify (or at least clarify) discussions, please list any suggestions you have for the current state of the article below using economical but specific language. If there is particular passage which you would like to see add/amended/deleted, please quote it. If there is a particular policy, please cite the specific portion of the policy which you feel is being compromised. (I understand that this may be repetitive, but the idea is to organize all of our thoughts, prioritize and then work at an amicable way to seek dispute resolution. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected|Please add a {{verify source}} tag to the Nguyen-Khoa paragraph. Part of the dispute is about whether the paraphrase is accurate, as well as whether it is appropriate or unduly selects part of a source which doesn't reflect the entire source.}} — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC) — N Edit declined. Does not appear to have consensus. Sandstein (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It is an accurate paraphrasing, but if you have a suggestion on how to improve it, please provide your phrasing here and I promise to be open to it. It definitely doesn't unduly select part of the source, but rather keenly selects the portion most relevant to the "Quackwatch as a source" section as it describes the author's suggestion of how Quackwatch can improve as a source. If there are other portions of Nguyen-Khoa's review which you also feel are relevant to this section, please feel free to suggest how you would add them. Bear in mind that some of ideas and information from Nguyen-Khoa's review are already covered in our article by other sources, and thus is may be a good idea to shy away from repetition. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

We could argue the undue weight, but the source doesn't say that QW refers to medical articles being peer-reviewed. I think we'd need to actually quote the sentence from the source for it to be acceptable, as I can't think of a way of paraphrasing it successfully. The actual source states: "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." — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The only clean way I can think to write the paragraph, while avoiding misquotes and duplication of "peer-review", is :

Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa, PharmD, in a website review posted in the The Consultant Pharmacist, comments: "A giant step toward true legitimacy would involve active peer review of the articles to be published..."

or

Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa, PharmD, in a website review posted in the The Consultant Pharmacist, comments: 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."

— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

But I wasn't argueing for an immediate cleanup, merely an immediate tag. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This tag is to mark items which are doubtful or false. This paragraph is neither, in my opinion. Please be specific why you think this paragraph is doubtful or false and would need to be verified. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I really think it is the same difference - "a site that relies on so much of the accepted medical literature as its foundation" clearly advocates peer review. Plus (and I know that using this would be a SYNTH violation) we know that Quackwatch advocates peer review because they do cite so much of it in their articles and article like this tout their acceptance of peer review. All of that being said, if you really feel that a quote would be better than the hybrid quote-and-paraphrase which we are currently employing, please spell out exactly how you would like the paragraph to read in total so we can see if it has consensus. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

EDIT CONFLICT --> I see you beat me to it and have given your suggestions. One second for me to review. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I like your second one, but I would make minor tweaks as such:

Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa, PharmD, in a review published in the The Consultant Pharmacist, comments, "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."

I'd be good with that edit request. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

How about "Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa, PharmD, in a review published in the The Consultant Pharmacist, recommends that Quackwatch implement formal peer review processes for their own web site, writing, "[a] giant step toward true legitimacy would involve active peer review of the articles to be published..." Anthon01 (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I like yours better, Anthon01, but this doesn't address ArthurRubin's concern about paraphrasing in a manner which he thinks is somehow "inaccurate" (something which I would love for him to expound on for us so we know specifically what he thinks is inaccurate about the paraphrasing). I did however, incorporate your "in a review published" into my suggestion above. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think in a review published ... is better than in a website review posted ... Anthon01 (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Incorporated in my suggestion above. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought his objection was to in accordance with their advocacy of peer review for medical publications, writing ..., which I removed from the paragraph, and not recommends that Quackwatch implement formal peer review processes for their own web site ... Anthon01 (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I see. Yeah, that would work too. So:

Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa, PharmD, in a review published in The Consultant Pharmacist, recommends that Quackwatch implement formal peer review processes for their own web site, writing, "[a] giant step toward true legitimacy would involve active peer review of the articles to be published..."

That would work for me too. Arthur? Anyone else? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

To avoid apparent duplication, I think I'd move the quote into the quote field of the reference. "Peer review" twice within a few words seems questionable. My version would then be:

Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa, PharmD, in a review published in The Consultant Pharmacist, recommends that Quackwatch implement formal peer review processes for their web site.

I'm still not sure that WP:UNDUE is not being violated, but these versions all clearly have a verified citation. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems good to me. I like how economical the writing is. I am unsure of your WP:UNDUE point. Please explain. Do you think that this - a review published in the ASCP's journal - represents a minority viewpoint? If so, how do we determine this? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's even a RS for the purpose we're using here. We're taking it out of context for the sole purpose of adding criticism, which is a violation of NPOV in general, as well as UNDUE in particular. --Ronz (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The review seems generally favorable, even for pages attacking pharmacists. The "limitations" section is the only negative part of the review, and I'd say that this reduced section would be an appropriate citation for that. However, much of the rest of the review is positive. However, there is another quote which would be appropriate elsewhere in the article: "Much of the criticism of Quackwatch.com stems from the claims made by product distributors in such [MLM] organizations." (I'm not sure that "such" refers to MLM, but that seems the most likely interpretation.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Similar text already exists in the article, in fact in the lead. Anthon01 (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Similar, but not identical. Perhaps we should add Nguyen-Khoa as a reference for that statement, as well? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Certainly worth discussing further, but let's stay focused on the issue at hand. Are we liking any of these version best or at least better than what is currently there? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch is opinion informed by data. The data happens to be reliable and accepted, and this confers legitimacy on the opinion. However, it is no more expected that Quackwatch is peer reviewed than it is expected that an Editorial is peer reviewed. Quackwatch isn't claiming that they have some special data proving that quacks are quacks (i.e., research); they are, like any opinion-forming group, using data that is already out there to come to a conclusion. There is no reason this opinion would be peer-reviewed. As we've extensively discussed above, I don't think it makes any sense to draw a distinction between two entirely different things (opinion and peer-reviewed research) - we wouldn't say, "This apple is not an orange." The compromise position on this issue is to express exactly what type of review system is in place - but we are already doing that in this article. Consequently, I believe we are at the compromise position already. Antelan ^talk 18:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Decent argument. However, we have reliable references that describe QW's opinion as bias and recommend that it subject itself to "peer-review." We also have QW itself describing in it mission statement the current status of its review process. Anthon01 (talk) 18:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you see the sentence by Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa as the compromise? Anthon01 (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I reject using the sentence by Nguyen-Khoa without also explaining that he gave a favorable review of the article and properly contextualizing his critique. The shortened versions do not do this.ScienceApologist (talk) 22:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not possible for every statement to convey all truth. The item was found and used to cite a source for the idea that some have criticized QW for not peer-reviewing it's own articles (not that they should! just that the criticism exists). The review said tons of things, but the ariticle is not about the review, it's about QW, and that review was used by us to provide that one source for that one factoid. If every word we quote were given all context, the wiki would be infinity-gazillion-plus-one words long. Sorta like our ongoing argument. Pete St.John (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

So do you object to the current wording or no? ScienceApologist (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I have two goals. One, which really I don't care so much about, is a good article about QW. The other, is converging on good policy for dealing with areas where science and pseudo-science butt heads, viz, ending our fight. I'm not caught up, I'm swamped, I don't currently know the current wording and I despair of even finding it in the current mass of the article, but I'll look. However, it would be progress, to me, if you agreed that it is not necessary for a quote from a review to reflect the whole review; only that it is necessary for the quote to accurately support the claim in the article that cites the quote. I can quote Alan Baker that e is transcendental, without mentioning algebraic independence, even though the latter is a much more important reason for the book. I don't believe an arguement can end fruitfully unless someone somewhere is willing to make some concessions. Pete St.John (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that it is our job to contextualize a review as favorable or not. If there are other portions of the review which you would like to add, please add your suggestion to your favorite version above. This may be an integral step to help us reach a version which we can all live with (the essence of consensus). -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This issue came up over the weekend and can be reviewed here. WP:NOR#Using sources was the justification. Anthon01 (talk) 22:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

#Which is better?. I already made my proposal. This is the second time I've had to remind Levine2112 of this. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I responded in detail there that I like Version 01 better. ScienceApologist, saying, "This is the second time I've had to remind Levine2112 of this" comes off as hostile. Whether that was your intention or not, please be cognizant of how it appears to me. Now of the suggestions, is there one which you prefer? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

SA. Your response doesn't answer the issue that you have raised, that is, the excerpt doesn't reflect the largely positive theme of the article and therefore cannot be used unless it is modified to reflect that general theme. Is this your personal preference or is there a WP policy that guides your objection? Anthon01 (talk) 04:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

That's policy. WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR all reference it. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Which specificially? The larger the collection of long texts cited to prove a point, the harder it is for opponents to find the specifics you mean. You want to make it easy for us to see exactly what you mean, so we concede your point. Chapter and verse, as the saying goes, will make your point. Since I don't believe any policy requires that every quote reflect all the context, only relevant context, I am disinclined to reread all the policies to prove that your specific interpretation does not exist. But you can point to a specific section, and boom, you win. I'd be forced to concede. Pete St.John (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Proportionally Reflecting the The Consultant Pharmacists Review

Like SA, "I reject using the sentence by Nguyen-Khoa without also explaining that he gave a favorable review of the article and properly contextualizing his critique. The shortened versions do not do this". "Proper contextualization" means no out-of-context quoting, Levine2112. You and Anthon01 may want to study WP:WEIGHT again. The current version should be removed straight away, especially since no consensus seems in sight. SA's version #1 does a much better job. Remember hat the N of NPOV stands for Neutral. Avb 16:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I read the review and it seems neutral to critical to me. It explains from a NPOV what is on the site, discusses two articles of interest to pharmacists and the goes into the sites limitations. The review itself does not praise QW but mentions as we already have here "the praise the site has won from reputable reviewers and rating services." The review is either neutral or critical of QW. That should be reflected in the paragraph we add to the article. Anthon01 (talk) 17:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the version which has garnered the most acceptance above:

Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa, PharmD, in a review published in The Consultant Pharmacist, recommends that Quackwatch implement formal peer review processes for their web site.

To me it is both positive and negative. It is merely constructive advice on how Quackwatch could improve. Is there something which anyone feels needs to be added/amended to this before inserting this version? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Further note: AvB, can you explain exactly how you feel WP:WEIGHT applies in this situation? I don't see it and would like your guidance here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This version is wholly unacceptable to me because Nguyen-Khoa was not writing to give constructive advice to QW. That's basically taking the quote way out of context. I also only see pro-alt-med types supporting this sentence (except for PeteStJohn who we haven't heard from in a few days). ScienceApologist (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read above. Of the suggestions, this is version which ArthurRubin was most partial to. The reviewer was writing specifically to review the website and in that review, he had some constructive advice. If there is another portion of the review which you would like to add to it, please suggest it so we can all consider your phrasing. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I already made a suggestion. Even Anthon01 figured that out. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Even? Anthon01 (talk) 16:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

SA: I don't see how "pro-alt-med types supporting this sentence" makes a difference. Is there a guideline or policy that speaks to that? We want the sentence to reflect the gist of the article so add what you'd like to it. In your version you started with Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa, PharmD, in a website review posted in the The Consultant Pharmacist, gave QuackWatch a positive review for two articles on the site that discussed "natural remedies" available at pharmacies. This seems like WP:OR to me. How did you get the word "positive" into that sentence without it being a WP:OR violation? Anthon01 (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the review? It is clear that QW is praised for its efforts I outline. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I read the review. Where was QW praised and by whom? Please quote from text of The Consultant Pharmacists review. Otherwise, your addition of 'positive' is OR. Anthon01 (talk) 16:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

All you have to do is read the review to see that QW is be described as a competent source. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's start with just one sentence from the source which you think gives the overall impression that this review is a positive one (rather than a neutral or negative one). -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The article isn't very long. General impressions are easy to come by. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Meaning you can't find a sentence from the source. It's OK to have a general impression but you can't change that general impression into WP:OR. IMO, your 'positive' impression is based upon your POV. On its face, the article is mostly neutral and a little critical. Anthon01 (talk) 03:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• I just read this pharmacist's review. . . it appears that calling it 'positive' is a stretch. . . incredibly, it reads pretty neutrally.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 03:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

All this is irrelevant. If you disagree with the current wording, explain why. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Getting unstuck, revisited

I'd like to emphasize one of the points I wrote in Talk:Quackwatch#Getting_unstuck:

• Keep the discussion focused. Concentrate on a small set of related matters and resolve them to the satisfaction of all parties.

I think one of the biggest problems here is that we're unable to "Concentrate on a small set of related matters" and there is very little effort being made to resolve anything. Instead, the discussions go off in tangents and then come back around to the same questions being asked again as if they've never been discussed before, or people flat-out asking for repetition. Basically, we're falling into argumentum ad infinitum.

Also, my apologies for saying "we" when it certainly isn't everyone doing this. For now, I'm trying to look for general solutions, rather than putting any focus on who might be causing these problems. --Ronz (talk) 03:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. Thank you for the re-focus. Antelan ^talk 03:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Certainly i don't chime in since i don't follow closely enough, there is so much happening at once. One at a time might well be a good way to achieve compromises. I see from ANI that Levine is getting a ton of flack. I just want to point out that when I have worked with him he has always been willing to compromise. But in order for that to happen there actually has to be some compromises available and everyone has to be willing to give a little. (disclaimer: The last point is a general point, I have not read through all the arguments above) David D. (Talk) 15:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the point of Ronz's statement was to get away from making comments on individual users. Antelan ^talk 16:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, lets discuss compromises this has worked in the past. David D. (Talk) 16:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, David D. I try my best! For instance, everyone please read the string just above this one. We are trying to reach a compromise, but it stalled a bit when we started dealing with a tangent. I tried to rope it back in. I would love for everyone to weigh in on the proposed compromised offered up in that discussion. I really do think we are close to finding one which we can all live with. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Getting unstuck, allow intellectual integrity

To me the best solution to this endless argument would be to have an accurate, direct sentence that shows at least one academic, in a V RS paper, has been directly critical of Quackwatch, citing by reference, his primary examples based on Kauffman's review, "Watching the Watchdogs at Quackwatch". I suggest this sentence as far more accurate and intellectually honest: "David Hufford, Professor and Chair of Medical Humanities at the Penn State College of Medicine, wrote a paper in which he cites Quackwatch articles as sources...to find further examples of systematic bias extensively citing a review with Joel M. Kauffman's concerns about Quackwatch's reliablity."--I'clast (talk) 22:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Neither Hufford nor Kauffman are as reliable sources as you seem to think they are. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with Kauffman? And Hufford for that matter. Feel free to direct me to place where this has been discussed before. I don't agree with Kauffman's conclusions but I don't see how you can call him an unreliable source. David D. (Talk) 22:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I would certainly like a concise straight answer to your questions, David D. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused by this also. Please clarify. Anthon01 (talk) 22:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Hufford may be a WP:RS, but the symposium does not add to his personal reliability. Similarly, Kaufmann may be a WP:RS, but that particular article was clearly not peer-reviewed even as JSE concieves it, and JSE is pretty far out in that respect. In other words, the articles are RS only if Hufford and Kaufmann are considered experts in the field (and if we could agree on what the field is). There's a rational argument that Kaufmann is considered an expert in medical study review, which might be the appropriate field. There seems be a general consensus that JSE is not, itself, a reliable source, and there is a strong consensus that symposium presentations are not reviewed in any way, and that only the decision to invite the speaker qualifies as an external review. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Independent academic coverage of QW, its articles and its principals is pretty thin, period. Hufford's paper seems to be as good as it gets, whereas the current QW article is constructed with some less qualified or self interested pro-QW references presented in a one-sided manner, realisticly not held to similar editing standards. I don't think that as a biothics professor Hufford has to be *the* all-round expert (physiology, etc.) on altmed topics to criticize simple bias when he clearly has longstanding credentials in the altmed field and humanities going back at least 20 years (government contract consultant to US OTA, referenced by QW itself[3]) written while embedded in a multidisciplinary studies Centre at a medical school. "Professor", "Medical Humanities" pretty much describes his qualification for weight. An explanatory note to Hufford's attributed reference, along with linked credentials of both authors (Kauffman, Hufford) should adequately address any issue of weight for the reader to consider the merits of points he raises, vs the current POV absence of meaningful, credible, credentialed, independent criticism in the QW article.--I'clast (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hufford's "Symposium article" isn't exactly a "paper" in the sense of most papers. Weighting is also about inclusion/exclusion along the lines of reliable sources. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Kauffman has been up front with his agenda (cholesterol denial and anti-fluoridation being his common causes) which QW attacks. Hufford's spirituality-based medicine is also attacked by QW. What would lend credibility to this so-called "criticism" would be if you found a person whose ideas were not being attacked by QW who gave the cite a negative review. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think your phrase "cholesterol denial" is a highly prejudicial deprecation of Kauffman's criticism, where "cholesterol critics" come in many sizes and shapes in the complex field of CV risk, when Kauffman (further in his book, Malignant Medical Myths) differentiates amongst lipoprotein-cholesterol components (vs "total cholesterol" and simple LDL, vs certain deadly subfractions of LDL) and is critical of the statin marketing monolith, as well as other risk factors with complex independence and relationships that much better describe cardiovascular risks. The specific qualities of the lipoprotein subfractions is emphasized with the dramatic failure of Pfizer's HDL booster, torcetrapib, killed a lot of patients (apparently wrong HDL) in the early trials whereas niacin, boosting HDL_2b, now the undisputed HDL champion (among other lipoprotein fraction firsts) is finally moving into mainstream pharmaceuticals, after 50+ years of evasion, out of sheer necessity. Ditto the Lp(a), Apo-B lipoprotein subfractions with vitamin C and niacin. Ditto fish oil (fractions), inflammation, insulin levels and CV mortality, largely ignored in marketing for 20 years. Ditto Lipids OnLine (Baylor Medical School)[4] try to be that predictive with "total cholesterol" or LDL-C.

If you really feel strongly about Hufford, feel free to start his bio.--I'clast (talk) 02:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

And that's why less weight is given to these two. But can we legitimately exclude them? David D. (Talk) 01:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Kauffman, certainly per the reliability concerns of JSE. Hufford is questionable since he uses Kauffman as his resource. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hufford, who had access to his Center and at least two med school faculties, is obviously assigning weight to the Kauffman review *despite* its JSE pedigree. A clear, fair presentation of any cautions or quibbles in any Kauffman/Hufford biography ref notes should be fine. Let the readers decide the appropriate weighting. "Idontlikeit" because it effectively questions QW's POV pushed infalliblity here with cited and academically reasoned examples, is wrong, in many ways. As is gangbang blaming Levine. So far all this year's edit warring shows, is how fragile and brittle QW's "mainstream" views may be, even with tremendous pharmaceutically supported "attaboys" in (inter)national advertisers (certain highly compensated journals with nice glossies, ditto high circulation popular media.). Can't even allow the name of such a documented doubt to be spoken, or even referenced is not satisfactory, at all.--I'clast (talk) 04:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Were these authors criticized by QW before they wrote their negative pieces about the journal? If we're going to cite them in this article, identifying who launched the retaliatory strike would be most interesting. Antelan ^talk 04:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, the QW et al "family" has criticized neither Kauffman nor Hufford to date, even 5 and 4 years later, respectively - they appear to be independent academic criticism. "Kauffman" simply returns no hits in the QW multisite search engine, "Hufford" only shows up in the references as an author of OTA reports without much more than 2 very minor, one sentence descriptive texts.--I'clast (talk) 07:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the spat is between QW and these authors by name. I was thinking more along the lines of, "Did QW attack Hufford's or Kauffman's fields first, or did those gentlemen attack QW first and elicit an attack against their fields." And I use "attack" simply for lack of a better word, meaning no affront to either QW or the authors. Antelan ^talk 07:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Reading the opening paragraph(s) to Kauffman's Alternative Medicine: Watching the Watchdogs at Quackwatch., Dr Barret's presentation to a local skeptics society, including Dr Kauffman, seems to have triggered both the skeptical and academic professorial gag reflex inside Kauffman. On other sites, JMK's statements make clear Kauffman is obviously dissatisfied with the congruence between medical practice, medical science, and scientific analyses in chronic diseases where he has been spending his time researching and re-analyzing biochemically based medicine, subgrouped nutrition, and various contradictions in (medical) science & practice for scientific consistency and rigor, with criticism for all (including altmed).

On any background conflicts concerning Hufford, I am personally less clear about any more esoteric seeming psychoimmunoneurology interests, concerns & practices as indicated (and deprecated) by SA (and still presumably QW). Mainstream medicine seems to be rushing headlong into the field where some of your school's direct competitors that I've seen are spending big money there, literally laying bricks and mortar. To me, SA's deprecation of Hufford's bioethics & humanities background sounds like out-of-line speculation and OR for starters, where Hufford cited/criticized mostly on the biochemically related articles anyway. I think we are dramatically overlawyering Hufford's paper - he is not setting or meeting an FDA standard, announcing a Nobel prize winning discovery, he is criticizing a long known partisan site as biased, citing specific examples from a qualified scientist on a popularized but non-academically notable organization flying under the academic radar.--I'clast (talk) 11:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

To answer Antelan's question, yes, QW criticized their fields long before these two criticized QW. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me, SA. I had forgotten your previous prejudicial statements about Kauffman ...the size of his gut ^{3 Jan 2007} and seeming complete misunderstanding on the potential benefits of well designed low carb diets for diabetics and those genetically predisposed.

"Kauffman's field" up to about 2000 was synthesis of new dyes, such as for lasers, with one other publication for Skeptic magazine in 1999.[5] According to the Preface of his book, Malignant Medical Myths, Kauffman *began* his research on his first research project ca 2000 that became "Myth #1" on aspirin use, presumably before his Low Carb diet (Myth #2 on low fat diets) and Chloesterol-statin critique (Myth #3), similar to his two lead sections in JSE "Watching the Watchdogs" paper. The start of the Watchdogs paper seems to date to around this time also. So no obvious long term "field" conflicts with QW when he clearly states what sounds like an unimpressed, critical first contact with QW's Dr Barrett.

One might infer from SA's comments on Hufford's humanities studies, as anyone who ever goes to church or studies church-goers, is disqualified to say anything critical of QW.

So SA's remarks above, sound like pure Doomsday Defensive POV on QW, to me, content-free OR, minus the R, just negative speculations, mixed with ad hominem and a failure on AGF about Kaufman's introduction in "Watching the Watchdogs" and apparent first contact with QW. Feel free to contribute *constructive* comments.--I'clast (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

SA, thank you for answering my question. L'clast, if you disagree, just say so. Especially with sources. As an aside, how does SA's alleged "misunderstanding on the potential benefits of well designed low carb diets" has anything to do with this discussion? Antelan ^talk 02:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Round and round we go. There have been many discussions on Kauffman and Hufford. Repeating these discussions, and ignoring past discussions is not a way to solve the problem, but instead just more ad nauseum. Perhaps this section should be labeled to indicate it's another ad nauseum argument. --Ronz (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Not just stuck, an intractable unreasonable refusal to collaborate within any edit bounds of NPOV and factual accuracy. There are legitimate V RS critics & criticism and this article erases, reverses meanings, dilutes and / or deprecates them all. It will be interesting to see if this ever makes a "featured article" in the press, as one more example of the technical shortcomings of WP and the hopeless bias with known errors in certain acticles.--I'clast (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Might be a bit premature as this iteration of the discussion isn't more that a day old. Anthon01 (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I think Ronz has the gist of the problem, here. The Kauffman's and Hufford's references' journals clearly fail WP:RS. I'm uncertain whether either Kauffman or Hufford qualifies independently as an expert on quackery or medical research; if so, we need a cite for that, and if not, the references are not suitable as a WP:RS in this article, or any article which touches on a living person, such as Barrett. I don't think SA is really being that productive either, even if his statements are accurate. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Why do the references' jounal fail WP:RS. It has been mentioned here because of an anti-peer-review editorial but I have not been able to find it. Does anyone have a link to the editorial? Anthon01 (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There are answers to your questions in the archieves, principally as this has been asked several times in the past. Rather than rehashing them (again) it would be prudent for you to examine what has been discussed before. The discussion isn't more than a day old, it's now almost a year. Unfortunately a minority of editors have a problem with wikipedia policies when it comes to their pet POVs. Shot info (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Arthur's argument overconstrain's WP:RS and BLP on a combination and application that has been being perpetually polished here to immunize QW from cogent criticism, that I think clearly violates the intent of the policies if not absurdity. Sociologists have been trying to keep score on methological processes and execution in the sciences where people problems form fundamental problems to achieving scientific progress but frequently wind up being targeted themselves by the dominant old guard in actual case studies. Hufford's comments pertain to QW in an area Hufford is a qualified professional as a tenured humanities/sociology professor within recognized medical schools and programs, with a number of distinctions (chair, director) and area specific. Hufford was a federal OTA consultant on CAM assessments reports, a compendium still considered unfavorable to CAM, with Hufford neutrally referenced at QW multiple times (where Hufford perhaps may not have been a dues paying QW member and/or friend of Herbert).

Likewise, Kaufman critiques Quackwatch articles for ignoring scientific data, or at the very least scientific disputes with major points favored favored by current medical school research, in some areas such as the cholesterol and metabolic syndrome areas. Most of all Kauffman catalogs QW's methological errors & failings in science generally, with examples that are verifiable or sourceable, and classifies some: "inneundo", "obsolete data", "incomplete data", "technical errors", "unsupported opinions". Which as a doctrate from MIT, medicinal chemist, tenured emeritus professor at a health sciences university he appears qualified to do. Kauffman's review of QW's scientific shortcomings addressing classical homeopathy seemed especially precious, where no one could remotely consider Kauffman to be Avogadro's law challenged on serial dilution.

If Arthur et al are right, and this article is effectively unremedial, I think independent arbs/administrators should consider the more drastic remedies for such irreconcilable POV situations, such as stubbing or deletion.--I'clast (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Have we ever tried to get a third-party opinion of Kauffman and Hufford as sources at WP:RS/N? If not, may we try? If there is a consensus there that neither of these sources pass WP:RS at RS/N then I am willing to move on, if - by the same token - the "other side" is willing to abide to the usability of these source if RS/N has a consensus that they pass WP:RS. Does this sound like a reasonable solution? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not what happened with Talk:Quackwatch#Wikipedia:Reliable_sources.2FNoticeboard. --Ronz (talk) 00:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

How do you mean? Please clarify. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

A summary of the situation that Ronz is alluding to is this: Levine2112 is now suggesting that we get an independent editor to decide if Kauffman & Hufford satisfy WP:RS/WP:N. Levine suggests that he would "abide" by the conclusion of the independent editor. However, as Ronz points out, Levine asked for independent input on the peer review debate earlier this week. The third-party editor disagreed with Levine's position (that there should be a note in this article about QW's lack of peer-review status), emphasizing that such peer-review would not even be expected for such a site. Levine's response indicated that, though he was grateful for the editor's input, he would not be making use of the editor's suggestions. In other words, abiding by the independent editor's conclusion was not what occurred last time. Antelan ^talk 02:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

THat may not be an accurate summary of what transpired. The three sources I posted there were in respect to the original inclusion of the lack of peer review in the "Mission and scope" portion of this article. When the suggestion to move this to the "Quackwatch as a source" section was made and to change the context of the usages (as a quote rather than a summary), I determined that the RS/N which I had posted was no longer applicable (as I state at the RS/N). Make sense. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't appear to be an accurate accounting. Here are a few quotes with timestamps:

• 04:57, 12 December 2007: I write, "It doesn't support what is currently in dispute, because it doesn't say anything remotely like what's currently in dispute. It might be used for an alternative though, something that would probably fit in "Quackwatch as a source."
• 21:07, 12 December 2007: Levine writes the RS/N notice beginning, "We are looking for confirmation that each or all of the following are or are not reliable sources to support a statement like: Quackwatch articles are not subject to peer review."
• 00:30, 13 December 2007: Levine concludes the RS/N, saying "We have decided to go another way with this information and are now only citing the first source but noting that this is the author's opinion."
• 18:30, 14 December 2007: Levine writes, "the only reason we are here dealing with this review in particular and not the other two sources we have which describe Quackwatch's lack of peer review is out of sheer compromise in the interest of promoting some greater harmony at this article."

--Ronz (talk) 02:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a discrepancy. Anthon01 (talk) 02:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't see consistency. Perhaps Levine can explain the apparent discrepancy. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy to explain. What is the discrepancy precisely as you see it? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that it is confusing to make a request on RS/N and then say never mind a short time later. If the question deserves outside editors getting into the sources and determining reliability and verifiability for us then we shouldn't make requests lightly. With that said, I don't see any discrepancy or lack of good faith here. There's no reason not to move forward toward resolving disputes. —Whig (talk) 08:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

new search

Here was a quick search about peer review of QW. From my quick look over it looks like it is. [6]--CrohnieGal^Talk 21:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

WHat are these links supposed to show? I see no mention about peer review. Please specify. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Crohnie is offering sources that are peer reviewed (or at least, vetted by the federal government) and mention QW. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Right. But none of these sources claim that Quackwatch is in any way peer reviewed, right? I thought that is what Crohnie was thinking. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I was trying to show what ScienceApologist concluded. The link [7]which I showed had the search as 'Quackwatch peer review'.--CrohnieGal^Talk 20:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

RONZ'S reason for including the NEUTRALITY tag

RONZ. . . please feel free to elaborate here as you have not given any justification for including this tag. . . How are we supposed to know how to get it removed if you don't tell us your particular issue(s)?TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 23:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Quackwatch#The_neutrality_of_this_section_is_disputed --Ronz (talk) 17:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it worth loosing your editing privileges for this....?

In discussing the site's limitations, Nguyen-Khoa recommended that Quackwatch institute mirrored "academic counterpoint" and that a "giant step toward true legitimacy would involve active peer review of the articles to be published.

vs.

Nguyen-Khoa went on to recommend that Quackwatch start a mirrored "academic counterpoint" wherein a "giant step toward true legitimacy would involve active peer review of the articles to be published

If you think it is worth edit warring for these minutiae, a temporary block may open your sinuses so some reason can sip in. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

At the 3RR noticeboard, it was suggested that edit-warring parties get wacked with a wet trout ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

These distinctions are very important to SA. IMO, SA doesn't want the words "site limitations" because it spells out a POV that he doesn't want expressed, that is, the QW has limitations. The article itself spells out those limitations in a section appropriately titled "limitations." The second term he doesn't like is "and that a" meaning that it has two limitation. He conflated mirror counterpoint with peer-review to make it seem like they are one and the same. Anthon01 (talk) 23:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, everybody is always right. But the issue is that you and SA must find a way to reconcile these fine points. Editwarring does not work. Rather than editwar, propose a different wording, find common ground. It is possible if you try. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

For example: This is the text from that source:

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.

Which can be summarized as:

Nguyen-Khoa asserts a lack of balance in Barret's condemnation of dubious health therapies, and states that if Quackwatch institutes an active peer review of the articles published on the site, that would be a "giant step toward true legitimacy."

or something along these lines. Stay close to the sources rather than editorializing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Great summarization. SA, how do you feel about it? Do feel that

In discussing the site's limitations, Nguyen-Khoa recommended that Quackwatch institute mirrored "academic counterpoint" and that a "giant step toward true legitimacy would involve active peer review of the articles to be published.

is editorializing? Anthon01 (talk) 03:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is a type of editorializing. Not egregious, and even accurate in a sense, but still editorializing that should be avoided. Jossi's version still includes mention of what Nguyen-Khoa considers a type of limitation, and Jossi's version does it by quoting, not by editorializing. Actually a very good version which I would support. Nice work, Jossi. -- Fyslee / talk 07:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate you input. Could you clarify what you think makes it editorializing? Most of 'it' is a direct quote from Nguyen-Khoa's review. Anthon01 (talk) 12:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I want to apologize for edit warring. It is very frustrating doing the work I do at Wikipedia. Anyway, the proposed wording is problematic because it tries to position Nguyen-Khoa's phrase "leaves one sensing a lack of fair balance in his condemnation of many dubious health therapies" as an actual assertion when it is more of a vague discomfort. More than this, his next statement that "Steps to correct this are under way, as many reputable professionals have signed on to populate the site in their areas of expertise." is completely absent from Jossi's summary: as if Nguyen-Khoa is simply criticizing the site wholesale without pointing out that the site is aware of the perception issue and is correcting it. That's the sense of the supposed critique: Nguyen-Khoa is not offering some outright condemnation for lacking "peer review", but rather he is offering a suggestion for improvement which he seems to think is being acted on already. The spin being put here by anti-QW crowd is palpable. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Remember you tried to spin this as a positive review? No anti-QW bias. I am just trying to balance the article. Why not let the words speak for themselves? With your statement Nguyen-Khoa ... is offering a suggestion for improvement which he seems to think is being acted on already you're conflating three criticisms into one.

1) Most articles published by QW are written by Barrett. Populating the site doesn't equal a variety of authors.

2) Need for peer-review. Populating the site doesn't equal peer-review.

3) Need for academic counterpoint. Populating the site doesn't equal academic counterpoint.

The review is from 1999. Nine years later, which one of these three do you believe has been or is being resolved? This may not matter, but what impression are you trying to leave in the minds of readers? Anthon01 (talk) 15:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This is asking for original research by User:Anthon01 and exposes his goal in spinning his interpretation of the review. I think he has demonstrated why he is basically descending into disruptive tactics. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It is amazing how this extremely minor piece is getting such featured status in WP. I'm sure if the author had known he was going to be featured here, he would have written the article more thoroughly and carefully. This is a website review, lest we forget, not some sort of rigorous scientific evaluation of the site. Antelan ^talk 20:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If I remember correctly this article was written in '99. If I am correct on that then changes have already been made per this '06 article [8]. So is this article outdated? --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Antelan. That's WP:OR. It is a site review in a peer-reviewed journal. That is what concerns us. Anthon01 (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no indication that this website review was peer-reviewed. It represents solely the opinion of Nguyen-Khoa. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Your argument is of no true consequence. It is published in a peer-reviewed journal. That is what concerns us. Anthon01 (talk) 11:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Your argument is of no true consequence. As in Kaufmann's article, there's no real evidence that that article was subject to peer review. In the peer-reviewed journals in my field (Mathematics), web site reviews are hardly ever peer-reviewed. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Then perhaps I am mistaken. Please clarify. Is it usually the case that a peer-review article tags each article with a statement that the article is peer-reviewed? I looked at several articles in NEJM and found no such tag on those articles. How do we know any article is peer-reviewed? And why do we assume that this one isn't? Why do you attempt to refute my position and ignore SA's assertion that "It represents solely the opinion of Nguyen-Khoa?" Incidentally, the Kaufmann article was peer-reviewed as the journal claims it is a peer-reviewed journal and I confirmed per personal conversation with the journal's secretary that all their articles are peer-reviewed. Anthon01 (talk) 11:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

In peer-reviewed journals, things tagged as "articles" are usually peer-reviewed. Things tagged as "letters", "commentary", or "reviews" are usually not. We're allowed to use common sense in choosing sources, even if we're not allowed to insert common sense into articles. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Protection 2

I have just lengthened protection to not expire, after reviewing the edit history. Actually the best for all concerned is probably to go away and never come back, leaving the article to a new community of editors; there does not seem to be anyone here who is not deeply invested in either rubbishing or defending Quackwatch. Guy (Help!) 23:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

And another group of POV-warriors will come to rubbish the article, claiming that Quackwatch is run by Aliens from Area 51. Then another group of individuals who actually care about what this project does will clean it up. I'm sure the protection is good, but I can email you about 25,000 other articles that are worse off than this one. I'm burning out from the POV-nutjobs around here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

And how exactly your comment helps here? It does not. You may consider refactoring your offending comment about fellow editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The text I was trying to protect was an accurate reflection of the source's comments. In fact most of it was a quote from the "limitations" section of the source's review. The article is mostly a QW promotional brochure and is in need of balance. Some criticism is rightly justified. The source sums it up well. I am not interested in trashing QW. Just getting some balance into the article. Anthon01 (talk) 03:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

On balance, QW has received high praise from scientific and governmental groups, and criticism from groups that it has attacked. No need to say much more than that. Antelan ^talk 20:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If you list sources of praise then you should list the source of criticism, especially peer-reviewed sources. Anthon01 (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Everything needs to be sourced. Is this what you are getting at? Antelan ^talk 22:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is if the article simply states "QW has received high praise from scientific and governmental groups, and criticism from groups that it has attacked" then that is fine. But if you start enumerating the sources of praise (RS) then you should also list sources of criticism (RS). Anthon01 (talk) 03:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

QW is only attacked by people who are quacks. That's already in the article. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ronz, where are you? Your SA's characterization is UNCIVIL and factually incorrect. The Consultant Pharmacist and the Village Voice are not quacks. Anthon01 (talk) 11:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The Consultant Pharmacist article is not an attack (as you're trying to spin it), and the Village Voice piece seems to be a personal column. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) Arthur: I'm not sure what you mean, so if I misinterpret, please clarify. I don't think I am spinning. Perhaps SA is the one who is spinning. The prevalent discussion over the past few weeks has been on the inclusion of the Consultant Pharmacist article to this page. I never claimed that the Consultant Pharmacist article was an attack. I didn't use the word attack, SA did. I said criticism, Antelan said criticism and SA responded attack. From some of his edit on this page, including this recent one, it appears that SA sees criticism as an attack on QW, at least in this case. The Consultant Pharmacist and Village Voice articles both contain criticisms of QW. Second, the Village Voice article is written by an investigative journalist and it doesn't suggest opinion on the Village Voice web page, so I'm not sure why you think it is a personal column. Anthon01 (talk) 08:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It is much better to refer directly to the sources rather than saying "there has been support and criticism". Then readers can make up their own minds exactly how critical or supportive statements are. Also, there may be mixed responses that are also worth including. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I believe that this is what has happened in the article. Anthon01 (talk) 10:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

My bad on reading "quack" as "attack". However, I stand by my comment on the presence of non-peer-reviewed articles (such as web site reviews) in peer-reviewed journals, and of commentary columns in news-magazines and newspapers. The Kaufmann "article" has been clearly shown to be subject to only limited review, under JSE's editorial policies as seen on their web page (not even considering the question of whether an organization which doesn't believe in peer review would properly practice it), and there has been an arguument presented that the Village Voice column was a commentary piece. I don't recall the result of that argument. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Minor thing...

Would the 'Quackwatch as a source' section be better named 'Quackwatch as a resource', similar to say the Factnet article? As it is now it seems focused on proving Quackwatch is a reliable source, requiring the documentation of praise for QW at length. If this was copied to WP: space and the article changed to look at various aspects of Quackwatch, disruptive editing by those it monitors could be minimized and the article improved.John Nevard (talk) 09:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment on wether lack of peer review should be mentioned

After reading this article I've noticed at least once on a forum (something awful) that somebody said that this journal was revered for being peer reviewed which I learnt was false from the discussion above. It is tragic to see such a huge dispute about a minor point just because somebody feel that useful facts are POV. --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 05:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The user was also wrong about Quackwatch being a journal, which it is not. The question basically becomes where do we draw the line. Antelan ^talk 07:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Benjamin, I would be very interested in getting the URL to that discussion. It might be worth knowing who was making such a claim, as it is a possibly a triple whammy: (1) it is false; (2) leads to false expectations: (3) may have been intended to do just that. As to "useful facts are POV", they often are and if they are significant and documented using V & RS, they may even be included here. It all depends on how. -- Fyslee / talk 07:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, just an anecdotal evidence and I cannot remember the debate it was mentioned. But the article has huge readability issues because of this stupid debate now, and contains tons of unnecessary praise which isn't significant or even interesting to a reader. It seems to suggest to me that W:RS, W:NPOV and W:UNDUE should be debated in light of the new more stringent "source-based" editing methodology. Especially in fringe, but controversial, subjects where editors are more interested in the POV outcome rather than writing an engaging and useful story about facts. Are there any central place on the wiki a debate along these lines? It seems to me that FRINGE & RS is abused in such manner it oppresses the opinion of anti-establishment proponents whom usually is the opposing side in any debate. Hence the article turns out one-sided in favor of whoever the gods cheers on at the moment. Sorry for being ranty, but this is a systemic problem that is starting to flow over into more important articles than this one. --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 07:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

That's alright. Frustration levels can run high here! I think the following quote addresses the situation well. MastCell is an admin and physician:

• Look, the fact is that advocates of fringe or minoritarian viewpoints have a tough road to hoe on Wikipedia. This is supposed to be a serious encyclopedia. Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work. WP:WEIGHT codifies this. Of course minority or fringe viewpoints can be represented and covered, but advocates who relentlessly push for favorable treatment of widely discredited fringe viewpoints and refuse to bow to any sort of consensus or Wikipedia policy don't last long (or rather, they shouldn't but often do). MastCell ^Talk 00:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Source.

He doesn't mention it, but other policies also make it difficult for anti-establishment proponents or those using Wikipedia for advocacy (highly forbidden). Things like NOR, "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball," and the fact that we are bound to using V & RS (IOW we only write what is basically well-established notable history, as in very short or long term "past tense"), ensures that speculative personal opinions and "what might be proven in the future" are kept out, and things like collaborative editing and including all significant POV in the same article, etc., all work together to keep Wikipedia from reading like a huge collection of personal websites.

You might be interested in reading about the ROUGE admins. If you support fringe ideas, they are your worst enemies here....;-) Wishing you a Happy New Year! -- Fyslee / talk 08:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, but who decides what the majority is? And more annoyingly, the majority usually knows very little about any specific issue. So on fringe topics often the perceived "truth" is pushed, not the facts. And it is the perceived truth of the majority that wins on topics where the "truth is unknown". I am not terribly for alternative medicines, but yet I see relentless usage of policies against the few on many topics where WP:V and WP:RS should have been enough for inclusion. In most content rulings it has been stated that the article should rather describe than to outline an opinion. This article, which lists a dozens of pseudosciences out of the blue, is a clear POV-push. There are tons of other problems too. But since the majority of the editors of this article are heavy skeptics it outlines THEIR view on the topic. Personally I found the rebuttals helpful to delve further into the topic, and I personally found the sourcing good. Including them would make the article better, but it seems there is some ardent fear of WP:TRUTH here! Worst of all. This hard skeptics vs open-minded debate is an american cultural artifact. I would love to know why it is that way, but at least I haven't been able to find out why here on wikipedia. So this whole thing reeks of a systemic issue where policies does nothing but to give wiki-lawyers more weapons. It seems the policies are made in moral problems in mind, not issues where the "truth" is unknown. --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 08:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Very good observations. Anthon01 (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Wanted to add

{{editprotected}} 20:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC) I wanted to add some information to the article (as Further reading), but it is locked:

• Paranormal Claims: A Critical Analysis, 2007, edited by Bryan Farha, University Press of America, ISBN 978-0-7618-3772-5. Three of the eighteen chapters are reprints of Quackwatch articles.

Bubba73 (talk), 01:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Where is this going to be added? There is no consensus for this addition, just one editors request. Anthon01 (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I'd like to add it as "Further Reading". I can't see that it would be controversial at all. Bubba73 (talk), 21:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I missed that. I don't see how it fits in this article. This isn't an article on Paranormal phenomena. Anthon01 (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a simple statement of fact that three of the chapters in that book are reprinted from Quackwatch. It has nothing to do with the arguement going on. Bubba73 (talk), 22:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I see. Anthon01 (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems benign; and in fact I'd welcome it, as a gentle reminder that "quackery" is not a synonym for "alternative medicine". They overlap, but they are not equivalent. But more to the point, it helps illustrate the actual scope of the website. Pete St.John (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I had no intention of making any kind of point. I got the book last month, and several of the chapters were reprints from Skeptical Inquirer, several from Skeptic (magazine), and some from QW. I had no problem listing that fact on the first two articles. Bubba73 (talk), 01:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is a review of the book. Bubba73 (talk), 01:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Y Done. Sandstein (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Proportionally Reflecting the The Consultant Pharmacists Review 2

Text from Consultant Pharmacists review. [9]

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.

Previous text posted by Anthon01.

In a 1999 review published in the The Consultant Pharmacist, Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa PharmD discussed two articles from Quackwatch of particular interest to pharmacists. One article reported on the conflict of interest posed to pharmacies who sell "dubious" alternative therapy products, remarking that an independent survey determined that pharmacists were motivated by profit margins greater than those for conventional drugs. In discussing the site's limitations, Nguyen-Khoa recommended that Quackwatch institute mirrored "academic counterpoint" and that a "giant step toward true legitimacy would involve active peer review of the articles to be published.

Current text of article:

In a 1999 review published in the The Consultant Pharmacist, Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa PharmD discussed two articles from Quackwatch of particular interest to pharmacists. One article reported on the conflict of interest posed to pharmacies who sell "dubious" alternative therapy products, remarking that an independent survey determined that pharmacists were motivated by profit margins greater than those for conventional drugs. Nguyen-Khoa went on to recommend that Quackwatch start a mirrored "academic counterpoint" wherein a "giant step toward true legitimacy would involve active peer review of the articles to be published."

Jossi suggestion subsequent to page protection.

Nguyen-Khoa asserts a lack of balance in Barret's condemnation of dubious health therapies, and states that if Quackwatch institutes an active peer review of the articles published on the site, that would be a "giant step toward true legitimacy."

Perhap a RfC would be helpful. Anthon01 (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• The paragraph (as it evolves) has two main parts; the part I want, for nefarious reasons of my own, paraphrase: there exists a critic who suggests QW would benefit from peer-review; the other part, that for reasons of his own SA wants, that (paraphrase) there is at least some praise of QW in the afore-mentioned review. Since both those paraphrases are essentially true, I can accept that both parts be present in the paragraph (reasonably worded). The points of disagreement, as I understand it, are these:
• 1. It is not possible, or desirable, for every quote to reflect all of it's context. It was not necessary for a fact that may be taken to be critical of QW to be balanced by another fact that may seem complimentary. The article as a whole should strive for balance, but particular quotes need only establish the particular claims which cite them. So in my view, SA is wrong to insist on this addition. But since the addition is factual I don't object to it. I object to the apparent necessity of argueing every proposed wording with religious fervor, but SA probably doens't love that either.
• 2. In contraposition, SA believes (I think) that by establishing that a critic exists who advocates peer-review for QW, I'm kowtowing to a (wrong-headed) quackery-movement to claim QW falsifies itself by not adhering to it's own guidelines for peer-review. In essence, we both concede each others facts (mine, that the criticism exists, his, that praise exists also) but object to each others reasons and/or unintended effects. To me, allowing criticism (even from crackpots) is as important to science as rebutting the criticism. Unlike religion, science is absolutely not, and can never be, above criticism (else it ceases to be science). Pete St.John (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Nguyen-Khoa was acting as a critic. Jossi's and Anthon01's versions are wholly unacceptable to me. The current wording as present in the article is fine. If you disagree please explain. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC) Anthon01 (talk) 03:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, if I make the (conventional) use of "critic" for "author of an apparent criticism" then I can be misinterpreted as implying that the author of the review hates QW because QW is incompetent, etc. So "Reviewer". "A reviewer exists who..." instead of "A critic exists who...". SA, IMO you are overly defensive about small things, and super-sensitivity is deleterious to consensus building, but all things considered I'm happy to accept that as an improvement in my wording explaining wordings. Pete St.John (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Peter: I don't see how this review could be categorized as positive. I believe the article is mostly neutral, ala WP:NPOV, with some criticism. Nguyen-Khoa does not praise Quackwatch in any way. He simply describes the website and discusses two articles of interest to pharmacists from a NPOV.

Anthon01 (talk) 03:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"start a" vs. "institute"

I don't really care about whether we use "start a" or "institute". Is there some rationale for liking/disliking one or the other? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think institute sounds more professional for the WP project and QW. Anthon01 (talk) 20:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Overly jargoned. Again, I change my vote. I think "start a" is a plainer read. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm ok with "start a." Anthon01 (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This may sound silly, but I commend you both for agreeing quickly on a triviality. In the context, it is not silly. Pete St.John (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Do you believe that this is all trivial? Anthon01 (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"and that" vs. "wherein"

I don't really care about whether we use "and that" or "wherein". Is there some rationale for liking/disliking one or the other? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Wherein links academic counterpoint with peer-review as if "peer-review" would be included within 'academic counterpoint.' Wherein would be inaccurate. One problem solved in record time.;-) Anthon01 (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

But they are connected, peer review is included within academic counterpoint. Therefore "wherein" is accurate. So maybe I'll change my vote to supporting "wherein" instead. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your taking the time to point out the parts of the text you are uncomfortable with and why. Anthon01 (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

From the Pharmacist Consultant 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. Further, an area for academic counterpoint would be a good addition.

The article clearly separates the two recommendations. Your version is WP:OR. Anthon01 (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No, "further" connects the two and as peer-review is an academic activity, it is naturally part of the recommendation. "Further" means that a broader context could be provided for the narrower antecedent. Nguyen-Khoa is suggesting a new way for QW to publish articles. My version is an accurate appraisal of the source. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

IMO, "Further" here means "in addition to." Any other interpretation is OR. Anthon01 (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

So you don't think that peer-review is academic then. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is academic, but I don't believe it is counterpoint. Anthon01 (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't believe peer-review is a counterpoint to things that aren't peer-reviewed? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, I believe you are unknowingly setting up a strawman argument for me to respond to. I am saying that the text says "QW should do A." then it says "Further Quackwatch should do B." It doesn't say A is a subset of B and your saying it is WP:OR. Anthon01 (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The text is saying "further" as a consequence of the antecedent. Therefore A and B are connected. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I will let others comment. Anthon01 (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Academic Peer-review is a proper subset of academic counterpoint, if by "counterpoint" we mean avenues for (possibly) mutual and (possibly) constructive criticism. "Area for counterpoint" probably means "open criticism", e.g. letters to the editor publishing outside criticism, or invited "opposing point of view" editorials, and that would be a nonoverlapping subset because APR is generally anonymous and the referees' reviews are not published; only the editor gets the feedback, and he in turn shares his own selection of that feedback with the author.
• There is a bigger issue, though, regarding the use of logic by editors. It is inescapable but too many of us don't realize that, and think that following NPOV means there is no interpretation. I think this needs to be addressed with a new policy item but I'm not sure. In the meanwhile, I urge finding mutually acceptable wording. Either of you could accede to either wording and I'd be content, that particular is a very small thing in the scope of the mess we have here.
• "further" connotes consequence but does not denote it; the subsequent phrase can merely be the next item on a list, which can be e.g. a todo list with no connection internal to the members, like "do laundry" then "call Bill". So my vote would be to acknowledge common-usage validity in SA's arguement but concede to Ant's on the grounds of erring on the side of what is least uncertain or least ambiguous. Pete St.John (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Who has ever said, "Do the laundry. Further, call Bill" ? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Within the confines of a website, "area for counterpoint" likely means a 'web space' for commentary. BTW, can we agree to drop the word 'mirrored?' I am not sure how that got in there. Anthon01 (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Mirrored is a good word. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

What does 'mirrored' mean here and how does it reflect the text of the review? Anthon01 (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you think it is ok to add criticism to the QW article? It seems that you are against it.Anthon01 (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand these questions, try rephrasing them. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

"In discussing the site's limitations" vs. "Nguyen-Khoa went on to recommend"

SA: The section of the Nguyen-Khoa review where the above text is taken from is titled "limitations." Why do you object to "In discussing the site's limitations?" Anthon01 (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That title is ungrammatical. Antelan ^talk 04:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Anthon01 (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Because it is not a limitation to make a recommendation. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The recommendations are made to help erase the limitations. Here is the text from the Nguyen-Khoa review.[10]

Limitations: From a technical perspective, the site is poorly organized. The home page is used more like a document warehouse than a rational starting point. With the addition of dozens of forthcoming articles, readers will encounter some trouble finding what they want or discovering interesting topics. The site has a link to a search engine that helps somewhat, but the searches return line-by-line keyword results without displaying the title or context of the page.

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.

Related Sites: The success of Quackwatch has spawned two new sites...

Why is the section of the review titled Limitations if it is not about enumerating limitations? Note that the section right after Limitations is called Related Sites. Within the bounds of Limitations is the text in question? --Anthon01 (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Some of the issues are related to limitations but are not themselves limitations. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Has Quackwatch addressed all the issues raised by Nguyen-Khoa?

The problem I have is this was written in 1999 and your quote even states "Steps to correct this is underway". On Quackwatch here [11] which is dated 2006 shows steps were taken to add more professionals to the site. So I think what you want is already shown to be out of date. --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right, CrohnieGal. If this website review from 1999 had the weight of say, the Flexner Report and improving Quackwatch was as historically important as improving medical education, I could understand keeping this historical footnote in the article. It's not though - it's a website review that made recommendations that were, probably incidentally, implemented to a greater or lesser extent. Antelan ^talk 17:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

CrohnieGal and Antelan: I appreciate you comments. However, I wonder what your thoughts are on the specific points that are the reason for the previous section.[12] That, the recommendation for peer-review and academic counter point are located in the "Limitations Section," and that the reviewer was discussing limitations of the site in that section. Please contrast this assertion against SA's comment that they are not limitations. Anthon01 (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I think the whole article is out of date and thus should be removed in total. QW shows in 2006 to have taken steps in correcting the "Limitation Section" so why should it be put into the article? It seems to me that it no longer has any weight nor importance to the article in 2008. I think Antelan explains the reasoning quite well. --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping to get a response to the issues I had raised, but instead, you have raised another. So I have created a new section so that these issues can be discussed separately. So the following is my response to your suggestion. The Limitation Section discusses at least three issues

• One Man Show that is, writing all the articles - partially resolved
• Peer-review
• Area for academic counterpoint

Populating the site with professionals and technicians, as QW has done, only partially addresses the first issue, that is one author writing most of the articles. From the review:

Limitations: From a technical perspective ... page.

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. ...

Related Sites: The success of Quackwatch has spawned two new sites...

I believe most of the writing is still being done by Barrett. No one here has suggested adding text that reflects the first of these three issues, only the last two. Anthon01 (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I would not object to removing the article on the grounds that it is out-of-date. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you give a recent link that Dr. Barrett is "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?" (quote from what you wrote above.) Also, the next quote you have is; "Steps to correct this are under way, as many reputable professionals have signed on to populate the site in their areas of expertise." Which brings me back to saying that this article is out of date unless you have new information that you can show stating that Dr. Barrett is the main person writing articles. You state "I believe most of the writing is still being done by Barrett" (Italics and boldness are from me to show where my concerns are.) Again, is this just an opinion or do you have recent proof of this? I am not trying to be difficult here but I truly believe that this article is out of date and should be removed from the article in total. I believe that 'cherry picking' like this does nothing to help improve this article. Again, I am just trying to understand and not be difficult with you, I hope this you do understand. It's terribly early here and I had a bad night so I hope this all makes sense. If there are more questions please don't hesitate to ask it here or even on my talk page. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider the review to be out-of-date unless/until more recent material describes a materially different situation, e.g. a citation that later, QW did introduce peer-review for its articles. Dated, but not out of date. Pete St.John (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless you think QW is being deceitful then this proves that is it out of date. [13] I still believe that it should be deleted from the article because it's also not WP:Notable and WP:Weight just to name a few policies. Of course this is just my opinion,--CrohnieGal^Talk 22:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, your link does not prove the Nguyen-Khoa review is out of date. In fact, it confirms what the Nguyen-Khoa review said. From the Nguyen-Khoa review

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.

Please note the bold text. You link reinforces the claim made by the reviewer. The Nguyen-Khoa review says "many reputable professionals have signed on to populate the site" and your link, the QW page, confirms that.

But, I think you might be 'missing the point' that I have tried to make in this section. No one has ever suggested that we add text that reflects the issue you are highlighting, that is that "many reputable professionals have signed on to populate the site in their areas of expertise." I have discuss that above as the first item in the list of limitations. Below I have listed them again with numbers for clarity. Item 1 is related to the link you are highlighting. The limitations list include

• 1) One Man Show that is, writing all the articles - partially resolved
• 2) Peer-review
• 3) Area for academic counterpoint
  

Item 1 is not an issue in this discussion. Items 2 and 3 are the ones that are the topic of this section. Items 2 and 3 are not addressed by your link to the QW site. Items 2 and 3 are not out of date. Items 2 and 3 are the items we are striving to reach consensus on. Anthon01 (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Request to remove until consensus is made

{{editprotected}} 20:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

In a 1999 review published in the The Consultant Pharmacist, Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa PharmD discussed two articles from Quackwatch of particular interest to pharmacists. One article reported on the conflict of interest posed to pharmacies who sell "dubious" alternative therapy products, remarking that an independent survey determined that pharmacists were motivated by profit margins greater than those for conventional drugs. Nguyen-Khoa went on to recommend that Quackwatch start a mirrored "academic counterpoint" wherein a "giant step toward true legitimacy would involve active peer review of the articles to be published."[76]

Copied from article, as can be seen, there is a long discussion about this being inserted into the article. Would someone remove this until a consesus to add or keep out is agreed to?

Also, editors we can use this like Dematt [14] suggested as a way to show why and why not it should or should not be in the article. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with removing the text. This is the closest we have come to consensus. This should remain until consensus is reached. Anthon01 (talk) 14:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the assertion regarding consensus. Too many people talk about consensus on this page when this is probably the page where consensus is farthest from being realized. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the present text is a mixture of what you and I wanted in the text. There are points that need to be rectified. Anthon01 (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

While Crohnie has some good points here, I don't see the need to change the article. The problem here is that editors are not working to consensus. This won't be solved by changing the article, but is likely to make some editors even more adamant in their feelings that this is a battleground where they must advocate their viewpoints at all costs. --Ronz (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette Alert notification

Pete St.John has posted a Wikiquette alert regarding Ronz here. Avb 00:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion - I'm here from WP:3O. It is not canvassing, and maybe even required, that when dispute resolution (such as WP:3O or WP:WQA) is sought, the parties of the dispute are notified, and a note is placed at the page where the dispute took place. If this page is the primary location of the dispute, and no "excessive cross-posting" took place, I see no reason to label this notice as canvassing. User:Krator (t c) 21:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I have inserted a simple notification as indicated by Krator and removed the content not related to QuackWatch from this section as proposed by Ronz. Feel free to discuss on the relevant user talk page(s). Please see WP:TALK. Avb 00:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• The Wikiquette item is now escalated to this RfC. Pete St.John (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

How to solve the mess that is this page

In response, let me give you guys some actual constructive criticism on how to solve the mess that is this page. Mind you, this is without in-depth analysis of most of the discussion, but this discussion does fit several stereotypes of disputes I've seen around. First of all, relating to what User:PeterStJohn wrote on my user talk page, I have encountered this issue before, and that culminated into this short essay or guidebook. Some general problems I encountered in this article, and that are really easily solved:

• Some statements have multiple references. This is a strong indication that they violate WP:SYNTH. All of the statements with more than three footnotes in this article violate that policy. It's quite a good read, too, so I recommend it.
• Judging by the edit history, it has been difficult to find the correct balance between Wikipedia:Embrace weasel words and Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words here. Both are good reads, and offer a good insight in the discussion above. Note: consider quotes the same as weasel words. To sum up what I think is best in this case: do not state the names, but do not generalise to indicate a greater scope than the source warrants. In the dreaded example:

Current In a 1999 review published in the The Consultant Pharmacist, Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa PharmD discussed two articles from Quackwatch of particular interest to pharmacists. One article reported on the conflict of interest posed to pharmacies who sell "dubious" alternative therapy products, remarking that an independent survey determined that pharmacists were motivated by profit margins greater than those for conventional drugs. Nguyen-Khoa went on to recommend that Quackwatch start a mirrored "academic counterpoint" wherein a "giant step toward true legitimacy would involve active peer review of the articles to be published."

Better A 1999 review of two Quackwatch's articles recommended the magazine to become more academic.

The writer and the magazine it was published in were not spectacular, negative or positive. My suggestion: omit the detail. User:Krator (t c) 21:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm looking forward to reading the recommended articles. BTW, most of this articles citations aren't spectacular. Anthon01 (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The sentence quoted has been through alot of disputatious compromising. The original intent was to merely cite a reference that QW does not use peer-review for it's own articles. This seems to be motivated by the (false) idea that 1. QW advocates peer-review (for journals); 2. QW does not employ peer review for itself (a whistleblowing website which is not a scientific journal) so 3. QW is hypocritical. If that motivation is correct, then the opponents of citing the reference seem to want to defend QW from that attack. But regardless of motivation, it is true that a reviewer (this guy), in a reputable publication (a website with reviews) sponsored by a reputable organization (pharmacologists), has recommended that QW use peer-review for itself. So it's to some extent a valid, anyway citable, criticism; and the QW page will never know peace if we aren't willing to compromise. The upshot is that just deleting the reference won't resolve the continuing motivations. Unfortunately folks are willing to fight tooth and nail ad nauseam over minutiae here. Pete St.John (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The current version is a compromise. I would also accept a compromise where we omit this cite (the review can be listed under External links). Avb 01:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The citation was intended (by me) as a concession to sympathetic-to-alt-med (not as an anti-science attack). Science must face criticism and address it; it actually embraces self-criticism, exactly contrary to Dogmatism. Deleting any reference to the critique rebuffs the criticism and is a victory for the policy of abhorring criticism of science by non-scientists; we mustn't abhor it, we must face it. The specific item (QW implementing peer-review, or not) doesn't matter to me so much as the editorial policy. We (meaning, pro-science) must embrace criticism (well-posed with citable references) so that Science can flourish by it's own standards and win by its own merits. That's what's important to me, personally. I want to win over the anti-anti-science crowd to the pro-science side. We have coffee every Thursday :-) Pete St.John (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with PeterStJohn's rationale. This is an encyclopedia article we're writing here. This not a place to demonstrate or participate in some battle between science and non-scientists. --Ronz (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually the criticism came from a scientist, a pharmacist. Not that it should matter, since a non-scientist criticizing science can be notable depending upon the source. You don't have to be scientist to criticize science. I too am pro-science, and think that criticism shouldn't be censored. It is part of the evolution of science. Many of the most significant advances in science come from those who once held fringe or minority views. I think QW does a good job in many cases, but it could be better. I think readers should know that. Eliminating this reference (criticism) makes the article less credible and more like a promo piece. QW is not beyond reproach.

Ronz: Nice to see you commenting here. How did this move from a debate to battleground? I don't see any mention of battleground? Anthon01 (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I used the word "battle" (not "battleground") to tie in with my relate comment in Talk:Quackwatch#Request_to_remove_until_consensus_is_made where I referred to WP:BATTLE and WP:NOT#ADVOCATE.

I've greatly reduced my involvement here because this all appears to be just a continuation of the disruptive editing that has been going on since late November 2007. --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Ronz: Do you disagree with PSJ's entire rationale or just the part that you perceived to mean 'battle?' You are correct it's battle not battleground. Anthon01 (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

This is a placeholder for whoever decides to give a third opinion. Here are the two 3Os that were requested.

Original:

Talk:Quackwatch#Pseudoskepticism_yet_again Dispute over inclusion of internal link. Side issues have been discussed in User_talk:Levine2112#Quackwatch:_Please_reconsider_.282.29, after initial attempts [15] were refused. Discussions this time are outright refused [16], [17], [18]. 19:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Edited by another user:

Talk:Quackwatch#Pseudoskepticism_yet_again Dispute over inclusion of internal link Pseudoskepticism to the See also section of Quackwatch. Currently, this section includes a multitude of links in table resembling a template, but it is not a template. (Added here.) Attempts to delete this table have been reverted. Attempts to add Pseudoskepticism to this table have been reverted. Discussion have proceeded with no clear consensus. We are now seeking a 3PO as per WP:DR. 20:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

In the future, folks, please try not to edit another's request for 3O. Someone will be along to respond to this. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: The diffs above show this dispute involves multiple editors, so doesn't meet the criteria for WP:THIRD. --Ronz (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Per that, this 3o has been closed. [19]. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

No, that's up to the project volunteers. — Athaenara ✉ 04:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Website Review

Quackwatch website reviewed in Running and Fitnews Sept/Oct 2007, a magazine of the American Running & Fitness Association. "Cutting through the haze of health marketing claims" http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NHF/is_5_25/ai_n21119961 Emilydcksn (talk) 05:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Looks like a useful RS. No author though? From what I can find, "Running and Fitnews" is the newsletter of the American Running Association. --Ronz (talk) 05:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Dispute

OK, what's causing the revert-warring and how can I help with this?? Thanks, --Solumeiras (talk) 12:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is an example of the dispute we are having. [20]Anthon01 (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I see this as a dispute that has been going on since late November, when an unsourced criticism was slightly changed [21] to something that could be at least partially supported with sources. Since that time, a number of editors have been working to find some way to support the original, or a similar, criticism. --Ronz (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Notice

This article is under probation. See the top of this talk page.

Per WP:WEIGHT,

We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a 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 a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

Per WP:WEIGHT, to give "undue weight" to critics is a NPOV violation. This directly applies to the text. WP:NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints. Alternative medicine promoters/critics are a tiny minority. Wikipedia does not promote WP:FRINGE editing. Quack Guru 18:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Where are you going with this? I'm asking as your wording "Alternative medicine promoters/critics are a tiny minority" seems to mean that Quackwatch's views aren't notable, unless I am misreading. Since NPOV, FRINGE et all are applied in a case by case basis and article by article basis, this means that criticism of Quackwatch, unless notable, gets kicked down to the bottom of the article if it's a Fringe/non-notable or minority take on the subject of the article, which is Quackwatch. Lawrence § t/e 18:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Quackwatch is manistream POV. The criticism is mainly from promoters of alternative medicine. The article will have a good spring cleaning. If you disagree, that's fine. Remember that this article is under probation. Disruptive editing (unduly promoting a minority viewpoint) will result in a ban or revert limitations or even a block. It's that simple. Quack Guru 19:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Er... I'm on the side of the good guys in this case; no need to warn me. Your wording just seemed a bit obtuse to me or wonky, as if it was saying that Quackwatch itself was a "fringe" view. For a moment I thought a fringe pusher was trying to pull a reverse psychology trick and apply some idea that Quackwatch was a fringe whackadoodle outfit. Lawrence § t/e 19:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is about Quackwatch, so the viewpoints expressed there are most certainly topics for discussion within the article. --Ronz (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Within limit, yes. But the viewpoints of a subject (Quackwatch) are not going to be treated as Fringe Views within their own article. It would be absurd. Responses/criticism/etc. would be evaluated as always on a case by case basis, with the notable ones getting appropriate coverage that does not dominate the Quackwatch information, and the FRINGE viewpoints in regards to Quackwatch will get relegated to very low priority, the same as we do with Fringe views on any and all topics. You got it exactly right. Lawrence § t/e 19:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The notice above is to inform all editors here. Per WP:WEIGHT, minority viewpoints will be limited. Agreed? Quack Guru 19:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Obviously. Non-notable criticism or FRINGE criticism of Quackwatch and it's aims will be relegated to a very low profile. Lawrence § t/e 19:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that this article which already grossly violates Wikipedia is not a soapbox for Propaganda, advocacy, recruitment; perhaps Self-promotion depending of view of offsite activities; Advertising. Also SOAP#Wikipedia_is_not_a_mirror_or_a_repository_of_links.2C_images.2C_or_media_files and SOAP#Wikipedia_is_not_censored. This article's one sided puffery and total lack of science based criticism is an insult and a deadly laugh in the face of *current* mainstream research and many current issues in biologically based medicine & health sciences. (see also my note below)--I'clast (talk) 14:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me like baseless criticism. --Ronz (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I don't recall you conceding any technical points when I cite WP:V science or following them up technically, much less with V RS sources. e.g [ I'm still waiting]

As for WP:SOAP, Advertising....acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. This article is still not written in an objective and unbiased style. Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. This article pretty well does all three, ignoring important balance and ignoring serious technical deficiencies and repeatedly noted biased manner. see below, this same edit.--I'clast (talk) 12:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but are you using the probation period to make significant changes to criticism section? Obviously this article has had two side battling over the criticism section for a long time. It seems like one side wants to remove it, the other wants to add it, in varying degrees. Using a probation period as a tool in this war seems rather slick. 71.191.42.242 (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be the case. TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This article's (and related articles') proponents have long stifled legitimate V RS science based criticism of literally anti-scientific conclusions, actions and methodologies that are long a feature of the systematic bias at Quackwatch and its sister sites. One of the problems is that the bogus POV is being written in so deeply at WP, and other places, that many who should know better, don't realize how far off current research results they are, as well as much, much older prize winning research "forgotten" in the rush (natural marketing driven behavior) for newer, more (exclusively) marketable, more expensive products. So there is no real technical balance here, at all. The David Hufford summary of a paper in a major journal, remains grossly misstated (and disparaging), where "opinion paper in which he asserts that Quackwatch would be more effective if it relied more on research and less on personal beliefs.[70]" is about scientists/physicians broadly. For Quackwatch, Hufford has much more choice words " sources...to find further examples of systematic bias" and directly quotings Kauffman's conclusion "... obsolete data, technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo". Kauffman's science based criticisms become more clear for the unwashed public every month - for instance his criticism of the cholesterol in diet mentality and statin sales based only on the total LDL biomarker largely ignoring their side effect questions, NNT, long term mortality curves' "knees" and regression toward null even in the cherry picked trials, and the current research of the last 20+ years on actual cardiovascular risk factors. Kauffman's cholesterol criticism, previously derided here at QW-WP, receives more public support this past month, again^{Questioning the importance of LDL cholesterol: The ENHANCE fallout} (and again)^{Role of cholesterol in prevention and mortality benefit of statins debated in media} about trials that can't "...even count".--I'clast (talk) 14:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Please follow WP:TALK and take your conspiracy theories about editors and article proponents to a proper forum. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yawn, the more things change, the more they stay the same... Shot info (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say conspiracy, I just said plural QW proponents repeatedly ignore documented, serious science related problems with QW and gave one example (reminder) of scientific criticism of QW, like Kauffman's criticism on QW's obsolete fat, carbs, cholesterol, lipids advice, now coming home to roost where previous denigrations of Kauffman here at WP about JKM's "cholesterol criticism", are now shown to be highly challenged even on the cover pages of "mainstream" reading material[22].

Please focus on my points: (1) this article has so far evaded or effaced all reference to highly qualified scholarly and scientific criticism, where Quackwatch is WP:V cited for systematic and severe bias, (2) WP:V technical errors and (3) Kauffman's cholesterol discussion based on V RS sources, widely dismissed here previously with less current science views, is an attempt to technically illustrate the continuing problems of (QW) positional POV being erroneously touted here as "scientific" (vs normal scientific discussion, methodology and currently accepted research vs old, politicized marketing literature) and the lack of technical currency.

I'll add another example from another WP:V, RS source on QW bias and misrepresentation: Here's a UCSD professor of exp'l psych (previously chair & now 10 year GBM survivor of Glioblastoma multiforme - one of the fastest, deadilest cancers), discussing Quackwatch & Saul Green's unscientific treatment on p.191: Quackwatch['s]...presumptive evidence of misconduct...no details...Much of this "evidence" offers no foundation... and [NIH's Dr. Lichuan] Chen described many of Green's statements as "misrepresentations and misinterpretations"...--I'clast (talk) 12:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

PseudoTemplate at the bottom

I removed the link to Quackery from the 'pseudotemplate' at the bottom of the page and changed the name of the list to 'Related topics' to keep it NPOV. Hopefully that is a pretty self explanatory edit. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 04:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a better idea is to actually create a real template and see if it survives through an MfD. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The template is disputed. Forking the content to another page may be in direct violation of POVFORK. Demanding the community to create a traditional template in order for you to MFD it smacks point. Quack Guru 19:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You need to create an actual template before one can be disputed. I suggest you do so. Until then, this "See also" thing you created is being removed because it smacks of undue POV. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You are disputing the content and now you want me to POVFORK it. I will not violate POVFORK policy because you want me to. You have not gained broad consensus to remove it. Quack Guru 20:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the version edited by Dematt as it seems to have consensus in view of the edit summaries and the above discussion. Please add or remove articles from the section as warranted, or discuss here. Even if this were a template (and I would support its creation as one), MfD would not be the way to go; discussion on its talk page and collaborative fine-tuning would be the first thing to attempt. Avb 22:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration is the key. Instead of delete, just improve the edit. QuackGuru (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I like Dematt's improvement of it for sure. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoskepticism yet again

Pseudoskepticism does not belong linked in the article space per User:ScienceApologist#"Pseudoskepticism". Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Other than your own User Page writings, are you citing any actual real Wikipedia policy? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, Levine, that's an uncivil personal attack. You've been warned before. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah Levine, jeeze your a good disruptive editor. But FWIW, I don't mind it in there. False skepticism is rather apparent - it's just those who aren't skeptical, but tell everybody they are :-) --Shot info (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a neologism for one, though. Iteratively irrelevant, you see. Marcello Truzzi never read Quackwatch or commented on it. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No personal attack intended. It's just that ScienceApologist is trying to justify a reversion on content based on a policy which only exists on his User Page. Seem unjustified. What I would like is a real policy (or some consensus) to justify not including Pseudoskepticism to this "See Also" pseudo-template. (WP:NEO is pretty weak, especially for a "See also" section... besides, the term is over 20 years old!) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No one said it was policy: it's just an argument that gets made over and over again that has a standard response. If you have issues with the content of the response, let them be known. Stonewalling as you are doing without addressing the actual substance (just as you did over on Talk:Deadly nightshade) is not helpful. Pseudoskepticism is a neologism that enjoys almost no exposure. Therefore it qualifies as a neologism as would, say, using grue to describe the color of grass. That term is even older! ScienceApologist (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

"Pseudoskepticism is a neologism that enjoys almost no exposure." How do you know this? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Compare a Google search for pseudoskepticism with a Google search for bleen and grue. Similar number of hits, roughly similar notability. It's a quick way to check, you see. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Google search results are not a good result (at least that was an exact argument made when I pulled thousands of results of "Deadly nighshade" + "Homeopathy"). Anyhow, pseudoskepticism is notable enough to have its own article at Wikipedia. I just read it and found out that the usage of the term predates Truzzi by more than 100 years. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Google searches are good for weighing relative notability of terms. Their absolute numbers mean nothing, but comparisons are pretty good. You'll note that Grue and Bleen have their own article on Wikipedia too. Those terms have some antecedents before Nelson Goodman's famous use of them. In short, your arguments that this term is not neologistic are not convincing. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Two things: 1) Your argument that Pseudoskepticism IS neologistic is not convincing. 2) Your argument that WP:NEO should affect the content of a "See also" section (especially one so replete with links) is not convincing. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoskepticism is notable enough to have a Wikipedia entry. Has a reliable source called Quackwatch pseudoskeptical? —Whig (talk) 02:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That, in the end, is what this all comes down to. If we have at least that, then regardless of notability of the source, a See Also link is the minimum we should use. Now, since it's impossible to prove no such source exists, the burden is on those supporting inclusion to show such a source before we add this to the article. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 03:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:ALSO. Inclusion in "See also" is based on common sense. Otherwise we would have to delete pretty much all of this pseudo-template because we lack any sources to confirm that those other topics have anything to do with the subject of this article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Tit for tat rationale which is the hallmark of disruptive editing. Please provide a source that uses pseudoskepticism and quackwatch in conjuction. I see 175 webpages in my google search. If one of them is good enough to show a connection then I'll agree to its inclusion here. However, on going through the first 50 or so, I see no evidence of an obvious connection. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I could do that, or you can show me why that is necessary when WP:ALSO makes no mention of needing a source to show the connection. If that were the case, we'd probably have to delete over half of the links in the pseudo-template because we haven't seen any sources which make the connection. I would also appreciate that you WP:AGF in me and recognize that I am discussing this issue (your claims of WP:DE are wholly unjustified). -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you're stonewalling again. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Please define "stonewalling". P.S. I am not going to jump through the hoops you are giving me if I don't think that it is necessary. Please show me why a WP:RS is needed to include an entry in WP:ALSO. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You can find good dictionaries both on-line and in your local bookstore. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Please define what you mean by "stonewalling". But that is second to you answering what I have asked you above several times now: Why is a WP:RS needed to add something to the See also section when the policy says that it is a matter of common sense? (Oddly enough, the dictionary defines "stonewalling" as refusing to answer or cooperate.) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Shift left. When a link is contested, it would seem that common sense doesn't quite apply and a reliable source should be provided. And yes, refusing to cooperate applies here as does tenditious editing - now, please provide evidence per a reliable source relevant to attaching the link to this page or stop stonewalling. Vsmith (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

(EC) How about we refactor this conversation? SA: "pseudoskepticism" does not belong, as I explained in <this section> at my user page" (Note: not the way SA phrased it) then yadda yadda stonewalling (and note, Levine shouldn't ask SA to define "stonewalling", he should ask SA to specify what in this disputation he regards stonewalling; I think they are both exasperated, but maybe I'm projecting). SA is actually right about the content issue (IMO, more momentarily) but is not playing nice wrt to achieving consensus, although you guys ...we guys... argue about every inanity so much we could probably mimic each others' roles.

Actually I think "pseudoscepticism" may be a meaningful term, e.g. Creationists' pretended scepticism to perceived flaws in conventional science ("all scientists know that the laws of thermodynamics prohibit complexity arising from random processes, so there are flaws in conventional biology that need to be addressed" [that sentence is false in multiple ways, btw]). Applying "pseudoscepticism" to SA and QW would not seem meaningful, if that's intended. We should agree that their scepticism is sincere, even if we don't like their rhetoric or excesses or all-inclusiveness. However, I agree with the significance of distinguishing "defending science" from "purporting to defend science" as has been mentioned elsewhere. Pete St.John (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't mind Pskepticism being included in the list. After all, the list is a veritible shopping list of links, so one extra is no big deal. Mind you, I find it fascinating the lengths Levine will argue to have one tangential link included, after arguing just as long and hard to have the list excluded. Some would call this something. Shot info (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there is excessive quibbling on both...rather, all three (at least) sides. Pete St.John (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I propose a new side, one that edits in fushia :-) Shot info (talk) 23:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Shotinfo. . . "I don't mind Pskepticism being included in the list". TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to have the link in being offered by anyone here, and there are good reasons for not having it mentioned above and in past discussions on this matter in Stephen Barrett. --Ronz (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoskepticism is an interesting link, that perhaps any strident claimant of the "one true skepticism" should consider their location on a ternary diagram of "skepticism", "scientific skepticism" and "pseudoskepticism". QW supporters (readers too) should reflect on this vertex especially since Truzzi seemed to include (all or most of ?) the the remaining board members at CSICOP (ahem). Many of pseudoskepticism's symptoms are food for thought considering different scholars and scientists' direct criticisms of Quackwatch: Kauffman scienticially for ... obsolete data, technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo'; Hufford for systematic bias; and Hemilä (MD + 2 PhD, Cochrane Collection)pp 23, 36, 76-77 for bias and misrepresentation. Like some at CSICOP, have said "if the shoe fits...". Offsite, a number of PhD types *even in the mainstream pharmaceutical business* clearly classify QW as prone to such lapses.--I'clast (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like WP:OR with a strong pov behind it. --Ronz (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Its quite clear that Truzzi was kicked out of the "club" so he invented a term to describe those still in the "club" who he didn't like. Of course it's bemusing to see who keeps following this - primarily those who cry "But I am a skeptic" without of course exhibiting any characteristics of skepticism. Shot info (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

When I encounter such people, I think of them as "True disbelievers" - they are those who deny the evidence just to hold onto their beliefs that something is not true. I find that it is usually their ego and pride which they are trying to protect so they will hardly ever admit they are wrong even in the face of powerful evidence. I guess that would also qualify as a definition of Pseudoskepticism. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There was no real consensus to remove the Pseudoskepticism in the first place. Basically any points accurately critical or reflecting common points of QW bias & error have been shouted down and mislaid amongst hyperaggressive edit warring "to protect" QW from any NPOV, WP:V science balance on biases & errors, such as those described linked in the Pseudoskepticism article. At its heart, Truzzi's points about the problem of (self)identifying and (self)controlling (elements of) pseudoskepticism are fundamental problems in (lack of) scientific methodology where strong claims (IMHO, as well as WP:V others, egregious & unsupportable) are being made here about "scientific skepticism", so appropriate balance is the pseudoskepticism Wikilink. Again, a number of credible sources, WP:RS and/or WP:V, have cited QW and/or its authors for a number of the elements of pseudoskepticism, perhaps *all* of the elements enumerated in the WP article.--I'clast (talk) 12:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"shouted down and mislaid amongst hyperaggressive edit warring "to protect" QW from any NPOV" Chill out, learn to follow WP:TALK. We don't need such inappropriate discussion here. --Ronz (talk) 06:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with including the pseudoskepticism wikilink. Pseudoskepticism is in the eye of the beholder, and I'm sure if readers click on the link they will be enlightened, regardless of existing or emerging POV, in deciding for themselves how it does (or doesn't) apply to QW or the modalities criticized by QW. As to OR, when discussing a single link in such a long list, editorial discretion is sufficient. Avb 15:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

What is the rationale for ...?

I'm still waiting for a reason to include it. --Ronz (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for reason not to include it. Please read WP:ALSO then consider the sheer amount of links in the pseudo-See-Also-template. Again, the better thing to do is to actually create a real template out of this so that these discussion can proceed on that talk page rather than here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

See WP:BRD and WP:CON. You've been given plenty of reasons for not having the information. Your turn to actually offer rationale as to why it should be added. --Ronz (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I have given plenty of rationale. Please read above. Meanwhile, it appears that more and more editors are in support of keeping it in. This is not a vote, but in terms of consensus it is notable that a large majority of editors have no issue with including it. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"I have given plenty of rationale." Please indicate where. --Ronz (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Above. Essentially, WP:ALSO makes no mention of WP:RS, the neologism rationale was weak, and if we are including a huge phony template loaded with related links any how, what's the big deal with add one more related link. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. [23] - makes pseudoskepticism all but apparent as far as a related link. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the relationship between your google books link and the discussion. Looks like a new section below has been started.  :::::: "what's the big deal with add one more related link" If that's the best argument for including it, then let's keep it out. --Ronz (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Your best argument for not including it seems to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The large majority of editors here see no problem with including it. That's the best argument per WP:ALSO. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I've asked you for rationale, and you've given "what's the big deal with add one more related link" as your best response. I suggest you read all of WP:AADD and see where your response fits. --Ronz (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand. I have cited the precise policy in question here - WP:ALSO. You on the other hand have provided no rationale whatsoever. So if not wP:IDONTLIKEIT, what's your rationale for not including this? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

So you're not retracting, "what's the big deal with add one more related link" as rationale? --Ronz (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ronz, are you going to provide an actual rationale? Or is the just another one of your arguments which shrink-to-nothing when asked for an explanation? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S., the "what's the big deal with add one more related link" rationale is not just mine. It came from AvB above who also doesn't see an issue with including it. What's notable there is that AvB and I hardly ever agree on anything. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking for rationale for including it, and not finding any. Enough said I guess. --Ronz (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Many have given you a rationale, but you refuse to accept it. You on the other hand have given no rationale to not include it. You make claims but you never do back them Ronz, my friend and there is where the problem lies. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Please follow CIVIL, TALK, CON, DR, etc. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 05:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion v1.1

This is a placeholder for whoever decides to give a third opinion. Full dispute request below. --Ronz (talk) 04:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

1. Talk:Quackwatch#What_is_the_rationale_for_not_including_it.3F Dispute over request for the rationale for the inclusion/exclusion of aninternal link starting with [24]. History includes issues discussed in User_talk:Levine2112#Quackwatch:_Please_reconsider_.282.29, after initial attempts [25] were refused. Discussions this time are outright refused [26], [27], [28]. Editors cannot even agree on what dispute is about [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]. 02:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

An apparent consensus to include the link could be inferred from earlier discussions of this issue:

• Against: Science Apologist, Ronz
• Neutral: Infophile, Pete St. John
• For: Levine, Whig, ShotInfo, TheDoctorIsIn, I'clast, Avb

Is this accurate? — Athaenara ✉ 04:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: The emphasis on could is intentional. If neutrals change to oppose, there's not even a whiff of a consensus. — Athaenara ✉ 04:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

My view: Pseudoskepticism should be in the collapsible Related Topics section under Phraseology. Related Topics should be a separate section above External links. — Athaenara ✉ 05:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

At this point, I'm going to back up Ronz's demands for some justification for including it. We've gone over and over possible reasons against including it, but in the end, to put it in, we should have some reason beyond simply a lack of strong reasons against. Until I see some argument for inclusion, count me as an oppose. If I do see some reason, we can discuss its merits then. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 07:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I see no encyclopedic merit in including it anywhere else in the article, but "Phraseology" in "Related Topics" would be appropriate placement in that it would provide a link to a concept which is fully as pertinent as the other concepts linked there. — Athaenara ✉ 07:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

To expand on that a bit: the pseudoskepticism article specifically illuminates the difference between rejection and inquiry, which I see as useful in the encyclopedic sense. I don't know to what extent "skepticism" is used on the street, so to speak, to mean mere doubtfulness, but it very often is. The stress on inquiry, particularly scientific inquiry, is important. That said, I repeat: I think there's no point in linking it anywhere else in the Quackwatch article. — Athaenara ✉ 07:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Definite not include. This has a long hisory as an attack by editors who accuse Quackwatch and Barrett of being pseudoskeptical. That is their stated motivation. It's all rather ironic, when one considers that Carroll and other skeptics would consider those making the attacks to be pseudoskeptics, it's rather a slam dunk to reject this renewed attempt to include an editorial smear. See the Pseudoskepticism article for Carroll's quote that accurately describes some so-called skeptics here: "The only skepticism this group promotes is skepticism of critics and [their] criticisms of paranormal studies." Those who are criticizing Barrett and Quackwatch while calling themselves skeptics are usually pseudoskeptics. -- Fyslee / talk 09:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

By including Pseudoskepticism in the faux template "Related" table's "Phraseology" section, we are not saying that Quackwatch is "pseudoskeptical". We are merely saying that it is related to the term. After all, no one is using the very same fake template's Phraseology section to accuse Quackwatch of using the "straw man" defense? No one is using it to say that Quackwatch is "junk science" or "anti-science". Or that Quackwatch is a "fraud" of a website and is "intellectually dishonest" because it relies on the "wishful thinking" of an "anti-intellectual" "true-believing" "crank" "charlatan" who is guilty of "quackery" himself by his dependency on "confirmation bias" and "self-deception". Right? For that matter, we aren't using the faux template to call Quackwatch a "pejorative" "ad hominen". By your rationale, I would assume you would want to eliminate all of these from the phony template as well then. Right? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 09:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[ec] Levine2112, thanks for once again proving my point about your motivations. You have made such attacks on Quackwatch and Barrett before, and now you use repeated rhetorical questions ("No one is using...?") to repeat your accusations again. It's pretty clear why you would want to include pseudoskepticism in the list. If your motivations hadn't been so clearly stated so many times, I wouldn't be so much against inclusion. Carroll's comment certainly applies. Editorial motivations that lead to unsourced additions of subtle attacks are unwarranted and unwikipedian. I don't think Quackwatch or Barrett are perfect, and mistakes have been made, but to generally accuse them of pseudoskepticism just isn't right and no notable skeptics or skeptical organization agree with you on that one. They are universally skepical of some of the things you believe and defend here. It's easy to claim to be a skeptic, but to be included in what we generally refer to as scientific skeptics, your skepticism needs to be more focused. You don't have to agree with them, but don't at the same time claim to be part of them as a group. -- Fyslee / talk 17:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This seems like the classic WP:IDONTLIKEIT defense. If there is more trimming you want to do, please do so, so at least this rationale has some consistency. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be a misrepresentation, a misunderstanding of WP:AADD.

You, Levine2112, have asked on this page how you've interfered with consensus building. Your response above is how. --Ronz (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You know, Levine, your arguments here are in a surprising contrast to your arguments over at Talk:Pseudoscience#See_also_section. You were quite worried there about labeling Alternative medicine as being pseudoscience through inclusion, and yet here you have no such worries. To head off discussion of my change of position, you can see my arguments for inclusion in the linked section. Here, I haven't yet seen any remotely convincing arguments for inclusion (in fact I'm of the opinion that the section could stand a good deal of trimming, but that's another issue). --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Many reasons given by many editors above. Most notable is WP:ALSO which makes no restrictions for inclusion other than common sense. Based on what is already included in "Phraseology" it is common sense to include "pseudoskepticism". This is much different from the "Pseudoscience" See Also section as there we had users specifically trying use "See also" as an "Example" section. (And by the way, I voted for inclusion of "Alt med" there, so I feel that I am actually being rather consistent in my point-of-view here.) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, as anyone who follows the link can see, the argument on Pseudoscience came about after I cleaned out the section of all the examples (save ID, as a prominent example would serve well). And the only time you "voted for" Alt med to be there was at the end when you grudgingly acquiesced to its presence (alongside EBM in the same line). --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether Quackwatch is pseudoskeptical or its critics are pseudoskeptical, pseudoskepticism would be a related topic. —Whig (talk) 09:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 09:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with what Infophile states and ask for reasons for inclusion. --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I just gave one. It is a related topic. —Whig (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Continuing on

I've asked, and been harassed for asking. I'm asking again. What is the rationale for including it? Please reread WP:CON, WP:CIVIL, WP:TALK, WP:DR, WP:AGF, WP:AADD, and WP:BRD before responding if you think that the previous discussions and editing on this topic have been proper talk page behavior. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 05:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You asked for a third opinion. We got one. You disagree with it. Shall we move on or do you want to continue with WP:DR? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 08:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm continuing as anyone can plainly see. Please stop interfering with my efforts to do so. --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

How have I interfered and what are you continuing efforts? Perhaps an RFC is in order? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You're asking about your behavior now? I'll gladly answer: You've failed to follow WP:TALK, WP:CIVIL, WP:CON. You've edit-warred. You've rewritten my request for help. You've harassed multiple editors here. You've ignored editors objections to your edits. You've misrepresented discussions and the opinion of editors that you disagree with, going so far as to reverse topics of discussion to make them appear in your favor. --Ronz (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Ronz, I agree with Levine2112, you should give a particular reason if you object to the inclusion of this related topic. —Whig (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Please expand on your reasoning. How is it related and why is this relationship appropriate here given others objections? --Ronz (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This has all been discussed above. You are now stonewalling. I agree with Levine2112 that an RfC is now in order, unless you will give a particular reason for your objection. —Whig (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but it has not been discussed. I ask again: How is it related? Why is this relationship appropriate here given others objections?

I think it's also appropriate to ask a question made previously by Whig, "Has a reliable source called Quackwatch pseudoskeptical?" --Ronz (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a relevant question. We aren't calling Quackwatch pseudoskeptical. Per the opinion of the 3O you requested, pseudoskepticism should be added to related topics, even if this pertains to the critics of Quackwatch per Fyslee. —Whig (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"Not a relevant question." Your own questions aren't relevant?!? --Ronz (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Not out of context, after the placement has been resolved by a third opinion. No. —Whig (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"the placement has been resolved by a third opinion" It's not resolved. Is there something in the 3o discussion that makes you feel otherwise?

"Not out of context" Fair enough. I'm asking it in the current context. --Ronz (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

What is the rationale for including it?

I've asked, and been harassed for asking. I'm asking again. What is the rationale for including it? Please reread WP:CON, WP:CIVIL, WP:TALK, WP:DR, WP:AGF, WP:AADD, and WP:BRD before responding if you think that the previous discussions and editing on this topic have been proper talk page behavior. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 05:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"qw is for true believers, frauds, cranks and dishonest intellectuals. . . why not add pseudoskeptics to this list? Not too sure about "plagiarism" though." 06:32, 12 February 2008 TheDoctorIsIn Is anyone supporting this as rationale besides TheDoctorIsIn? --Ronz (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, Levine2112 did so above. -- Fyslee / talk 18:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"WP:ALSO which makes no restrictions for inclusion other than common sense." Isn't a rationale for it at all, but a rationale to dismiss the concerns of others. I agree with Vsmith, "When a link is contested, it would seem that common sense doesn't quite apply and a reliable source should be provided." --Ronz (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

There are several problems here. The interpretation of "skepticism" implicitly used here and QW does not correspond well with WP:NPOV, WP:V or the scientific processes of hypothesis testing & development with shifting burdens of proof as technical points are made & supported with fair give and take. Rather some QW articles have been demonsrated to freely disparage many cases of legitimate experimental health/medical science (i.e. not FDA drug phase III tested & approved) with vitriol, ad hominem, and cherry picked, slanted data not easily recognized by the public or even professionals. Source text based research shows the 8 example articles discussed by Hufford, Example 3: The anti-CAM literature, and Kauffman[34] with WP:V, RS references (many refs in Kauffman's book, along with MD & PhD reviewers), clearly match with the listed elements of WP's pseudoskepticism. For this reason, the article continues to seriously violate NPOV and shortchange current mainstream Scientific research results by heavily favoring publications and writers with varying degrees of direct contact with the advertisers, marketers and other economic competitors that promote profitable & familiar but scientifically obsolete & incorrect models and statements.

One should also consider the difference of "pseudoskepticism" vs "pseudoskeptic" or perhaps "pseudoskeptical". "Pseudoskepticism" can be an isolated act such as a temporary, individual or partial lapse; whereas a "pseudoskeptic" would be a person noted for substantial and ongoing "pseudoskepticism". I don't think that Quackwatch has to be "pseudoskeptical" to be examined, noted, or criticized, for acts (or tracts) with elements of pseudoskepticism in them. Rather "pseudoskepticism" could be more a basis for ongoing quality reviews of QWs argumentation much like QW proposes to examine others, where QW does openly admit and attempt to justify its bias. Informally, Quackwatch's *independent* critics (persons not previously criticized by QW et al) with some substance certainly have mentioned "pseudoskepticism", as well as QW's natural adversaries - those previously criticized or sued by QW's authors.

"Ronz criteria" additionally imposes extraordinary (unjustified) WP:Notability and WP:RS requirements on single word of a less scientifically notable site for a "See Also" item clearly related. Quackwatch gets precious little independent academic coverage, but that which there is, is not all reassuring (Kauffman & Hufford), QW material even mentioned as a negative for ...JAMAs April 1 issue...April fool's stunt in the WSJ. Most of QW's praises come from long time publishing associates or media & journals with large economic interests or pharma advertising. Academics seldom use the word "skeptic" or write on Quackwatch at all, however multiple QW articles, each with multiple examples with the traits of pseudoskepticism associated with Quackwatch and its authors are certainly described with WP:V & WP:RS sources, more of Kauffman's (and hence Hufford's) referenced *sources* in Malignant Medical Myths, reviewed chapter by chapter by published MDs & PhDs with current science notes.--I'clast (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

More original research from I'clast/TheNautilus. Please summarize your thoughts before you post.

"Ronz criteria" My criteria is to get the editors that want the information in the article to give their reasoning for inclusion. Please stop misrepresenting me and attacking me by suggesting otherwise. Please follow WP:TALK. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"More OR...", simple dismissal & unsubstantiated denial to relevant points, again. Some deficiencies in your proposed non-WP criteria were clarified, that is not a personal attack or mis-; the entities discussed are "Quackwatch and its authors".--I'clast (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Humorous. . . Ronz complains and complains that no reason has been given direcly after all lengthy explanation. Ronz asks for a 3rd opinion. . . gets one with a good reason. . . disagrees with it. . . complains that no reason has been. Then he complains that others are not following the TALK rules. Humorous. TheDoctorIsIn (User talk:TheDoctorIsIn|talk]]) 16:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Please follow WP:TALK or be ignored - the choice is yours. Please stop your edit-warring in the meantime. --Ronz (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

What is the rationale for its removal?

"I don't see any reason to have the link in being offered by anyone here, and there are good reasons for not having it mentioned above and in past discussions on this matter in Stephen Barrett. --Ronz (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)" --Ronz (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

See 3rd Opinion

The answer you seek was given by Athaenara above in her 3rd Opinion.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 04:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's just one person's opinion, and one that is very carefully qualified to indicate that consensus is not clear. See WP:CON. --Ronz (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

These conclusions could apply to the pseudotemplate itself

Alternatively, you could read it as saying that it's equally valid to get rid of most of that section. In fact, that's what I'd prefer. I really see no reason this particular article should have its own pseudotemplate with a ton of links. Just cut the whole thing and give it a normal See Also section, IMO. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 04:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Infophile on pseudotemplate. Massive linkfarming and promotion of one sided, less-than-rigorous "scientific views" are long running issues here.--I'clast (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Good points, but off topic. Take them to the appropriate section. --Ronz (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's an interrelated topic, I'd say. As the template exists, it'll just act as a link farm, and one of the primary reasons for including Pseudoskepticism is that others there have similar rationale for inclusion. So if we decide to get rid of the whole thing, we're really solving both problems at once. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. . . killing it. TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 03:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps too bold just yet, but I favor Infophile's analysis and suggested removal. Any dissenters? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any dissenters (or at least none that have noticed my question here yet). I am going to remove the section for now and let's see if there is any dissent in action rather than in discussion. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think we really should put a traditional See Also section in its place. I'll get to work at setting something half-decent up. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Let's keep it limited to the most obvious such that "Pseudoskepticism" need not be broached again. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright, got something up. Let me know what you think, or just be bold. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks. Technically, links to articles already mentioned in the body of the article - such as NCAHF - could be removed per WP:ALSO. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, that's fine. Didn't notice it in skimming the article. On a side note, with ordering, Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Standard appendices and descriptions says that there's no preferred ordering, so it's just down to whatever we think works best. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I was going by WP:MOS#Section_management which states:

The standard order for optional appendix sections at the end of an article is See also, Notes (or Footnotes), References, Further reading (or Bibliography), and External links; the order of Notes and References can be reversed. See also is an exception to the point above that wording comprises nouns and noun phrases.

I don't know what is preferred but we may as well follow the "standard". -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Eh, works for me. I've put in a note at the section I linked to clarify that there is indeed a recommended order. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Good thought. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you think enough time has been given to the many editors that work on this article before being so bold? Just my opinion but I think more time should be allowed to let others respond to this major change without input of other editors. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Eh, that's a subjective measurement, really. Personally, I think other editors have had sufficient time to comment (especially when you consider the other times this issue has come up without a satisfactory reason given for keeping it). --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been keeping up here all that much lately but if memory serves me correctly; shouldn't WP:Consensus for this kind of change be the appropriate way to handle this instead of deciding on just four editors? This article is very fragile and this kind of bold move might cause the balance to fail again when things seemed to have calm a little. Also, I thought I saw responses about this earlier on in this talk page, maybe I'm wrong, but I am leaving the computer right now. This is just my opinion, --CrohnieGal^Talk 23:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, this could be seen to reduce conflict on this article rather than to create it (look at the original issue in this section of the talk page for one). As for looking for consensus, well, there's also WP:Bold, which can be applicable when discussion has met with silence from one side of the issue. In any case, perhaps the discussion on this should have taken place in a somewhat more visible section. We have that now, at least. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 00:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

There was a long discussion now just 11 days ago with many editors involved. WP:BOLD seems more like don't like the out come of the results 11 days ago so I'll make a quick comment and in a day I will change it to what I wanted."I don't like it" This isn't supposed to be the way things are done here. WP:Consensus means something and going back to the origins you will see that a lot were for the inclusion of this material. Even some of the editors here tried to add to the template after it was agreed to keep. I don't see any reasons for the deletions, just a quick comment for others to comment and then action taken to delete. Deleting the whole section to stop conflicts is not a reason for deletion as was stated [35] when an attempt to delete this article was tried and failed. --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I did a quick skim through this page and the archives and I can't see anything that matches what you seem to be talking about. Mind providing me a link to this discussion? --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I say keep. There is no reason for it not to be in the article and a consensus 11 days ago had editors agreeing to keep it. [36], [37], [38] (this has been attempted to be added by quite a few.) [39] (This states a current talk says to leave it out.) [40] Here the template is removed stating per talk which to me is barely a handful of editors who decided WP:BOLD over ruled WP:Consensus from talk 11 days ago, also as I have said, not allowing active editors enough time to weigh in on the issues. [41] Here it is reinserted by an editor I personally do not know and have not seen work QW in the past, just recently. [42] removed again with reasoning I have to admit I don't understand. [43] Who made the decision for this edit? I don't see much conversation on the talk page other than a couple of editors who agreed with each other that it was acceptable to delete. I did my best to try to explain why I think this should stay in. Please allow others to give input for their reasoning and policies. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 23:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

QPW banned on Wikipedia ?

I noticed an editor said in their edit summary that the link and source quackpotwatch.org is "forbidden at Wikipedia." I did a search and found this site mentioned on several User talk pages regarding the Quackwatch page, but I couldn't find any mention of the site specifically being forbidden. Does this prohibition apply to any mention of this source on the Quackwatch main page or any page? Can someone direct me to this policy? Bryan Hopping ^T 18:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It's forbidden as an inaccurate, misleading, unreliable, hostile, and biased site. Remember, this is an encyclopedia. --Ronz (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you direct me to somewhere I can read about this policy? Bryan Hopping ^T 18:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The following are a few of the policies and guidelines that have been violated by past additions of the link in question: WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and WP:NOT. --Ronz (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes of course, but is there an arbitration or something that forbids quackpotwatch? I'm asking since this edit summary says Quackpotwatch.org is forbidden on Wikipedia. I'm sure there's a long history here, trying to familiarize myself with the history of this page, related disputes, etc. Bryan Hopping ^T 19:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Please remove the BLP violation link from this talk page. Thanks. Quack Guru 19:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Reading through WP:BLP, the issue seems to be "unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material." I haven't posted any contentious statements about any living person. I asked a question about this edit summary. Bryan Hopping ^T 19:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Search this article's archives for discussions about the link. It's also been discussed in the other Barrett-related articles. --Ronz (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there an easy way to search just this articles talk archives? Thanks in advance. Bryan Hopping ^T 19:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, no. Try these to start: Talk:Quackwatch/Archive 4 Talk:Quackwatch/Archive 6 Talk:Stephen Barrett/Archive 2 Talk:Stephen Barrett/Archive 3 Talk:Stephen Barrett/Archive 4 Talk:Stephen Barrett/Archive 7 --Ronz (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

That is sad, and frustrating. Thanks for directing me. I also found that doing a google search of wikipedia brings up pages references this topic, many of which are related to discussions of this article or Dr. Barrett. quackpotwatch wiki/google search This link to an AfD is also useful: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Quackpotwatch Bryan Hopping ^T 21:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Having simply taken a look at the named site, it contains a number of unsubstantiated allegations and involves at least one criminal prosecution which the author seems to feel was unjustified. It should therefore be treated at best as a primary source and it would be hazardous to link given the potential defamatory nature of the material. —Whig (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

See also WP:PROBLEMLINKS Avb 15:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Why does this article have its own navbox?

This looks like it might not be out of place as a general navbox, but why is there a navbox just for this one article? Is this a POV fork of an existing navbox? —Random832 19:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are referring to the pseudo-template at the bottom, there is a discussion of it a few threads up from here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

a few links

[44] [45] [46] [47] [48] QuackGuru (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Green criticism

Removed here for consideration:

National Institutes of Health's Dr. Lichuan Chen described many of [Quackwatch article author] Green's statements as "misrepresentations and misinterpretations"... as used in Green's articles on antineoplastons.

Saul Green is associated with Quackwatch, however he is not mentioned on the article page. The criticism reference above is taken from a book and appears to be criticism of Saul Green's 1992 paper as published in the Journal of the American Medical Association and not a direct criticism of Quackwatch. The ref given contains a link to Google book search.

Using a criticsm of Saul Green's work as a criticism of Quackwatch seems a bit iffy given that Green is not listed in the article as part of the organization. I say leave it out, but if it is to be included, then Green's association w/Quackwatch must be elsewhere in the article along with other members and their qualifications. Vsmith (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. The criticism specifically mentions "Quackwatch" by name. It is a criticism of a paper written for Quackwatch and published by Quackwatch. Our Wiki article states: The Quackwatch website contains many essays and researched viewpoints written for the non-specialist consumer by Barrett, other writers, and a board of advisors. Thus, criticism of the Quackwatch works of the "other writers" are open to be included in this article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph in the book which is the source for the tortured quote makes no mention of Quackwatch - the paragraph and Chen's remark is about Green's JAMA article. The Green-Quackwatch connection appears in an earlier paragraph. If we are going to crticize Green then he needs to be discussed elsewhere in the article as a writer/advisor with his qualifications. Vsmith (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand now. The Quackwatch article wasn't written by Saul green, but rather the Saul Green JAMA article was sourced in the Quackwatch article. The analysis attempts to discredit Sail Green's work and thus Quackwatch's article by association. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

does seem a bit tortuous (good word). Maybe something along the lines of "NIH <link> criticizes Green book <link> cited in QW article <link>" like that? But that said, there's plenty of real criticism of QW, on the grounds of excess and rhetoric. For example, in a nice parallel to how I might criticise SA for including accupuncture with homeopathy in the broad sweep of his broom, some criticise QW for harshness to some honest stuff that shouldn't be treated the same way as fraud or supersitition ("quackery"). It's perfectly rational to seek lower cost alternatives for pharmaceuticals, for example. I'm told that QW's hostility to "bioequivalents" is a bit harsh, for example, but to me it seemed their stand was a bit wishy-washy, and not so hostile. But indeed sourcing all these things is a big job and I appreciate those pursuing it. Pete St.John (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

consensus or no consensus

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quackwatch&diff=next&oldid=190690467

I did not see any broad consensus to remove the template. QuackGuru (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Please review "These conclusions could apply to the pseudotemplate itself" section above and then consider that there is no consensus to keep the template. It has only led us to edit warring, endless arguments and lots of grief. Time to let this one die and let's move on to more agreeable ideas. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I realize there is no consensus to remove it and there are editors who appreciate it. I say keep it. QuackGuru (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's leave it out for now and see who shows up to support including it again. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I say leave it in for now and gain consensus first before removing. QuackGuru (talk) 23:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There is plenty of support for the template anyhow. [49][50] QuackGuru (talk) 23:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I left a message above for over a day asking for any dissenters and no one came by. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone came by and explained to everyone about consensus.[51][52] QuackGuru (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No. Crohnie came by and asked some questions and gave her opinion. To which, Infophile responded. Please consider Infophile's response. Then consider how much grief this pseudo-template has caused. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

"No. Crohnie came by and asked some questions and gave her opinion." I would like to know why you think Infophile's comments to me are more important then the comments I made. It sounds like my comments do not add anything to the conversations here. --CrohnieGal^Talk 23:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The content was there for five months. I don't think anyone should be surprised that a wait of over a day might not be enough to create a new consensus. --Ronz (talk) 00:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I gave my opinion on its inclusion (affirmative) ten days ago. I gave my opinion on including pseudoskepticism (affirmative) after that. Consensus is ephemeral, true, but ignoring another editor's opinion and arguments after ten days? Now that would help make stonewalling an art form if allowed. As to "Technically, links to articles already mentioned in the body of the article - such as NCAHF - could be removed per WP:ALSO" --> true, unless there is a consensus to include. Avb 00:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I checked up on this page, and the only argument I see you making for it is that it seems to have consensus. At this point, appealing to that argument for your support is little more than begging the question, though. But anyways, do you have any other reasons for its inclusion? --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 00:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

When trying to change consensus, please follow WP:CON and WP:TALK. So far, editors have tried to change consensus by having a quick discussion. Time for a more in-depth discussion. Let's try to focus on the content, not the editors. --Ronz (talk) 00:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Your arguments are? --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 00:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

As we wait for Ronz (or anyone else) to give their specific reasons why they support inclusion, I would like to note that the statement "The content was there for five months" is not entirely factual. I wnet back to some random dates in January 08, December 07, and November 07 and I don't see the pseudo-template there. What was there was an alt med template. Definitely looking forward to some specific policy explanations/justifications from Ronz. Not just a litany of policies, but citations from each and any that justify his rationale. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

One of the most important aspects of consensus-building and talk page behavior is to not focus on other editors, but on the content under dispute. --Ronz (talk) 01:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

So, maybe you could provide us with some such arguments? It seems all you've been doing so far is talking about how we should behave. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 03:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

"It seems all you've been doing so far is talking about how we should behave." Yep. Until we can all follow WP:TALK and WP:CON, we're wasting our time. --Ronz (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now you're just stonewalling. Do you have any intention of actually giving arguments for your side and engaging in an actual discussion, or are you simply going to repeat that refrain? --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Please follow WP:TALK and WP:CON. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Infophile (cool pun btw), try rephrasing the question to be clear, concise, specific, and self-contained. Then if some juvenile stonewaller merely repeats his refrain, as he always does, the stonewalling would be conspicuous. Pete St.John (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Eh, couldn't hurt. First, I'll reiterate the arguments I've given above for removal of the pseudotemplate. In reference to Athaenara's comment, "I see no encyclopedic merit in including it anywhere else in the article, but "Phraseology" in "Related Topics" would be appropriate placement in that it would provide a link to a concept which is fully as pertinent as the other concepts linked there," I said:

Alternatively, you could read it as saying that it's equally valid to get rid of most of that section. In fact, that's what I'd prefer. I really see no reason this particular article should have its own pseudotemplate with a ton of links. Just cut the whole thing and give it a normal See Also section, IMO.

I'clast followed up:

Agree with Infophile on pseudotemplate. Massive linkfarming and promotion of one sided, less-than-rigorous "scientific views" are long running issues here.

The fact that it acts as a linkfarm is my biggest beef with it. The links that might be relevant to a reader are drowned out by the irrelevant. Do we really need a link to Pejorative, four different flavors of Homeopathy, Global warming controversy, etc.? Compare to the more traditional section I had in a short-lived version: [53]. Five links to subjects which are obviously related but not linked previously. Much more useful to the reader.

So, those are my arguments for removal of the pseudotemplate. To those who believe it should be left in, why do you think so? --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I am new to this, but it sure looks like an extreme example of a linkfarm to me. Very busy and hard to read. Surely 5 or 10 links at most are relevant. To include ALL those seems a bit much to me.--Filll (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

"Linkfarm" usually refers to external links (see WP:NOT#LINK) For example: Che_Guevara#See_also and Medicine#External_links are not considered linkfarms, while Che_Guevara#Videography and List_of_banks_of_the_United_States_of_America#Michigan are linkfarms. --Ronz (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that point 2 at WP:NOT#LINK explicitly deals with internal links. External links aren't the only problems. Also, there's a big difference between having a ton of links from a general topic such as Medicine and from a more specific topic such as Quackwatch. One would likely expect an article like Medicine to have many links to different parts of it, while they wouldn't expect to see such a link repository off in a corner article. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Infophile has summed up the main tenets for removing the pseudo-template. That being said, I will go back to suggestion I made about a month ago about creating an actual {{Template:Skepticism}}. Actually there already is one here, but it is in poor shape. I had made this suggestion because then we would have all of the advantages of having an actual navigational template:

• reduction of clutter in that area of the article before "References" and "External links",
• compactness of the template compared to a standard list or table, in the case of many links,  ::::* if the most immediately related links are kept under "See also", the reader has a better idea of scope,
• less directly related links are out of the way or in some cases hidden by default,
• ease of maintenance in updating the template as articles get created or deleted.

Further - and seemingly most important here - the disputes about template content would not be disruptive to the talk pages of the articles on which this template would appear, but rather the template content disputes would be focused at Template_talk:Skepticism. Another bonus is that the the template would be much more general with regards to the topic of Skepticism; meaning it would generally be more useful of a navigational tool to the average user.

To read more about Navigational templates, go here: WP:NAV. One main tenet to understand from WP:NAV is the criteria for inclusion:

The goal is not to cram as many related articles as possible into one space. Ask yourself, does this help the reader in reading up on related topics? Take any two articles in the template. Would a reader really want to go from A to B? The goal is not to cram as many related articles as possible into one space. Ask yourself, does this help the reader in reading up on related topics? Take any two articles in the template. Would a reader really want to go from A to B?

Bear that in mind if someone decides to proceed with creating such a template. One can already see why "pseudoskepticism" would fit nicely into such a template.

In closing, if Ronz and others still feel that the inclusion of the pseudo-template is still justified at this article, I would really hope that they can be as explicit in their position by citing Wikipedia policy and laying out their rationale as Infophile, myself and others have done. Otherwise, can we all agree now to remove it? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

If an actual template is created, that's fine with me (and of course pseudoskepticism would be appropriate in that case). In fact, it probably shouldn't be nearly as extensive as this pseudotemplate, but that's another discussion. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 04:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have a template I presume it should be inserted in all articles mentioned. I can hardly see that this template would be tolerated on most of the other articles. This template is - kind of - a context for this article. Not for 90% of the other articles. Why not use the established practice of a See Also section. I would prefer to have it removed. MaxPont (talk) 13:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I am still waiting for Ronz and/or others to justify inclusion of the current pseudo-template by explicitly stating their position by citing Wikipedia policy. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a see also list. While I'm not particularly fond of see also lists, there is no reason that they shouldn't include this list style over any other styles. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not a See Also list. Per WP:ALSO: Links are presented in a bulleted list and should be listed in alphabetical order. This pseudotemplate is not that. What this pseudotemplate it attempting to be is a navigational template. If that is what it is going to be, fine. But it should be created as real nav template such the one here. My suggestion is to take Template:Skepticism and shape it into something useful which could be used across multiple articles. However,as the pseudotemplate stands now, it is single-article serving, appears to me to be a link farm, and it loses all of the benefit of being an actual navigational template. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

But it is not a linkfarm, in any sense that it is a list that should be trimmed down or removed per any policy or guidelines mentioned so far. --Ronz (talk) 03:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. But it certainly isn't a See also section nor is it a real navigational template. So what is it? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You're Wikilawyering now. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I am? I am asking a question. If the pseudotemplate is not a See Also section and not a real navigational template, then what is it (and what is it doing on this article)? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 05:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Linkfarm?

Yes there is. As I mentioned before, it leads to linkfarming. The end result is that the more useful links get drowned out by the less useful ones. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

To clarify even more, linkfarms are lists containing external links, or entire articles consisting of nothing but links. Neither applies in this case. --Ronz (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Not true. The relevant portion of policy covers both internal and external linkfarms. In either case, that has no bearing on the arguments against this pseudotemplate. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no section of WP:NOT#LINK that I see as relevant to See also sections, or other lists of internal links within an article. "2. Mere collections of internal links" does not apply, nor do I see how any of the others apply. --Ronz (talk) 23:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You're the one who brought that section up, saying it applied to collections of external links as linkfarms. I just pointed out that it applied to internal link collections just as much. Anyways, you still haven't addressed any of the actual reasons given against the pseudotemplate or supplied any reasons for it. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like we are agreed that it's not a linkfarm, right? --Ronz (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope. I still say it's a linkfarm. I've seen nothing stating that a linkfarm must be external links. Can we at least agree that this is irrelevant, though? --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a linkfarm according to WP:NOT#LINK. There are many examples of other articles having similarly large lists of internal links. You're saying it's irrelevant? I feel like I've wasted my time here. --Ronz (talk) 00:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least we can agree this is a waste of time. Whether you call a dog's tail a leg or not, it won't help it walk. Similarly, whether you call this a linkfarm or not, it doesn't change whether it's good for the article. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 00:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"it doesn't change whether it's good for the article" I thought you said it was irrelevant. If it's irrelevant, then it's no argument for or against the inclusion of the information. If it's not irrelevant, then strikout your past statements to indicate you've changed your mind, or otherwise do something that makes your viewpoint clear. --Ronz (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

What you call it is irrelevant, and I'm done with discussing this. I'll go on calling it a linkfarm. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 00:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"it's no argument for or against the inclusion of the information" --Ronz (talk) 00:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone is entitled to say this is a linkfarm (although I don't agree it is). Regardless, what editors are calling it is not an argument either way. Showing it is a linkfarm would be an argument against using it. But even if someone would actually do the latter, the argument still would not trump consensus. If we reach a consensus to include the disputed links, in they go. My opinion remains that this is an editorial decision not based on sources as there is no policy or guideline requiring or prohibiting its use. If editors find it unbalanced (i.e. giving mainstream science more than its fair majority share of article space) they should try to reach a consensus to add more fringe links, not to remove all the links. Avb 01:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You're completely missing the point. I've repeated myself enough times already, so I won't do so again. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 01:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe I am, as I have just spent a lot of time reading what you said. I would appreciate it if you would take the time to try and catch my drift instead of a knee-jerk reaction within 2 minutes. Hint: I was not responding to you, as should be clear from my indentation. This was mainly my contribution to the discussion entitled "consensus or no consensus" - and I was repeating myself because other users feel that opinions and comments made earlier will evaporate within 14 days or so. Avb 01:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not it is a true Link Farm seems to be temporarily (and perhaps permanently) irrelevant. What is currently relevant is that this pseudotemplate isn't a See also section nor is it a real navigational template. So the question is: What is it? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Redundant among other things. The ad section links, About the site, often duplicate the External Links section links, for that double helping toward QW pov and (t)rite thinking linkspam.--I'clast (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

One last time...

I'll repeat my argument against this pseudotemplate one last time: It lends itself to getting more and more cluttered with links (witness Avb's suggestion to add more links to it to fix it). This drowns out any links that are more likely to be useful to the reader. A See Also section is useful when it provides a few articles that would definitely be useful. When it gets this long, people stop reading through it. Compare to the version I tried to place in a few days ago: [54]. Doesn't that look like it would be much more useful to a reader?

Alright. That's my primary argument against the pseudotemplate. I have so far heard no arguments for it, and it all just seems to be "I like it!" If I don't receive any better arguments, I'll assume that's all it really is. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with this sentiment. However, I think that there may be a place for the template in question to be created at Wikipedia and included at many different articles. Might I suggest Template:Quackery? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Levine suggested Template:Skepticism a while back, which might be more general-purpose. It already exists, but not in any usable shape (the fact that it is used nevertheless is... unfortunate). Now, would people agree to the idea of having a traditional See Also section in this article and then also including a navigational template? --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It is time to remove it and replace the pseudo-template with a traditional See Also section per WP:ALSO. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policy for templates?

If I understand the discussion right, this is not a normal WP template but something else - "pseudotemplate". If so, I believe that the readers would confuse this with a normal WP template. Please show me the relevant WP allowing a pseudotemplate to replace the See Also section?

(Ps. If this is a template it should be inserted in all articles mentioned.) MaxPont (talk) 08:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You can turn this question around. Please show me the relevant WP forbidding a pseudotemplate to replace the See Also section. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, look at WP:ALSO and read the line "Links are presented in a bulleted list and should be listed in alphabetical order." Considering all the confrontation around this article I think the best way is for editors to adhere closely to WP and guidelines. MaxPont (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:IAR anybody? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I take that as a consession that you don't have support from Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines for including it. MaxPont (talk) 09:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather not ignore the rules here. That is a cop-out. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 05:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

OMG! Is this subject still being debated here? No wonder I've stayed away from it for awhile.... That template really has nothing to do with QW or its POV, and doesn't do much for the subject, which is QW. Get rid of it. -- Fyslee / talk 06:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:IAR is for when ignoring the rules would make the encyclopedia better. I've argued that this isn't the case here. Since it isn't clear-cut, it isn't really a good time to be applying it. To Fyslee: Part of the reason this is still going on is that the article was protected due to edit-warring over it. To everyone else: Judging by the outcome of all the discussion, I plan to remove it as soon as the protection expires. If you don't want this to happen, then please explain why so we can discuss your reasoning. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 00:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it is better to ask ScienceApologist to remove the template. This article needs to be edited in a more collaborative spirit. MaxPont (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a magnanimous offer. I suggest that you notify him on his talk page and let him know of this offer. If nothing happens within a day's time, then anyone can delete it. I'll support such a move. The template is an unusual inclusion on such a page about a specific website and organization, not about a concept that would make such a template relevant. As such it's not directly relevant. We already have a short listing of subjects in the article that are directly relevant and necessary to give context to the mission of QW. We simply don't need this template. -- Fyslee / talk 15:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That day has come and passed. I am going to remove it just once. If reverted, I expect a clear explanation here because it seems that we have a clear consensus to remove it. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

real template

As requested, I will add a real template. QuackGuru (talk) 02:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary. -- Fyslee / talk 03:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)