Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:13, 14 July 2008

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to complementary and alternative medicine, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Organizations This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Quackwatch. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Quackwatch at the Reference desk.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 August 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Archives
Archive 1 - Oct '06 Archive 2 Oct '06 Archive 3 Oct '06 - Dec '06 Archive 4 Dec '06 - Jan '07 Archive 5 Jan '07 - Feb '07 Archive 6 Mar '07 (Some Jul '07) Archive 7 Apr '07 - Jul '07 Archive 8 Jul '07 - Aug '07 Archive 9 Sep '07 - Oct '07 Archive 10 Nov '07 - Dec '07 (Partial) Archive 11 Dec '07 - Jan '08 Archive 12 Jan - Feb '08 Archive 13 Feb - Jun '08 Archive 14 July '08

References

Quackwatch

JSE has no consensus

Here are some examples that show JSE does not pass the rigors of BLP policy. Editing is based on Misplaced Pages policy.

1. JSE is a fringe science journal because they attempt to rationalize UFOs while a true skeptic journal publication is critical and/skpetical of UFOs. The journal attempts to rationalize the evidence for the existance of UFOs. Moreover, JSE describes itself as a fringle journal because they assert on their website it is a "critical forum of rationality and observational evidence for the often strange claims at the fringes of science." Saying JSE is a skeptic's journal would entirely be original research. So what is the point? The journal is a "forum" for "rationality" of "the often strange claims at the fringes of science" which would make it a 'fringe science' journal. If any Wikipedian thinks the journal is not a fringe science journal, what kind of journal is it then? Keep in mind that current consensus for the JSE article is for it to remain in the fringe science category. Robert Todd Carroll of the Skeptic's Dictionary stated in part: "In fact, the so-called Association for Skeptical Investigation is a group of pseudo-skeptical paranormal investigators and supporters who do not appreciate criticism of paranormal studies by truly genuine skeptics and critical thinkers. The only skepticism this group promotes is skepticism of critics and criticisms of paranormal studies." He also stated in part: "However, Gary Schwartz, in a published paper, refers to several of the deceased—including William James!—as “departed hypothesized co-investigators,” so perhaps the group considers the spirits of Keen and Truzzi as active investigators. The Society for Scientific Exploration was founded by Marcello Truzzi. The only conclusion demonstrated by the examples is a fringe science journal.
2. If you believe the journal is not a fringe science journal, then what type of journal do you believe it is. Moreover, if you believe the journal is not a fringe journal then what is a fringe science journal (A definition of a fringe journal is requested). Please provide specific examples and descriptions of the differences of a fringe science journal versus JSE.
3. If you believe JSE is a skeptic organization then please provide examples of JSE being the same as other skeptic organizations.
4. Kauffman is a person and therefore not formally peer-reviewed. We cannot use his asseration on it own face value. Moreover, his notability (or more precisely, lack of notability) is a straw-man argument. Is there even an article on Misplaced Pages on Kauffman? Per BLP policy, we insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability. Kauffman is not a third-party published source. If you disagree, please explain. When you cannot explain how Kauffman satisfies BLP policy, you (yes, I mean you) have conceded Kauffman is not a reliable third-party published source. This isn't my rule, this is Misplaced Pages's rule as required by BLP policy. Again, how in the world is Kauffman independant of a third-party published source satsifying to BLP policy. The answer is obvious. He does not satisfy BLP policy. BLP policy drives editing on Misplaced Pages articles on notable individuals. A couple of editors are asserting but are actually refusing to explain how Kauffman meets BLP policy. You must properly show and not assert based on Misplaced Pages policy. Again, how does Kauffman specifically meet BLP policy. Please explain by citing BLP policy. Do you agree to abide by BLP policy anyhow.
5. The journal describes itself as a fringe journal on their website as well others do. They describe themselves as a fringe journal because they assert the rationalizing of "strange claims at the fringes of science." For example, Michael D. Lemonick wrote an article about the Society for Scientific Exploration called Science on the Fringe for Time Magazine. My recent edit was not reverted because of any misleading statement. The other editor felt it was not necessary to say what the journal is and to, nevertheless, keep the description of what the journal is only after you went to the editor's talk page.
6. Barrett studies quacks which would make him a skeptic. See at the bottom right hand corner of this article: American Skeptics. Barrett is in the category of American skeptics. The journal studies fringes which would make it a "fringe science" journal. For example, the journal studies for the rational evidence of UFOs, reincarnation, and crop circles.
7. Moreover, the journal describes themselves as rationalizing "strange claims at the fringes of science." The point is that they "rationalize" the "fringes of science." Thats exactly what a fringe journal does. Please contact them directly. In fact, the journal is proud of being a fringe science journal. See what they will tell you about themselves. What is scientific about crop circles? Hmmm. The journal studies the so-called science of crop circles made by UFOs. Everything the journal does is obviously on the "fringes of science." Therefore, it is clearly a fringe science journal when they are a forum to "rationalize" the "fringes of science." For example, it is a group inclined toward belief in paranormal phenomena. The fringe journal clearly fails the rigors of BLP policy becuase it is not a third-party source. While Barrett criticizes various forms of alternative medicine topics, JSE attempts to rationalize alternative medical practices.
8. This is an example of how the term peer-reviewed can easily be misused or misunderstood. The JSE is reviewed by a minority group of fringe supporters. This minority group who share the same fringe ideology, without any review from dissent, falls into the category of reviewed by true believers of the so-called rationale fringe of true believers and their self-serving bias. They are fringe supporters because they attempt to rationalize such things as UFOs. For further information about how JSE portrays themselves, please visit the website.
9. See: Journal of Scientific Exploration. JSE is subject to review "at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief." If the paper is accepted "but there remain points of disagreement between authors and referee(s), the reviewer(s) may be given the option of having their opinion(s) published..." The journal clearly is subject to the discretion of a single person which is the Editor-in-Chief. Therefore, the journal clearly publishes opinions without always having editorial review. Furthmore, the journal is reviewed by a small group of fringe supporters who attempt to rationalize such things as UFOs at "the fringes of science." Hmmm.
10. The journal represents unconventional views. For example: In established disciplines, concordance with accepted disciplinary paradigms is the chief guide in evaluating material for scholarly publication. On the matters of interest to the Society for Scientific Exploration, however, consensus does not prevail. Therefore the Journal of Scientific Exploration necessarily publishes claimed observations and proffered explanations that will seem more speculative or less plausible than in some mainstream disciplinary journals. See Refereeing at the JSE article.
11. Please take a look at the Journal of Scientific Exploration at the bottom right hand corner. What do you see. Is it >> Fringe science journals? Specifically what category is the fringe science journal in? Also, what do you see is the first listing in the see also section?
12. Per 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. Misplaced Pages 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. If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. Views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all.
13. Per BLP policy: The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article. Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.
14. Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material: Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Misplaced Pages:No original research). If the material is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply to its removal. Content may be re-inserted when it conforms to this policy. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Misplaced Pages, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Misplaced Pages:Libel.
15. Blocking: Editors who repeatedly add or restore unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons may be blocked for disruption. See the blocking policy. This is an official notice to all editors involved. This is a very serious matter.
16. Multiple Wikipedians have deleted the Kauffman attack piece from the article. Avb, + ConfuciusOrnis, + Crohnie, + Fyslee, Orangemarlin, + QuackGuru, + Ronz, + Shot info + THF. As the discussion continued, Arthur Rubin, an administrator in good standing in the community, stated that JSE is clearly a fringe journal. According to policy, While the consensus process does not require posting to the discussion page, it can be useful. That means we do not have to continue to work on discussing this matter. Their points are based on valid reasons to exclude the POV material which is to be respected. Clearly there is no consensus to re-add the Kauffman/JSE bit to the article. It was removed for various reasons including, but not limited to, BLP policy, WEIGHT policy, and POV. It is considered highly disruptive to re-add BLP violations or WEIGHT violations against consensus. Re-inserting BLP/Weight violations is against Misplaced Pages policy and by extention against Misplaced Pages. Any editor who continues to try the patience of the community by engaging in disruptive editing may be blocked for disruption in accordance with blocking policy or community banned.

There are many reasons why we can't use the JSE ref. For example, many editors have rejected the use of the ref. There is no consensus for the JSE ref. QuackGuru 18:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

If it hasn't been done yet, I recommend bringing the JSE up at the reliable sources noticeboard to get more opinions. --Elonka 02:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Elonka is now an involved editor in a content dispute. There is a question of WP:WEIGHT. The view of a tiny minority is a WEIGHT violation. QuackGuru 06:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no involvement in this topic area. See WP:UNINVOLVED. I have no preference whether JSE is used as a source or not, I am simply offering a suggestion for how to deal with the dispute. --Elonka 15:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, having read all this through, I'm confused. how is this (in any way shape or form) a BLP issue? Quackwatch is not a living person.

now it seems to me that what you are really trying to leverage here is wp:undo weight, with a claim that JSE represents a tiny minority opinion and shouldn't be included. however, that can't be correct. even though JSE examines material at the fringes of science, it's authors are all scientists who can be considered authoritative experts in their fields, and so these articles are (almost by definition) reliable sources. Joel Kaufman in particular is a publish author and a noted researcher and professor in chemistry, and his article is JSE is a highly professional critical review. but you know this, because we had this discussion the last time that I put the kaufman article in (see this section in the archives, and this section. bringing up the same refuted arguments repeatedly is not productive editing. I see no reason not to put the Kaufman article back in as a reliable source. can you provide one that hasn't been thoroughly refuted already? --Ludwigs2 16:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

specific information and ease of reading

Each section of information of the article should have it's own section. Lumping a bunch of information into one huge section under Reception is very odd and is hard for the reader to follow. Organizing the article into specific sections will make it a lot easier to read. QuackGuru 18:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You're mistaken about this, QuackGuru. First, the Reception section does not have to be very long. What do we actually have as notable commentary on this website? A handful of commendations, one constructive criticism and perhaps a little bit of rejection (depending on the outcome of the other discussions on this talk page). And even if it were long it could be divided into subsections. I've had experience of this approach on some very contentious articles. See Bat Ye'or, for example. And we appear to have consensus to work in that direction with Academic boycotts of Israel. I believe it is policy to avoid "Criticism" sections and work criticisms into the rest of the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Itsmejudith wrote in part: And even if it were long it could be divided into subsections.

The current article has divided each specific information into specific sections. I don't see any problems with the current format. QuackGuru 18:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Simply, we need to do all we can to overcome our own differences and achieve an NPOV article. See To Kill a Mockingbird, FA on the mainpage today for how a "Reception" section can cover all notable viewpoints under subheadings. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The sections are already divided. I don't see any reason to add an additional heading and then create subsections. I see no problems with the current format. QuackGuru 20:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I will keep having to spell out my reason for wanting to make the change. I believe it is a generally good principle to include all the positive and negative comments in one section, unless they are going to be spread throughout the article. It is not a good idea to have a section that is only positive or a section that is only negative. This is a good principle for all sorts of articles, and in particular controversial ones. It is also a good principle for this article, which does not need to be controversial. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Lumping a lot of the information into one large section is strange. I don't see a problem with the current format. QuackGuru 19:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you look at some of the articles I mentioned? Itsmejudith (talk) 19:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

QG - I'm with Judith on this one. plus I'll point out that strange is not a helpful or useful term, since I have no idea what you consider to be strange. --Ludwigs2 16:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

relevancy and WEIGHT

There is too much information on Stephen Barrett in the lead. This article is about Quackwatch and not Barrett.

Nutritionist Dr. Colgan criticized Barrett in a review of his book The Vitamin Pushers, which is sold on the website. He claimed that Barrett's book hardly discusses supplements but is rather "filled with derisive statements about individuals and organizations in the health care and natural foods industry" and lumps scientists with obvious charlatans indiscriminately.

The above information is about Stephen Barrett and not Quackwatch. The opinion of one person has been given too much WEIGHT anyhow. QuackGuru 18:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Quackguru - as far as I can see, there is only one reference to Barrett in the lead (with a link to his own biography on QW). I'm not sure how we can reduce that without removing him entirely, and since he is the central figure in the QW organization I don't think it's right to remove him entirely. maybe we can rework it a little to minimize his prominence - e.g. take him out of the first line, and put him back in in the second line like this: "Founded by Stephen Barrett in 1996, Quackwatch has operated a website, Quackwatch.org..." would that be better?

also, I'm not certain that removing the Colgan quote on these grounds works. the opinions stated in a written source (including webpages) are often equated with the author of that source. it would be one thing if QW were operated by an independent source with some guarantee of neutrality (such as a university or research institution, or a government agency), but since its a private non-profit, I don't think you can effectively separate the views of QW from the views of Barrett. --Ludwigs2 16:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the guru is arguing against a version that described Barrett as "a retired psychiatrist" on first mention. Personally I think that is an unproblematic addition, short, neutral and factual, giving just the smallest bit of context to help the reader. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

interesting - actually, I saw that as a very neutral addition. even if some might criticize SB because he's not a practicing medical researcher, it's in his favor to know that he's is not just some dude who decided to make a website. I could go either way with that. --Ludwigs2 18:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The lead should be a summary of the article. Adding additional information about Barrett to the lead is a lead violation. QuackGuru 18:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The Dr. Colgan bit is about Barrett and not Quackwatch. I don't see any reason why we should add that information to this article. QuackGuru 18:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

a violation of what, precisely? Quackwatch wouldn't exist (or continue to exist) without Barret, and Barrett's view is the primary view of quackwatch. I think removing him would be improper.

to your other point, though, I'll go read through the Colgan article and see what it says. no sense having this argument on opinion when we can turn to the source. --Ludwigs2 18:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a violation of LEAD to put additional information about Barrett. The lead should be a summary of the body of the article.

There is no sense in having one person's opinion (Colgan) being add to Quackwatch when it's about Barrett. The ref is a bit old. See WP:MEDRS. The ref may be a BLP violation or an unreliable source too. QuackGuru 18:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

QG - as we keep saying, Barrett is closely tied to Quackwatch, and thus is an important part of any article about qw. if you'd like to make an argument that SB has no or minimal relationship to QW as a whole, please do, but otherwise I can't see that he can be excluded. --Ludwigs2 19:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is about Quackwatch and not Barrett. The lead should summarize the article and not go into too much detail on a specific point. QuackGuru 19:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

So I mischaracterised Quackguru's point. The "retired psychiatrist" description is not the main issue here (Quackguru, do you have any problem with "retired psychiatrist"?). It is the Colgan review of the book. I tend to agree that a review of the book is not for this page, but if you are going to the text Ludwig, can you see whether the review does touch on the Quackwatch website? Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

yes, I'm retrieving it now... --Ludwigs2 20:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The lead already discusses Barrett but we do not have a section covering Barrett on this article. Adding retired psychiatrist is way too much detail. QuackGuru 20:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "covering" Barrett. As far as I'm concerned we need to mention him early on, probably in the lead sentence. Readers can click on the link if they want to find out about the founder as opposed to the website. I would not like to see any duplication of material between the two articles. I am bemused as to why you should think the minimal description "retired psychiatrist" is "way too much detail". Can you neutrally describe this gentleman's standing in less than two words? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent) well, all I can say is that the article text for the Colgan review is not readily available, either on the townsend site or on the web. I could dig into more thoroughly academic sources, but from google scholar it seems to only have been cited twice in other works. just on that basis, I say we should leave this article out, on undue weight grounds. any disagreement (or does someone have a copy of the article they can provide for further investigation)? --Ludwigs2 20:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

In the lead there is information about Stephen Barrett. Excessive details is unnecessary. Adding a description about Barrett to the lead is not a summary of the article and thus a lead violation. QuackGuru 20:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that it isn't a lead violation. And to me it sounds neutral, but obviously not to you. Please, do suggest an alternative phrase if you have one in mind. I shall try and find some comparator articles on websites that have notable webmasters. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a link to the Barrett article in the lead. That is more than enough. QuackGuru 20:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, QG - if I understand what you're saying, there is a passage later in the article (in the Recognition section) that mentions Barrett is a psychiatrist. is that what you're objecting to? it's part of a quote, but if you think it's necessary we could probably ellipse it out. that being said, though, I'm a little concerned about the History section which states identifies him as 'Stephen Barrett, M.D.' it ought to specify that he's a psychiatrist there, to distinguish him from other sorts of medical doctors (particularly given the nature of quackwatch, which spans multiple medical fields...). I don't think we need to say 'retired' though. would you have any objection to that? or maybe you can think of a better way to approach it? --Ludwigs2 23:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I am a little suprised why editors want to add duplication to this short article. Obsessing over the word psychiatrist is not something productive. In the Recognition section it mentions Barrett is a psychiatrist. It is duplication to add the word psychiatrist again to another section. QuackGuru 00:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I've already said a couple times when Shot info raised the point that I don't mind taking out the "a retired psychiatrist" bit. At this point I don't really care about Colgan or Kauffman; although I think both belong, I have better things to do then continue to argue it. The "selective negative citing" of The Consultant Pharmacist and the National Review just presents their balanced outlook, and it needs to stay. II | (t - c) 00:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the Kaufman should stay as well, though I can't see any reason to keep the Colgan. the Kaufman article is well-written and scientific, and the claim that JSE is not a reliable source is weak at best. --Ludwigs2 18:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit) plus, I can't even find the 'retired psychologist' bit in the article anymore. did that get excised at some point? QG - it would be really helpful here if you started telling us what you want rather than what you don't want because I'm having a really hard time seeing what you are objecting to. --Ludwigs2 18:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the Kaufman bit should stay off this article for reasons I explained before. In the Recognition section it mentions Barrett is a psychiatrist. Anymore than that is duplication. QuackGuru 19:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Conditions for editing

In my authority as an uninvolved administrator, per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy, I am placing some restrictions on the editing of this article. These restrictions are in effect at least until August 30, 2008:

• 0RR, meaning No reverts, except for obvious vandalism.
• A "revert" is defined as something that might be done with the "undo" or "rollback" buttons, or any manual edit which effectively does a clean revert to a previous version of the article. However, changes to the work of other editors are allowed, and even encouraged, as long as an attempt is made to try different compromise wording than what has been tried in the past.
• Keep comments and edit summaries very neutral and civil.
• Ensure that any new material that is added, has a reliable source
• If you see someone add something that you disagree with, don't revert it, change it. Specifically: Try to change it to a compromise wording, or add some (sourced) alternate view wording nearby.
• If you see something added with a source, that you do not think is a reliable source, add a {{verify credibility}} tag next to it. Discussions can also be started at the talkpage, and/or at the reliable sources noticeboard.
• If you see a sentence that you don't think properly reflects what is in a source, change it so that it does. Or, add a {{verify source}} tag to it
• If you see something that's added that is unsourced, but it's plausible, don't just remove it. Instead, add a {{fact}} tag to it. Then, if no source is provided in a reasonable amount of time, the statement can be removed.
• If something is added that is unsourced, that is obviously troublesome (such as very biased or potentially untrue), it can be deleted on the spot. Please use a clear edit summary such as "removing unsourced information, see talkpage"). If there is a source though, then use one of the other above steps instead.
• Do not remove reliable sources.
• Long sections of the article can be condensed. Do not remove their sources, but information can definitely be moved around and re-worded.

Bottom line: Stay civil. Don't revert other editors. If you disagree with an addition, don't delete it, change it.

Good luck, Elonka 18:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Administrative notes

This section is for the use of uninvolved administrators in managing the dispute on this page

Uninvolved admins

• Elonka (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• GRBerry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Neil (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Seicer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Editors under ArbCom restrictions

The following active editors on this page have been notified of restrictions, per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy

• ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Ronz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)} Banned from editing homeopathy-related articles for one week, starting July 6
• QuackGuru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Jossi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (administrator participating as involved editor)

Other frequent editors on this page

Note: Being listed here does not imply that these editors were disruptive. It is simply for reference, a list of those editors who have recently been actively engaged with this article.

• Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (administrator participating as involved editor)
• DigitalC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Elonka (talk · contribs)
• Fyslee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• ImperfectlyInformed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Itsmejudith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Jefffire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Levine2112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• MaxPont (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Minderbinder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Orangemarlin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Shot info (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Admin log

• Conditions established: 18:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
• Page protection lifted by Seicer. 15:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
• QuackGuru (talk · contribs) formally cautioned about talkpage disruption. If he continues repeating the same charges over and over, I recommend temporarily banning him from the talkpage. --Elonka 15:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Anyone, admin or editor, who has questions or comments on any of the above, may post here.

I have started the above section for administrative notes, to keep track of who's who, and also so that everyone knows where they stand in terms of ArbCom restrictions. If the section grows too large, we can move it to a subpage. Any other uninvolved admins who are interested in this dispute, are welcome to update the above lists, though of course you should avoid changing another admin's restrictions, unless you check with them first. If a change to restrictions is made, please note it in the #Admin log section above, thanks, Elonka 18:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree to unprotect the page based upon the conditions above, as long as there is consensus among the varied editors at this article to agree to abide by the principles. seicer | talk | contribs 18:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

According to which policy are these restrictions enforceable? QuackGuru 18:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy#Discretionary sanctions, which says, "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to homeopathy, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. --Elonka 19:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree to these conditions happily, but I'd like to see a bit more about deletions. it there's a possible loophole where an editor could delete just about anything that isn't immediately and directly attached to a source, and leave other editors with no recourse for re-adding it (since that would be seen as a revert). can that be clarified? --Ludwigs2 19:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The eighth bullet above says "If you see something that's added that is unsourced, but it's plausible, don't just remove it. Instead, add a tag to it. Then, if no source is provided in a reasonable amount of time, the statement can be removed." A reasonable amount of time is clearly multiple days, because reliable sources are not necessarily online and editors are not required to edit Misplaced Pages on any particular schedule. Expand: And if (hopefully not) an editor who added something gets blocked temporarily, a reasonable amount of time should begin after their block ends.

The ninth bullet says that newly added material that is unsourced can (but does not have to - and other alternatives are clearly preferred) be removed. If it is then readded with a source, that would not be a revert, that would be a new version addressing the concern that led to removal. GRBerry 19:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

ok. --Ludwigs2 19:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, per the conditions, any new information that is added, must be associated with a reliable source. As for existing information, any editor could condense an existing paragraph, which of course might involve removing some information. If another editor disagreed with part or all of the removal, they would have several options: They might then re-add some portion of the information, rewording it to try and find a compromise version. Or they could re-add the information and "weight it down" with another source. Or, perhaps they could add a quote to a source, to show that the added information is accurately reflecting what is in the source. There are lots of options, with the key element being that both editors could continue working on the article, both working in good faith to try and find a compromise version. Sometimes this may take awhile, but as long as no reverts are involved, and every single edit is a bit different from previous edits, this is a method that can successfully produce a consensus or compromise version. Meaning that eventually with all the back and forths and tweaks, the article gets to a version that nobody really wants to change anymore, and, "voila!" that means that consensus has been achieved. See also Misplaced Pages:Consensus and WP:BRD, which aren't exactly this same method, but do describe some similar techniques, that focus on changing the work of previous editors, rather than simply reverting. --Elonka 19:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a question about no consensus. If an editor adds something to the article discussed on talk but there is clearly no consensus is that bannable? For example, there is no consensus for the JSE bit. See Talk:Quackwatch#JSE has no consensus. Is it bannable if an editor reverts back to a previous version when the article is unprotected? Is it bannable if an editor adds old information without gaining consensus first that was previously reverted prior to the article being protected? There is discussion in various threads to add some old information back but I do not see any consensus yet. QuackGuru 19:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If they do it by reversion to a prior version, that would be reverting. If they add it using new wording, treat it as a new edit. (Since protection is always 100% guaranteed to be on m:The Wrong Version, we aren't going to especially privilege the version protected on.) No we aren't going to use the rules about reversion and editing to enforce getting a consensus on talk first. We are going to use them to manage reactions to others edits. Keep trying new versions until something sticks - that will be consensus. Use the talk page to suggest and seek compromises - but keep trying new things instead of the same old, same old. GRBerry 19:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

well, since we're getting specific... there's an ongoing talk page discussion about the presence of Barrett in the lead (you can read the debate above). it's sourced by the fact that the QW page says he is the founder and maintains the page, but if quackguru simply removes the phrase (as is his stated intention), I'm not sure if I'd be allowed to edit it back in - the sourcing is an odd sort of sourcing, after all. --Ludwigs2 20:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Administrators will still be monitoring the situation for unusual patterns. In the case of the lead, I'd like to see both editors genuinely try to find a compromise wording. But if it turns into a stalemate, other options are available. For example, at Muhammad al-Durrah, when it was identified that certain editors were obsessing just with the lead, to the exclusion of any other work, we had the option of banning certain editors from editing the lead section of the article. Basically, the administrators are going to take a dim view of any editor saying, "My way or the highway" for any part of the article. But editors that show a genuine desire to try and find compromise, will be encouraged and empowered to continue editing. --Elonka 22:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

actually, I think my question will turn out to be an unfounded worry - the discussion on the topic seems to be smooth. my apologies. --Ludwigs2 23:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that the 0RR (zero revert) rule is unusable as it will lead to additional controversy and give disruptive editors a loaded gun to trash the text. ("No you are not allowed to revert my edits")MaxPont (talk) 07:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That already happens to a large extent, with edit summaries that have pretty much stated, "Your views are not in alignment with mine, therefore you are disallowed from editing." Or per "consensus" or for a variety of other reasons. Unusable? Maybe. But it's enforceable. seicer | talk | contribs 15:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I request a ban of Ludwigs2 for making this revert. At least some of the information is a revert. The informatiuon was previously added to the article but it was reverted. QuackGuru 20:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed the edit of Ludwigs2, but it does not appear to be a revert. It is substantially different from the diff that QuackGuru supplied. I have no opinion on the reliability of the sources that Ludwigs2 used. QuackGuru, at this point I recommend that you edit the article to address your concerns. Aside from saying "the information was previously in the article", what exactly are your concerns about the information that Ludwigs2 added? Do you feel that the sources are unreliable or misrepresented? If so, add {{vc}} or {{vs}} tags. Or do you feel that the information violates neutrality in some way? If so, feel free to edit the article (without reverting or removing sources) to try and change the new text to something that you find acceptable. Thanks, --Elonka 20:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Joel Best, asserts that sites such a quackwatch.com and junkscience.com vary on their underlying ideologies, and their critiques should be examined critically rather than being accepted a face value.

Waltraud Ernst stated that Barret's Quackwatch generate a number of problems that merit further investigation, such as the dismissal of the mental and cognitive elements, as well as the complex role psycho-cultural and spiritual forces that play a role in the healing process.

The above is part of the previous version that was reverted.

The below is part the readded information that was a revert.

Joel Best asserts that sites such a quackwatch.com and junkscience.com vary on their underlying ideologies, and their critiques should be examined critically rather than being accepted a face value. Further, Waltraud Ernst suggests that that the views presented in Barret's Quackwatch are subject to a number of problems that merit further investigation, such as its dismissal of the mental and cognitive elements, or the complex role that psycho-cultural and spiritual forces play in the healing process.

I see a clear violation of the conditions of editing by Ludwigs2. QuackGuru 21:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

QuackGuru, the determination of whether or not a violation has occurred, is to be made by the uninvolved administrators on this page, not by the involved editors. Though of course any editor is free to bring up edits of concern. Getting back to Ludwigs2's edit, I still see no violation. There is substantially less information added, and there was also an attempt at rewording. It is not a revert. And again, QuackGuru, if you have a problem with what was added, you are welcome to change it. Your options here are to edit the article, to drop this complaint about Ludwigs2, or to go work on something else. --Elonka 21:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Joel Best, asserts that sites such a quackwatch.com and junkscience.com vary on their underlying ideologies, and their critiques should be examined critically rather than being accepted a face value.

The above is part of the previous version that was reverted. The below is part the readded information that was a revert.

Joel Best asserts that sites such a quackwatch.com and junkscience.com vary on their underlying ideologies, and their critiques should be examined critically rather than being accepted a face value.

Both are identical sentences and a revert. This is a clear violation of the conditions of editing and is bannable. QuackGuru 00:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Just because a single sentence has the same wording, does not make it a revert. The rest of the edit was substantially different. --Elonka 04:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I consider Elonka to be an involved editor. I would like uninvolved admins to specifically comment on the reverts by three different editors.

Ludwigs2 made a revert. Jossi made a revert. And ImperfectlyInformed made a revert.

Restoring a single sentence is a revert in every shape and form. The rest of the edit by Ludwigs2 was restoring some similar content and some different content. QuackGuru 07:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Jossi restored the Reception section and the Lead section to a previous version. ImperfectlyInformed made a revert too. The retired psychiatrist bit was previously removed and then restored and then removed. QuackGuru 07:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I will agree with you that Jossi's edit was a revert, but he was also unaware of the conditions for editing. He has since been informed. The other edits were not reverts, they were legitimate changes to the text. If you disagree with them, edit the article to put the information back, in a different way than it was presented before. For example, if you believe that "retired psychiatrist" should be in the lead, locate another source that refers to him in that way, and then re-add the information, with the new source. --Elonka 14:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Re-adding the information, with a new source would be a revert. I will not do that. An uninvolved admin could ban me or block me. I will proceed with caution. If I believe that "retired psychiatrist" should be in the article I should discuss it first. Readding it would be going against consensus. Editors disagree with adding that information. QuackGuru 17:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Adding something with an entirely new source, is not a revert, since the source was never in the article (or at least in that section) to begin with. --Elonka 17:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Re-adding the information using the same text is a revert despite having a new source. QuackGuru 17:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

False. It is quite common, and indeed actively encouraged, for material to be removed solely because it is unsourced. A restoration with a source is different than the prior version even if 100% of the rest of the article is the same. Sourced text is very different from unsourced text. The goal here is also to get people to actively work on the article. Go do that. GRBerry 18:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Re-adding the information using the same text is a revert despite having a different source. I never said the text is unsourced. QuackGuru 19:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom restrictions

Re: #Editors under ArbCom restrictions

Comment (feel free to move to appropriate location). These editors are not under ArbCom restriction at all. Please show the diff that states that they are. They are restricted by an admin, not ArbCom. Shot info (talk) 03:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom has empowered administrators to enforce ArbCom restrictions. When bans are placed, they are logged at the bottom of the appropriate page, such as Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy. Diffs are often there, though if you'd like more, let me know and I'll dig them up. --Elon

ka 15:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

According to the ArbCom above, only one editor was restricted by Arbcom, namely Dana Ullman. If you cannot see the difference between ArbCom restricting somebody, and an admin restricting somebody, well, that explains a lot with the current situation. Although, I will note that now the restrictions are in place, the bevy of civil pov pushers have pretty much stopped their little campaign of purging QW from Misplaced Pages and allowed actual editors to do this strange thing called editing. Shot info (talk) 07:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Three editors have made reverts but there is no enforcement of the conditions of editing. ArbCom restricting somebody, and an admin restricting somebody is different. Are admins allowed to make up new restrictions and then not enforce them? Is this article being used as an experiment? QuackGuru 07:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Elonka wrote in part: Diffs are often there, though if you'd like more, let me know and I'll dig them up.

I would like specific evidence that these new rules are appropriate. QuackGuru 17:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy#Discretionary sanctions: "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to homeopathy, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project." This has been appealed (at least in my case) at WP:AN, WP:ANI, and ArbCom, and been upheld in all situations, whether I was dealing with Hungarian-Slovakian issues, Israeli-Palestinian, or Homeopathy (the Atropa Belladonna article). --Elonka 17:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not ask about sanctions. I am asking about creating new rules for this article. According to which specific policy and specific text these new rules are appropriate. QuackGuru 17:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Read that italics text more carefully. "Restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors" - that is what has been imposed, and it is imposed on editors who edit this article. If you don't edit this article, you aren't an affected editor. If you do edit this article, the restrictions apply. The restrictions are article specific (but this set has been imposed on at least one other article). This is not unusual. GRBerry 18:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I read the italics text very carefully. It is about sanctions and not about imposing new rules for an article. QuackGuru 19:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Those rules are sanctions on the editors of this article. You have three choices here - 1) you can edit in accordance with them, 2) you can go edit elsewhere, 3) you can violate them and deal with the consequences. GRBerry 22:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for guidance

I would like to restore passages removed prior to the page protection - primarily some well-sourced criticism that was in the original references section - and rename that section to 'Reception.' I don't think this will count as a revert (since those passages were removed prior to the restrictions being placed), but I'd prefer not to be unduly bold. would that be acceptable under the current policy? I specifically want to restore the 2.5 paragraphs starting with 'David Hufford' and ending with the reference to Joel Kaufmann. --Ludwigs2 18:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Restoring the passages removed prior to page protection will count as a revert. The JSE ref has no consensus. Renaming the section to 'Reception' was reverted before and no good reason has been given for reverting to an odd title that does not match the information in that section. Lumping all the info into one section was reverted. Each section of information should have its own section and have a relevant title. QuackGuru 19:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend proceeding slowly. Try to identify the reasons that the information was removed in the past, and be sensitive to them. If there was a battle about a large section, perhaps try adding a much smaller section, and ensure that it is carefully sourced. Then wait a day or two, and see what the response is. If no one objects, gradually add other (sourced) information. For anyone who does object to the added information, try to articulate exactly what your concerns are. Are the sources bad? Tag them. Is the information not accurately reflecting what is in the sources? Rewrite the text so it does. Is it too much information? Rewrite it to condense it to something more succinct, and put in your edit summary something clear such as "condensing section, to give viewpoints appropriate weight". Then if someone else disagrees with that, they could perhaps add a bit more, with another source to prove that the view is significant, and so forth. --Elonka 19:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

JSE article

Elonka wrote in part: If there was a battle about a large section, perhaps try adding a much smaller section, and ensure that it is carefully sourced.

The information in the article has already been divided into different sections. There is currently no large section in the article.

I already explained the JSE ref has no consensus and the view of a tiny minority is a WEIGHT violation.

I don't think condensing the current information in the article is appropriate. The 'David Hufford' bit is currently mentioned in the article. QuackGuru 19:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you please link to the consensus about the JSE ref? Thanks, Elonka 20:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I consider Elonka an involved editor based on the above comment and previous comment about the JSE ref. I cannot link to consensus for the JSE ref because I don't see any consensus to include the ref. QuackGuru 20:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

since there's no consensus, then I suppose we can re-open the JSE issue here. what reasons do you have for excluding the reference? it seems to be a reasonably reliable source. --Ludwigs2 20:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I strongly recommend starting a thread at the reliable sources noticeboard about the source, to get outside opinions. A thread at WP:FTN might also be a good idea. If someone starts such a thread, please link to it here, thanks. --Elonka 20:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Elonka continues to be an involved editor based on the above comment and other comments. After many previous discussions there is still no consensus and I strongly recommend we should not continue a discussion on this again. QuackGuru 00:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

How is that involving yourself into the article? It's common knowledge to take it to RSN or FTN if something like this comes up for other, varied opinions that are beyond the scope of this article. Nothing wrong with that, and I am strongly encouraging it. seicer | talk | contribs 02:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I brought both Colgan and JSE up at the BLP/N here. The only uninvolved editors to comment, MastCell and DGG, said that the references didn't really have BLP problems, and were basically appropriate so long as it was made clear where they were coming from. Thus, I added "Professor Kauffman, writing in the controversial Journal of Scientific Exploration..." As far as Colgan, The Vitamin Pushers is written by Barrett and sold on the Quackwatch website. Likely the best way to resolve this is to do a RFC. II | (t - c) 01:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The Pillars of Misplaced Pages

Elonka and other uninvolved admins, the above "enforcement" is arbitary and in not in accordance with the ArbCom restrictions nor following Misplaced Pages policy. Until WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT are part of the picture, you will find that you are going to have major problems with enforcing these restrictions no matter how much you think you are in the right. The point of the edit restrictions is to de-escalate the WP:DRAMA but instead these restrictions are just going to see many calls over at AN/I - another RfC - and another ArbCom ruling. Moar Dramaz yez? Shot info (talk) 03:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the article has already been having major problems and "Dramaz", so if the restrictions don't work, it'll be status quo, eh?  :) But seriously, it's worth a try. These restrictions have been tried elsewhere, such as at Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah#Conditions for editing, and had considerable success in breaking the cycle of edit-warring. At that article, reverts have stopped, the page has not been protected since the conditions were put in place, and no one had to be blocked, either! So please, at least be willing to give the conditions a try for a while? If it doesn't work, it doesn't work, but then again, it might work, so couldn't hurt, eh? Worst that happens is that the article gets messy for awhile, but that's easy enough to clean up, right? --Elonka 15:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

On that page, reverts have stopped, the page is now unprotected, etc, all of which are good things. My one question is, have productive edits resumed, or has the page languished? (Asking because I don't know.) Antelan 15:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

In my view, yes, there is a lot of productive editing going on. There are still disagreements, especially about the wording of the lead, so there is also an open Medcab case where things are being discussed. --Elonka 15:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Great. Here's to hoping that it works here, too. Antelan 17:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

re-adding sources

ok, I've reworked some unimpeachable sources back into the article (three authors, all published at major academic presses). as I mentioned before, I don't like the 'usefulness' section, because this forces me to rewrite the sources as saying that Quackwatch is less-than-useful, but I suppose those are the cards I've been dealt. if anyone objects to these sources, please comment here; I'm happy to discuss reasonable changes. --Ludwigs2 20:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you OK with the idea of a "Responses" section, Ludswigs? I'm wondering whether an RfC would be appropriate. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I prefer having a 'responses'--Ludwigs2 20:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC) section on purely stylistic grounds. that allows a more or less non-committed presentation of various viewpoints. a 'usefulness' section is already polarized, and forces editors to add 'thinks it is useful', 'thinks it is not useful' types of clarifiers. that's all. if you think an RfC would help, we could do that, but it seems like such a minor issue...

But not quite as minor as "retired psychiatrist" to describe someone whose article says he is just that. :-0 Itsmejudith (talk) 20:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Renaming the section 'responses' is vague and strange. QuackGuru 20:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

'vague and strange'??? how so? besides which, neither vague nor strange is a policy issue, whereas 'biased' is - I mean, if 'Usefulness as a source' is not biased, then neither is 'Uselessness as a source', right?  ;-) --Ludwigs2 19:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Reception section

What happened to the well sourced, balanced and NPOV section that was called "Reception"? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Reception is a vague title and a lot of that information was not NPOV. Having a huge section is very silly and makes it difficult to read. QuackGuru 01:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

"Reception" as a section is widely used, and "i don't like it", or it is "silly" is not an argument. As for the sources, which one was not NPOV? I am restoring that section and look forward to specific concerns to be raised. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

A "Reception" section that does not segregates pro and con viewpoints, and that rather presents all significant opinions on this site is the best way to reach NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

In terms of restoring sections, please be sure to acquaint yourself with the new #Conditions for editing on the article, especially that it is now under 0RR (no revert) restrictions. --Elonka 03:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I missed that, thanks. But note that I simply restored the "Reception" section. Is that a revert? Or is it that this is a status quo page that one cannot edit? Please clarify. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It's borderline, leaning towards revert. On the one hand, the information wasn't put in with a simple use of the "undo" or "rollback" buttons. However, the information re-added was clearly a word for word restoral of a section from a few days ago, and when it was re-added, it removed some {{check}} tags, but without adequately addressing the concerns. Since the conditions are fairly new, we can write it off as "the editor didn't know", but if such a thing happened again, then it would be regarded as a violation of restrictions. In the future, a better way to handle it would be to move more slowly, adding a few sentences at a time, and trying to find a compromise version, without just doing a copy/paste restoral. --Elonka 04:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just reverted Jossi's massive revert. Making such a revert as he did as an involved editor and saying I missed that and immediately going on wikibreak just won't work.
For Elonka to say it's borderline because "undue" or "rollback" weren't used is absurd. I didn't use those buttons so therefore I didn't revert by that reasoning. If this editing restriction imposed by Elonka is to work, it must be applied to all involved editors and not waffle and allow an involved admin (Jossi) to violate the terms. Vsmith (talk) 12:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Jossi had made no edits to the article since the restrictions were put in place, and it was reasonable to assume that Jossi did not know about the restrictions. ArbCom was clear that editors need to be informed: "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines." Jossi has now been informed about it, both here and at his user talkpage, and has not made any reverts since he has been notified. If any editors had concerns about his edit, they could have gone in and changed the text, and then the editing continues from there. --Elonka 14:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems I've heard something about ignorance of the law is no excuse... But I'm not saying Jossi should be sanctioned - just backing up the restrictions to level the playing field. Now that Jossi is fully aware of the restrictions then she can proceed along with the other editors to improve the article. Vsmith (talk) 15:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

lead violation

The lead was better before. Now there is too much WEIGHT being given to criticism. QuackGuru 19:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

can you specify, please? the changes are minor (see this diff) - the addition of the sources, and some slight rewording. --Ludwigs2 19:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

verification tags

the Ernst and Best references in the 'Usefullness' section have gotten verification tags, but I'm not certain what needs to be verified here. the books have ISBN numbers, and so exist... I'm happy to provide; I just need to know what's desired. --Ludwigs2 19:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I recommend using the "quote" option in the citation template, to provide a brief quote from the book which verifies the information in the Misplaced Pages article. --Elonka 19:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

ok. --Ludwigs2 19:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

consultant pharmacist review

can someone post a link to the consultant pharmacist review article, for verification purposes? the online link (as far as I can tell) requires registration as a pharmacist, and the journal is not sufficiently prominent to make it into my University's database so I can't access it that way. I'd like to read it and see what it actually says.  :-) --Ludwigs2 20:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Question for the Admins

If we are following WP:WEIGHT to improve WP:NPOV what can editors do to flag a fully sourced edit? There is no procedure in the "rules" and in fact the rules state quite clearly that all sourced edits cannot be deleted regardless (specifically point 10) and there is no way to flag such an issue. Please advise how editors are to follow WEIGHT and NPOV in improving the article to reflect encyclopedic content is to be followed, not just for this article but for the articles that will slowly be gathered under the "broadly interpreted" interpretation? Shot info (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this was talked about above a bit, but if you feel there are problems with weight or NPOV in a section of the article, try rewriting bits to address your concerns or add additional information (with sources) to balance out the section. You can also condense areas you feel are too WEIGHTy, as long as the (reliable) sources are kept intact. Shell 23:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. If the concern is about the types of sources, then use a {{vc}} tag to point out that a source may not be reliable. If the sources are reliable, but you feel that there is too much information from those particular sources, per WP:WEIGHT, then go ahead and condense the section. Leave the sources alone, but the actual article text can definitely be winnowed down, or moved around. Be sure to use a clear edit summary such as "condensing section" or something. If your concern is that the article text may not be accurately reflecting what is in the source, either use a {{check}} tag, or just edit the text directly to be in better alignment with the source. If your concern is that the text is not properly sourced, then use a {{fact}} tag, and then if no source is provided in a reasonable amount of time, the info can be deleted. --Elonka 23:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) NPOV (and hence weight) are issues of the entire article, yet also affected by the choices of single words. (E.g. "admits", "claims", "proclaims", "notes" and "states" are closely enough related to in some usages be synonyms yet in other usages can produce different points of view for the sentence, section, or even article.) Managing the weight and neutral point of view is not feasible for uninvolved admins, it will only be achieved when the editors coming to this article with different points of view engage in discussion and compromise. The restrictions encourage adding material showing a different point of view, reorganizing, rewording, and condensing in a balanced fashion. If condensing a topical section because of undue weight for that sub-topic, condense the perspective of all points of view on that sub-topic. But the real goal is compromise, and the mechanism to get editors there is preventing reuse of old versions of the text, allowing only new versions. More could be said here, and Shell's points reiterate the guidance already given, so should be seen as more significant than what I've just said. GRBerry 23:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

So, let me get this correct - If there is something sourced, regardless of NPOV and WEIGHT, it stays the article? After all, we just had some information, sourced information, about the person who started QW (namely Barrett) removed - deleted even . So should this stay in - because according to the rules above, and comments from 3 admins - it should stay in? What should we do in this regard? Note that I'm using the particular edit as an example. Personally I think the edit is correct however 3 admins and the rules above state quite clearly that the edit was incorrect. So again, what should we do in this regard? Note, please don't resort to asking editors to use common sense (or similar appeals), you admins need to tell us how to edit under the rules you have set. Shot info (talk) 00:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually that edit is an excellent example of what we're talking about here. An editor saw information they felt was too detailed or inappropriate for the lead, so they removed it and condensed the lead without removing the source. You can do the same thing with other sections you think are too detailed; condense the wording, prune and trim as necessary and leave the left-over bit with its original source (and feel free to add other appropriate sources of course).

It looks like what you're really trying to ask is "Can I remove all information from a particular source?"; the answer is most likely no. Try balancing it with information from other sources or pruning it to an appropriate weight, but please don't yank out all the text and the source wholesale. Shell 00:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Nope. All three admins said that the textual content of the article can be changed - what should not be taken out are the (reliable) sources. (If there is a true consensus - i.e. active agreement by all concerned, even (reliable) sources can come out, at least in my opinon - but active agreement can't be inferred from a lack of objection.) In that example edit, no sources were removed. It would, if someone thinks that material is important, be appropriate for them to restore the information elsewhere in the article in a different context - maybe the History section near the bit about advisors. Then editors could think about how it works there, if the new context is more or less prominent, et. cetera. GRBerry 00:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec to Shell)My question is my question, not your paraphrase. I am merely attempting to work out how to edit under the rules in question. What you and the other admins have indicated is that there is only one rule you are interested in enforcing and that's No reverts (ie/ use of the undo tool etc. although in saying that, enforcement of even this rule is dependent on exactly who the editor/admin is making the <koff> "edit"). Otherwise normal editing applies. So thanks.

BTW can you add yourself to the Uninvolved Admin list above please? Shot info (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

To GRB - then I suggest you rewrite the rules or remove some of the restrictions to make what you have just stated clear for editors (and see my reply to Shell as it appears that you are all starting to back down from the harsh line in the sand once encountering normal editing practises). Shot info (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not changing the rules, they remain as posted. My parenthetical comment was to point out that I'm not about to be an idiot and enforce the rules blindly against an edit implementing the active agreement of all involved editors. I'm quite capable of assuming that the other uninvolved admins wouldn't be idiots either. (Also, can you use the edit section links when editing instead of editing the entire page? It makes it easier both to know what the post is about and to find and read your post.) GRBerry 01:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

"Implementing the active agreement of all involved editors"? That's a change to the rules right there. According to the rules, anybody can add in minor pointless controversial but sourced information, that you will have to be an idiot to leave in, yet the rules state and 3 admins agree, would have to stay in. So what is it? FWIW, the example I provided is a violation of the rules above, but it's nice to see that admins are allowed to twist the rules slightly to let rationality intrude. It would be better if the rules actually were written this rather than relying on the largess of admin "interpretation" however. Shot info (talk) 01:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that we may be getting hung up over semantics. There is a difference between "sources" and "sourced information". A "source" is a reference. It means the citation that is between the <ref></ref> tags. Stuff outside of the tags is "sourced information", for which the citation is the actual source. The conditions for editing say that the sources cannot be removed. However, the sourced information can be removed/improved/condensed/changed. So, for example, if someone were to add, "The sky is blue and rainbows have lots of colors" and sourced it to Newsweek magazine, then Newsweek is the source, and "The sky" sentence is the sourced information. If someone felt that it violated NPOV, then they could potentially condense the sentence, such as to say simply, "The sky is blue.(Newsweek)" Then if someone really wanted the "rainbows" language back in, they could either reword the sentence, perhaps as, "According to Newsweek magazine, their reviewer Zaphod Beeblebrox said, 'The sky is blue and rainbows have lots of colors.'" Or maybe they could add the "rainbows" phrase and add another source: "The sky is blue, and rainbows have lots of colors.(TIME)(Newsweek)". Or maybe they could move the whole thing down into the "Meteorology" section which already covered the sky, and just move the TIME reference down into that section, and completely delete the "sky is blue" sentence, with an edit summary of "condensing duplicated information". The point is, that once in, the Newsweek reference would be permanent, though it could be moved around to different places in the article. But the information sourced from the magazine could be reworked in many different ways. --Elonka 03:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Now we are getting somewhere. Harkening back to my original question and using the above example. What happens if "The sky is blue" is in an article about grass? Or the colour blue? Or blue-bottles? Or Quackwatch? Obviously if the point is minor (per WEIGHT) and largely irrelevant, or not applicable, it should be deleted. BUT where in the rules above does it say we can do this? GB infers it is allowed (ie/ admins are not idiots) but rules are rules and you have all stated that you are in the role of enforcement of said rules. Personally I think the only rule that is needed is 0RR and the ability of admins to block obvious wikilawyering/stonewalling. Unfortunately at the moment, the current set of rules locks out WEIGHT and NPOV. Not to mention that admins are letting thru reverts when they are coupled with a minimum of one other edit. Shot info (talk) 04:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this is too much worry. :) If you have a particular concern about the article, go ahead and edit it. Even if you do something that violates the conditions, you won't be insta-banned (see above, about "admins aren't idiots"). There will still be a good faith effort to work with you and explain how to do it better. If you check User talk:Ludwigs2#Nudge, you'll see that I've been in close communication with him as he was making his own edits. Ditto with User talk:Jossi#Quackwatch: he made an edit that was technically a violation of the conditions, but he was reminded on his talkpage, and that's all. So, if you see something that you want to change in the article, go ahead, and we'll let you know if you're getting it right. Or if you're still worried, describe what it is that you'd like to change, and we'll go from there? --Elonka 04:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's too much worry, but it's seems you've looked at my worry(ies) lately :-) No, my concerns are that enforcement is largely restrictive, but if admins are going to judge edits on their actual merits, then I know I that all of us (most of us??) have little to worry about. All thanks for your time and answering the said questions. And as a final minor aside, I believe Jossi is a male ?? :-) Thanks once again. Shot info (talk) 04:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Skepdic article on positive pseudo-skeptics
2. Cross A (2004). The Flexibility of Scientific Rhetoric: A Case Study of UFO Researchers. Qualitative Sociology. Volume 27, Number 1 / March, 2004

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Skepticism articles
• Top-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• B-Class Alternative medicine articles
• B-Class organization articles
• Unknown-importance organization articles
• WikiProject Organizations articles