Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:06, 8 January 2008

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.

Template:TrollWarning

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)

Barrett's response to my question

Email from Nov 28, 2007

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 20:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought personal emails were not allowed. Am I misinformed? --CrohnieGal 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 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 05:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Crohnie I think you've got a great point. Antelan 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 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 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 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 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 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 17:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

A large body of off topic text was archived by Ronz. --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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, " 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 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 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, " 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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) 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) 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 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 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 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. 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 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 00:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

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

How do you mean? Please clarify. -- Levine2112 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 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 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 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. --CrohnieGal 21:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Chronie 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 22:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I was trying to show what ScienceApologist concluded. The link which I showed had the search as 'Quackwatch peer review'.--CrohnieGal 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 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 . So is this article outdated? --CrohnieGal 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 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages. 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages policy don't last long (or rather, they shouldn't but often do). MastCell 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 Misplaced Pages for advocacy (highly forbidden). Things like NOR, "Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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.

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 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.

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 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 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 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. 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 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 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. 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 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."

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 suggested as a way to show why and why not it should or should not be in the article. Thanks, --CrohnieGal 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)

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)

Please edit above the references

It's really very simple. Just click the edit link at the right, place your new section above this one and copy the new heading to the "Edit summary" line.

References

1. ^ Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa, PharmD, "Quackwatch.com", The Consultant Pharmacist, July 1999. available online
2. ^ Template:Cite article Cite error: The named reference "acspq" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
3. Center Fellows, Center for Spirituality and the Mind, U. of Pennsylvania. accessed online 2 November 2007.
4. Hufford DJ. David J Hufford, "Symposium article: Evaluating Complementary and Alternative Medicine: The Limits of Science and Scientists." J Law, Medicine & Ethics, 31 (2003): 198-212. Hufford's symposium presentation was the counterpoint for another doctor's presentation, which argued that "alternative medicine" is not medicine at all. See Lawrence J. Schneiderman, "Symposium article: The (Alternative) Medicalization of Life." J Law, Medicine & Ethics, 31 (2003): 191-198.
5. USP - Faculty
6. Kauffmann JM (2002). Website Review: Alternative Medicine: Watching the Watchdogs at Quackwatch., Journal of Scientific Exploration, 16, 2

• 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