Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:15, 26 October 2006

The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Sbinfo (talk · contribs) / Barrett, Stephen Barrett, Stephen

First comments

group has been criticized by many advocates of natural remedies. should include more information on criticism. --204.78.10.224 17:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

-I removed the last paragraph since it was nothing more than a thinly veiled attack on the group. It added nothing to the article other than the possibility of discrediting it.

QuackPotWatch link

Re-instituted an external link that cites a court case in which NCAHF lost and provides criticism of the organization. Unsure why it was deleted in the first place. Please explain. Wwindsor 01:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposal For Article Balance

Thanks for the invitation to discuss this matter here. You have reinstated the Quackpotwatch link, which apparently has been removed several times by various editors.

Your edit summary:

The opinion piece link has relevant factual information about court case quotes that are a direct source for the article. Please leave it as is or discuss if you think the quotes are inaccurate)

Okay, if that is the case the information - not the opinions in the "opinion piece" (Bolen's appropriate description) - should be in the article itself, as per your suggestion here. I don't see what it is documenting. The only thing I can see in the article that it might remotely relate to is this critical paragraph:

The NCAHF has been accused of attacking many professions and of using the guise of consumer advocacy to present false indictments of complementary and alternative medicines. Some critics have accused the NCAHF of being a front for pharmaceutical companies and corporate medical interests.

That paragraph needs documentation, preferably using original documents, rather than an opinion piece from Tim Bolen. He only includes two paragraphs from one court case. Knowing him very well, I wouldn't be surprised if they were taken out of context, but even if they weren't, his site and opinion pieces are hardly good sources of documentation, when original sources would be much better.

The paragraph contains a number of charges, and each one needs to be documented from both the critics and the NCAHF. Listing accusations without documentation is equivalent to including editor's POV.

1. "The NCAHF has been accused of attacking many professions...."

• Which professions? We need links and quotes from the NCAHF site.

2. "... and of using the guise of consumer advocacy...."

• Examples of this from their site.
• Evidence that it is a "guise."

3. "...to present false indictments of complementary and alternative medicines."

• Examples of the indictments from their site.
• Evidence that they are "false."

4. "Some critics have accused the NCAHF of being a front for pharmaceutical companies and corporate medical interests.

• Which critics? Names, quotes, and links please.
• What evidence do they present for each charge?

Do you believe this to be a fair approach? -- Fyslee 23:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Reply from Metta Bubble

Hi Fyslee. First of all, thanks for discussing it here. That link has also be instated by various editors. I'm not married to the phrasing of the criticisms and I believe improvement can be made. However, the criticism section is actually a little slim if anything, so I'm fairly comfortable with the current state of the article. The article doesn't even mention the somewhat dubious affiliations between Quackwatch, Chiroweb, and NCAHF.

The fact that the NCAHF has offered a public statement rebutting criticisms is more than enough proof of both the existence of criticisms and their notability.

The criticism by Tim Bolen is notable in comparison to the overall notability of NCAHF. The court case against NCAHF is also notable. So, the assumption you made about my position being that only the court case is notable is mistaken.

There is more information that Tim Bolen provides other than the link in this article, which is adequately sourced (by comparison to the notability of this article). I am not open to removing the criticism section of the article or removing a link to relevant critical information. In regards to referencing each an every criticism, I believe I have summarised criticisms that are easily accessible. And I believe I have summarised them fairly (but I don't claim infallibility on summarising criticisms).

In direct response to your final question. No, I don't believe your suggested approach is even close to fair. The criticisms can only be as well sourced as the promotions are. If we are going to put a microscope up to the article we should approach every assertion the article makes, not merely the criticisms. So, if you want to source the following statements adequately I might consider rising to the challenge you posed, but I have a far better proposal at the bottom of this post.

1. is a US-based voluntary private nonprofit health agency

• Are these traits proven or asserted? There are accusations of double dealing that this phrase doesn't adequately take into account.

1. NCAHF unites consumers with health professionals, educators, researchers, attorneys, and others who believe that everyone has a stake in the quality of the health marketplace.

• POV? Who says NCAHF unites these groups? Chiropractic groups claim NCAHF create problems for their practices! So do many other groups who consider themselves health professionals. And who says all these people mentioned in the article have a stake in quality? There are many sources for stating some of these groups prioritise quality far below profits, brand-recognitioin and share price. This statement doesn't reflect these sources adequately.

1. Membership is open to everyone

• Who says this is true? There are accusations out there of the opposite. Who are the members historically? What does membership guarantee?

My proposal

Overall, I suggest we leave the article much the same as it currently stands. It states the NCAHF position and it states the critical position and then states the counter to the critical position. This is a wonderful situation and is entirely encyclopedic. Some tidying might be in order but not whitewashing criticisms.

I hope that works for you. And again, I thank you for discussing it here. I hope I haven't said anything that offends you. I appreciate you being open about how close you are to this article and Tim Bolen. Peace. Metta Bubble 07:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Fyslee's reply

Dear Metta Bubble, I fear that you have misunderstood my intentions. That's probably my own fault, since I'm rather long-winded.....;-) I am not at all interested in any removal of criticisms or whitewashing. Criticisms certainly do exist, but there are also false accusations in circulation. My concern is that the criticisms be verifiable, as per Wiki verifiability policy. If they aren't documented (it doesn't have to be as extensively as I suggested above), then they are editorial POV statements, a practice which isn't allowed here. Using that method, any editor can insert their own criticisms, praise, or accusations, all under the guise of someone else saying it. Without documentation, the words just stand there as POV statements provided by an editor. It's easy to imagine how this could lead to absurd situations, for example: "George Bush has been accused of torturing and eating babies." Without documentation that would stand as a very POV accusation, being included in an article by an editor, and thus the editor would be poisoning the well, which is probably the worst form of POV editing.

I'm just interested in:

• 1. Verifiable documentation for criticisms.

They must be verifiable or be removed from the article. I believe they can easily be documented by the editors who have included them. If they are unwilling to provide the documentation, then the undocumented criticisms shouldn't be taken seriously, and are thus unworthy of inclusion. If they are documented, then it's another matter entirely. The editors who made the edits need to make up their minds. To protect their edits, they must verify them.

• 2. Real criticisms, not undocumented ad hominem hate statements, libel, lies, spin doctoring, or conspiracy theories.

That's the kind of stuff that Tim Bolen includes in practically all his newsletters. That's why his newsletters (the main content on the Quackpotwatch site) aren't reliable as documentation. He rarely, if ever, deals with the real issues raised by the NCAHF, such as the false claims made for products, false advertising, illegal practices, etc. He only seeks to undermine the NCAHF, for the purpose of defending those accused of making those false claims. He is paid to defend them, and he does it by attacking, rather than defending. That's called "poisoning the well", which is a particularly vicious tactic used to unwarrantedly and improperly divert attention (an ad hominem trick) and to detract from the reputation or authority of a person or source.

• 3. Original documents do exist for documentation purposes.

Since they are available, they should be used. The NCAHF makes charges, and they can be documented. The accusers make countercharges, and they can be documented. I could easily present both sides of this matter, but it's the editors of the "criticisms" section who need to start doing this work.

Your proposal

I basically agree with your proposal, but just need to have the above matters tended to. There should be no whitewashing. You have definitely not offended me, and I appreciate your candor. I am always open for constructive suggestions and criticism, and seek to play with open cards. You are always welcome to ask me questions about both sides of these matters, since I'm in a position to either answer you myself, or get the information from the involved parties. You can do so on my Talk page. -- Fyslee 12:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Criticism Statements

Hi Fyslee. I liked your reply. You are completely free to edit anything you like. That's what a wiki is.

Your comments on Tim Bolen and his motives are not indepedently verifiable. The only factor here is notability and verifiability. Bolen is a known critic of NCAHF and his opinion is verifiable no matter what you claim his motives are. I don't consider it hate speech any more than the NCAHF attacks on chiro and other professions can be considered hate speech.

This is a mute point of course because all this talk is simply over a small section of the article that both of us feel can be bettered:

* The NCAHF has been accused of attacking many professions and of using the guise of consumer advocacy to present false indictments of complementary and alternative medicines. Some critics have accused the NCAHF of being a front for pharmaceutical companies and corporate medical interests.

Although I feel it can be bettered, I think this wording is real and adequately sourced. Could you please put your suggested wording below and any references you'd like to add. How would you like it to read? Please let's just workshop this here and then we're done. Simple. If you don't want to suggest anything I'm fine with that too. I'm content with the article as is.

Peace. Metta Bubble 03:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Suggested Wording of Criticisms

Dear Metta (may I call you that? It's very similar to a common Danish girl's name - Mette - which happens to be a cute name.)

I appreciate very much your professional and cooperative spirit in this matter. I'm not used to that here at Misplaced Pages. This is the way I envision that the editing of controversial subjects should be done. Even though editors have different viewpoints, it should still be possible to cooperate in the production of a good article that covers the various aspects of a subject.

Here is the current wording:

• The NCAHF has been accused of attacking many professions and of using the guise of consumer advocacy to present false indictments of complementary and alternative medicines. Some critics have accused the NCAHF of being a front for pharmaceutical companies and corporate medical interests.

There are basically four charges:

1. "attacking many professions": This should be easy to document, and I'll provide the proof myself in the revised version below.

2. "the guise of consumer advocacy": This is an ad hominem attack, without any proof, since such a charge cannot be proven. It's just a negative opinion. Interestingly I have never heard this charge before, so I would like to know the source. Since it can't be verified, it should be deleted. Otherwise it must be considred to be the contributing editor's POV, which can't allowed. If allowed to stand at all, it should at the very least have a linked source.

3. "present false indictments": This is also an ad hominem attack, without any proof or even examples. I have never heard this one either, so I would like to know the source. If it can't be verified with concrete examples, it should also be deleted.

4. "a front for......": This is an old conspiracy theory charge that has been rebutted many times, and no evidence has ever been presented for the charge. I'll accept it for now, since a good rebuttal is in place.

I guess the part I object to the most is the two words "guise" and "false." They are very POV statements, which stand there as accusations without any verification. The sources need to to be verified. All parts of a Misplaced Pages article are subject to the verifiability rule. If they can't be verified, they can summarily be deleted by any editor, and the deletes will be backed up by Misplaced Pages policies and administrators.

You write above:

• "Although I feel it can be bettered, I think this wording is real and adequately sourced."

I haven't seen the sources you refer to. Which ones are they? Please provide the links here.

I'm not sure what you mean by "real." As the statement stands, there is really only one serious ("real"?) charge (the first one), the rest are ad hominem attacks, so they hardly deserve to be in a criticism section. They are beneath that level. I guess we need to decide just how low we will go. They are predicated on the conspiracy theory ("front for.....") being true. Since it has been rebutted, they fall to the ground like a house of cards.

If there were really "serious" charges of inaccuracy, wrongdoing, or other matters that could be verified and rebutted (even if unsuccessfully), then such charges and rebuttals would deserve to be part of the article. Ad hominem attacks are unworthy of being taken seriously, and only make critics look frivolous and unserious, since they appear to not be able to deal with the issues, and thus revert to desperate attacks on the person.

Here is a proposed revision:

• The NCAHF has been accused of unfairly attacking some professions, among them acupuncture, chiropractic, herbal remedies, homeopathy, and naturopathy. Some critics have also accused the NCAHF of being a front for pharmaceutical companies and corporate medical interests. A natural consequence of belief in this conspiracy theory, is that some critics do not believe the NCAHF's "consumer protection" claims, and feel that it is only interested in attacking all forms of complementary and alternative medicine as a form of turf protection.

I believe the first charge is partially legitimate, and the others are worded so as to represent real charges, regardless of their legitimacy or illegitimacy. If there are any other "serious" charges, I'm sure someone will add them later......;-)

I deal with these charges and the people who make them all the time, so I have some understanding of this matter "from both sides of the fence." (I am myself a former user of alternative therapies, including having my own patients die.)

What do you think of the revision?

I also need some links to those sources you mention. -- Fyslee 22:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Suggested Wording (round 2)

Please don't make demands of users. I find it uncivil. Add more sources yourself if you want them. You mentioned you had enough materials above already to argue both sides of the article.

Also note, from the WP:V policy:

• The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth

Nobody here is asserting the NCAHF uses a guise, we are saying the NCAHF is accused of using a guise. Which is a verifiably true as a summary of criticial opposition. The simple fact is that the criticisms verifiably exist. A link has been provided that founds the views presented.

Regarding your suggested wording: Inline external links to rebuttals are unhelpful to a criticism section of any article, as are terms like "conspiracy theory". I've re-edited below what I find more reasonable:

• The NCAHF has been accused of using the guise of consumer advocacy to unfairly attack complementary and alternative medicine professions; among them acupuncture, chiropractic, herbal remedies, homeopathy, and naturopathy. Some critics have accused the NCAHF of being a front for pharmaceutical companies and corporate medical interests, dismissing the NCAHF's mission statement on consumer protection and claiming the NCAHF's real interest is in criticising alternative medicines as a form of turf protection.

Let's stay focused on the article and the wording. I think we're making progress. I note another editor has already added more information to the article. So you're getting your demands in a roundabout way. Metta Bubble 01:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

skepticism and pseudoskepticism

In light of the recent discussions on the all inclusiveness of categories, should we be discussing skepticism and pseudoskepticism on this page? --Dematt 18:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Funny Dematt, I was just thinking the same thing! If a notable source has raised the issue, sure. I was just reading the article that redirects from pseudoskepticism and was somewhat amazed by how well Truzzi's criteria fit some would-be skeptics. cheers, Jim Butler 07:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?

I just ran across this article and am stunned by the POV. Perhaps it should be moved to "Criticism Against The National Council Against Health Fraud"? If not, no discussion of litigiousness belongs in the introduction. Certainly, claims of the amount of litigiousness should be cited. Why is there no summary of what information the group provides, and who uses that information? Why is there no cross linking to the medical standards and consumer protection laws they claim to uphold? Why is the bulk of the article criticisms against the organization? --Ronz 01:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The litigation is neutral. Both sides are sueing each other. You're misinterpreting and assuming. Read the articles and you'll see it is balanced. 58.178.100.66 06:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? Please assume I've directed your "argument" back at you, accusing you of each exact point you accuse me of, that you're irate for such a personal attack, and that we've worked out that each of us has different perspectives on this... Meanwhile, if no one has better arguments that don't involve personal attacks at me, I'm proposing that all discussion of litigiousness be removed from the intro, and all discussion of criticism and litigiousness be reduced (or more on the topics I mentioned be introduced) so they take no more than half the article. Alternatively, move the article to "Criticism Against The National Council Against Health Fraud" --Ronz 14:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I've read through some of the POV and NPOV articles further, and marked the article with POV. The move is out of the question. Moving the discussion of litigiousness out of the intro shouldnt be contentious I hope. The rest of the article will be more difficult to deal with... Ideas? --Ronz 21:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Litigation is a primary tactic of the NCAHF. Why shouldn't it be mentioned in the intro? Jim Butler 23:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Do we have a reliable secondary source stating as much? Still seems a POV issue. Do other organizations that use litigation as a primary tactic have similar introductions on their pages? --Ronz 00:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

How about a primary source? "NCAHF's activities and purposes include: Encouraging and aiding legal actions against those who violate consumer protection laws." A court's finding of a SLAPP-suit is notable for any group, let alone a consumer advocacy group, isn't it? cheers, Jim Butler 00:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I specifically asked for secondary sources, sources that could help us not make POV decisions when working solely from primary sources. Do other organizations have such info in their intro? Is it really a primary tactic? --Ronz 19:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't NCAHF's own site sufficient for this, Ronz? It passes WP:RS, self-published sources in articles about themselves. That site says:

Activities and Purposes

NCAHF's activities and purposes include:

• Investigating and evaluating claims made for health products and services.
• Educating consumers, professionals, business people, legislators, law enforcement personnel, organizations and agencies about health fraud, misinformation, and quackery.
• Providing a center for communication between individuals and organizations concerned about health misinformation, fraud, and quackery.
• Supporting sound consumer health laws
• Opposing legislation that undermines consumer rights.
• Encouraging and aiding legal actions against those who violate consumer protection laws.

• Sponsoring a free weekly e-mail newsletter.

That's as clear as it gets. Restoring to lead, and removing the "frequently" pending verification. Also added clarifying sentence re their mission statement. thx, Jim Butler 22:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The issue isn't clarity, it POV. That's why secondary sources are preferrable over primary. I guess we should add each and every activity and purpose into the intro then so as not to be biased, correct? And what does a libel suit have to do with this mission statement? Is the second SLAPP suit related to the mission statement or not? Is this a summary of each and every legal activity NCAHF has partipated in that is related to this important part of their mission statment? Why is all this information so important that it precedes the Introduction section? Are any other articles in Misplaced Pages similar to this? --Ronz 01:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Ronz, I understand your concern as a sort of POV meets WP:OR issue. OTOH, I think as editors we have some latitude in deciding whether something is notable enough to be in the lead. Answering your questions in turn:

I guess we should add each and every activity and purpose into the intro then so as not to be biased, correct?

Depending on notability, sure. From Stephen Barrett, did you notice this, regarding his litigiousness?

And what does a libel suit have to do with this mission statement?

That one has to do with Barrett.

Is the second SLAPP suit related to the mission statement or not?

Sure. NCAHF litigates, per their mission statement, to protect the public; they were found to have violated an anti-SLAPP statute, which is meant to protect the public. I didn't have to put my thinking cap on for too long to perceive the irony there. That logic doesn't strike me as so advanced as to be OR, and the SLAPP does cross my notability threshold for lead inclusion .... but of course, that's just me. TBD what other editors think...

Is this a summary of each and every legal activity NCAHF has partipated in that is related to this important part of their mission statment?

No. The SLAPP is more notable. SLAPPsuits are inherently notable, because they're something analogous to malpractice.

Why is all this information so important that it precedes the Introduction section?

See WP:LEAD. To a significant degree, notability remains an editorial judgement call. Obviously reasonable editors can disagree, eh? So I guess we should POV tag (oops, I see it already is) and seek input from others if we continue to disagree.

Are any other articles in Misplaced Pages similar to this?

Similar in what way? Including notable non-flattering stuff in the lead? I could name a few.  :-)

best regards, Jim Butler 06:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

"I could name a few." Yet you don't. These are the problems with not working from secondary sources: we have to dermine what's notable. I disagree with your perspective and logic - we're are at an impasse. I'll update as others contribute or when I find new information. --Ronz 15:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Ronz, I do understand your concern about having a secondary source commenting on the SLAPP issue, and I just dug one up from an earlier version of the article: the Business Law Section Newsletter of the Beverly Hills Bar Association. I'll put it back in; let me know what you think.

Re "I could name a few": As I said, I was referring to articles about people or organizations with non-flattering material in the lead. Obvious enough e.g.'s include Scientology, O.J. Simpson, etc. etc. Please see WP:LIVING#Public_figures for principles that we can apply here as well, including use of primary sources. regards, Jim Butler 01:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

"judge feared that an NCAHF victory"

I can't find the source for that. "Zealot" is inaccurate as well. Am I missing a source besides #16? --Ronz 19:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid it is there. (I don't know why the opinion isn't on a government web site, but only on QuackPotWatch, but that's the way it is. CA may not publish minor court rulings.) Try section IV.C., which includes:

Both witnesses’ fees, as Dr. Barrett testified, are paid from a fund established by Plaintiff NCAHF from the proceeds of suits such as the case at bar. Based on this fact alone, the Court may infer that Dr. Barrett and Sampson are more likely to receive fees for testifying on behalf of NCAHF in future cases if the Plaintiff prevails in the instant action and thereby wins funds to enrich the litigation fund described by Dr. Barrett. It is apparent, therefore, that both men have a direct, personal financial interest in the outcome of this litigation. Based on all of these factors, Dr. Sampson and Dr. Barrett can be described as zealous advocates of the Plaintiff’s position, and therefore not neutral or dispassionate witnesses or experts. In light of these affiliations and their orientation, it can fairly be said that Drs. Barrett and Sampson are themselves the client, and therefore their testimony should be accorded little, if any, credibility on that basis as well.

"infer" → "feared", and "zealous advocates" → "zealot" may not be quite correct, but it's understandable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

That also counters my assertion that the judge should not have said "feared"; he didn't. It doesn't support the SLAPP allegation, but that is supported by a few secondary sources, even if not by the primary source. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. However, it's either correct or not. In this case it's not, nor is it understandable except in the context that there are many people attacking NCAHF and Barrett because they don't like being held to standards of medical ethics and evidence-based medicine. --Ronz 20:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I've cleaned it up. Any comments? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Great job! --Ronz 23:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Skepticism - See Also, Cat

See Misplaced Pages:Guide_to_layout#See_also, Misplaced Pages:Categorization#When_to_use_categories. There is no need to make it explicit in the article, in fact See Also is specifically for related topics that are not already mentioned in the article. As for CSICOP, I wasn't clear: . Again, the citation is not necessary. --Ronz 04:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The CSICOP lists it as a skeptical organization, but the organization does not itself claim to be one. In fact, the CSICOP lists about anything as a skeptical organization that would only remotely fit into this category: for example talk.origins (and not in the category here, either), although it is merely a usenet newsgroup. This classification is not appropriate. Let's stick to the organizations own profile. I propose different, better criteria: List in the category only those organizations listed as members of the International Network of Skeptical Organizations. This one also does not contain The National Council Against Health Fraud. What do you think? --Rtc 05:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Categories are used for articles that are related to the subject, not just for organizations. That's why you'll find Stephen Barrett and NCAHF also categorized under Quackery, since they deal with that subject. Categories are useful as a service to readers and the concept of "service" should be uppermost in our minds when categorizing. Just use common sense about what is actually happening, rather than some precise wording. If you want to make a category for official members of the International Network of Skeptical Organizations, be my guest. In that case, NCAHF could easily become a member organization. It would just be a formality. All the board members are active skeptics, and Barrett, the VP, has been listed by Skeptical Inquirer as one of the outstanding skeptics of the 20th century, and is a Fellow of CSICOP. The activities of NCAHF, Barrett, the other board members, and the other contributors to the website, can be fairly considered as skeptical activities. They use critical thinking when evaluating extraordinary claims, and seek to expose the claims for what they are. This is a common activity of scientific skeptics. -- Fyslee 11:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

TAG

If Barrett has edited this article in the name of the NCAHF then it should be noted.NATTO 04:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine. The tag has been moved to the talk page where it belongs. -- Fyslee 06:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticism Section & nPOV

Can we edit this to something that has at least a vaguely nPOV? Unless there's a good secondary source for the generalizations, I think they should be removed. Specific claims from primary sources can be kept, but Misplaced Pages is not the place to accumulate information from primary sources and synthesize statements on what those sources are saying overall. Also, I'm not able to find the actual statement used from the article cited "These critics dismiss the NCAHF's mission statement on consumer protection by claiming the NCAHF's real interest is in criticising alternative medicines as a form of turf protection." Can someone find it? --Ronz 19:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The citation for NHC discuss the "turf war" and cites Coulter's book as an example. Ronz, please point to specific generalizations or synthesized statements which you would like to see addressed. We'll make it through this. I promise. Levine2112 20:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've read through that source and can't find anything that resembles the quote. As for the generalizations, I mean the entire section, now that the Bolen quote is gone. It's either relatively direct from a source or it's not suitable for Misplaced Pages. Also, I noticed ref #6, the untitled one, is a bad link now - the site is still up so it probably just was moved. --Ronz 23:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is a direct quote from the article but rather an attempt to capture the gist of it with regards to NCAHF. Perhaps you would like to provide a better summary and capture the essence of what this article is saying about NCAHF specifically. I'm sure you could improve on what's there now. Levine2112 01:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed. --Ronz 15:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been searching for other controversial topics that deal with criticism in this way and can find none, but lots of discussions that this one violates WP:NOR. Again, the problem is that we're not relying on secondary sources, but instead editors are choosing primary ones without researching them well and without seeking balance for a NPOV. I suggest removing the entire Criticism section as is, as well as the Lawsuits section which now contains just one lawsuit. --Ronz 16:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I don't even understand why you removed the criticism you mentioned above. I asked if you wanted to rephrase it. Bottomline, NCAHF is a contraversial "organization" which stirs up its own trouble. The backlash is part of what makes NCAHF notable enough to warrant its own article. As for the lawsuits section, it is an example of what NCAHF has tried to do in the real world (and not just on their website's mission statement). I'd love to have some more actual examples of their work added here as well. The King Bio suit info is all cited from the presiding judge's summary judgement. Is a judge's written opinion not a reliable source? Levine2112 16:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

As I've repeatedly brought up, I think we have WP:NOR violations here. I removed the quote after our discussion for the very reasons I mentioned: editors are synthesizing summaries from primary sources, and creating NPOV problems in doing so. There are reliable source issues that we're repeatedly having problems with as well, but just because a source is agreed reliable doesnt mean we can ignore NOR and NPOV. Find a reliable, secondary (or a tertiary source) that supports your viewpoint, and we won't have these problems. --Ronz 18:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Does this mean that we would have to find reliable secondary and tertiary sources to cover NCAHF's history and mission statement, or are we to rely on what they have written first-hand on their site? Levine2112 19:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

No one has mentioned that they may violate NOR or NPOV. I can't imagine how anyone who has read WP:NOR would think so. --Ronz 20:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The subject of an article is allowable as a source in its own article. This even applies to self-published sources in articles about themselves. So it certainly applies to corporate websites with multiple authors and fact checking. -- Fyslee 21:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Right. NCAHF is a primary source on itself. And the judge's opinion is a secondary source for describing the nature of NCAHF... just like anyone who provides a critique of NCAHF. Levine2112 04:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think court transcripts are considered primary sources, but WP:RS allows them: "Misplaced Pages articles may use primary sources only if they have been published by a reliable publisher e.g. trial transcripts published by a court stenographer, and may use them only to make purely descriptive claims." Also useful is WP:LIVING, which says "Where a fact has first been presented by a verifiable secondary source, it is acceptable to turn to open records as primary sources to augment the secondary source. Material that is related to their notability, such as court filings of someone notable in part for being involved in legal disputes, are allowable ... where they are publicly available and where that information has first been reported by a verifiable secondary source." Here, it appears that the court transcripts are primary sources that augment the Beverly Hills Bar Association secondary source. regards, Jim Butler 06:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Lawsuit Section - NOR & nPOV

I'm trying to keep the discussions of the different sections separate when appropriate, but to summarize, I think this section also violates WP:NOR and WP:NPOV for the same reasons mentioned above: the editors are using only primary sources and are synthesizing statements from the perspectives of those primary sources. Why is there mention of SLAPP without the ruling on the issue? Why are no other lawsuits mentioned? --Ronz 00:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Ronz, maybe the wording is unclear: my understanding is that King Bio moved to dismiss NCAHF's suit under the anti-SLAPP statute and the courts agreed. I changed it to be clearer. Here is the secondary source I am following. If there are good V RS's for other suits, by all means let's put them in, but I urge against deletionism. thx, Jim Butler 00:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Jim. Levine2112 04:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Massachusetts listing

Thanks for the search link, Levine2112. Of course, this is still dubious information to present. I was researching through Massachusetts law, trying to figure out how NCAHF might be licensed, and gave up pretty quickly after finding numerous ways they may or may not have to be incorporated, certified, filed, etc. Additionally, I found that depending on what they've done to legally work from Massachussetts, they are different deadlines for doing so, some that only apply after multiple years of doing business. After all my research I think it's important to ask, how do we know that this search is relevant? --Ronz 03:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

If no one can actually provide sources demonstrating that the search is relevant, I see no option to remove it per WP:RS. Since we have no reliable source concerning the current legal status of NCAHF as a corporation, I'm removing the "suspended in California" info too. If we could come up with the date they moved to Massachusetts, that would be something at least. --Ronz 20:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

So let's find the date and let's find a third-party source which states their reasons for moving. Let's also find a source about their status as a non-profit in Massachusetts. Until then, why delete information that we factually know to be true and are entirely relavent to this article? Levine2112 21:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Great. Until we find proper, reliable sources, it's out per WP:RS. It's shoddy research, promoting a biased point of view. --Ronz 23:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

How are the official state websites shoddy and/or unreliable? I mean, I don't intend to have an edit war over this, but I'd like to hear your rationale for calling the official government business licencing sites unreliable? Levine2112 23:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to be more to the point: Why is it notable how NCAHF exists as a business entity? It's not. The fact that NCAHF is suspended in California is not notable - it happens when a business moves. The fact that a business moved is not notable either. The fact that NCAHF is not listed with the cited Massachussetts search is not notable - as far as I can tell, there are many, many ways that NCAHF could exist as a legal nonprofit within Mass. How the company is operating is not notable. Placing the two statements together, about the CA license and the MA search, gives the impression that the company is unlicensed or otherwise operating illegally. --Ronz 00:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You make a very good point and I now agree that the statements should not be in the article at this point. I think it would be relevant to know whether or not NCAHF is operating legally as a non-profit or not. Considering that they are an organization which jumps on others for fraud, it would nice to know that NCAHF isn't guilty of the same. Levine2112 01:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that their status as a nonprofit does have a certain bearing on their notability and credibility. As Fyslee noted on another page, an entity can be notable in part by virtue of what it claims to be but isn't. Particularly given NCAHF's stated mission of exposing misrepresentation in the public interest, anyone interested in NCAHF has reason to expect a certain degree of transparency, which is no more than that expected of any nonprofit org. Jim Butler 03:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

That's why any insinuation that the company is conducting business unlawfully is a blatant NPOV violation. We don't know how the company is conducting business as a nonprofit, which is a non-notable fact. --Ronz 04:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree with your first sentence, Ronz, but I'm not at all sure that the information in question necessarily insinuates unlawfulness. Maybe it just means the NCAHF is at the moment in a transitional or inactive phase. Or not... -Jim Butler 05:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This may mean nothing, but I just used that Massachusetts business licence portal to do a search for another organization calling itself a "private nonprofit" - New England Center for Children - and it was listed. Levine2112 01:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The same goes for "NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES". Levine2112 01:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

And "BOSTON GREENSPACE ALLIANCE, INC." Levine2112 01:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

And "ADVOGUARD, INC.".

And "COLLEGES OF WORCESTER CONSORTIUM, INC."

Note that I found these by doing a Google search for Massachusetts private nonprofit. It is interesting that they all show up in the state registry for registered nonprofits, while NCAHF does not. I would very much like to get to the bottom of this. Levine2112 01:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No offense, but do you think NCAHF would last a minute operating illegally when so many individuals and companies want NCAHF to disappear, and when it is involved in so many legal disputes? For the record, I tracked down the introduction of the material: --Ronz 01:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Then let me ask you this: Don't you think that NCAHF would want to register with the state as a nonprofit so that the are exempt from paying state business taxes? Levine2112 02:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

See my comment at the start of this section - MA law is complicated. --Ronz 02:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed NATTO's slight changes to statements. The fact that it is no longer a California company is not notable. Businesses move. The information was originally added as part of a theory of certain editors that the company was avoiding paying taxes, or otherwise conducting business illegally. A NPOV statement would be that the company moved it's operations out of the state of California, which is not notable. --Ronz 14:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I have re-introduced the notable and verifiable information about the status of NCAHF in California following the KIng Bio lawsuit and the move to MA. Looking at the discussion here it is clear that most editors agree this item belongs in the article. The timing of the departure of NCAHF from California is relevant as well. The facts are as they stand. Readers should have them available so they can make up their own mind on the issue.NATTO 20:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The arguments above still stand. Businesses move. So what? Your attempt to connect it with the King Bio suit (which wasn't totally finished yet) is your OR, so I suggest you refrain from this line of inquiry unless you can find reliable, non partisan, sources (and conspiracy theorists are not reliable sources). Your admitted attempt to introduce negative POV is also a violation of NPOV policy. That it is also OR makes it even worse. -- Fyslee 20:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

NATTO, why is the timing of the move relevant? If there is notable relevance then might I suggest creating a history section of this article and including it there.

Ronz, no matter how complicated MA law is, in order for organization to rightly call themselves a non-profit and accept donations, their filings have to be made apparent both federally and in the state from which they do business. There is no getting around this that I know of. If there is a loophole which NCAHF is employing, I'd love to know about it. Levine2112 21:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I just checked with the IRS and saw that NCAHF is listed federally as a non-profit. Still can't find them in the state system though. It's odd. Levine2112 22:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Using the Mass. state system I was able to look up organizations and corporations by officer names and could still not find NCAHF using Barrett or Baratz. However, I did find Baratz's "for profit" business, hawking skin rejuvenation products... (for those that are interested)... some of which use certain ingredients and promise miraculous results which are labeled "quackery" on Barrett's Quackwatch site. Very interesting.Levine2112 22:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

From my research into MA law, NCAHF could very well have a five year period after moving to MA before they are required to formally file in the state. This is why WP:OR exists, to keep speculation and shoddy research out of the articles, not to mention NPOV violations. --Ronz 00:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Skin Systems also share their mailing address with the NCAHF : 119 Foster Street Peabody, Massachusetts 01960 and they also share the same fax number.... NATTO 23:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The move from one state to another would be relevant for any organisation. The fact that they moved is a NPOV fact and is relevant in their history. THe NCAHF presently list their address in MA but, for time being, the legal status in MA cannot be verified ( so I left that part out ). There are secondary source that say the NCAHF was evicted from Loma Linda and the results of the King Bio suit is known. Since the NCAHF does not explain what happened to them after 2000 we do not have their version, which, if available, should be included in the article. Since their move is a known fact and their legal status in California is verifiable with a good source, why would the fact that they moved from CA to MA be excluded from the article ?? There is certainly at least one reason why they moved. I agree with Levine that the issue of why they moved requires further clarification. If it is forthcoming from the NCAHF then great. NATTO 22:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not relevant. It was introduced in blatant violation of NPOV. It's OR. This is an encyclopedia. If it's not forthcoming from NCAHF, nor available from a reliable source, then it's not appropriate for the article. --Ronz 00:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Blatant violation of NPOV ?? What is not NPOV in stating that the NCHAF moved from CA to MA ? That is not a POV, that is a fact. And it is not OR at all no more than quoting the NCAHF website for other purposes in this article. The NCHAF has itself stated they were in California and the CA governement website list them as " suspended " so they were clearly there ( both primary and secondary sourced ). It is also a fact that the NCAHF now list their address in MA. All factual and NPOV. Yes this is an encyclopedia that provides factual information to readers and the information above is factual and verifiable. The following is simply stating the verifiable facts from either the NCHAF website or reliable sites, as they stand:

" The NCAHF is presently located in Peabody, Massachusetts . It had been previously located in California ,but since 2003 the corporate status in California has been listed as "suspended" California Business Portal" NATTO 01:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear. It's introduction was part of a blatant NPOV violation. See the links above. The editor who introduced it did so as an attempt to show that NCAHF was not paying taxes among other things. There's nothing notable in it, unless someone wants to continue to promote that POV. --Ronz 01:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. What is am suggesting is to simply state the facts as per above. As for the status of the NCAHF in MA, when it is known it can be added. NATTO 03:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No one is questioning that the move is factual. (As far as "eviction" from LLU, that is not factual. It's a false accusation from an unreliable and antagonistic source without foundation.) It's more a question of whether it is relevant to start including all kinds of factual information in the article. Other information is more important and we don't include it. Shall we begin to list the names and addresses of all the officers and consultants? How about all the phone numbers? All that information is on the website. People can look it up if they feel it is relevant. Let the readers do it. To illustrate, if we get around to writing an article (and well we might) about Dr. Imbeau, anti-amalgam dentist from NZ who holds several unscientific beliefs (as evidenced by your edit history here at Misplaced Pages), should we also list every previous mailing address, including Toronto, just because the post office lists the addresses as "mail undeliverable, person has moved"? What relevance would such information have in an article here? It's just not encyclopedic. -- Fyslee 04:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to get more information on the current status, and when I get it, I'll place the information here. Then we can determine if it's relevant or not for inclusion. -- Fyslee 19:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Articles with connected contributors