Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:29, 3 January 2007

Excellent idea!

Hi QuackGuru. Congratulations are in order, and Happy New Year! I expect this could be a parallel to the List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts‎. The concepts are often related, but not identical.

I don't know how you have found all these articles, but when the Quackery category was deleted, a few (some obviously pro quackery) editors immediately removed the category tag from a whole lot of articles. It was proper for them to do so, since that category had been deleted, but I suspect they did it with glee! I suspect that many of the articles you already list are among them, but by following those editors' tracks, we might be able to find more. Just watch my edit history and you'll be able to figure out what was going on and who deleted the category tag. Then follow their tracks. If you will please activate your email, I'll email you the names to watch. Let me know on my user page. -- Fyslee 09:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Question

Is this just a list or should we be adding some sort of NPOV statements along with each. Even medicine has elements of quackery, while chiropractic has elements that are not. How do we handle that? --Dematt 03:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This is another attempt at POV labelling. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. This article should be put up for deletion due to major NPOV issues.--Hughgr 07:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoa! Slow down a bit. This is a list, not an article. There is no labelling going on, and therefore no NPOV issue.

This isn't a category label that gets attached to articles without explanatory comments. We know what problems there were with the quackery category! The problems with category labelling are avoided by using lists instead. Of course medicine has elements that can be considered quackery when misused, and of course chiropractic has elements that aren't. Obvously the medical and chiropractic aspects that aren't related to quackery wouldn't come to mind for a student of the subject, only the aspects that are related to it. If you will notice, there are medical subjects and subjects on all sides of the spectrum. Some are only words that are not themselves quackery, but are considered red flags by some skeptics. Just as long as there is some relation to the subject in some situations, it's fair game to include it. (Please add psychotherapy!) One first gets into POV problems when one starts labelling.

Suppression of opposing POV is very unwikipedian. Misplaced Pages is about presenting all significant POV, and attempts to limit the ability of editors to contribute or collaborate is a violation of the principles that govern Misplaced Pages. Many similar projects exist here for supporters of alternative medicine and pseudoscience. To be fair, should they also be deleted? I think not. They have a right to profile Misplaced Pages's resources as well. As long as NPOV is preserved (which can be avoided by not labelling) there is no problem.

I invite your collaboration here. We need to make sure NPOV problems are avoided, so if you see direct labelling that might be in violation, please edit appropriately. Notice that the long list of possibly related categories is mostly only listed, and not actually used as a category at the bottom. This is another way to avoid problems. They are included as resources, not labels.

As with all new lists and articles, nothing is finished yet, so a premature deletion will be seen as on obvious editorial attempt to suppress possible opposing POV, a practice that is forbidden here. (The job of Misplaced Pages is to present POV, not suppress it!) This list is simply a resource for people studying the resources found at Misplaced Pages. It thus strengthens Misplaced Pages as a resource. Readers can then study for themselves and make up their own minds. -- Fyslee 08:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

May I inquire from Hughgr what your NPOV issues are with this list? As a list it is a compilation of articles that some people consider have something to do with quackery. As a writer about science I find this a fascinating and helpful list. It alerts me to areas that I have not previously considered. It is a valuable resource. The POV/NPOV issues are surely considered in the individual articles and not the list itself. Further, the list includes both (to coin a term) pro-quack and anti-quack articles (sound like a flock of ducks), so I think the list cannot be considered as pushing a POV.Maustrauser 08:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess in a nutshell, who or whom decides what goes on this list. It can be easily perceived as a perjorative. --Hughgr 19:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a valuable tool and resource for reading, investigating, and understanding many different topics on the subject of related in some way to quackery. Editors decide what goes in the article. Discussion is also helpful. On that note, this is a different type of article. This is an article listing. Nothing more. Lists on Misplaced Pages is encouraged. Cheers, --QuackGuru 20:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It is literally, a very POV list. I agree that it is easy to perceive as a perjorative, as well as be utilitarian for editors of a certain persuasion.--I'clast 02:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually for all persuasions, especially if you help build it. It presents material for various POV. Right now any quack can use it to make a case that Barrett is a quack. There is no expression of opinion or POV in relation to any item or name. It's totally neutral and thus couldn't better get closer to the Misplaced Pages ideal of NPOV. The POV occurs when it gets used by the reader. The only shade of POV is the fact that the subjects are considered by some to be related to quackery, but it is not defined in what way they are related. Some persons are historical figures, some are active debunkers, others have been falsely accused, etc.. Please add subjects you feel are related to quackery in some way. If you read the list carefully, using your own POV, you'll find areas of comfort and discomfort, just as I have felt. That's because it contains items from opposing POV. I have personally added many items that only believers in quackery would add, but I have done it for them, simply because I am familiar with their thinking, and realize that they would consider it to be related to the subject. -- Fyslee 02:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Cautionary notes

I have included cautionary notes for editors (that are not visible for readers):

• Extreme caution should be exercised when writing descriptions. Direct labels that could be construed as violating NPOV policy should be avoided. There is no need to label items as quackery, scientific, quacks, debunkers, for or against quackery, etc.. Let readers decide for themselves.

Feel free to edit them to make sure we avoid NPOV problems and edit wars. Quacks and their promoters will take a whole arm if we give them a finger. By avoiding direct POV labeling, we can avoid problems and have Misplaced Pages policies as our support. -- Fyslee 10:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not working for me. Can you show me where lists are treated differently than articles from a NPOV perspective? When you label entire categories as "related" to Quackery, you are making a statement whether that was your intention or not.

The other consideration is the subjective nature of the definition of quackery. Anything can be related to quackery, particularly in a capatalistic advertising society where the one that advertises the most (i.e. quacks the loudest) wins. Where do you draw the line? Unfortunately, I don't consider psychotherapy quackery, nor medicine, and I wouldn't put them on a list of quackery items, but if the line is low enough to include chiropractic and acupuncture, it begins to include significant others, including physical therapy, cholesterol and heart attacks, immunizations, etc. IOWs, there is a lot of gray out there - draw the line too low and it will be easier to list the things that are not quackery. --Dematt 15:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

First as you stated above anything can be related to quackery,..., so you do agree with the article. Second, where do you draw the line? Simple. The first paragraph has a strong disclaimer. It cleary explains to the reader to decide and draw their own conclusions to each specific article which has, however remote, a relation to quackery regardless of how minute. Third, some people may not consider a certain subject as related to quackery but some people do. You are entitled to your own personal opinion though. Forth, the list is an extremely educational tool to resource many different subject matters that would be impossible without this article listing. Don't forget the reader is not a puppet and can easily draw and decide their own beliefs. --QuackGuru 19:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with the article in its present form. That is not to say that you may be able to adjust it in such a way that might work for me, but as it stands right now, the lead does not satisfy my concerns. In its present form, the list can include everything that anyone calls quackery - including things that most consider modern medical science, and before someone started to add them, we should consider talking it through so none of us waste our time. --Dematt 21:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinions again. You have not demonstrated what is wrong with the lead paragraph. The article list does not have to satisfy your personal beliefs. We must adhere to Wiki guidlines only which has already has been done. However, you are entitled to your opinion. We do not need to waste time talking about things which you have not demonstrated what is wrong. Please explain specifically what "Wiki Rule" has been violated or desist. At the risk of repeating myself, their is a "strong disclaimer" paragraph at the top which clearly explains the "List of articles related to quackery". Thanks. --QuackGuru 21:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Your absolutely right. Lets start here:

• references for list members

Surely, what is listed depends on what is said in the 'mother' article? If the article on psychotherapy (for example) mentions that it is contentious because there is some evidence that it doesn't work, then it can be included in the list. If the 'mother' article does not mention the subject being contentious then it isn't included. Equally, groups that exist to combat quackery are clearly included because they self-declare themselves to be anti-quackery. I don't see this to be difficult at all. The battles over NPOV should take place at the article level, not the list level. Maustrauser 21:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The mother article is where readers will read specifically about each topic. The lead paragraph at this "list" clearly explains the facts. Pleaae explain specifically (Dematt) what needs improvement or cease and desist. Thanks, --QuackGuru 21:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you could argue that contentious = quackery, but I don't think it will fly. If you pushed the "mother article has to mention quackery", then maybe you might have something, but even that is borderline and I don't think anybody would be condemned for taking their pet subject off the list on that basis. So that leaves us with discussing Quackery right here on this page in a NPOV manner with each presented member of the list noted with verifiable and reliable sources.

So first, as per references for list members, the lead has to describe who is on the list specifically. We need to have a clear definition of those that get to be on the list and why something would end up there. Scientific skeptics, debunkers, etc., are all "general" weasel words that won't do as sources. With the list that we are trying to build, especially with the contentiousness of the title of this article, we have to have specific sources that make the specific claim, preferably verifiable online by a reliable source, peer reviewed being the best and then dropping down to plain opinion by some competitor or something. Otherwise, anyone can take anything off the list they want at any time. Make sense?

BTW QuackGuru, I'm trying to save your article, or I could cease and desist as you have requested. It doesn't matter to me. I think if we work together, we might be able to get something that works, but it needs to meet WP guidelines.--Dematt 01:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way? I have noticed you continue to attack the article list but fail to explain specifically what you think does not meet WP guidlines. So, please explain what you think needs improving or see you around. --QuackGuru 01:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"WP guidelines" like? Shot info 01:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Am I the only one that follows links? I'll place it here for you from references for list members.

"Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources, especially in difficult or contentious topics. Beware of those cases in which the definitions themselves are disputed. Many lists on Misplaced Pages have been created without any membership criteria, and editors are left to guess about what or whom should be included only from the name of the list. Even if it might "seem obvious" what qualifies for membership in a list, explicit is better than implicit.

The policy Misplaced Pages:Verifiability states that "articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. Editors should therefore provide references." The responsibility for providing a citation rests "with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain." Inclusion on the list should be based on what reliable sources say, not on what the editor interprets the source to be saying. In the case of edits lacking citations, according to Misplaced Pages:Verifiability:

Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but some editors may object if you remove material without giving people a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, a good idea is to move it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, or tag the article by adding {{not verified}} or {{unsourced}}. Also in that case it may be helpful for your co-editors to leave a clarifying note on the talk page, for instance indicating which sources you already checked. You can also make the unsourced sentences invisible in the article by adding <!-- before the section you want to comment out and --> after it, until reliable sources have been provided. When using this "commenting out" technique it is usually best to leave a clarifying note on the talk page.

However, in lists that involve living persons, the following policy related to Biographies of living persons applies:

Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page. These principles also apply to biographical material about living persons in other articles.

"

You do not have sources for any of your members on the list. --Dematt 01:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

A consequence of following that manner of application (and policies can be applied differently) would create an unnecessary NPOV edit war, leading to deletion of the article, which is probably the intent of some editors. While you wouldn't do that, some would. If we start labeling, then we get into POV problems. If we divide the people up in quacks, debunkers, etc., then we'll have BLP issues as well. We can avoid all those problems by letting the list be a list and letting readers use it as a resource. Right now any quack can use it to make a case that Barrett is a quack. If we also start stating that a therapy or practice is quackery, then the very discussion and provision of documentation will only cause bad publicity for that method. We've seen these kinds of Pyrrhic victory situations here before. The more the objections mount, the more documentation is forthcoming, and the more the subject gets exposed. There is no need for that. It can be done in the articles. -- Fyslee 02:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand this "list" should remain just a stand alone list. Misplaced Pages:Lists (stand-alone lists) - Misplaced Pages, the 💕 --QuackGuru 02:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your courtesy. --Dematt 03:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Passed the smell test

Yikes! This sounds like a Nixon’s enemies list. Or a McCarthy commies list. We will put you on the list because we hate you and you convince us you are not a quack/commie, OK? Placing things on a list that it is labeled Quackery and letting the reader decide is already coloring their perceptions. So that suggestion by QuackGuru, is obviously a bad one.

The problem is that making a list of things that people can’t stand is making a mockery of Misplaced Pages. Why not make up a list of articles that people find refreshing? Please don’t.

Who decides what is quackery? Ex-psychiatrist Stephen Barrett? He flunked his psychiatrist boards and then misrepresented himself as an expert witness in psychiatry (!) in legal matters. (go figure) Yet his website has been placed prominently at the bottom of this “list” as the so-called “clearinghouse” of good taste by Fyslee, former assistant list-master to the hate-master and who has a long personal history of cozy togetherness. See what I mean? A bit self-serving, yes? And, oh yes, the more links to Stephen Barrett Enterprises (Donations gladly accepted!), the more exposure for Fyslee web activities. Way to incestuous and self-serving.

This list has become yet another abuse of Misplaced Pages as link-farm to dubious ‘skeptics’ (a euphemism for hatred) bigot sites. Hey! How about this as a name for this list: A list of things that will likely ultimately lead the reader to one of Stephen Barrett Enterprises hate-sites? (Donations gladly accepted!)

Let’s save us all a lot of time and bad feelings and have a big bonfire with marshmallows and say a few eulogies and voluntary self-delete this questionable activity. Steth 23:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Steth for your edifying additions to this discussion. Maustrauser 23:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

See? Even Maustrauser agrees with me! Any others? Steth 00:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for providing evidence that you haven't even looked at the list very carefully (it covers all sides), since your ad hominem and straw man attacks are off-base, as usual. Please take your personal attacks elsewhere and stop violating wiki policies by treating others with bad faith, and by making false charges. I actually removed a link to Quackwatch, I'm the one who added psychotherapy, and there is no labeling being done here, and no links that benefit me. My activities (practically none) outside of Misplaced Pages are not for you to comment on Misplaced Pages. Your sense of smell is your POV, and your POVpushing suppressionism and deletism of opposing POV (which is not evident in this list, since it covers all sides) is not allowed here. -- Fyslee 00:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

My sincere apologies Steth, but I was being sarcastic. For the record, I do not agree with you. As a science writer I find this list incredibly useful as a resource. It does cover both sides and thus cannot be considered POV. It is the articles themselves where POV battles take place - not a list (I apologise for repeating myself but clearly Steth hasn't read my earlier contributions). Maustrauser 00:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This "list" passes the smell test since all dissenters failed to demonstrate any POV. Their comments only have strengthened the necessity for this list because we now know who the true quacks or should I say the trolls are! --QuackGuru 01:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. A list of topics "related" to the discussion of quackery are just that - related to the discussion of quackery. No one can deny that many of the topics on this list are frequently included in discussions of quackery - therein lies its usefulness as a list on WP. As others have said before me, the list includes a strong disclaimer stating that in no way is WP saying the below items ARE quackery. I don't really see the problem here.--TN | ! 01:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like an end-run & rerun of previously deleted "quacky" sentiments. Here Q-related creates an obvious +1 subjective "heroes" list interspersed with a -1 subjective "goat" list still susceptible to all the ills identified previously. Another QW spamsite and link page hobby horse; AfD, rename or at least more objective accuracy and move to personal subpage.--I'clast 02:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You have failed to explain anything specifically except your trollish behavior. This here is just a list. --QuackGuru 03:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Lists versus categories

The long and bitter controversies that surrounded the Category:Quackery led to the deletion of the category. Why? Because of NPOV issues that can be dealt with in articles, but not in categories:

"Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. A list might be a better option."

A list is "a better option," and that's what we're doing here. By keeping it a bare list, we avoid NPOV issues altogether, yet we have a valuable resource.

More good information can be found here, where the option is "can", not "must":

• Lists

-- Fyslee 02:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying, as well as QuackGuru above concerning lists and stand alone lists as well. However, note that your link to Lists states that guidelines still need to be followed. Also note that each gay or lesbian mentioned on the "example list" has a reference. Stand alone lists still need to follow NPOV convention. It can be done, and has to be done. Remember, the other reason the category Quackery failed was because it was viewed only as a pejorative term used by some as an attack on others. While this list has some built in protection by claiming to include anything without specification, who gets to decide what does not go on the list if we do not use reliable sources? Me, you? We're just editors, we're not allowed to use our knowledge as sources. --Dematt 03:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me speak a little louder this time. This is just a list with a disclaimer at the top. Editors contribute to the list. Enough said. --QuackGuru 03:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No need to yell;) I think you made your point. Thank you for you time. --Dematt 03:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)