Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:59, 13 January 2007

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Multiple Articles, same info

Can the information relating to Stephen Barrett be included at Stephen Barrett or here rather than both? This is in particular to critisms that directly apply to Barrett rather than to Quackwatch. Shot info 02:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This point was somewhat addressed in the RfC on 1, 2 or 3 related articles. A decision to retain three articles is intrinsically a decision to have three stand-alone articles with somewhat varied detail focused on the specific article but substantial intrinsic overlap. Good thing electons aren't heavy.--I'clast 10:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance "RfC"? Also it isn't the electrons are the problem, but the "problem" of having three articles with potentially different information because editors forget, which is makes for rather sloppy work (IHMO). Shot info 07:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment, or here, a merge proposal in late September.

Still doesn't really answer my question, nor cover the repairs of of bad editorial work and not to mention potential for WP:POVFORK. I suppose the Stones state it though "Time, is on our side...yes it is" :-). I'll leave as is. Shot info 22:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

My edits on Criticisms

The people QW complain about obviously will not take kindly to it, right? In order to keep a NPOV, I can't just say that these are just flames, point out the logical fallacies or errors in each, etc. It already gave enough context for many of them to see what the criticism was and what the critic's tone is. I expanded a couple to match, and made sure that it was stated that each critic was responding to a subject exposed on QW. Summarizing the complaints at the top without judging it maintains NPOV. I'm worried that the quoted content is itself not NPOV, but by showing where it's coming from it portrays the issue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Długosz (talk • contribs) 23:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

Ref for Tim Bolen's Quackpotwatch ?

http://www.quackpotwatch.org/ says, "The "quackbuster" (his term for quackwatch) operation is a conspiracy." right at the top of the main page.

Someone deleted the clause summarizing Bolen's position claiming it's not supported by the references. But the link to that is earlier in the same sentence. If someone could clarify the reference, please lets discuss the best way to do this.

Another one on this page was more interesting, and brings up a question. Basically, A criticized B for endorsing C who criticized D for saying X. I added the X. Does that need a reference on an article on B? Does each link in the chain need its own reference?? I thought that a citation for C->D is sufficient. Also, see the main article on D for more info is implied by making D a link.

Suggestions?

—Długosz December 21, 2006

I think this points up the major problem with this page, which is that the "Criticism" section is way out of proportion, perhaps not surprisingly since the majority of involved editors on this page are anti-Quackwatch. There's way too much in the way of lengthy quotes from non-notable anti-Quackwatch types - notice that the "source" for nearly all of this criticism is typically the critic's personal website. I'd prefer to limit criticism to that which comes from reliable sources, or at the very least is not self-published. I mean, by the standards of this page, I could put up a website with a few initials after my name, claim Quackwatch is bogus, and be included as a "critic" and given a huge, disproportionate amount of airtime. There is legitimate criticism of Quackwatch worthy of inclusion, but it's hidden among all of these non-notable, self-published screeds. Further, there's absolutely no reason to go beyond "A criticized B " in your above schematic. Discussing Wilk vs. AMA is really inappropriate for an article on Quackwatch. This isn't a referendum on alternative medicine. It's a supposedly neutral, encyclopedic article about a Website. MastCell 19:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

When dealing with Bolen we run into a problem that has been addressed here at Misplaced Pages so severely as to get his article deleted (in spite of my objections) and his website considered so unreliable as to be unworthy of use in any situation here at Misplaced Pages. It simply fails all Misplaced Pages rules for websites used as sources or External links. The only exception allowed by the rules here is in an article about himself, if it existed. We have made exceptions in the cases where the link is to a court document not found elsewhere. The rest of his site is totally unsourced speculation and conspiracy theories stated as concrete fact, yet which he has admitted under deposition were "euphemism". -- Fyslee 19:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The criticism of this highly critical website is limited to less than half of this article. Proportionality is on a per article basis. Let's not forget that Quackwatch is highly critical, and backlash to their criticism can only be expected and is entirely notable and relevant to this article. We must represent all notable POV on this subject. I agree about Wilk. I quashed that whole section. It only seemed tangenetially relevant to this article. I agree that Bolen is not the best source, but his opinion of Quackwatch is highly notable and very public. So long as his "euphemisms" are pointed out as such and his statements are denoted as claims though, there shouldn't be much argument about leaving his criticisms here. Levine2112 19:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree we need to represent all notable POV's, and I'm not arguing that we should remove the section on "Criticism" of Quackwatch. The question is really how notable many of these critical sources are. It's appopriate to mention that there are numerous critics, with footnotes to the relevant self-published websites, but the inclusion of significant excerpts of criticism in the body of the article itself should have a higher standard - one which, presently, only Kauffman, Chowka, and Goldberg meet. MastCell 20:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I would add Cranton and Sahelian to taht list as well. They are both MDs. Cranton is a Harvard Medical grad, has served as Cheif of Staff at U.S. Public Health hospital, and served as the editor-in-chief in a number of medical journals. Sahleian, unlike Barrett, is a board certified physician, has appeared on NBC Today, NBC Nightly News, CBS This Morning, Dateline NBC, and CNN, quoted in Newsweek, Modern Maturity, Health, USA Today, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, and Le Monde, and has sold over a million books translated into a number of languages globally. These aren't small-timers and their criticism of Quackwatch should not be discounted. This leaves only Bolen, who - while I agree is not a great source - is notable for his highly public grievances with Quackwatch... he runs "QuackWatchWatch" after all. I certainly think that Bolen's statements should be qualified enough so that the reader knows that they are dealing with pure opinion. Levine2112 20:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that the issue isn't so much Cranton/Sahelian's MD degrees or board certification, or even how many shows have interviewed Sahelian. The issue is reliable sources, and both of their criticisms appear to be sourced to their own self-published websites. My feeling is that we should have some standards for which criticisms quoted at length in the body of the article. Right now, if I were to start a website listing my degrees and credentials and criticizing Quackwatch, I'd apparently meet the bar for inclusion in the body of the article - and that seems wrong. But these are my 2 cents; if no one else agrees, I can accept consensus. MastCell 21:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Using that reason, we could say that techically most of Quackwatch is self-published by Barrett and thus not usable. I think it is one thing if it is a personal site and another thing if it is a professional site. I would argue that Cranton's and Sahelian's (and even Barrett's) are of the latter kind. Levine2112 23:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I support Sahelian and Cranton as professionally, conventionally well qualified, with remarks that illuminate both the subject and the different perspectives from other, notable impacted groups that claim biologically based therapies. We should only replace them with material that improves the perspective or slot for similar space. Bolen is of course loudest, and presented in such short form, perhaps more of an image asset for QW, but he is notable.--I'clast 03:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Is the article about Barrett or Quackwatch?

1. Ray Sahelian B.Sc (nutrition), M.D. and Board certified in Family Medicine, is the author of health related books, including Natural Sex Boosters, an expert in nutrition and a proponent of supplements, asks: "Why has Stephen Barrett, M.D. focused most of his attention on the nutritional industry and has hardly spent time pointing out the billions of dollars wasted each year by consumers on certain prescription and non-prescription pharmaceutical drugs?"
2. Peter Barry Chowka, journalist and a former adviser to the National Institutes of Health's Office of Alternative Medicine, has said that Barrett "seems to be putting down trying to be objective."
3. Timothy Patrick ( Tim ) Bolen is the webmaster of Quackpot Watch, a website that challenges Barrett's views on Alternative Medicine. Shot info 05:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Here are some answers: Articles about Barrett and Quackwatch are largely the same because essentially Quackwatch is a one-man operation, and that man is Barrett. Barrett focuses attention on fraudulent aspects of alternative medicine instead of problems in the pharmaceutical industry because lots of others (e.g., Marcia Angell, Sidney Wolfe) are focusing attention on the pharmaceutical industry, and no one else is willing to be publicly critical of fraud in the alternative medicine and "nutraceutical" industries. Barrett does not seem to the rest of the world to be "putting down being objective"-- just to those whose scams or unsupportable claims he punctures. Bolen is the paid mouthpiece of one of the worst frauds in the alt med business-- to most of us, his slanderous opinions aren't worth 2 cents and I expect he will change them tomorrow if someone employs him to attack someone else. Putting his opinions in this article is like putting a paid political attack ad into an article about a politician as if it were completely reliable and unbiased information. alteripse 05:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Barrett does not seem to the rest of the world to be "putting down being objective"-- just to those whose scams or unsupportable claims he punctures. Pure pov opinion, if not insulting. We've presented independent references that clearly show limitations to Barrett's objectivity as well as "factuality, fairness and scientific currency". "..doesn't seem to...world" indicates a great need to fill an information vacuum for such a less well-informed part of the world.--I'clast 07:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Ad hominem Criticism

Most of the criticism listed is just ad hominems, so do we really need five or six quotes saying basically the same thing? Also, is there any substantive criticism? That is, something that disagrees with some argument or fact put forward on the site and says *why* its wrong instead of just saying that they disagree? --Havermayer 16:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Kauffman is quite analytical, Goldberg offers a counterview and an observation; Sahelian questions QW/SB proportionality, bias & notes his perception of QW attitudinal bias; Cranton perceives QW bias toward the "existing medical monopoly" and directly challenges QW's accuracy toward his area; Chowka questions SB(QW) objectivity and give PBC's descriptive view. These views represent views of some substantially knowledgeable & credentialed participants in conventional science & medicine, as well as altmed, that speak for the concerns of many others that observe problems and disagree. That's neither ad hom nor "most".--I'clast 11:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

That's it though. All that the criticism in the article is that QW is biased. That is is still an ad hominem, since QW could be incredibly biased yet 100% correct (ie being biased isn't the same as being wrong). So its really just a red herring. You only really need a sentence or two to summarize the view that certain people think that the site is biased. The type of criticism that needs to be there is "Quackwatch makes claim X, claim X is wrong because reasons A, B, and C". In other words, substantive criticism that actually means something. --Havermayer 02:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a 100+ page proposal for the article. Kauffman (MIT, PhD & prof emeritus) spends 37 pages on just 8 QW articles doing exactly that. A partial discussion, discussing gross errors & bias on Vitamin C (& E) analyses for respiratory illness alone, an internationally recognized, conventional researcher ("authority") takes 143 pages for reviewing mainstream tests and bungled analyses under 6 grams per day orally (interesting doses are reported as ~ 30 grams - 300 grams/days, orally or IV). I don't recommend or suggest such an article length because almost no one will read it - you apparently haven't read Kauffman, the skeptic's 37 page paper.---I'clast 21:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Once we decide to make this article encyclopedic, then yes we should summarize it all into a sentence or two. --Ronz 17:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Havermayer, I agree, though I didn't express it as well as you just did. The problem is, how can you say something like that in the article and still be NPOV? My solution was to make it clear that every criticism listed was noted as being from someone who would naturally take exception to what was advanced by the site. I couldn't figure out how to work in that those arguments are various logical fallacies. Perhaps you can give a try at improving the paragraph introducing the criticisms? The only thing resembling a reasoned argument is in the previous section (and it has the very features he's complaining about, ironically). —Długosz 02:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you read & analyze the Kauffman paper and email him (he gives his email address and sounds like a skeptic that would give a brief answer or more if one doesn't waste his time.)--I'clast 21:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'clast, I was only referring to the criticism in the article. In the article, the ad hominem criticism are excessive. An ad hominem fallacy does not have to be "Steven Barret is an idiot!". Its simply whenever one criticizes the one making the claim in some way, while ignoring the claim itself. What I propose is that this is removed, and in its place, reference to specific counter claims (like you made reference to) are put in. Any criticism of those counter claims could then be made reference to as well. --Havermayer 19:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The primary weakness that I can see is with Bolen's treatment. Bolen is notable for his outspoken pervasiveness, volume, collation of (partisan) criticism, and political counterattack on QW/SB/NCAHF based on civil rights, NOT his being an independent technical or professional perspective as possibly might be assumed in a vacuum reading this article.

Professionally /technically qualified critics that may be said to be roughly representative of whole market segments of Barrett's targets or impacted population *need* summarization or indicative notes. Selected critics certainly have a place (e.g. Sahelian as a natural medicine version MD commenting) and, they or better, should have a voice in this article. Barrett has issued numerous attacks and challenges on whole professions and health market segments, these critics' paragraphs contain brief challenges, reflections on, and assessments of Barrett's validity from other perspectives. Limited references to independent rebuttals (non-QW/SB) & reviews of his critics as discrete, non interefering hyperlinks certainly are a thought. Otherwise, without very brief critics' indicative perspectives, this article just says, "Steve is Right"

Of course something to consider is that Kauffman was able to draw on his position of PhD & Prof Emeritus (etc. etc.) and how he is held in high esteem (etc. etc.) to only publish his analysis in what really is a fringe journal held in relatively low regard (regardless of CSI's listing on their links) by the scientific community. Of course if Kauffman was perhaps held in higher regard, or rather his opinion was better considered, then his debunking of his detractors would be eagerly sought after. The fact that Kauffman was not able to feel that he could publish his report in the presence of his peers is damning. Shot info 10:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Kauffman's criticism clearly is "not suitable" for the well-rewarded journals of Madison Avenue. Yes, it's damning and we are damned. Such a shot at Kauffman misses, it's whether you can publish in the presence of the advertisers. In case you missed them, a few samples of why this is so: .--I'clast 22:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this is more a sample of bait and switch. Try answering the question(s) and discussion point(s). Shot info 23:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it's straight answer focused on the non peer problems of publication, also WP:AGF. You seem to be wholly ignorant of how money flows and corrupts the media and the medical industry in America. Also for topical treatment would JAMA, NEJM even want to carry a specific dissection of controversial retirees? Probably not. Science, Nature? No.--I'clast 23:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think you will find that I am more aware of this perception of corruption that what you are saying (and you even had the gall to through in a AGF as well *LOL*). But I am of the inclination that it isn't as bad as what the conspiracy theorists would like us all to believe. Of course, I don't live in the US at the moment, so I have the advantage of realising that the world isn't the US and conspiracy theories tend to break down when you involve more people than the entire US government :-). Occams Razor is a suitable starting point. I must admit though, that your particular conspiracy theory only as two "industries", media and medical. Come on, you can shove a few more in there :-) Shot info 00:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I would venture to say that a website called Quack Watch, which labels a slew of people as "Quacks" most of the time without explanation should expect the same sort of ad hominem treatment sent back their way. You reap what you sew, you know. Anyhow, that's why I think that the criticisms listed on this article are well within reason (and mostly justified). Saying that the site suffers from confirmation bias or limits it scope to alternative therapies is hardly as ad hominem as calling a person a quack. Levine2112 18:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

And I would venture to agree with you. However the article is about QW, and the creditability of the critics that editors of WP are adding to WP. Dredging up all sorts of information that resides in obscure journals and from dubious sources just smacks of desperation to find something...just something to agree with your POV (ie/ "You reap what you sow"). The fact is, when journal authors know that their paper is bound to be rejected by their peers, they seek out organisations that are less vigilante. The fact that Kauffman with his lettered credentials is desperate enough to have his paper published in a journal with a low threshold of review (and scientific acceptability) is enough to scream that it is not worth the paper it is written on. But "You reap what you sow". When you only sow in obscure journals and wikipedia it seems. Remember, people are defending Kauffman's opinion here in this talk page, I'm pointing out that even Kauffman is not confident in his own paper by publishing through the SSE. If he was held in the regard by his peers as editors of WP seem to regard him, then there are lots of other journals it could have been published though. I like the weasel words used to jusify the JSE though... Shot info 22:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree Shot, they seek...less vigilante

That is a strawman argument. We can't pretend to know what Kauffman's rationale was for choosing a journal for his paper's publication. I would think that the one that he chose (or which chose him, for all we know) is quite appropriate for the subject matter. Have you considered that his analysis might have been published else where as well? The truth is, we don't know. That you feel that the editor who included this did so as an act of despeartion is just your opinion. But know this: if you want to find criticism for Quackwatch, it isn't very hard to find. I am not defending Kauffman's research, just the right to have it displayed as a valid criticism of Quackwatch. Levine2112 22:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually it isn't a strawman, it is valid for the purposes of the discussions in this section of the talk page principally about Kauffman's publication (and it's validity to WP). If criticism isn't hard to find, then why is Kauffmans the most prominent in terms of the article? Putting dubiously sourced material is in itself dubious don't you think? Have you considered how scientific publications actually work? Normally republication in other journals is a no-no (happens, but organisations are quick to hang onto their claim to fame). So your comment there is a strawman in itself. Also my comment about editors sourcing dubious “information” is valid and a common source of angst throughout wikipedia. The fact that editor(s) need to provide such dubious sources, as opposed to you saying “it isn’t hard to find” gives the impression that these dubious sources are better for the point they are attempting to articulate. Which leads to other editors saying “why” (hence this topic in this talkpage, your blanket dismissal is odd...). And I think my POV of wanting to improve sources is a little bit more in the spirit of wikipedia that “you reap what you sow"... Shot info 22:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It is your POV that it is a "dubious" publication and you still have no idea why Kauffman chose (or if the journal chose) to publish his research there. Claiming that he had no other choice or that he couldn't get it published elsewhere is a strawman argument. I agree that we should add more sources of criticism from equal or better sources. That isn't what we are discussing here. And "you reap what you sow" was directed at the kind of criticism Quackwatch has gotten. In my POV (and other people's as well), Quackwatch is a very "dubious" source of information. You can't argue that they slap the "quack" label on people and organizations without explaining why and that their critical articles are wrought with confirmation bias. Bottomline, Kauffman provides a very valid criticism that meets WP:V and WP:RS. Levine2112 23:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is more correct to say that the SSE are a fringe organisation, after all this is what the general scientific community regards them as. So if this is POV, then it is POV. Personally I think it is NPOV, as it states what they are. And as I have repeatedly stated, QW deserves a criticism section. However you seem to insist that the criticism sections of QW (and Barrett-land in general) makes up a significant proportion of the article. This is the point I continuously articulate. Criticism is valid and pertinent, but not at the expense of the overall article. Dubious criticism, or criticism for the sake of criticism needs to be improved. The fact is, with criticism that are in the article it makes QW a better source that what your "reap what you sow" approach ends up with (ie/ QW seem to be winning the “I’ve been published in better journals” battle). Now Kauffman's article does NOT meet the overall spirit of WP:RS, WP wants , Misplaced Pages relies heavily upon the established literature created by scientists, scholars and researchers around the world and The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals. The fact that the SSE is regarded as "fringe" by the scientific community affects all of us in WP, because WP doesn't want to be fringe and articulates itself as such. The real bottom line is, let’s get better criticism. After all, it is everywhere out there... Shot info 23:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Kauffman's work and SSE, well identified, stand on their own merits, respectively. You are welcome to add better criticisms, of course.--I'clast 23:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I had an editing conflict, but I'clast, you took the words out of mouth. Thanks. And Shot, with all due respect, your argument above about Kauffman being resigned to publish in JSE despite his Phd, etc... remains a strawman. Will you concede that? Levine2112 23:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I had the same conflict and my PC trashed my response :-(

1. Levine, just because you think it's a strawman, doesn't make it so. Have explained why and I'm not interested in why you need me to aquiase to it?
2. Again I have pointed out why it isn't a RS. Now, what I suggest is that rather than leading the critism section, a intro for critism is made, and the overly long Kauffman article is added with the "other critism" section and the "other critism" lable is removed making it all critism. Of course, I can discuss this here with you both as I did above, or I can just make the changes as you both seem not interested in discussing...Shot info 00:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a strawman argument, but if you are not willing to concede that, so be it. I can move on. JSE meets WP:RS and WP:V and so does Joel Kauffman PhD. I really like the way the criticism section is put together now, but that being said, there is always room for improvement. If you find better criticism from sources which you deem to be more reliable please feel entirely welcome to add it and/or discuss it here with me. I am not at as stubborn as you are making me out to be above. Levine2112 00:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Sighh strawman for others reviewing this later to make up their own mind. I do think you are stubborn inasmuch as you are quick to slap a lable on something (strawman anybody) without actually responding to the pertinent question, which was (going back lots of words) "The fact that Kauffman was not able to feel that he could publish his report in the presence of his peers is damning" (ie/ damning of Kauffman's article). I'clast dismissed this outright (then launched into conspiracy theories which in my mind dissmissing him/her from any input) while you believe it is RS and V. V, I agree with RS, no. However I am not going to delete, but I intend to modify and remove the unnecessary weasel words and it's prominance in the critism section (ie/ why is Kauffman's so prominant????) Shot info 00:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

And right there is your strawman argument. You say: The fact that Kauffman was not able to feel that he could publish his report in the presence of his peers is damning" (ie/ damning of Kauffman's article). How do you know how Kauffman was feeling? You are making a version of Kauffman who felt he couldn't present his report to his peers and then attacking that version of Kauffman. That is precisely example of what a strawman argument is. For all we know, Kauffman regards JSE highly and was very happy indeed to be published there. Perhaps his sister is sleeping with someone at JSE and called in a favor. WE DON'T KNOW! So don't create a fictional reality which you can attack. Levine2112 02:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

There is one thing I do know, if you want scientific credibility, you publish in scientific credible journals. If you don't you end up with the questions I am pointing out. It isn't a strawman argument. The exact reasons of why Kauffman selected this journal are irrelevant, the fact is he did and hence the credibility of the paper is questioned. This isn’t a fictional reality, it's reality. Hence why WP:RS says Misplaced Pages relies heavily upon the established literature created by scientists, scholars and researchers around the world and The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals (which I have pointed out previously). Shot info 02:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You say JSE is not credible. That is your opinion. CSISOP thinks they are credible and even did Quackwatch before this damning research was put out by JSE. Furthermore, Quackwatch itself is even less credible than JSE and yet Quackwatch is cited all over Misplaced Pages. Levine2112 02:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

...why is Kauffman's so prominant????) Shot info 00:18, 12 January 2007

Kauffman's analyses include the most detailed and highly referenced specific criticisms presented so far.--I'clast 00:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

And have you completely cross referenced it yourself. Or are you relying in good faith that the author is accurate? Shot info 00:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You are inviting my OR?!? Shot, you are free to add a reference footnote that meets WP:V, RS, BLP about Kauffman or his article.--I'clast 00:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Shot, until this very article, SSE was a recommended skeptic organization listed with Barrett's own CSICOP, as shown earlier here. This dialogue reminds me of a humorous movie that many saw:

Fletcher: Your honor, I object!

Judge:Why? Fletcher: Because it's devastating to my case!

Judge: Overruled. Fletcher: Good call! -I'clast 00:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Now you are really clutching at a straws. It is buried on the CSI's link page under a heading. So what? Since when does this make the SSE less of a fringe organisation to the general scientific community? Levine should have something to say about that... :-) Shot info 00:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I do have something to say. That CSICOP recommends JSE only adds to JSE credibility and hence WP:RS. Levine2112 02:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Or the CSI even... Because the CSI has a link to them, does this mean they are not a fringe organsiation? Shot info 02:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Now you're catching on. Levine2112 02:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should have a look at the link underneath then to the Journal of Scientific Exploitation and let me know how credible it is since it has the same credibility status as you have ascribed to JSE :-) Shot info 04:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Your responses seem in denial as well as dismissive. Conspiracy theories? Nah, unfortunately common commercial consideration(s).--I'clast 00:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Pot, kettle, black. Shot info 00:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Shot, real scientific assessment examines the evidence and the logic, not the quality of the paper that it is printed on. Old brand names are often for expensive reassurance of the fearful, less discerning masses, that frequently are disappointed when the management changes...The subject here is not me or thee.--I'clast 01:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

What my problem is, when you have finished with the grandstanding, is that you and I (and everybody else) have no way of accurately assuming the content of any paper, unless we reduplicate it's results (or analysis in the case of Kauffman). We take it on good faith that the author(s) are being accurate. However when an author publishes a paper through less well recognized organisations, assuming good faith becomes harder. This is why I don't think that Kauffman's criticism’s should be given the prominence that it has (remember, I'm not interested in Kauffman at all, I'm interested in improving this QW article). I can assume bad faith about Kauffman, in fact I am forced to because I don't have the time to fully investigate his analysis, because he has not published his information in a truly reliable journal (of course, none are “truly” reliable but clearly some are “better” than others). Since he is very well credentialed, normally one can argue "Well he's a PhD etc. etc." but unfortunately we have at the same time "Barrett is an MD but..." etc. etc (ie/ does my PhD beat your MD??). So we only have the quality of where the information is sourced from. And SSE is circumspect (which is why I suspect the weasel words after JSE have been placed there). To reiterate (again), I'm not interested in removing the criticism but you have to give me my due, I have been campaigning long and hard to make the articles about the subject, not about people who the subject upset, and yes, critism is valid but it is not an article about the critism of the subject, it is about the subject. Shot info 01:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a skeptic's article in a skeptic journal about the skeptical shortcomings of other putative skeptics' works. You expect NEJM, Time or WSJ?? Kauffman's analyses are about QW's very essence, 8 of its dated, widely believed, sometimes not-so-accurate polemics.--I'clast 01:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Now who is being dismissive? Kauffman's analyses are published in an obscure, dubious journal. Hence without cross checking his analysis, it is nigh impossible to say that he is correct. It is minimally peer reviewed (if at all) and because of JSE's very obscurity chances are it will never be formally reviewed. So, is it accurate? Who knows? We certainly don't. Enough has been Talkpaged, will play with some sandboxing and make the changes. Shot info 01:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Not dismissive, word-by-word literal and descriptive--I'clast

Have you actually read Kauffman's paper?--I'clast 01:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I found it to be quite articulate, well referenced and quite easy to read. However it reads with the flavour of a "letter" to a journal rather than an actual journal "article" (IMHO due to a lack of over-the-top-jargon mainly). However my reading of the paper is largely irrelevant to the facts that I have pointed out above. Shot info 02:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"...well referenced..." Which lends itself nicely to WP:RS. Levine2112 02:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

And because the document is published in a fringe journal, without double checking all the references, we cannot be certain they are correct. Points I have made earlier. And something WP:RS states, which I also pointed out. Shot info 02:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You are calling it "fringe". JSE is entirely peer reviewed and passed WP:RS with flying colors. Levine2112 03:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that Shot is trying to argue that JSE, a skeptic's journal, needs to be a recognized medical journal, when I am quite sure that if QW, a skeptic site that has been publicly doubted as to some pseudoskeptical lapses, tried to get any of the 8 articles Kauffman reviewed published in a medical journal, the article would die a horrible death or cause another scandal.--I'clast 03:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Is JSE a skeptics journal? Prehaps it may have been. However to answer the other strawman (quick Levine) the article is about QW. Since Levine has problems with QW being cited, I am surprised that I'clast is not recommending that she improve the article(s). You two make a good tag team. Shot info 04:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you feel that you have been tagged as "it" too many times tonight? QW is frequently but erroneously cited as a reliable source of facts when, it is at best a source of sentiment. Sorry, that is what happens when authors allow their "science" articles to become "contaminated with incomplete data, obsolete data, technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo". One more correction. As I recently said before, I'm a "he". I think that Levine is a "he", also.--I'clast 04:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"The Society for Scientific Exploration, sponsor of the panel, is not a "mainstream" scientific organization. Instead, it is a group inclined toward belief in paranormal phenomena, albeit one with many scientists among its membership. This could have been easily determined by any reporter who would have taken the trouble to peruse their Web site (www.jse.com), or to interview them meaningfully. For the past eleven years, the Journal of Scientific Exploration been publishing articles suggesting that at least some paranormal claims are true, and have been verified scientifically. On the SSE Web site are found papers purporting to demonstrate that dowsing has been verified, that young chicks have psychokinetic powers, and that reincarnation is not only verified, but that past lives are often indicated by the presence of birthmarks. The Web site proclaims the journal's intention to publish supposedly scientific papers on "UFO and related phenomena, clairvoyance, precognition, telepathy, psychokinesis, out-of-body and near-death experiences, cryptozoology, evidence suggestive of reincarnation, alternative medical practices, astrological claims, ball lightning, crop circles, apparent chemical or biological transmutation (alchemy), etc." Despite the impressive jargon and in some cases the impressive academic degrees of the authors, these papers have been absolutely unconvincing to mainstream scientific journals and organizations, and, far from pointing the way to further research, they have been quite deliberately ignored." .

& apologies to Levine if she is a he (and/or vice-versa). Shot info 04:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again...

Please stick to the Kauffman paper, please, rather than the endless Kauffman=JSE attack. You are re-opening a can of worms that was addressed and agreed at much greater length September 20 - Oct 20. We gave Fyslee & co a certain amount of slack on the upper portion of the article and have tolerated de-emphasized parts of Kauffman's analyses to their favor. You have not touched that consensus, nor do I recommend that you start such a time sink. Shot, I suggest that you read through the notes & edits, first. It is not pleasant to rewrite discussions just because someone didn't read the priors. The Kauffman article was generally recognized by all as different in nature & scope - whether to even call it present it as criticism was a lengthy discussion. Change is not going to be that simple, or limited, the Criticism related area has been cut a lot already. You are re-opening the upper article, too, to the loss of time for many, in order to attack the most academically analytical paper *about* QW, period.--I'clast 07:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)