Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:05, 7 December 2007

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

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

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

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

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

Template:TrollWarning

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

Archives
Archive 1 - Oct '06 Archive 2 Oct '06 Archive 3 Oct '06 - Dec '06 Archive 4 Dec '06 - Jan '07 Archive 5 Jan '07 - Feb '07 Archive 6 Mar '07 (Some Jul '07) Archive 7 Apr '07 - Jul '07 Archive 8 Jul '07 - Aug '07 Archive 9 Sep '07 -

Criticism section

None of the people doing the criticism are notable, and all of it, save the random chelation supporter being given undue weight, comes from ONE article in the non-Reliable Source "Village Voice" (An alternative tabloid article with obvious strong biases for alternative medicine?) You can do far better than that. Provide decent, well-sourced criticism from notable people. I'm sure you can find something. Adam Cuerden 17:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The fundamental problem is that no intelligent, reliable people disagree with the basic mission of Quackwatch. The few critics are defenders of fraud, or have a general attitude and agenda that "scientific medicine is bad" and any stick, no matter how dishonest or irrelevant, is good enough to beat it with. alteripse 18:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

"No intelligent reliable people disagree?". In my opinion, this is a glorification of what Quackwatch does and a misrepresentation of Steven Barrett's critics, many of whom are credentialed, respected physicians. User:Hopping 21:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we could quote a reliable source discussing the attacks on the site in a neutral, balanced way that doesn't presume, say, that promoters of possibly dangerous medical frauds are, in fact, right. (I mean, sheesh, Chelation therapy? That's killed people.) Or, I don't know, Deepak Chopra or Hulda Clark or something, if we can make the criticism balanced with other sources. Didn't the Scientologists try and sue them? Adam Cuerden 18:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes: - that's not really a reliable source, but if we could find information on it from a better source, we could use it. Adam Cuerden 18:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think I've made it more-or-less neutral, using notable or notablish sources. Adam Cuerden 19:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the Village Voice is generally a reliable source for Misplaced Pages purposes. It is probably the single best-known "alternative" weekly in the U.S. It does have a reasonable process of fact-checking and editorial oversight. I'm not aware of an institutional bias on the part of the Village Voice against mainstream medicine or in favor of alternative medicine; for example, they did an excellent series examining the AIDS-denialist movement and the 2000 International AIDS Conference fiasco. The Ladd piece in question is clearly an opinion piece, but I think the source itself is reliable enough to use with appropriate attribution (as opposed to most of the others). MastCell 19:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. But it's kind of awkward to use opinion pieces like that. Eh, well, how it's used is probably good enough.

Heh. Forgive me. I was just writing from the Simple English wikipedia. That really can do your head in, trying to describe complex issues in really easy language. Adam Cuerden 20:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I basically agree with MastCell on this one. We need to be careful not to delete all criticism or exclude it because it comes from critical sources. That doesn't make any sense at all and would be a misapplication of policies. Even sources that we and the whole scientific and medical community would universally consider "unreliable" sources of information can still qualify as Misplaced Pages V & RS examples of critical and fringe opinion. That is after all what we do here - we document opinions, not truth. They just need proper attribution as mentioned above. At the same time it would be desirable to see real examples of serious criticism in the section instead of the typical (99.9999% of all the criticism - the internet is huge!) straw man, libelous personal attacks and conspiracy theories, without any real rebuttals. (Fortunately the worst is gone.) We don't need junk criticism, we need seriously well reasoned criticism. It may still be unreliable and fringe stuff, since they are pretty much the only ones who criticize Barrett and Quackwatch, but at least it can be used without risk of BLP violations or misuse of Misplaced Pages to sell their quack agendas.

I have for a long time now (months) been seeing alot of such misapplication of policies and have let those involved discuss it, hoping to see some kind of brilliant arguments from both sides, but I'm getting tired of seeing it happen. I just don't want to get too involved in these discussions and MastCell has jumped in at the right moment. Thanks for that. I hope you do it more often. Some people seem to think that because I'm relatively silent I agree with all the deletions. No, I definitely don't agree all the time. Some skeptics are going too far, but that doesn't mean I totally agree with the arguments being used by the other side either.

NOTE to Skeptics: Please beware - criticism of Barrett and Quackwatch obviously comes from critical and unreliable sources (by normal standards). That's life, and some of it must be included. -- Fyslee/talk 21:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but these were particularly bad sources. I've managed to find more notable ones, and phrase it more neutrally. My complaint was not that there was a criticisam section, but that it was a really bad criticism sction. Adam Cuerden 21:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Court Cases

Can we compile a list of the suits that "Quackwatch" and Barrett have been a part of? We could list them on this site, at least the notable ones. User:Hopping 22:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The lawsuits were by Barrett, not Quackwatch, and are correctly listed there. Only one case I've looked up is currently ongoing, a federal suit similar to Barrett v. Rosenthal. The pre-Tim Bolen suits are not currently covered, but I'm aware of at least one (anyone remember it?) Cool Hand Luke 22:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know anything about Harrison v. Barrett, Botnick, Quackwatch ? Is that case ongoing?User:Hopping 22:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, Quackwatch is not a legal entity separate from NCAHF (but I could be wrong) just publishes information, so the only relevant court cases would suits concerning specifically what was written on Quackwatch. I don't believe there are any. --Ronz 23:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

We have "been there and done that" a long time ago. The cases are related to Barrett and one is related to NCAHF. Those matters have long since been dealt with on those articles. -- Fyslee/talk 04:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Is the Negrete case listed below the same as the one listed here? Is this info at all reliable? Does anyone have sourced information for these other cases? Obviously the one most relevant here are ones where Quackwatch is actually listed as a defendant, not just Barret. Also, which of these cases is discussed on Quackwatch and/or involves activities related to the site?User:Hopping 06:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is the Koren case. The reliability question hinges on the source. It is hosted on an adversarial site and both Bolen and Negrete are big adversaries of Barrett who are employed by (or have supported) a number of persons who have either been convicted of crimes or accused of such. Most have usually run afoul of the law, the FDA, the FTC, etc., without any prior involvement by Barrett. He usually just reports the cases and then they attack him personally for doing so. Some names that have been published in this connection are Kurt Donsbach, Hulda Clark, Tim Bolen, Stuart M. Suster, Douglas Phillips, Robban Sica, David Steenblock, and Eleazar M. Kadile. Bolen has been involved in these cases, and Negrete in some of them. Right now Negrete is dealing with Donsbach's latest losses in Mexico, where his Hospital Santa Monica has been closed yet again by the authorities. (These sources are V & RS for expansion of the Donsbach article here.) Quackwatch would not normally be named as a defendant in cases since it is the author of what is written that gets sued, not the website. Some of the cases are reported and discussed at Quackwatch or at CaseWatch, where court documents and depositions can be found. I have linked several of them above, and at the bottom of those pages you will usually find many more references which make very interesting reading. This is typical of Quackwatch articles, especially those written by Barrett. There is one current case which is of unknown status and therefore we can't write about it here, and that is the relatively new Harrison case which names Barrett, Botnick, and Quackwatch. It involves material written by Botnick that was hosted at Quackwatch. Of course it will be Barrett, and not Quackwatch, who will have to answer for that. When the case progresses further and we know if it will fly or not, we might be able to find V & RS that report it in an unbiased manner. If and when that happens, then we can mention it here. Some (including Ilena R.) would like us to already publish such things here, but we simply can't because of the rules here. We don't publish graffiti here. We'll just have to be patient and see what happens. If the "bird" (case) flies, we can shoot it down and serve it here using better sources than grafitti....;-) -- Fyslee/talk 17:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Should the article mention the cases that are discussed on Quackwatch? Or the case where Quackwatch is a party?User:Hopping 21:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Because of long edit wars, AfDs, and endless discussions about this matter, it was decided to consolidate such information on the Barrett article since it usually concerns him, and not the website. He is the one in court, not a website. (Bytes can't testify....;-) That doesn't mean certain particular cases couldn't come along that might be placed here rather than there (not both places). They need to have progressed to the point that they are history so we have relatively unbiased V & RS to help us establish their WP:WEIGHT. We don't publish yellow journalism, graffiti, premature speculations, or perform original research cum investigative journalism. We only report history. -- Fyslee / talk 22:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your tutelage regarding this page's history. However, edits wars notwithstanding, it would seem "we" are not "report history" in this article, rather "we" are repeating verbatim the claims made about QW by the QW website, as if they were unbiased, verifiable, undisputed facts, which they are not. User:Hopping 00:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect material at Quackwatch to be totally unbiased, and in fact would hope not. Quackwatch has a definite pro-EBM, anti-quackery bias based on an examination of both sides of the subject. Nobody with an opinion worth listening to is without some form of bias, which isn't exactly the same as prejudice (uninformed bias). Material is used from the subject's website (in this case the subject is Quackwatch) under the WP:SELFPUB policy, which is a portion of the WP:VERIFIABILITY policy: "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth." After that, attribution is what makes it NPOV. While we may not agree with something written on the site and even consider it untrue, we can't deny that the site verifiably writes it, so NPOV requires us to present it neutrally rather than advocate it by taking sides. Is there anything particular you dispute that needs to be changed? You can start a new section if that would be more appropriate, or continue here if it concerns the court cases, even though they are dealt with on the Barrett article. -- Fyslee / talk 00:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Hopping, if your NPOV tag was inspired by your comment above, maybe, in light of my invitation (right above) to clear things up, it was a premature and provocative move.....? I expected a response here, rather than an NPOV tag, which in this case could be viewed as a POV editorializing addition to the article. Maybe I'm reading things wrong. Please enlighten us. What concerns do you have? Let's deal with them and improve the article. If there are any policy violations, then it needs to be addressed right here. -- Fyslee / talk 04:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate the invitation. I really do. But how is an editor expressing POV issues provocative? I am expressing them. This is well within WP guidelines to do so, given the many who expressed similar concerns here on this talk page, as well as at the AfD. I've made a sincere effort to start building a consensus in Attempt to Build Consensus. My POV tag is likewise sincere. Let's work together. Beginning by not removing the tag until the dispute is resolved.User:Hopping 05:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You mention there is a "dispute", and I am trying to get you to tell us the nature of that dispute, not in generalities, but specifically. Again I request that you tell us what your concerns are, and please be specific. -- Fyslee / talk 05:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Oops! I failed to respond to your mention of the NPOV tag and why I considered it provocative. I would expect that my request for an explanation of your concerns would be answered here rather than an NPOV tag referring to a claimed dispute with unknown content. We usually add such tags after we have tried to discuss differences and have come to an impasse, and then use the tag to call in previously uninvolved editors. I just felt the polite thing to do would be to respond to my query for elaboration of any concerns. -- Fyslee / talk 06:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)'

Sorry for all the confusion. The POV tag was not in response to any comment you made. Nor was it a response to your request. I tried to link the discussion of the POV issue directly from the tag, for clarity. It links to the "Attempt to Build Consensus" section. User:Hopping 14:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up for me. Now I understand. I have also indented your last comment there. I hadn't noticed it. I'll carry on the conversation down there. -- Fyslee / talk 16:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Court Cases List

Ongoing

• Barrett v. Negrete, federal, on remand from Ninth Circuit. Was stayed for a long time awaiting Barrett v. Rosenthall.

Resolved

• Barrett v. Fonorow, dismissed by IL state court 2003 under CDA interpretation, aff'd 2003.
• Barrett v. Koren, dismissed in PA state court 2002, aff'd 2007.
• Barrett v. Mercola, settled after IL state judge found immunity did not apply. Supposedly for $50,000.
• Barrett v. Rosenthal, called Barrett v. Clark at the CA state trial court. Dismissed and aff'd in appellate court in regards to Barrett, and CA Supreme Court found that the CDA blocked claims for Barrett's co-plaintiff.

Added

• National Council Against Health Fraud, Inc. v. King Bio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (2003) "A private plaintiff (NCAHF) brought a representative action for unlawful competition and false advertising against a seller of homeopathic remedies. After the close of plaintiff's case-in-chief in a court trial, judgment was entered in favor of the seller." --Anthon01 (talk) 12:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

A review of the archives will help. Shot info 00:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The Stephen Barrett article says "The Quackwatch website is Barrett's main platform for describing and exposing for what he considers to be quackery and health fraud." The QW website's second section is called "About Stephen Barrett," where extensive info about him is published, including his CV. The QW homepage says "Operated by Stephen Barrett, M.D." The content of these two articles significantly overlaps, and the many of the references for the SJ Barrett and QW articles are referring to QW as the source. As per the AfD, I agree we need this content, but I think we might want to consider putting all this info on place to clarify. QW is SJ Barrett's website, and SJ Barrett's publishes his writings on QW.User:Hopping 03:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This merger is pointless. It's like saying that Terry Pratchett should be merged with Discworld. Adam Cuerden 04:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This has been proposed several times and been rejected and then resolved in the current manner. Barrett is Barrett, but Quackwatch is much more than Barrett, therefore Quackwatch must be dealt with separately as both a website and an organization with myriad volunteers, resources, and allies. -- Fyslee/talk 04:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

But it seems that(unlike Discworld), QW is just Barrett's personal platform for expressing his views. More like a personal website. Thoughts? User:Hopping 13:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Also diasgree with merger proposal. Quackwatch is more than just Stephen Barrett. It has roughly 100 editorial advisors/contributors and is more or less an online journal. Barrett may be a primary contributor to QW but it is clearly a separte entity and merits its own article distinct from that on Barrett. Rhode Island Red 14:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Rhode Island Red. Also, wasn't this already decided that this article was useful but needed work when it was brought up for deletion? Also, Dematt I don't think anyone who knows your editing style would think you were saying anything negative about anything you edit. You are one of the fairest and honest editors I have had the pleasure to chat with. --CrohnieGal 14:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this discussion is at an end. Note no criteria from WP:MERGE was given that hadn't already been discussed and ruled out in the past. --Ronz 20:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No. Independent notability evidenced by citations to QW without Barrett. Moreover, a merger would create sticky BLP issues better left out. Cool Hand Luke 05:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

SourceWatch: Center for Media & Democracy

I don't know much about this, but I see that the founder of Quackwatch, SJ Barrett, is involved with several other health information organizations. "Sourcewatch" has listings on one of these The American Council on Science and Health that suggests this group protends to be scientific when in fact they are have a political agenda. Does this shed any light on this article? Do we consider Center for Media and Democracy a reliable source? User:Hopping 23:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be more appropriate to discuss Stephen Barrett's activities over at Stephen Barrett rather than here. Besides, the source doesn't mention Barrett (or Quackwatch) so it's relevance (without resorting to SYN) would be? Shot info 23:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The Stephen Barrett article has over a dozen references to QW. The QW site publishes Barrett's CV and has a whole section "About Barrett" - I'd say the two topics heavily overlap, possible merge? User:Hopping 00:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

And the source's relevance? Shot info 00:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm uncertain about the relevance, just asking if anyone knows about the relationship of Barrett to ACSH. Is there one? There seem to be a lot of organizations here that represent similar views. I'm trying to understand what the relationships are.User:Hopping 00:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't know, and in reality I don't think that ideal speculation on the topic adds any value to the issue of this article? Shot info 00:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think he was on the board, but I could be wrong He is a scientific advisor. There is info on the net as I remember reading several months ago. I'll see if I can dig it up. -- Dēmatt (chat) 03:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I see a lot of other familiar names, too... Gots, Gorski, Novella, Jarvis, Neuberger.. it's got them all? -- Dēmatt (chat) 04:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That makes alot of sense. ACSH is clearly a skeptical and mainstream oriented organization. Birds of a feather..... You'll find the same phenomenon in chiropractic organizations, political organizations, activist groups, Misplaced Pages, etc.. It can't really be any other way, so it isn't odious. We need to be careful to avoid the libelous guilt by association accusations we have seen about Barrett and the ACSH, the AMA, and the pharmaceutical industry, none of which has ever been proven. A shared POV does not a COI make. -- Fyslee/talk 04:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Certainly didn't mean anything negative here, just researching questions. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 13:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Just remember, WP:BLP applies here. That means no adding things that aren't explicitly said by reliable sources. Adam Cuerden 04:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I would think Barrett would think this was a good thing, being a SA for ACSH? ---- Dēmatt (chat) 13:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Several points.... SB and QW are of course overlapping subjects, so we decided along time ago to try to keep them as separate as possible to avoid unnecessary duplication. Some minor duplication is necessary, but let's try to avoid it. The status of Sourcewatch... well, it's a wiki (IOW not eligible for use here) of extremely varying quality. Even a minor examination of the wiki reveals a very strong political, anti-authoritarian, fringe, conspiracy theory, and often pro-alternative agenda. Sometimes it seems more like a blog or discussion list with a mixture of some good and informative articles alongside sketchy comments more like the notes quickly jotted on the back of a napkin, or a grocery list, or even a "to do" list. I have seen articles in all those states at the site. Anyone who criticizes Quackwatch for occasional pages that are not updated fast enough would be horrified at the state of Sourcewatch. It makes Quackwatch look pretty good. It is not a reliable source in any sense, and especially in the Misplaced Pages sense, and not just because it's a wiki. No fact checking or editorial oversight, just an anti-authoritarian agenda, IOW the classic pseudoskepticism (skeptical of the skeptics). -- Fyslee/talk 04:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, never seen pseudoskepticism used that way :-) ---- Dēmatt (chat) 13:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dematt. The phrase "skeptical of skeptics" is my summary of the concept mentioned here (using another organization), especially the last sentence:

"Groups sometimes accuse each other of pseudoskepticism. Commenting on the labels "dogmatic" and "pathological" that the "Association for Skeptical Investigation" puts on critics of paranormal investigations, Robert Todd Carroll of the Skeptic's Dictionary argues that that association "is a group of pseudo-skeptical paranormal investigators and supporters who do not appreciate criticism of paranormal studies by truly genuine skeptics and critical thinkers. The only skepticism this group promotes is skepticism of critics and criticisms of paranormal studies.""

-- Fyslee/talk 05:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

If WP:BLP applies here, why don't we merge this article with Barrett? Also, how much can we really rely on QW as a source for this article? Aren't we just repeating the content of QW here? User:Hopping 13:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"How much can we rely on QW as a source for this article?" Well, we are allowed and required (since it can't be any other way) to use it to some degree. Sources are allowed to document their own positions and POV in articles about themselves (see WP:SELFPUB). Fortunately there are plenty of other sources that provide the needed secondary and tertiary documentation for notability. In fact there is much more, but if we included it there would be an outcry from QW enemies here that we are making the article too positively in favor of QW. There is much more that could be be added of that type, but to keep an uneasy truce, we are leaving it as is for now. Anti-QW editors don't complain that there isn't more and pro-QW editors think that there is just enough. It's an uneasy balance we are dealing with that is related to WP:WEIGHT issues. -- Fyslee/talk 05:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Hopping, there are a lot of things on QW that I do not agree with but that being said, it is a site that has a lot of information from different people about things that can not be found anywhere else. Merging the two, in my opinion would be a mistake. Though Dr. Barrett runs the site, QW isn't Dr. Barrett. --CrohnieGal 14:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Sourcewatch is not a reliable source to BLP standards as it is both a Wiki and a progressive activist site. It could work as a named citation on Quackwatch, but I don't think there's much here. Cool Hand Luke 19:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You were planning to add defamatory material based on combining a Sourcewatch judgement of a site Barrett is slightly connected to, combined with original research to connect it to Barrett, and then use this attack on Barrett to attack Quackwatch. How could WP:BLP not apply? Just because this article isn't named Stephen Barrett doesn't mean that there's free reign to attack living people on it. WP:BLP applies anywhere you're discussing living people. It just doesn't come up as often outside of biographies. Adam Cuerden 19:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's take care to WP:AGF. However, this discussion seems to be a fishing expedition, rather than a discussion of facts and policies. --Ronz 20:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Whose attacking? How is the claim that QW is more or less the same as Barrett an attack? The title of the page is "Quackwatch, Your guide to Quackery, Health Fraud, and Intelligent Decisions, Operated by Stephen Barrett." I respect that you disagree, but I don't think this is an attack, or an outlandish claim. My next question was regarding ACSH. I'm wondering, how many website does this guy write on? Are they all "operated" by him? What does that specifically mean "operated by Stephen Barrett." Why is that fact not mentioned I honestly don't know. The Wiki intro paragraph specifically states "Since 1996, it has operated a website, Quackwatch.org" - but the QW page says it is operated by Barrett? This seems odd to me. Is QW really Barrett? Is it like a pseudonym? (Which is fine, I just think we should mention it.)User:Hopping 22:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone provide a source, other than QW, to verify this statment "Quackwatch is operated by Stephen Barrett with input from a board of advisors and help from volunteers, including a number of medical professionals"? Does this non-profit have a pay roll, a budget? An office? That is distinct from Barrett's personal address or finances? Is it a non-profit of one person, Barrett? These are important questions, IMHO.User:Hopping 22:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

During the AfD, editors of this articles asked for more involvement from people previously not associated with this article. Seeing the level of vitriol this discussion immediately devolves to, I understand their frustration. What's with the harsh language and assumptions about peoples motives?User:Hopping 22:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess the editors responses are more from frustration rather than anything else, as your questions above have been asked and answered many times before by most of the editors here. I can suggest a review of the archives by yourself to hopefully alleviate some of the frustrations, rather than engaging in what appears (but probably isn't) another round of round and around. Shot info 23:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"Since 1996, it has operated a website, Quackwatch.org" - but the QW page says it is operated by Barrett?" Every source mentions the website, not the non-profit. User:Hopping 03:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hopping, I am going to AGF and assume that the reason you ask these questions is evidence that you haven't done your homework and are expecting us to do it. OK, that's the lazy way to do it. Nothing seriously odious about it, but it's just frustrating to the old time editors here (of years length) who have gone to Quackwatch, NCAHF, and other related sites and read all their introductory material, FAQ, who runs them, who finances them, what connections they have or do not have with industries and interest groups, who is the webmaster, is there a board of directors, etc. etc. etc.. You can find all this information if you look. Many accusations have been made (such as supposed connections with the AMA and big pharma) and they have been answered, but people either don't read the answers or they won't believe them because it destroys their conspiracy theories. Quackwatch and the NCAHF are quite open about such information, and in fact (I speak from personal experience) you can find more information on the websites than by asking Barrett himself. He's too busy and sometimes a bit short and impatient. Just my experience. AFAIK, Barrett rarely does anything for the ACSH. He may have earlier, but not in the later years. He is a cofounder of the NCAHF and the founder of Quackwatch, and the webmaster for both sites, IOW he oversees alot and delegates responsibility to volunteers, and also serves in a chief editorial function. If you sent an article to him for publication, he would be involved as an editor-in-chief. If you are a good writer and researcher, and like to write on skeptical subjects related to health, quackery, healthfraud, scams, etc., then give it a try. There are thousands of pages and myriad articles and resources at Quackwatch, many not written by Barrett. It's the largest resource of its kind outside of actual government sources, and they don't specialize in that type of stuff. The FDA and FTC have lots of material related to healthfraud and scams, and Barrett makes use of it and cooperates with them. -- Fyslee/talk 05:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

Is there a way to request a POV check on this article? I would like to place a POV tag on this article, but I wanted to discuss first. The other route would be fact tags on specific statements. Which is more constructive? I would very much like to keep this friendly, and cooperative. Is that possible here? User:Hopping 03:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason that you would like to. I mean you can put one on there, but it probably will be reverted with the comment No reason see archives or something similar. Shot info 04:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The most constructive way, and the way you'll get the best consensus results, would be to copy the relevant sentence or whatever, including the refs, to a new section here and ask your questions. Then we can work on improving or discarding it as the case may be. These articles are some of the most explosive and sensitive at Misplaced Pages, at least in the health care arena, and therefore any tampering with even single words can set off long edit wars because the current wording has been hammered out through long and often painful struggles here. Believe me, there are monsters here and the devil is in between the lines! You may think something looks pretty straightforward, but don't be too sure. We want to avoid rebuilding bridges, so bringing it here is the best way. -- Fyslee/talk 05:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe in tagging where appropriate. What problems do you perceive? Cool Hand Luke 05:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily any problems, but it can also be disruptive because of the nature of the editing atmosphere and the history of these particular articles. They are unlike others and we need to wear kid gloves. Using the talk page saves problems. Being bold here can backfire big time, with edit wars to follow. No need for that. We need to skip all other processes and go directly to consensus building edits, and that is done here. -- Fyslee/talk 06:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Attempt to build consensus #1

OK. What I'm hearing is that the "Be Bold" tenet of Misplaced Pages does not apply on this page. I find that frustrating, but I will respect it. It seems like this page has its own rule "Be conservative." I do want to be constuctive, so I'll skip the fact tags and POV tags and try the more conservative, hopefully more constructive approach suggested above by Fyslee. I'll start with the intro paragraph:

Quackwatch, the non-profit, does exist, but is it notable?. Looking through the sources for this article, most (all?) of them refer to Quackwatch.com, the website. The 70+ "awards" listed on the QW page, are all lauding the site, not the non-profit. All of QW's notoriety stems from the website. My point is that while most "non-profits" have various activities, and they have a website that tells the public about it, QW seems to be primarily a website, that happens to be run by a non-profit. This non-profit may have other activities, but all of the notability of QW is secondary to the website. I'd suggest something more along these lines.

I tried to pick two non-QW, current, reliable sources for the intro sentence - something I think this article is a bit short on. Thoughts? User:Hopping 17:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think mentioning the nonprofit is fine. If such an article existed, we would merge here, but there's no reason to avoid mentioning holding entities that have no independent notability. The sources do need some work. Cool Hand Luke 03:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The new version of the intro paragraph mentions the non-profit. Is that sufficient?User:Hopping 03:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

What I see happening is a drastic revision of the WP:LEAD. (Misplaced Pages articles don't have any "introduction".) Is that wise? The lead should be a summary of all the significant article content and should also reflect major changes in the article. The aims and purposes are even left out of the lead and should be restored. The website is an expression of the aims, purposes, and sympathies of the organization, its members, contributors, and allies. It's primary purpose is the provision of information which is why the website is so prominent. Article improvement cannot be accomplished without change, but there can be a lot of change without improvement. I don't see any improvement and I see unnecessary changes of material that is the result of long edit wars leading to a consensus on each word and phrase. It's a delicate balance that should not be disturbed without very compellingly good reasons. Why the changes? Please explain your thinking. -- Fyslee/talk 05:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The lead, as it stands now, does not reflect a consensus, IMHO. I tried to explain my primary reasons for the changes above. #1 Website v organization question, which is more noteable. #2 Reliable, non-QW, sources.User:Hopping 05:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your point #1, are you considering the difference between "notability" and "noticeability", or possibly confusing the two? The website is obviously the most noticeable, it being the primary manifestation of the organization's activities, which is the provision of free information. Things were different before the advent of the website, but the aims, POV, etc. are still the same, it's just that now the website is what's noticeable. Yet the website is still just the medium, IOW it's the tail, and the dog is still wagging the tail. No dog, no tail. So what is most notable? Hmmm.... -- Fyslee / talk 01:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I was only making this point in references to sources, not my opinion. Many sources I can find for Quackwatch, listed within the article and otherwise, refers to Quackwatch.com (or .org), the website. I think we should follow sources lead here as per WP:WEIGHT. The "best, most reliable sources" refer to Quackwatch.com (or .org), the website, almost exclusively qualified by some form of "operated by SJ Barrett". See Examples below.

Again, my issues here are:

1. Website v organization, both should be mentioned but, according to sources, which should be listed first, in the LEAD? (suggesting website.)

2. Operated/Run/Overseen/Edited by SJ Barret, according to sources, should this fact be in the LEAD? (suggesting yes.) User:Hopping 03:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Examples

• Wall Street Journal "Stephan Barrett, a retired psychiatrist who operates www.quackwatch.org, a Web site debunking medical fraud."
• New York Times "Dr. Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch, a medical watchdog Web site"
• New Mexicans for Science and Reason "Dr. Stephen Barrett, whose "Quack Watch" internet site contains over 200 reports on dubious and fraudulent medical devices and treatments"
• New York Times 9/1998 "At the other extreme is www.quackwatch.com, run by Dr. Stephen Barrett, a longtime scourge of alternative medicine."
• Boston Globe " Quackwatch, run by former psychiatrist Stephen Barrett, seeks to provide Web users with criteria to help them evaluate the credibility of medical and health information they find on the Internet. The site is the on-line home of an organization by the same name"
• Salt Lake Tribune "What prompted you to start Quackwatch?" "It began as a luncheon discussion group in late 1960s. I was practicing psychiatry full time and in the mid 1970s, I started writing about things we were discussing. Eventually, it evolved into a sideline career and I became an investigative reporter of sorts. Then I got on the Internet and what used to take three months to research took five minutes. Now we operate http://www.quackwatch.org and 18 other Web sites."
• NPR. "According to the Web site quackwatch.com, colloidal silver, a suspension of submicroscopic metallic silver particles . . . "
• All things considered. NPR. Barrett is a psychiatrist turned, in his words, investigative reporter. Barrett runs a Web site called Quackwatch, dedicated to fighting medical fraud." 10/6/2003.
• Washington Post "If MedlinePlus directs you to the most credible health sources, Quackwatch will help protect you from the countless attempts to sell unproven, unsafe, illegal or worthless treatments and products. Intrigued by chelation, blue-green algae or magnets? Do yourself a favor and visit Quackwatch first. Yes, Quackwatch can be as knee- jerk negative as product marketers are blue-sky positive, but it's an effective counterweight to the many sales pitches coming your way. Complaints: The site isn't always updated with the latest research (see glucosamine, for example).
• Forbes. "Dr. Stephen Barrett, a psychiatrist, seeks to expose unproven medical treatments and possible unsafe practices through his homegrown but well-organized site."

User:Hopping 03:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The lead of an article should be a good summary of the article as a whole. I'm concerned here that we're trying to make it more a summary of various sources instead, which can lead to NPOV/WEIGHT problems. --Ronz 03:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any serious problems with your suggestions, just as long as the lead is still a summary of the article. The website is certainly more noticeable than the organization and what is best known. That's always the case with organizations that publish. It's the publication that is best known. In this article we have chosen to cover the whole thing since they are inseparable. There is also no question about Barrett's leadership role as an "editor in chief" and webmaster. He oversees and coordinates operations. This isn't anything new and should already be apparent from reading the article. If it isn't mentioned in the lead, it should be. We can do this by using and rearranging all the current content in the lead (and thus not violate the consensus that agreed on that content), and add that Barrett is the chairman of the organization and webmaster of the website.

You have some good examples there, a couple of which we have seen or even used here before. Because Barrett is the most visible figure, we have experienced that Quackwatch and Barrett get the most criticism, and then when we have investigated, have found that some of the articles that were criticized were not even written by him. While he does write the majority of the articles (or, to be more precise, his name ends up on the article, even though it has involved several people and many sources), many articles are also written by others and he solicits such articles. Besides articles, there are loads of historical, legal, and government documents and sources that aren't even linked from the front page. There are even a few whole books on-line for free. If I understand it correctly, his creation of all the other sites is an attempt to make some order out of a mess of mixed up subjects. He is trying to collect related subjects under their own URLs. Quackwatch was simply getting too big. -- Fyslee / talk 06:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Fyslee, this question will probably sound acrimonious, though I don't intend it to be. I'm wondering, in your discussions here, who is "we," i.e. "we have seen here before" and "we have experienced and investigated." Do you represent a group of editors? Or can I assume you speak for a group that helps to edit here? User:Hopping 18:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm reading "we" to mean the editors involved in the previous discussions here. Note that there has been a great deal of discussion here. Most topics have been addressed multiple times in the past. --Ronz 19:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

A simple check of the history and a look through the archives would answer Hopping's question. Shot info 22:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Your question is perfectly reasonable and Ronz has answered it just fine. I only meant the editors of all persuasions who have been editing this article for a long time. While it's true that the history will bear this out, I wouldn't expect you to have read the whole thing! That would be a daunting task that would likely take several hours, depending on how carefully you read it, and if you followed all the links it could take days. So don't hesitate to ask. Some of us who are experienced skeptics have been around these topics for years and you can just ask. There are no stupid questions. -- Fyslee / talk 23:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :) User:Hopping 08:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Get out while your still sane....there's no hope for all of us.... :-) Shot info 09:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

History of quackbusting

I'm just dumping this link here right now because it's waiting on my mouse to be copied somewhere:

• Quackbusters Inc.: Hot On The Heels Of Medical Hucksters

(There is of course no such organization as Quackbusters Inc..)

Maybe we can use some of the information here or in the NCAHF article. -- Fyslee / talk 06:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I recommend to start a new section at this article called background.  Mr.Guru  talk  17:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

... or at the NCAHF article? -- Fyslee / talk 23:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Or both articles? Or just get it started somewhere. Or enough talk and be bold.  Mr.Guru  talk  17:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Boldness is your weakness, so take it easy. -- Fyslee / talk 18:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I tip my cap to you and let you get it started in any way you see fit. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  18:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal

I just read this page. I am shocked. I have been receiving emails from someone named Ilena for a few days suggesting sources that could be used on the Quackwatch page. I had no idea who this person was, but I read some of the documents she sent me. I realize she has attempted to use me as her proxy editor for the page. Though I may share some of her views, particularly those critical of Barrett, and I respect her right to express herself, I find being contacted in this way disturbing. I take WP policies seriously, all of them, because I think WP is cool as hell and I want to keep it that way. She failed to mention that she has been banned from these pages. In the process, she put my credibility as an editor at risk. That's seriously not cool.

I am willing to acknowledge that I could somehow be mistaken about this person's identity, or that I've misunderstood the findings of the arbitration committee, but from my current POV this seems clearly problematic.

On a personal note, there seems to be some very ancient twisted karma associated with this article and its editors. Not sure what to make of it or how to respond. I haven't encountered anything on this level here on WP before.User:Hopping 07:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

O yeah, there was a whole world of pain associated with this ArbCom. I'm not surprised that Ilena (presumably the same person) would do this. I'm glad that you have seen through her, although it would be beneficial to WP if her other proxies would take note. Shot info 07:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Hopping, your honesty is appreciated. Hat's off to you! Although many editors and Misplaced Pages itself have serious issues with Ilena R., the subjects she mentions may have merit here, but it's a matter of doing it by following the rules here, using V & RS, avoiding advocacy, and not using Misplaced Pages as a battleground for wars at Usenet. That's where she ran afoul of the system here (and blames Barrett for it all!). Personal attacks on other editors and using bad sources just don't fly here. -- Fyslee/talk 17:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

RfC alert

I figure a number of editors here might be interested in this:

• Link to RfC at alternative medicine.

-- Fyslee / talk 19:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

"Sources that mention Quackwatch as a credible or reliable source for consumer information"?

Some of the sources listed do not fit that description. For example, healthfinder.org provides a link to this website, under this disclaimer: http://www.healthfinder.gov/aboutus/disclaimer.asp, which clearly means no endorsement whatsoever. I have not checked the other sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

We have two options: (a) if a source doesn't qualify for the section (the header being the inclusion criteria), it should be removed: (b) if the header just needs to be tweaked a bit to make it fit the contents, then do that. -- Fyslee / talk 15:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Please do not revert good faith edits. If there is something incorrect with my edits, please let me know. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I have not questioned your good faith efforts in any manner, but I am questioning their wisdom (or rather the manner in which they were done without extensive discussion from all sides), which is another matter entirely. My one revert was of a whole lot of edits of varying quality, some good and some questionable. Too many were made in a short time to deal with each of them one at a time. This article is a minefield balanced on a knife's edge and it's simply not wise to be bold when editing this article. This article and the Barrett article are the "canary in the mine" when dealing with subjects related to alternative medicine. That's why they are constantly under attack and have editors with strong feelings on each side. You will not find other articles in the health care field of such volatility, which is because of their notability and status - one is either for them or one hates them. There is no middle ground for those who know of them. One cannot criticize and expose quackery and healthfraud without getting very vocal enemies and also getting supporters. I am just trying to advise that caution should be exercised when editing here. We don't need more battles than necessary, and each edit is a potential starter of a third world war, so to speak. Two edits can create chaos. Three in a short time can have rather unforeseen consequences. It's become common here to start by getting consensus before actual changes of any consequence. -- Fyslee / talk 22:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the pointers. I will take these into account in my future edits. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you make the edit then? Or is it that if I make the edit I will get automatically revereted? Which one? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Kauffman critique

Jossi, I am curious about your thoughts on including this critique of Quackwatch written by Prof. Joel Kauffman of the Univ. of Sciences in Philadelphia. This review has been discussed for inclusion here and/or at Stephen Barrett. Those who were against inclusion mainly cited that this analysis was published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, a journal which provides "a professional forum for the presentation, scrutiny and criticism of scientific research on topics outside the established disciplines of mainstream science". Since this journal often deals with exploring fringe topics (albeit from a rational, scientific perspective which includes an impressive peer-review editorial board), those against inclusion of Kauffman's analysis feel that having being published in the JSE makes the analysis a less-than-reliable source. (If I am inaccurate here with my description of your argument, Fyslee et al. please feel free to correct me.) -- Levine2112 17:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

As per NPOV, we present significant viewpoints without asserting them. The question the is: Is the JSE a significant viewpoint on this subject or not? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

How do we determine significance? -- Levine2112 17:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

By checking on the credentials of the people that write for that journal, the number of times they are cited, etc. The summary of that paper:

All 8 pages from www.Quackwatch.com that were examined closely for this review, which were chosen simply because their topics were familiar to this reviewer, were found to be contaminated with incomplete data, obsolete data, technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo; no other pages were examined. Hostility to all alternatives was expected and observed from the website, but not repetition of groundless dogma from mainstream medicine, examples of which were exposed. As a close friend and colleague reminded me, the operators of this site and I may have the same motivation — to expose fraud. It remains a mystery how they and I have interpreted the same body of medical science and reached such divergent conclusions. While Dr. Barrett may (or may not) have helped many victims of quacks to recover funds and seek more effective treatment, and while some of the information on pages of the website not examined in this review may be accurate and useful, this review has shown that it is very probable that many of the 2,300,000 visitors to the website have been misled by the trappings of scientific objectivity. At least 3 of the activities in the Mission Statement: • Distributing reliable publications • Improving the quality of health information on the Internet • Attacking misleading advertising on the Internet ...have been shown to be flawed as actually executed, at least on the 8 webpages that were examined. Medical practitioners such as Robert Atkins, Elmer Cranton and Stanislaw Burzynski, whom I demonstrated are not quacks, were attacked with the energy one would hope to be focused on real quacks. The use of this website is not recommended. It could be deleterious to your health.

... is pretty tough on Quackwatch. I would suggest checking these sources and authors on scholar.google.com and see how widely are they published and cited. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Significance is also determined by whether or not there are third parties who find the source significant. Is Kauffman quoted widely enough so that a thorough evaluation of his arguments has been presented? In particular, are there mainstream medical doctors who have used Kauffman in their evaluations of quackwatch? Likewise, Kauffman's critiques of "groundless dogma from mainstream medicine" subject to WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE considerations. ScienceApologist 17:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Mmmmm... does not seem so. It is not a peer reviewed journal? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I find thousands of cites for this journal's publications - See: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=scientificexploration&btnG=Search ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It is a peer-reviewed journal. It says so right on the home page of SSE: The SSE publishes a peer reviewed journal, the Journal of Scientific Exploration (JSE)...

The editorial board looks pretty impressive to me.

Professor Kauffman looks to be rather well-published in subjects related to this analysis. -- Levine2112 18:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

JSE is not peer-reviewed in the usual sense because writers are given a very wide latitude in content. The editorial board has very little in the way of editorial control of the papers. Mostly, they try to be as lenient as possible: a noble endeavor but not one that lends much credibility to the publication. That's not what JSE is about anyway, the point is to have a relatively open forum for discussing ideas that are sometimes wholly outside the mainstream. Kauffman's anti-mainstream ideas are well-documented and cloud his writings consistently. He supports some bullshit that's downright loopy, but the editorial board at JSE has it enshrined in their editorial policy that anything and everything in reality is fair game. That causes real problems for us at Misplaced Pages with our commitment to reliability and verifiability.

The whole point of the founding of the SSE in the first place was to attempt to remove many of the normal restrictions of the peer-reviewed mainstream from potential authors who complained that they were getting the short-shrift. Misplaced Pages has an article on the Journal of Scientific Exploration that does a passable if not complete job of illustrating the dynamics of the issue.

Certainly some of the papers the journal publishes are of interest. Others are complete WP:BOLLOCKS. Simply finding citations to the journal in general isn't good enough, especially given the editorial leeway afforded the writers. DIRECT citations TO THE PAPER IN QUESTION are required if we are going to take this source seriously as a notable critique.

ScienceApologist 19:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be very well educated in the subject of this Journal. Would you care explain if this is just your opinion, or if this is an assessment of this Journal that has been published? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's an example of such an assessment ScienceApologist 20:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

That assessment is from a skeptics' organization. Duh? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. So? ScienceApologist 21:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, what's with the dissing of skeptical opinions? They are mainstream opinions from highly respected mainstream scientists (and such scientists are nearly always skeptics). Are we to expect that fringe and unscientific opinions are now going to get admin support? Please explain. -- Fyslee / talk 22:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Admin support? What are you implying? I am here not as an admin, but as a fellow editor. There is no admin duties to be applied here. As for your comment, it may be not obvious to you, but to an outsider like me (I have no dog in this fight), it is obvious that an anti-quack site will have anti-quack sentiments against anyone that is perceived as not critical enough of quaks, or even more, one that criticizes their anti-quack positions. That is what I said: duh! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Please forgive me. I misunderstood you. It sounded like ridicule to me, since that's what we're used to hearing here. Sorry about that, and also for seeing you more as an admin who was getting involved here, than as an editor. My bad. -- Fyslee / talk 02:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem in using this source if properly summarized and attributed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Given that this has been discussed at length, many times, I think that links to past discussions should be provided here for easy review and out of respect for the previous consensus efforts. --Ronz 19:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide links to these discussions? Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

If I am not asking too much of you Jossi, I would love to read your suggestion for summarization and attribution. This is a sore subject for many of us longtime editors here and getting a fresh perspective from an outside such as yourself should lead to a better reception by all. Also, with the doing away of an actual "Criticism" section (definitely an improvement to the site!), I would be curious to know your thoughts on the proper placement of such a critique. Thanks again for your help. -- Levine2112 19:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I am fairly certainly there is more, but the gist of the discussions can be found here. -- Levine2112 19:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I would hope that Levine2112 would provide the links to past discussions, since he was a part of them and has brought up the subject to be addressed anew. --Ronz 21:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This source should not be used unless the relevance of the paper being cited can be established. I will resist the imposition of this paper on the article by either Jossi or Levine per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE until such time as they establish the notability of the paper as a critique. ScienceApologist 19:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I read with interest the discussion on this subject at Archive 9, and my opinion is that there is no solid argument presented to not to use this source, if properly summarized (one sentence will do) and attributed, including a wikilink to the WP article about the publication. Let the reader explore more about this subject without eliminating information that is useful about the dispute. As for a "Criticism" section, my preference is always to include criticism alongside other material in an article, as it provides better context for our readers and avoids undue weight violations and POV magnets. Finally, a disclaimer: I personally do not use any alternative medicines (my MD is a traditional doctor), and although I enjoy a therapeutic massage from time to time, I have no specific POV pro or con on this subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I will resist the imposition of this paper Uh? If there is no agreement, we proceed with dispute resolution, not by "resisting". This is Misplaced Pages, not a battleground. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

If there is no common ground found about this, I will place an RfC on this specific subject later today. I would appreciate it f editors avoid WP:CANVASS and afford non-involved editors to make their comments unburdened from polemics. Let them make their comments for a week or so, and then we can evaluate what they have said and decide on how to move forward. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This would seem to be a extremely reasonable step toward dispute resolution. Of course, I always would like to see common ground reached here at Talk first. But an RfC would be good for outside input. Thanks again. -- Levine2112 20:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

All either of you need do to resolve this issue is provide evidence that the Kauffman critique is noted by the mainstream and then it definitely will deserve entry. However, this is a mainstream topic and as such minority views on the topic are to be weighted in accordance with their prominence. ScienceApologist 20:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. This has nothing to do with "mainstream" or not, as quackwatch.com can also be described as not mainstream. It is a self-published source, with no peer review whatsoever, and very little editorial control that can be spoken of. As such, I would argue that a published criticism of the website is indeed useful. As it seems that we can only agree to disagree, the next step in WP:DE, which would start with a request for comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This is quite interesting: Quackwatch.com articles are not peer reviewed, and there are arguments that a peer reviewed article is not fit as a reliable source? I fail to see how that makes good editorial sense. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Dismissing Quackwatch as a self-published source with no editorial oversight, and thus no better than a run-of-the-mill SPS, isn't accurate in my opinion. Quackwatch features content from a number of experts in their respective fields, and it's been cited repeatedly and approvingly by a number of mainstream, reliable sources (e.g. JAMA, USNWR, etc as cited in the article). A useful comparison might be RealClimate. At the same time, all peer review is not created equal, and the peer review process at JSE is not the same as the peer review process at Science or the New England Journal of Medicine. A useful metric is, indeed, how often these sources are cited or mentioned by third parties, independent sources, etc. My sense is that Quackwatch is often cited by such sources (not always approvingly, of course), whereas JSE and Kauffman in particular are not cited much or at all on this topic by third-party sources. MastCell 20:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Mastcell. I am not arguing about the credibility of Quackwatch.com. I am arguing for the fact that it is an SPS without an editorial process. The only thing that applies here is notability' of a website (See WP:WEB), which this website certainly is. OTOH I have not seen any published journal articles that have used Quackwatch.com as a source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Full agreement with MastCell on that one. He beat me to it! The negative statement above (not the first of precisely this character from this editor) reveals either an antagonistic attitude towards Quackwatch, or - AGF, and I will do that - a gross lack of understanding of the nature of Quackwatch, its contributors, its supporters, and its esteem among mainstream scientists, governmental agencies, universities, and other highly regarded sources, not to mention the skeptical community (which is of course mainstream). It is not a peer reviewed scientific journal, although it hosts plenty of it and uses it extensively, and should be judged accordingly. The Kauffmann article is just an opinion piece by a scientist who seems to have left or ignored his original scientific underpinnings. A search of the JSE archives reveals a large number of articles by Kauffmann. Those articles reveal a shocking amount of gullibility and support for woo woo ideas, and reveal that the JSE seems to be willing to publish anything, regardless of how scientifically nonsensical it is.

I have never argued for a total exclusion of this source (and have actually stayed away from the discussion for the most part, letting others use their time on it). If it is cited, then it should also be done with attribution that clearly reveals the fringe nature of the source. If that isn't done, readers will be left with the totally false impression (revealed here by the main supporter for inclusion) that because Kauffmann has a PhD his opinion is somehow a scientifically legitimate voice that deserves to be heard and believed. Far from it. He's a fringe believer who tries to fool people by claiming he's a skeptic. His writings reveal that he is a pseudoskeptic at best, to put it mildly. -- Fyslee / talk 22:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I really do not appreciate this Reveals either an antagonistic attitude towards Quackwatch, or - AGF, and I will do that - a gross lack of understanding of the nature of Quackwatch. You have absolutely no right to make an assessment of my motives. I made my arguments in good faith, and will appreciate a response that addresses my arguments and not your faulty perceptions of my motives. All I have argued is the fact that we have a website that is self-published, with zero or unknown editorial process, and that we have a critical paper written and published that has a publicly known editorial process. I give a hoot about Kauffman's opinions, as wel as another hoot about quackwatch opinions. All I am arguing for is for all significant opinions to be available for our readers, as NPOV is not negotiable. An RfC is the next step in DR and I will do so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, I can understand your feelings, especially since you seem to interpret my comments as "an assessment of motives." But I have not done that. I have addressed your degree of knowledge of Quackwatch based on what seems apparent from your comments thus far. You even call it Quackwatch.com, when it is .org. Yes, a minor detail, but you also keep repeating that it is an SPS without editorial control which is not true. Please stop repeating that. It happens to be the largest internet database of its kind, with many individuals involved and thousands of pages and hundreds of articles ranging from extremely reliable sources not available elsewhere to informal and unreliable (in the Misplaced Pages sense, but otherwise reliable) commentaries we would never dream of using. It is a website with various types of content, not a medical journal like JAMA or BMJ (which also happen to have non-RS content, like letters to the editor - I'm "published" in the BMJ.....;-) It has editorial control of varying types depending on the article in question. Most articles include input by several individuals and consultation with even more, all with extensive background research, many references and of course fact checking. Of course it isn't perfect and each article needs to be judged on its own merits, and we haven't claimed otherwise. I do not question your good faith and intentions, only your degree of knowledge about this website. You have put your hand into a hornet's nest without realizing what you were dealing with. If someone who did not speak English very well and was not educated joined a discussion group about the Encyclopedia Britannica and immediately proclaimed that it was a minor source and of little worth, the others would react like we have done. You are no doubt educated, but this is another ballpark. It's a different game with different rules than you are used to. Stick around and you'll begin to learn more about Quackwatch, but it's only after you have used it as a source for years and researched its reputation in the mainstream that you will really learn to appreciate it. Welcome on board! -- Fyslee / talk 03:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, I don't doubt your good faith, and I do want to address your arguments. To bring it back, I really do think that Quackwatch is not a run-of-the-mill SPS, but one which collates work by authorities in a number of fields and has been cited approvingly by a number of respectable mainstream outlets. Again, an apt comparison would be with RealClimate, which is a blog without formal peer review, but which hosts work by people with real credentials in the field and garners mainstream citations. I don't have a problem with including the Kauffman article (if you go back a few million KB on this talk page, you'll probably find me arguing in favor of using it), but I don't think the argument should be based on casting Quackwatch as an SPS with zero credibility when in fact it's significantly more established than that. MastCell 23:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying that the website lacks credibility , it may have a huge amount of it. I do not know, and our readers do not know that either. What s verifiable is that it is a website, with no editorial control, and that there is a journal that published a critical view of some of the articles published in that site. What is the big deal? I do not really see any. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Whaho! It's round and around time....again! (what's that, the second or third time this year, it's so hard to keep track of). Shot info 22:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, just be aware that Kauffman's article is a "Website Review", not a critique per se, and it is presented as just that in a journal of dubious standing with regards to it's review status. Given that it is in essence a book review, almost all other journals with similar book reviews do not peer review such reviews, nor are they presented as such. This couple with JSE's known "selectability" with respect to peer reviewing makes any claim of his website review having some sort of additional credibility, disingenuous. Mind you, this has been discussed before in the achieves, many, many, many, many, many times over. But once again, Levine has found another sucker to drag into the quagmire. O well, enjoy your time here :-). Shot info 00:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware that it is a website review, and also aware that this article is about a website. And no, I am not a sucker... :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If you are aware, please consider refactoring your RfC in the light of this. Shot info 00:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I do not see the need to refactor anything. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Stephen_Barrett#JSE This is an obvious BLP violation.  Mr.Guru  talk  00:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

BLP violation? I don't think so. I monitor WP:BLP/N daily, was instrumental in the promotion of WP:BLP to policy status and see no BLP violation here. I think that involved editors pro and con are simply missing the point in these threads. There is no harm in stating that a person and his website has been criticized. It actually makes Quackwatch. com assertions more believable.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Front

I find this questionable per NPOV and SYN:

According to Quackwatch, nearly every week they get emails leveling accusations about being a front for the American Medical Association, the pharmaceutical industry ant the medical establishment, and they respond that "the idea is preposterous", and that they have no commercial or financial ties with any organization.

It looks too much like another case of trying to present unsourced criticisms at quackwatch. I'm happy to explain further for the newer editors here if they'd like. Others are all to familiar with this tactic here. There are literally months of discussions on such issues. --Ronz 17:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Jossi is one step ahead of me, though I don't agree on his rationale. --Ronz 17:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You may have missed the fact that self-reverted myself, on the basis that a WP:SPS cannot be used to make claims about third parties. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

That is the only rationale possible, Ronz. The quote is from Quackwatch itself, but it refers to third parties, and can be seen as self-serving as well. See WP:SELFPUB. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Jossi's rationale was An WP:SPS cannot be used to make claims about third parties. My question for Jossi is: Who do you feel is the third party in this claim? -- Levine2112 17:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The author is using the site to talk about third parties: those people that purportedly write accusatory emails. That is both a claim about third parties, and can be also assessed to be on the self-serving side... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Having a great deal of familiarity with the article history, I know that this topic has been repeatedly added and removed from the article. The common problem with each and every time it's been added is that NPOV and SYN were being violated. It's a common problem here unfortunately. They are problems that overwhelm all the discussions here and in the other quackwatch-related articles. Thanks for the quick self-rev. --Ronz 18:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to to with SYN and NPOV. How could it be? It is simply a cite from the subject of this article. The only policies that apply here, if any, are WP:V (SPS and SELFPUB sections). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand Jossi's explanation of claims about third-parties. To my knowledge, this is the first time this particular quote has been of issue. There has been time where we discussed third-party criticism which included the assertion that Quackwatch is funded by the AMA and big pharm. That is a different issue though because it deals with third-party sources and not WP:SPS (necessarily). If I am understanding Jossi, if we had a reliable third-party source of significance (and not self-published) which made this claim against Quackwatch, we could certainly include it. In turn, we could include Quackwatch's response to such a claim. Is this correct, Jossi? -- Levine2112 18:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin just restored the information. Hopefully he'll explain shortly. --Ronz 19:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Arthur's argument is sound: the third parties are unnamed. But his argument does not address that it is a self-serving statement, which does not seem to be supported by any other source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Which is an NPOV concern. Per NPOV, without an independent source to support this information and help us present it in a balanced manner, I don't think it can be kept in the article. --Ronz 19:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, this has nothing to do with NPOV, as the claim is made by the subject of the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

After considering the arguments (not relating to the "third party", of which there is none), it appears self-serving, and cannot be used unless a real third party (Kaufmann?) makes the same accusation. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I think we're all in agreement that without another source, it should not be included. --Ronz 21:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget Hufford's article discussing Quackwatch and Kauffman's "Watching the Watchdogs..." article. Although Hufford's article was deprecated by some editors more disposed to believe QW uncritically here, it is a scholarly paper in a peer reviewed journal, J of Medicine, Law & Ethics, on the nature and track record of the "skeptical" authors, specifically including Quackwatch.

In the same vein as Kauffman's article repeatedly shows, Quackwatch articles have long mispresented the megavitamin C positions seriously, (mis)leading "conventional medicine" advocates & the public by greatly misstating the hypotheses supposedly tested - repeatedly misrepresented in the quantities, durations & frequencies by a factor or ten to one hundred(!) as well as the nutrional paradigm generally. This is despite even having personal communications with Pauling, never mind Pauling's persistent public discussions & writings of the orthomolecular quantities even the lower range remains untested (Pauling's 1 to 2 gram/hr at first tickle of a cold) despite dozens & decades of irrelevant institutional tests outside the hypothesis range and Pauling's acknowledgement of the higher "megadose regimes" proposed (and used) eg. not 1, 2 or 3 grams orally per day but 40-200 grams in divided doses for treating many respiratory illnesses (with other nutrients). The weakness of a superficial use of WP:V here is if enough "WP:RS" sources say it and a lot of WP editors gang up, it is hard to untangle the misinformation even when it gets blatantly misleading and counterfactually misrepresented despite clear, most current WP:V science to the contrary (and even directly testable by many individuals).

My point here is that Quackwatch is notable and is uncritically accepted by many, including the popular magazines with highly paid pharma sponsored ads, but that QW has, at least on a number occasions upon closer examination, been noted to be quite *scientifically unreliable* in its positions whether or not it represents some mainstream in medical beliefs grossly misrepresentative testing of economic competitors. A large segment of our medical industry simply does not (want to) hear such criticism, no matter how well founded or carefully stated by qualified scientists. Even Dr Barrett says he's not even trying to be balanced. Here at the QW space articles, Misplaced Pages has been used to advance Quackwatch's image as promoted without serious criticism, systematically deleting WP:V criticism such as Hufford WP:V, WP:RS article quoting Kauffman's article at length and QW supporters deprecating QW's critics out of hand.--I'clast 15:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Unconvincing argument. QW is not a peer-review journal: it's a public service. In that vein, the descriptions it uses may be overly broad like any public service announcement about scientific topics, but that doesn't mean that the site is "unreliable". The legalistic game-playing that goes on with this kind of thing is, quite frankly, absurd. It's similar to the arguments leveled by the Discovery Institute against critics of intelligent design. Trying to profit on the actual ambiguities inherent in scientific methodology and investigations in order to claim that Barrett is somehow being dishonest or worse is not only fearmongering, it is frankly ludicrous. On closer investigation, even the best science textbooks have oversights, errors, and deliberate whitewashing. That's because a general presentation of facts and scientific consensus can never be truly 100% descriptive. I'm tired of people with obvious agendas defaming a very good resource like QW just because they don't like to see their pet ideas attacked. Take a dose of WP:COI and call me in the morning. Sheesh! ScienceApologist 15:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sheesh! Bringing the intelligent design controversy to this argument is quite disingenuous. I see no substantial argument presented for the exclusion of criticism of this public service, website, advocacy outlet or whatever you want to call it. On the contrary, it would be expected that such a site will attract criticism, and not having it in the article is confusing, misleading, and makes for a poor article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I see the intelligent design controversy as apt. As in that case, we have here proponents that are doing anything they can to get their viewpoints presented. As has been said here many, many (...) times, we need to strictly adhere to NPOV and OR so as not to let minority (or even insignificant) viewpoints be treated as something they are not. --Ronz 16:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. NPOV calls for all significant viewpoints to be presented and that is my intention. And if we do not find common ground to identify these significant viewpoints, we shall pursue dispute resolution until we find it. We need just patience and perseverance. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Except what it seems to me the alternative medicine group fails to understand is that they represent a minority viewpoint per WP:WEIGHT. ScienceApologist 18:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ouch... That may be your opinion, SA. I do not thing is neither that black and white, nor that simple. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Given the popularity of alternative medicine and traditional medicine throughout the world, I am not sure I understand your argument to be anything more than your ungrounded opinion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Majority opinion is not verifiable or reliable. It may be that most people in the world are geocentrists. That does not mean our verifiable statements about the lack of evidence for geocentrism is "ungrounded". Reality is not based on a popularity contest. ScienceApologist 21:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The issue here is whether Quackwatch opinions are verifiable or reliable or not, where WP:V & NPOV take on special importance in scientific issues that are akin to SPOV rather than MPOV.

The WP:COI, at least with roots in personal economic/professional interests or outside internet wars AFAIK, has pretty much been on the "QW defense". What nominally "(QW) mainstream medical" proponents often fail to acknowledge is that QW's bias and obsolesence on the *scientific* parts has rendered QW's shortcomings, in at least some of the chemical/biologically testable areas, visible to a growing number of people with substantial relevant science and experimental backgrounds in bio-/chem-.

Also one should carefully distinguish Science, its principles, and Medicine, its politics, common or "accepted" practices, and presuppositions, where some here are eager to presume or portray that they are synonymous. They aren't.

Because the errors made by QW often involve more than one subrepted concept or fact, they are difficult to coherently disentangle here for a less observant or knowledgeable audience despite their publicly noted failures. Yes, in our society good, solid, generically based science, as well as some bad science, will likely be in the publication minority when juxtaposed at direct variance with large, checkered, commercial/institutional interests. The QW proponents pound their *opinion* of QW's "infallibility" (promoting QW's "scientific authoritativeness" and deprecating, minimizing or eliminating even its more scientifically, or legally, qualified critics) where those opinions that concern QW's "scientific rationales", with serious errors concerning basic experimental practices in hypothesis testing and observational contradictions. The reason I pick on vitamin C here is twofold: (1) it involves perhaps the most notable, highly misunderstood scientific disputes with persistently highly misleading "authoritative" misrepresentations, with errors & misrepresentations repeated and promoted here at WP by QW & its proponents (as well as other fellow travellers), and (2) the Quackwatch versions are so benighted that QW's scientific violations and errors are so fundamental that the disputes are not only over outputs (observations, measurements & interpreted results) but that QW persistently repeats blatantly corrupt(ed) inputs that have been repeatedly, and publicly, identified as incorrect over decades but denounced in the best traditions of biased human nature, institutional/economic power, and demagoguery.

Basically these blatant, persistent methodolical failures in hypothesis testing, largely supported by QW's repetition to the public & despite QW claims of authoritative nutrient expertise, especially with respect to the orthomed viral and respiratory disease claims, reads something like "We *only* (look or) tested at 0.2X to 4X, failed a hundred times after spending millions, therefore the experiments & observations at 40X-500X are "wrong" no matter how many decades we have been told how to or shown otherwise and the high range experimenters ("frauds/quacks") should be burned at the stake." Again where *current* science (last 10-20 years) shows significant support to many of the observed ascorbate claims by several mechanisms, as well as clinical observations by qualified scientists/physicians (in different decades, continents & languages, or even DIY) where QW simply show no *relevant* hard data but QW supporters (or believers) launch a flood of ill founded technical (WP:RS quotable but WP:V obsolete/wrong) innuendo at WP (still mopping it up, slowly). These particular QW articles are pretty unscientific or pseudoskeptical as well as biased based on WP:V facts and the publically noted, repeated, basic methodological failures in hypothesis testing. Errors so much that even many common people *have* been able to punch through the barrage of "authoritative QW mainstream" bs on this particular topic. Yet QW gets more favorable, unblemished portrayal than, say, some of Einstein's foibles. There is statistical evidence that QW is a small minority, population wise, even if widely promoted in the various (big $ advertising) publications and associates, as well as being seriously scientifically challenged.

Prof Kauffman's review and analyses of 8 QW articles are specific scientific & methodological criticism of Quackwatch by a qualified scientist and are quoted at length by Prof Hufford in a WP:RS. Some of Kauffman's points controversial to WP-QW proponents have already been shown elsewhere here at WP to be compliant with *current* medical school research results.--I'clast 23:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox for your fringe beliefs, I'clast. This diatribe is nothing more than unsubstantiated and (frankly) ignorant innuendo. Just because quacks don't like being called quacks doesn't mean that we have to accommodate their minority viewpoints. (NOTE: This comment refers to the people that Barrett is directly criticizing. It does not refer to any user on this page.) Read WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT. ScienceApologist 00:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that you are crossing a line here that you should not. I would appreciate if you can make a little effort to remain civil and address arguments presented on their merits and without ad hominem attacks. It is not helpful, it is disrespectful, and frankly, reflects very poorly on you. Any further such ad hominem will be logged and if they persist, will be brought to the attention of the appropriate noticeboard. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I am being civil in as much as I am stating as plainly as I can what I believe to be the case based on the evidence presented. I'm convinced that basically, I'clast is writing excessive amounts of prose with very little in the way of relevance to this conversation (and, indeed, very little in the way of factual support) in an attempt to force a snow job acceptance of his viewpoint that Quackwatch should be considered a dubious source for issues of medical science. I balk at this suggestion and do accuse the user of having ulterior motives. Frankly, there is little to comment as to the "merits" of his arguments: they are fairly much "hot air". As to ad hominem, I am simply pointing out the problematic starting point that this editor is working from, effectively, I see this as a conflict of interest as I pointed out above. I encourage you to take it to a noticeboard if you think I have erred in my evaluation of the situation. ScienceApologist 00:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I do enjoy how I'clast often regards the following of policy as a shortcoming "QW proponent" et.al. If only his references were published in reputable sources, then we wouldn't be here. Also, SA may be bordering on uncivil, but his comments are not ad hominem "attacks". The arguments by I'clast are long winded soapboxery. Sorry, that's what they are. Calling the argument that is not ad hominem in any way shape nor form. If I'clast wishes his arguements to be discussed seriously, he should park his quite apparent POV at the door and look at improving the article, rather then educating Wikipedian Editors on why the Community is wrong and he is right. Shot info 01:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You could have said just this, to better effect and less drama: "I'clast, could you please summarize your point in a short sentence. That way editors can address your arguments in a manner that can move this debate forward". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Now I can understand someone telling me that I shouldn't tell someone that they are a coward or a liar, but how is it problematic to tell someone that what they are doing is disrupting the talkpage by using it as a soapbox for fringe beliefs, that their diatribe is nothing more than unsubstantiated and ignorant innuendo, and that we don't need to accommodate the feelings of those criticized by the subject of the article? Really, I want to know what's so terrible about this. Explain it to me on my talk, though, as here is not the place to do it. ScienceApologist 01:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'clast has been told this repeatibly. Just because he wishes to get on his Soapbox does not mean that other editors are not allowed to point this out and dismiss his argument. Shot info 01:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI, in Misplaced Pages does not appreciate editors that think (a) that they are always right; (b) that believe that their POV is the "correct" POV instead of just a POV; and (c) that believe that by categorizing an editor as biased, ignorant, or conflicted, fail to see their own bias, ignorance, and conflicts. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI, Misplaced Pages does not "appreciate" anybody as Misplaced Pages tain't no person. You may not appreciate certain editors for various reasons, but you are not Misplaced Pages. Me, personally, I don't appreciate editors who think (a), (b), or (c) either and thank the flying spaghetti monster that I am not such an editor. However, if you do think I am such an editor, you are welcome to explain how you came to that conclusion at my talkpage. ScienceApologist 01:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you got my point. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry SA, Jossi's description fit I'clast just as much as you or anyone else. Jossi just isn't used to reading I'clast's missives, which we have done dozens of times. They all come down to a complaint that mainstream sources, V sources, and RSources do not confirm his version of what is scientific accuracy related to megavitamin therapy and orthomolecular medicine, and Barrett just happens to side with the mainstream and thus has more V & RS on his side. Since Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball, nor permits OR, but is dependent on already established (IOW historical) V & RS, we are forced to use them and can't use I'clast's sources which hope that they will become verified in the future and mainstream in the future. Our hands are tied. -- Fyslee / talk 01:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

SA, regarding diatribe...beliefs, my discussion is actually about verifiable facts, historical and scientific, not my beliefs, that relate to the unreliablilty of some of QW's articles that have significant misrepresentations about dosed treatment quantities in them concerning orthomolecular medicine. Before and since Pauling, orthomed pioneers & practitioners have complained in print about the "mainstream medical" lack of experimentation with the actual orthomolecular protocols & dosage ranges, despite funding dozens upon dozens of *much* lower "large doses" than the current Pauling/orthomed recommendations. The essentially ex cathedra statements by the Quackwatch authors have *no* experimental basis for important parts of their conclusions, like correct dosing, not even remotely close - pls show me any "mainstream test" tests in QW's referenced tests even at 2 grams per hour for any respiratory illness (Pauling's "first tickle" version, lower dose orthomed), much less say 150 grams per day for a flu, divided & dosed every waking hour. I have never seen a "mainstream" test beyond 4 - 6 grams daily, OID or BID, and a single dose test of 8 grams. "Mainstream medicine" proponents often do have verifiably mistaken beliefs about what orthomed actually recommends in print, where Quackwatch is often being miscited as a reliable source, and QW is verifiably not reliable on a number of important points stating the orthomed positions (as in greatly mistaken or misrepresenting orthomed, even if they are copying other "authoritative" or "mainstream" authors that are verifiably (WP:V) counterfactual misinformation). QW points that are mistaken, or simply innuendo, are often in overwhelming quantity that are hard to correct in a maelstorm of uninformed if popularized POV at WP. And I do provide WP:RS & WP:V references for my science quotes, sometimes slowly, where I am trying to get the most current or best experiemental science refs available to me in the wilds of North Am.

Publications like QW often control or abort *any* scientific discussion of alt med subjects by greatly distorting the discussion & proposition into unrecognizable strawmmen. I.e. if orthomed reports up to 500 grams per day of oral vitamin C at bowel tolerance, even dosed at several times per hour, may help ameleriorate or greatly shorten or cure a viral infection and Quackwatch says that is "quackery" because the referenced "mainstream" tested dozens and dozens of tests that typically run 0.2 - 4 grams *per day* as "conclusively" negative or insignificant despite repeated orthomed publications with the much larger amounts, say 2 to 12 grams *per hour*. Who really is the (pseudo)scientific/skeptical crank or quack when these supposed "experts" fail to test, or even correctly state, the orthomed hypothesis amounts by an order of magnitude of more ??? Done deliberately this is clear scientific misconduct or fraud, but whatever the cause or rationale the greatly nonrepresentative tests are praised as "authoritative" in the "QW mainstream" POV.--I'clast 17:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

C more authoritatively

Please reference Do vitamins C and E affect respiratory infections ?. Even discussing the lower amounts "(mainstream) high dose tests" QW authors fare poorly. On p. 63, major Cochrane reviews author on vitamin C, Harri Hemila (MD + 2 PhDs), strongly criticizes QW / NCAHF's Victor Herbert's conclusions on several vitamin C papers. Among several criticisms of QW's Stephen Barrett on vitamin C, p.64, Barrett’s presentation of facts related to the findings from studies on vitamin C and the common cold have been markedly biased. or, how about, Barrett’s claim that at best there is only a slight reduction in symptoms appears grossly misleading considering the published results. Hmmm, QW authors sound pretty scientifically unreliable on vitamin C coming from a real mainstream vitamin C & respiratory disease authority.--I'clast 17:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You are citing a dissertation, which does not carry the weight of a peer-reviewed article. You have cited some choice quotes, but I think additional context is illuminating. She states, "Anderson et al. (1972) found that vitamin C supplementation (1-4 g/ day) decreased the ‘numbers of days confined to house’ per subject by 48% in subjects with a low dietary intake of fruit juices. Barrett’s claim that at best there is only a slight reduction in symptoms appears grossly misleading considering the published results." She highlighted one result from a study from 1972 that covered subjects with low fruit juice intake. Presumably this is the best evidence to refute Barrett's claim, and it's just not that good. It's not very damning or even convincing. Certainly, if there are good criticisms of Barrett or Quackwatch, they can do more than fault him for missing a solitary finding from 1972. Antelan 17:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hemila's "mere" dissertation is a integrated rollup of about 15 years of Hemila's peer reviewed vitamin C papers on respiratory infections including subsequent Cochrane review material integrated with some supportive details from the prior peer reviewed papers. Hemila takes 2 pages to deflate QW authors' related claims, Hemila using accepted *mainstream* lower dose test data only, properly analyzed and reinterpreted. Hemila's previously published statements in peer reviewed journals demolish documented bias and serious errors in previous mainstream positions that form the mainstream and QW type biases against vitamin C in respiratory infection(e.g. commentary on one Hemila paper), again only using the "low (nega)dose" type "mainstream" data, rather than orthomolecular Megadose quantities an order of magnitude, or more, higher. The 2nd quote concerning Anderson is an example where Barrett's writing miscites or misrepresents, not the statement & fact's single, absolute conclusory determination for vitamin C for everybody - academically it's the act or bias that is notable, not so much the scientific error's magnitude or generality. The 1st quote, ...markedly biased, is more broadly written, followed by the example of the 2nd quote. Btw, Harri turns out to be a he in Finland, not a she.--I'clast 23:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Negadose? Now I've heard it all. I'm not convinced by this paper, which cites little controlled evidence and relies heavily on technicalities that are barely relevant to the broader picture. The conclusions at the end of the paper, which do little more than suggest "further research", don't convince me that Barrett was wrong. My point in telling you this is that I don't think this is one of the better criticisms of QW - I think jossi has found more robust ones, below. Antelan 03:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You might want to read Hemila's thesis (or associated papers) closer, he pretty well authoritatively guts everything you (and your professors) probably think you know about vitamin C and respiratory disease after being soaked in 35+ years of mangled statistical handling and clear "mainstream" bias & error on the relatively low 0.2 - 4 gram/day mainstream test range. Btw, looking at their correspondence, Hemila and a number orthomed supporters would not be considered friends. Obviously the point of the Hemila's 143 pages is vitamin C & respiratory disease, not debunking QW so he doesn't spend much time directly building the case to discredit the VH & SB bias, as much as simply noting their positions and pontifications as markedly incompatible with the evidence and ...markedly biased. "Negadose" was my humorous attempt to differentiate the orthomolecular Megadoses and the faux "megadoses" usually run in the much lower dosed mainstream tests and stilted analyses criticizing orthomed and thus has nothing to do with the credibility of Hemila's papers. Hemila is the recognized mainstream expert here and has reviewed all the data he could find in an exhaustive retrospective search for papers, building on others previous searchs & techniques. Hamila's work is built out of a *series* of peer reviewed papers at a high level in a professionally dangerous area where care was essential to professional survival and to maintain/advance his Cochrane reviewer status.

Hemila's recommendation for more research recognizes an "intriguing" upward trend of effectiveness with rising vitamin C dosage in the mainstream data analyzed to date that warrants extending the test range upwards to higher ascorbate loadings. No doubt he doesn't want anyone to claim he peeked under the covers at orthomed's results :) .

David Hufford, bioethics prof at UPenn Med school and Penn State Med Center, says severe bias in a V RS article. Vitamin C Cochrane reviewer (mainstream expert) Harri Hamila says ...markedly biased and prof Joel Kauffman, quoted at length by Hufford, says contaminated with incomplete data, obsolete data, technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo,...repetition of groundless dogma...misled by the trappings of scientific objectivity. This article currently unabashedly favors QW without noting criticism addressing such blemishes & claims by highly qualified 3rd parties.--I'clast 15:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You say, You might want to read Hemila's thesis (or associated papers) closer, he pretty well authoritatively guts everything you (and your professors) probably think you know about vitamin C and respiratory disease after being soaked in 35+ years of mangled statistical handling and clear "mainstream" bias & error on the relatively low 0.2 - 4 gram/day mainstream test range.

I'm wondering why you keep bringing this up on the talk page? I say "This is not mainstream" and you say "the mainstream is wrong". That's not a response that is going to get your views much traction on Misplaced Pages. This is a page for discussing Quackwatch, not whether professors of medicine at Johns Hopkins know their basic biochemistry. Antelan 22:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I am pointing out that the vitamin C story changed substantially in mainstream science or mainstream scientific medicine as of 2005-2006 with authoritative sources weighing in with significant concessions to LP & C on mainstream "oversights", but not enough for concretely altering your mainstream medical education with "new" treatments. The C story at this point is not just basic biochemistry, it is a significant science dispute re-opening after being side tracked for several decades by mainstream medical figures (with significant documented allegations of scientific fraud and bias by Pauling et al), now quietly substantiated on parts. Authoritative mainstream figures are saying that the old mainstream got the testing and analyses wrong with significant new publications.

The dispute is significant to Quackwatch for at least several reasons: (1) because Quackwatch authors have so vitriolicly attacked LP & vit C for so long it is a significant part of the QW history; (2) because the Moertel fraud (LP said many times & points)/bias aspects should have been be clear to any claimed scientific medical parties or claimed experts adequately involved and doing their homework for public pronouncements or long term discussions even if Pauling et al didn't protest so loudly; (3) the Pauling - vitamin C attack has been a long running publicity note for Quackwatch, after basicly leading a good part of the chorus continuing to shout the man down, where it turns out even Pauling's relatively modest orthomed proposals remain *untested* after 30 years and millions of dollars of faux tests that have Quackwatch as the most familiar cheer leader. Now authoritative mainstream voices (e.g. NIH, Cochrane reviewers) are having to admit there might be something there, but the mainstream needs to finally *start* doing their homework & performing *relevant* tests where they have *none*.--I'clast 16:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Consensus version?

Does that means that this article is locked? I am sure that this is not the case. Can those that keep reverting my edits explain how do you expect users to better this article? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Here a diff for one specific edit which I self reverted. What is wrong with that edit? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Other issues

1. The lead needs to be expanded and NPOV'ed as per WP:LEAD
2. The criticism section will be better merged into the rest of the article, rather than in a separate section
3. Some of the statements in the "Credibility as a source" are not verifiable, for example, healthfinder.org provides a link to this website, under this disclaimer: http://www.healthfinder.gov/aboutus/disclaimer.asp, which clearly means no endorsement whatsoever.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate editor's comments on these issues. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Book question

How this book should be assessed in regard of this subject?

• Aloiso, Ted. Blood Never Lies(2004) by Ted Aloiso, Llumina Press ISBN 1932560947

It has a full chapter very critical Quackwatch.com. Seems that this person is the Director of a Veritas Health Institute in Canada, but I do not know what that Institute is or anything else about the author besides that he published that book.

I would also appreciate editor's comments on this article: in particular related to this debate (also } ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate editor's comments on these issues. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Llumina is a vanity press, Kos publishing is a vanity press. The final paper is the opinion of a single medical professional who was summarizing a "debate" between MCS true-believers and debunkers. It's not the best source, but you could do worse. ScienceApologist 01:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes Lumina is a self publishing entity, but I am not referring to that. I am referring to the magazine article which is republished on a page of the kospublishing.com site, which was published originally in Vitality Magazine, May 2002. The magazine article and the self-published book, both refer to the same incident, that's all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, Ted Aloiso's book is self-published then...

Vitality magazine isn't exactly a neutral source on the matter either.

ScienceApologist 02:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have access to Ingenta database? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I do. ScienceApologist 02:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, Kosh publishing does not seem to be a vanity press, but a small publisher of alternative medicine books. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a vanity press run by one woman who is on her own crusade to teach the world about alternative medicine. Click on the "about" tab for more. ScienceApologist 02:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I gave them a cursory look. It's Ted Aloisio. He appears to be a live-cell microscopy quack. His book should be treated as self-published given the publisher "Llumina Press provides personalized self-publishing services including editing and marketing."

As for the rest, I don't think arguments based upon ad-hominems and straw men (from both sides) deserves mention without independent reliable sources. --Ronz 02:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That is why I am asking for access to the to Ingenta database, in which we may be able to find if any of these assertions of fact are true or not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I am also trying to find out if the Vitality magazine article was an op-ed or a full article in the magazine. Will know soon. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Vitality magazine's articles are generally all just alt med hype pieces anyway. ScienceApologist 02:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It does not matter, as it is a reliable source to describe criticism made by Quackwatch's targets. We will not be using the source to make claims of truth, but to assert an opinion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

As long as the opinion is appropriately weighted, there's really no issue. ScienceApologist 04:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Non-profit status

Also, I have tried to find out what non-profit status Quackwatch Inc has, but I have failed to find them in GuideStar . Does anybody know what status it has? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Does this help?: Non-Profit (Non Stock) -- Fyslee / talk 05:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Fyslee. What is confusing to me at this point is its relationship with NCAHF, which states in its website that QW is part of their company. NCAHF is a 501(c)(3), but QW is not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Summarizing previous discussions

There's one very important point that's made many times in the discussion archives that hasn't been mentioned in this latest round of discussions: Quackwatch, Stephen Barrett, and NCAHF are only barely notable. They certainly are all notable, and as independent entities, but there are very few independent, reliable sources that indicate they're notable. (There have been many discussions for deletion and/or merging, which is not the point.) Because there is so little written about them in usable sources, it's very easy to get frustrated looking for usable sources supporting details about them. In the case of both praise and criticisms (and just about anything else), we often find ourselves in a position where there are none we can use at all. This is to be expected given that they're barely notable to begin with. When we push the limits of NPOV, RS, and related policies/guidelines, it's useful to remember that perhaps the information isn't important enough to present at all. --Ronz 22:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If there are no sources to support an NPOV representation of an article, there are two choices in Misplaced Pages: One is to submit the article to AfD, so that it gets assessed for deletion. The other, is to make a short stub of the article with only very basic information about the subject, just a sentence or two. I will be surprised if any of these two approaches will gather any traction. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry that I didn't mention that stubbing is not the issue either. We have enough sources to avoid that. It's just that we don't, and probably never will, have the sources to make large and detailed articles. We've repeatedly pushed the limits of NPOV, RS, etc to try to expand the article, and in almost every case it has resulted in extreme frustration. Basically, I'm saying that we have to be expect that these should be small (probably smaller) articles. Anyways, this is just my summary of spending far too much time trying to get some balance to these articles. --Ronz 00:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That is where fresh eyes can help. I am just getting started with this article, and see no problems in finding and adding some sources to balance this article for NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If I had been drinking coffee my keyboard would be ruined. Ronz, what have you been drinking? There are thousands of sources, but it's just a matter of how large we want this to get and what sources are worth using. -- Fyslee / talk 01:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

"and what sources are worth using" Yes, but that's my point. There don't seem to be many usable sources for the topics that editors want to include into the article. As you say above in another section, "Our hands are tied." We can only include what's available in acceptable sources. Too many of the discussions here have been driven not by the available sources, but by points of view that editors want included somehow. --Ronz 04:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

So maybe I can try to summarize my summary: Most of the problems here come from editors trying to find ways to include their perspective or point of view into the article, when instead we should be writing the article from the available and appropriate sources. Because the articles' topics aren't highly notable, there are often no sources available at all for what editors want to include. --Ronz 04:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I continue to disagree with your statement, Ron. I have edited hundreds of articles in Misplaced Pages, and I have yet to see one article about a controversial issue that does not carry criticism from an opposing POV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see Ronz or anyone else denying that there are plenty (thousands) of criticisms from opposing POV, or that some of them should be included. They must be, but which ones are worth it? This comment summarizes the situation very nicely:

• Look, the fact is that advocates of fringe or minoritarian viewpoints have a tough road to hoe on Misplaced Pages. This is supposed to be a serious encyclopedia. Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Misplaced Pages aspires to be such a respected work. WP:WEIGHT codifies this. Of course minority or fringe viewpoints can be represented and covered, but advocates who relentlessly push for favorable treatment of widely discredited fringe viewpoints and refuse to bow to any sort of consensus or Misplaced Pages policy don't last long (or rather, they shouldn't but often do). MastCell 00:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

While the good doctor is discussing sources used for a slightly different purpose (for facts, not specifically criticisms), MastCell touches on some principles that still apply here. We need criticisms in this article. We need good and legitimate ones, not ad homs or straw men. There aren't many others than that. Critics "have a tough road to hoe." The criticisms need to have some weight and legitimate notability (not notoriety) behind them. If they came from reliable sources that are respected in the mainstream, we'd really have something here! I'd like to see such criticisms in the article. We can and have had plenty of criticisms (the article used to be mostly criticisms) that were libelous, outright lies, ad homs, straw men, and mere burps of irritation, and some were from attack sites of the lowest kind. Some got removed and the sources blacklisted for any use at Misplaced Pages, they were that bad. We need good and legitimate criticisms, or lacking that, criticisms from V sources that also include balancing comments that give context. Lies should not be allowed to stand alone without letting the reader know that what is being said has been rebutted effectively and beyond any doubt, otherwise we are facilitating the deception of readers by editors with their own agendas or who are running errands for those who wish to defame Barrett and deceive readers about him. -- Fyslee / talk

Thank you. We are in violent agreement then. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Psst....over here....just between the two of us. I too have some criticisms of Quackwatch and Barrett personally, but unfortunately I'm not a V & RS.... ;-) -- Fyslee / talk 06:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comments

Comments by involved editors

Comment by Jossi (talk · contribs)

• My question is very simple: can a source published in a peer reviewed journal be used to describe criticism of this website, which is in itself self-published and without editorial control, when it is this lack of editorial control and review that the criticism is based upon? See #Kauffman_critique for a summary of that source, as well as links to the journal in which it was published.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arthur Rubin

I still question whether the journal in question is peer-reviewed, and whether it, even if peer reviewed, may exhibit intentional bias against the site we're talking about. So, the answer is still no, as far as I'm concerned, but JSE may not really be peer-reviewed nor may Quackwatch be necessarily SPS. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Is intentional bias a reason to dismiss a source? Is intentional bias verifiable, or just an editors's opinion? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Intentional bias could rationally be inferred from the journal's charter, but it is OR. Unfortunately, that would mean, that to avoid WP:BIAS on our part, we need to include that section of the charter in the article, or at least prominantely in the citation. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, we can do that gently and without poisoning the well. Readers can always find more info by follwoing the wikilink. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

How can we do it? Leaving an unadorned reference seems inadequate. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Give it a go. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought I tried that a while back. It was reverted clause-by-clause by the pro-alternative medicine cabal, until nothing was left. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, it's a website review. In my experience with peer-reviewed professional journals, review articles are not peer-reviewed. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I could read, the review was not about the website itself, but about several documents published on the website. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

He calls it a "website review". Whether it is or not is up to interpretation of the reader, I suppose. ScienceApologist 18:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Adam Cuerden

Quackwatch has a lengthy list of advisors, so it's not really a self-published source, and the JSE's "peer review" system is... not what is commonly understood by the name. On the whole, it rather seems that saying the JSE is good for criticising Quackwatch is like saying that the Creation Science Quarterly is a good source for attacking, say, The Panda's Thumb (a collective evolution blog). Adam Cuerden 18:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Do the advisors review the documents posted in the site? It does not seem so. See All articles described in that review were signed by Stephen Barrett, M.D. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments by respondents to this RFC

Can we find a reputable, mainstream journal that has criticisms of Quackwatch? Antelan 03:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Do we need such? I have seen many articles in Misplaced Pages, in which the threshold for including criticism does not require a mainstream journal. One example, the Christopher Hitchens article has a reference to criticism made by William A. Donohue of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Liberties, obviously a partisan organization that is upset with Hitchens anti-religious stance. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm offering that suggestion because it would, I believe, ameliorate the concerns raised by others while still providing the criticism you are seeking. Any criticism from the mainstream would suffice. Antelan 03:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I've yet to see one. This is basically the issue. ScienceApologist 04:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Many articles in Misplaced Pages carry sources that are not from the "mainstream", and it seems to contradict NPOV that a site as this one cannot carry criticism of these being targeted by it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That is precisely one of the proofs of the acceptance of Quackwatch in the mainstream - the lack of evidence against it from that quarter. The few "criticisms" mentioned in website reviews are regarding minor imperfections and irritating things, not of systemic errors. Criticisms are nearly always ad hominem and straw man attacks (never real debunking of Quackwatch's arguments) from fringe sources that have been criticized for their unscientific or outright deceptive and/or criminal practices.

In the case of deceptive or criminal practices, Quackwatch often levels criticisms after they (individuals, etc.) have been charged with such by the police, FTC, or FDA, IOW Quackwatch is just reporting, not originating, the information. (That's what happend with Hulda Clark, where Quackwatch and Barrett were never involved until after she got into trouble.) What then happens is that Barrett and others work on researching the person, company, or profession, and expand on the subject by providing what they have found. When that process is finished it becomes an article, often with Barrett's signature, but having involved input from numerous volunteers. I have seen this process work several times when quackish and/or fraudulent issues were first discovered by participants on the Healthfraud Discussion List (of which I was a participant, but now no longer know what they are even doing). The list members (an international collection of over 500 individuals, many of whom are professionals in science and health care) would then report and discuss their findings and later Barrett (or a list member) would produce an article including those sources and even more. Fact checking was very basic to the whole procedure. Often antagonistic members (or even trolls) would criticize or find fault with the discussions and findings, and if they were right changes would be made and the final product would be even better. Basically many articles are the product of many persons' efforts. Quackwatch is definitely not an SPS without editorial oversight or lack of fact checking. Articles are often later revised in keeping with new information of a reliable character, IOW a conservative approach. While Barrett often does much of the work, he is not alone. He is an experienced editor, coordinator, task deligater, author, moderator, and teacher, whose expertise on the subjects of quackery and health fraud are renowned in the mainstream and feared and hated among the fringe and criminals. People automatically place themselves in one category or the other by their favorable or negative comments about him and his work, which is the nature of things. It can't be any other way. The third possibility is comments made in ignorance. -- Fyslee / talk 05:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not disputing any of that (although I am not sure it can be substantiated by a source, otherwise we would have that in the article already). Only that what you call "antagonistic members" have a viewpoint which is not currently presented in the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, again, my point is that if you can find mainstream criticism, all of the other issues will melt away. I'm proposing this as a way to end the back-and-forth that seems to be happening here. Why perseverate over what seems, after a brief read, to be a largely reactionary diatribe if there is better material to be found? Antelan 05:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point, and hope that you could understand mine. My point is that a website that carries criticism of X, will have , by its nature criticism of it by X. Not describing such criticism, puts this article in the realm of not being factual, as well as not describing the controversies surrounding their activities (that by the look of it—read the related articles—is quite substantial. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like a straw man argument to me, or has someone deleted all criticisms? We have had plenty of them. -- Fyslee / talk 05:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Jossi - Yes, I can understand that X will criticize the same website that criticizes X. This is simply to be expected, and does not establish that X's criticism merits a mention in the website's Misplaced Pages page. Hence, my point about looking for mainstream criticism, rather than what seems to be criticism that in this case seems to be reactive at best or fringe at worst. Antelan 05:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

(ed conf) I see your point, Antelan. Hopefully we will find some secondary sources that describe the criticism, which could be quoted in that context, rather than directly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Antelan's argument is essentially notability, which Hufford's peer reviewed paper well establishes for Kaufman's JSE paper. Kaufman is reviewing from the mainstream methodology viewpoint of science, concerning *highly* politicized topics on a partisan site. Kaufman is using *modern* research & facts for his discussion. This "fringe" dismissal business is tiresome where Kaufman has quite modern mainstream references, in the paper or, more, his book, Malignant Medical Myths and his points in the Watching Watchdogs at Quackwatch paper are largely about (lack of) QW factuality and proper scientific reasoning & conduct, which he is quite qualified to do.--I'clast 15:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Another factor that may be adding confusion is a consensus decision (required by policy) to keep on topic. IOW criticisms should be placed in the appropriate article, so while many criticisms mention Quackwatch, they are directed very specifically at Barrett and have ended up being moved to the Barrett article. Because the articles are rarely rebutted, Quackwatch and the articles go scott free, while the author (and Barrett often gets criticized, even when another author has written and signed the article!) gets lambasted with personal attacks, without any rebutting of the actual contents of his writings. That's what makes 98% of the criticisms unworthy of use here. -- Fyslee / talk 05:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand. It may be difficult to separate the website from the person behind it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Very true. That's why certain special positive and negative things should be in both articles. -- Fyslee / talk 06:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

RfC Response Is the Journal of Scientific Exploration a WP:reliable source for use in this article? NO. See Time Magazine, Science on the Fringe.. Dlabtot 20:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

JSE as an independently edited periodical with a qualified editorial board is a sufficiently reliable source to report (alternative) views on controversial subjects such as a qualified scientist's analyses, or questions, as on entrenched or popularized (pseudo)skepticism in medicine. The nature of the subjects in altmed, the partisan site, and the journal itself, indicate that there is basic conflict or questions on politics, economics, and scientific matters that is largely a sufficient notice to caution readers. JSE has far fewer economic conflicts of interest than the usual (pharma sponsored) "mainstream" media, well noted by prominent mainstream figures, as well as their altmed counterparts.--I'clast 15:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

JSE is a "peer-reviewed" journal, per their own statement, but the editorial board has also said that they don't believe in peer-review. (And would you please cite the book, rather than the amazon.com sales link?) The question of economic conflicts of interest is suitable for discussion, but philosophical conflicts of interest are, IMHO, more serious, as they are extremely difficult to document. JSE has shown such conflicts in their editorial policy, and so cannot possibly be considered a reliable source except in cases where the article's author is separately a reliable source. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

An article in the JSE is certainly not a reliable source for scientific claims, but it may very well be a reliable source for a critique of this website. Sources and their reliability cannot be assessed without the context in which they are used: that is basically what good editorial judgment calls for... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we all need to understand something about JSE because I feel it is getting mischaracterized. JSE use sound reasoning and good science to examine thing outside of mainstream scientific study. This does not mean that the support the belief of UFOs or Telepathy, or even foster these beliefs. Rather, they publish good scientific studies of these fringe topics, which typically reveal why they are bunk. JSE is a great resource for scientific studies, because it dares to publish research of the fringe... but not fringe research. The peer-review process there - as the TIME article above alludes to - sifts through the bad research and finds only the sound and rational examinations. For this reason, I see no reason why the JSE alone can't be considered a WP:RS. Couple with that, Kauffman is a professor at a renowned scientific university and has many published pieces of research in the very fields the articles of Quackwatch which he reviewed are dealing with. Kauffman's expertise here cannot be challenged. His website review is the best critique of Quackwatch we have seen here to date. -- Levine2112 18:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I still disagree. My position (and my relatively stable position, except for short periods of times) is that JSE is clearly not a WP:RS, even for website reviews, because of their odd definition of peer-review, and that Kauffman may be a reliable source, but we haven't done the balancing analysis yet. Even if Levine2112's assertions as to Kauffman's credentials are accurate (I believe they are, I don't recall ever seeing sources), Kauffman may not be an expert at reviewing scientific results, which is what would be needed. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure he is. Please review his credentials here. A Google Scholar search reveals even more research he has done or been cited in. Further, I don't believe that we have any reason to believe that his review was subject anything other than normal scientific editorial peer-review. -- Levine2112 20:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Mmmm.... Kauffman may not be an expert at reviewing scientific results that is a strange statement, as what he is reviewing is not a peer reviewed scientific result, but an article in a Website. The more I look at this I see no reason why Kauffman site review cannot be described in the article, properly attributed and alongside a comment about the provenance of his review. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Is this issue resolved? --Anthon01 (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we mostly just go tired of it. WP:NPOV and WP:V are pretty much being ignored here. Kauffman clearly has an agenda, while his expertise is questionable, and it's unclear that any fact-checking was done whatsoever. JSE is a very poor source. We have no source to determine WP:WEIGHT, nor any source to help us balance this biased viewpoint at all. --Ronz (talk) 17:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Types of criticisms against Quackwatch (not Barrett)

To really get anywhere, I suggest that a list of the known types of criticisms against Quackwatch (not Barrett) be listed, and then we decide what types we feel are proper for inclusion. -- Fyslee / talk 05:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that this can be easily resolved by moving critique of QW from Barret's article as well as keeping what is already in this article, namely:

1. A number of practitioners and supporters of alternative medicine criticize Quackwatch for its criticism of alternative medicine. Donna Ladd, a journalist with The Village Voice, says Barrett relies mostly on negative research to criticize alternative medicine, rejecting most positive case studies as unreliable. She further writes that Barrett insists that most alternative therapies simply should be disregarded without further research. "A lot of things don't need to be tested they simply don't make any sense," he says, pointing to homeopathy, chiropractic, and acupuncture, among a myriad of other things.
2. David Hufford, a Professor of Humanities at the Penn State College of Medicine, wrote an opinion piece in which he asserts that Quackwatch would be more effective if he relied more on research and less on personal beliefs.
3. Quackwatch has been regularly criticized by the groups it investigates, such as herbalists, homeopaths and other alternative medicine practitioners.
4. Regarding the fluoridation of water debate, an article in the National Review quotes a "generally informative and persuasive" Quackwatch article that states "the anti-fluoridationists' basic technique is the big lie. Made infamous by Hitler, it is simple to use, yet surprisingly effective", and comments that these type of arguments as used by Quackwatch are not the for serious-minded people.
5. The inactive Science Panel on Interactive Communication and Health, appointed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, named Quackwatch as a credible source for exposing fraudulent online health information in 1999. Dr. Thomas R. Eng, who directed the panel's study, later backed away from endorsing Quackwatch, saying consumers should question Quackwatch as well as those it targets. "The government doesn't endorse Web sites," he said. Barry Chowka, a former adviser to the National Institutes of Health's Office of Alternative Medicine panel stated that "Quackwatch.com is consistently provocative and entertaining and occasionally informative."

I do not think that any more than that is needed, as it presents the controversy, names the protagonists and ther opinions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Reference 9 "Ladd" is missing at the moment (perhaps it's already in one of the articles), and it's hard to say whether point 5 is criticism or weak support (noting the Science Panel did approve QW). And Hufford appears twice, with slightly different context following the reference itself. But, aside from that, those are mainstream references TO criticism of QW. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I like jossi's suggested text a lot. It looks good to me. MastCell 21:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

We could conflate (1) and (3) as it makes the same point. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think that looks good. I think you may want to clarify that David Hufford is a Professor of Humanities at the Penn State College of Medicine in (2). Also, there is a dangling modifier in (4) - it is unclear from structure alone whether Quackwatch or the article critical of Quackwatch is making the "not for serious minded people" argument. Antelan 21:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Corrected. Thanks for spotting these. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Full text below. Unless there are any objections I will add this to the article in a day or two. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch has been regularly criticized by the groups it investigates, such as herbalists, homeopaths and other alternative medicine practitioners. number of practitioners and supporters of alternative medicine criticize Quackwatch for its criticism of alternative medicine. Donna Ladd, a journalist with The Village Voice, says Barrett relies mostly on negative research to criticize alternative medicine, rejecting most positive case studies as unreliable. She further writes that Barrett insists that most alternative therapies simply should be disregarded without further research. "A lot of things don't need to be tested they simply don't make any sense," he says, pointing to homeopathy, chiropractic, and acupuncture, among a myriad of other things.

David Hufford, a Professor of Humanities at the Penn State College of Medicine, wrote an opinion piece in which he asserts that Quackwatch would be more effective if he relied more on research and less on personal beliefs. In regard to the fluoridation of water debate, an article in the National Review quotes a "generally informative and persuasive" Quackwatch article that states "the anti-fluoridationists' basic technique is the big lie. Made infamous by Hitler, it is simple to use, yet surprisingly effective", and comments that these type of arguments as used by Quackwatch are not the for serious-minded people.

The inactive Science Panel on Interactive Communication and Health, appointed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, named Quackwatch as a credible source for exposing fraudulent online health information in 1999. Dr. Thomas R. Eng, who directed the panel's study, later backed away from endorsing Quackwatch, saying consumers should question Quackwatch as well as those it targets. "The government doesn't endorse Web sites," he said. Barry Chowka, a former adviser to the National Institutes of Health's Office of Alternative Medicine panel stated that "Quackwatch.com is consistently provocative and entertaining and occasionally informative."

Rather than putting these in a "Criticism" section (which are usually POV magnets), we could place this in a section called "Viewpoints on Quackwatch" or better, integrated in appropriate sections throughout the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with the sentences about the National Review article. It looks a little bit like you are cherry-picking quotes for a flippant criticism of Quackwatch rather than looking at the content of the review in its entirety. The way I read the article, the authors were just pointing out that Barrett is being a bit over-the-top. I see this like writing about a good review of a movie where the critic says one negative thing like, "If anything, I think the dialogue was too well-written." and then choosing that quote to put in the article. It just feels artificial and a violation of WP:WEIGHT.

Also, I think that the paraphrasing of Eng's opinion on QW is not quite NPOV. Eng didn't exactly "later back away from endorsing Quackwatch". Rather he clarified his statements by saying that consumers should read everything they find on the internet with a critical eye. I think that using the word "question" is a bit too argumentative. I would write this sentence this way:

Dr. Thomas R. Eng, who directed the panel's study, later clarified his statements saying that consumers should read all information on the internet with a critical eye. "The government doesn't endorse Web sites," he said.

ScienceApologist 23:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Read the sources. That wording is not mine. Eng later backed away from his Quackwatch endorsement, saying consumers should question Barrett's site as well as those it targets. "The government doesn't endorse Web sites," Eng says. Still, he says, " is the only site I know of right now looking at issues of fraud and health on the Internet." We could add these as footnote, for verifiability and to avoid people making similar challenges as yours in the future ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I did read the sources. The wording is Donna Ladd's who is not a verifiable source. If you read the actual statements from HHS my version is more NPOV. ScienceApologist 23:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

As for the National Review article, feel free to expand to add further context to that criticism. Please do that directly on the block above, if you could. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

In response you your last edit that you amended, I disagree that is a violation of undue weight, after all it is the published opinion of a notable individual. As said before, you are welcome to expand that paragraph with more context if needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is you are quoting the only negative quote from the article. If you took a random quote from the article it wouldn't be that negative. That's why it's an undue weight violation. ScienceApologist 23:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate less filibustering and more of a collaboration to get this done and move on to other articles that could benefit from out attention. I said it already twice above: make the necessary additions to provide context. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

My "necessary addition" would be to change which quote was used. Otherwise, I'm afraid in order to satisfy WP:WEIGHT, we'll have to quote the article almost in it's entirety to give appropriate context. Cherry-picking the one slightly negative comment in an otherwise glowing review is not neutral. ScienceApologist 00:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

And saying that The wording is Donna Ladd's who is not a verifiable source, is at best a very poor argument. If you have a source that contradicts it, please make it available. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it's a wonderful argument because Ladd is editorializing and obviously has something of a softspot for QW critics. That's fine, we quote her above, but to use her text plainly without attribution is simply not acceptable practice for this encyclopedia. I again ask you to look at the actual sources from HHS and reconsider my offering of rewording above. ScienceApologist 00:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

These wordings are still being highly dismissive and deprecating about criticism of QW generally, spinning it, where even in the authoritative mainstream literature QW positions are clearly now obsolete (e.g. vitamin C, NIH and the Moertel-Pauling cancer episode presented so damning & approvingly at QW where one of Pauling's bases for his complaint, ...fraud, included a lack of initial IV vitamin C treatment that is now supported by CMAJ 2006, PNAS 2005 papers including NIH authors on IV vitamin C related cancer treatment tests as critically important research points). Also Hufford's peer reviewed paper, is being lightweighted & deprecated as a mere "opinion piece", when as a sociology professor long involved with academic biomedical and government assessments of CAM with academic medical support, he is qualified to comment on identified biases. Hufford's reference to Kauffman's website review is also notable, where exclusion of the Kauffman reference, Watching the Watchdogs at Quackwatch, here is a notable pro-QW bias at WP.--I'clast 00:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment

I would appreciate if other involved editors can address User:ScienceApologist's concerns, as it seems that he does not have much of an appreciation for moving forward based on my arguments and writing. I will leave this as is, and come back to this discussion on Friday. Hope that by then you, that know him better, would have helped him to come to an agreement about the wording used for this material. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I've NPOV concerns, mostly WEIGHT as well. I'm not sure how to resolve them though. The problem has to do with our selection of specific quotes from these sources in order to demonstrate criticism of Quackwatch. The Hufford piece is especially problematic as it appears to be part of a two-part discussion/debate, where we're totally ignoring the context of the opposing side and the likelihood that the discussants may have taken their positions specifically to be entertaining and controversial. --Ronz 00:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

So fix it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm not sure how. On one hand, we want to balance the article. On the other, we don't want to give more prominence to an opinion or other information beyond what it's due. NPOV says we need independent, reliable sources to solve these problems, so one solution is to leave out anything where we don't have a reliable independent source. However, there's a compromise that I've seen used before - putting some of the information in a note rather than in the body of the article. --Ronz 01:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Jossi has done a tremendous job revamping this text into something which completely satisfies WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS. It is beginning to seem evident that particular editors will not accept any criticism of Quackwatch, always deriding is at unreliable but never offering specific suggestions to amend the text. Jossi has been incredibly fair and has demonstrated the utmost patience and care. I would suggest that we all thank him and move forward with implementing his edits just as he has stated above. -- Levine2112 18:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as Hufford, I think it's sufficient to note, in the footnote, that his paper is a counterpoint to another paper which took a different view of alt-med. Donna Ladd's Village Voice piece is also reputable enough to include. I think it's obvious that the piece is conveying Ladd's view of the situation rather than pronouncing the Ultimate Truth; but the Voice has a significant editorial oversight process and is not institutionally prejudiced against mainstream medicine so far as I can see (their coverage of the AIDS denialist movement was excellent). This is notable coverage of Quackwatch in a reliable source. MastCell 19:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Recommend banning I'clast from posting on this page

I recommend that I'clast be banned from posting on this page as he is clearly acting as a troll. ScienceApologist 16:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. I'clast has shown tremendous tact and offered very reasonable suggestions. I don't view his contributions as disruption in the least. -- Levine2112 18:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I suppose maybe everyone else has already heard I'clast's argument above, but it was informative for me. I'd prefer that he stay. I also think jossi may be on to a solution and would like to see it worked out to everyone's approval. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 19:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, now that we've heard from the chiropractors Levine-Dematt consortium, anyone else care to comment on the fact that I'clast doesn't seem to understand how to not use this talkpage as a soapbox? ScienceApologist 19:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I've always found Dematt to be an entirely reasonable and constructive editor; I don't think Levine is a chiropractor (correct me if I'm wrong); and in any case I don't think that dismissing Dematt's comment on the basis of his profession is helpful here. MastCell 19:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Correct. I am not a chiropractor. Nor do I work for a chiropractor. Nor do I make any money in the health care industry - alternative or conventional. I really resent ScienceApologist's accusation mainly because his intent was to suggest that a person cannot be neutral because of their profession. I have found Dematt to be extraordinarily neutral and is adept at writing for the so-called enemy. I suggest that ScienceApologist take this brand of personal attacks elsewhere. And if he cannot, then perhaps he should be the one that is banned from posting on this page. -- Levine2112 20:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I'm not personally attacking anybody. I'm simply pointing out that Levine and Dematt often appear "joined at the hip" in many of these alternative medicine/pseudoscience discussions. In any case, I don't find either Levine or Dematt to be particularly problematic editors, nor am I asking them to stop posting at these pages. I do, however, think that their POV often clouds their talkpage assessments. How anyone can look at what I'clast is doing here and say that he is showing "tremendous tact" seems fairly outrageous to me, but then, I'm not one who is known to have a very high tolerance for trolling of this sort. YMMV. ScienceApologist 20:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, that's not what you were saying here . Maybe if everyone edited NPOV, I could agree with them, too. Thanks for the kudos guys. Apology accepted SA.---- Dēmatt (chat) 21:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not trolling. This article has provided very unbalanced, pro-QW coverage as if QW were far more accurate than it is and that all its subjects or adversaries are irrational, stupid, or criminal, while including very legitimate V RS science disputes that in fact have very biased historical treatment but are so deprecated that public communication has been derailed with significant forms & amounts of knowably V RS misleading (mis)information. Many people, even including MDs, think QW is a reliable scientific source, when QW authors make it quite clear it does not intend to be - the QW authors even openly acknowledge that they do not try to achieve scientific balance as well as numerous V RS specific problems such as Kauffman and Pauling (on the Moertel fiasco against Pauling, which QW embraced, and NIH acknowledged Pauling's basis of protest, 2005-6) have already published. The site also makes clear they are running an (dis)information war, as well as the public record of their articles coupled with the analyses and statements provided by legitimate scientists, scholars and physicians like Profs Hufford, Kauffman, Hemila on severe bias, multiple errors and innuendo.

This QW balancing criticism situation has become not merely a one way situation, but one of utter denial and excusitis on thin pretext of V RS NPOV and a very nebulous supposed mainstream, here at WP, that seems very unaware aware of mainstream science & medicine's own current research findings.

I am trying to give some V RS concrete scientific dimension to the controversy and checkered track record associated with the site. Most subjects attacked by QW have too little public record to form a knowledgeable, independent judgment on the V RS reliability of QW's assertions and balance. The Pauling-vitamin C story actually has enough V RS public, historical detail available to highlight some common errors long being made here. Errors that should never have been years ago to any unbiased, competent, thorough science review, but now have authoritative backing on important scientific & historical points *experimentally* by V RS mainstream authorities. Balance the science & sourcing and we can all go home.--I'clast 16:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

PS. Jossi's edit provides a framework to start but the Kauffman reference as part of Hufford's position is an important balancing element to me where the reader should have access to consider the breadth of the reliability and bias issues.--I'clast 16:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Where SA views I'clast's current behavior as trolling, I'd say that both I'clast and Levine2112 are on their best of behavior. Avb 18:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Edits

I have incorporated the text as discussed above, with the hope that it reflects the result of the debate about the "criticism" material.

Other edits include:

• Merging of material from Barret's article related to the use of Quackwatch as a source
• Merging the criticism section to the appropriate section
• NPOVing the lead by adding a mention to the criticism, as per WP:LEAD
• Minor edits for spelling and grammar

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks pretty decent to me (I've done some minor cleanup). MastCell 16:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, really well done. This article is better now that ever before. Thanks all. -- Levine2112 17:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we have made some good progress, and we should all congratulate ourselves for doing so. Let's wait a couple more days for whatever tweaks may be needed and then submit to Misplaced Pages:Peer review for some feedback, with the intention to improve this further and submit to GA review. If we can achieve GA status for this article, it will be a demonstration that Misplaced Pages works when we bring our best to the table and put the project ahead of our personal opinions. Thank you all for your patience and efforts so far. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I have avoided this page for some time now because it was going no where fast. I just wanted to say the article shows a lot of good hard work toward improving. It looks good, esp. since the first time I read this article. Congratulations everyone, you have done some good hard work. --CrohnieGal 19:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow.. Great work! And it looks like we might have a consensus, too. I don't see anything I would change. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 03:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Versioning

I think that jossi's wording here conveys the same message in a less editorializing fashion: . (See below.) Antelan 03:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe so. The "editorializing" is in the original, and maybe that fact isn't conveyed by the current use of quotation marks. Whatever. What isn't coming across very well is that the endorsement was real, and that the seeming retraction wasn't real, but a politically correct reaction to on-the-spot criticism. Of course the endorsement wasn't any kind of legally binding endorsement. His later repetition of the endorsement revealed his real opinion. It only takes a single word to make it seem as if he didn't really mean what he originally said when he endorsed Quackwatch, which wouldn't be true. Readers mustn't get that impression. -- Fyslee / talk 05:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about my wording there ('editorializing') - that was not thoughtful (or accurate, in this case) on my part. I misread the diffs. I'm concerned with other parts of that paragraph, but not the parts that you were working on. Antelan 06:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to go to war on a couple of words. Our efforts would be better placed in letting the article stabilize for a while and ask for a peer review. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but an entire sentence is being lifted directly from a source article without being quoted. This sentence contains the "The government doesn't endorse Web sites" quotation, so quoting the entire sentence would be bulky. I am making a change that I think addresses this, but will not object if reverted. Antelan 06:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The way you have edited it, it reads as praise and thus seems out of place in context of its position in the article. -- Levine2112 07:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

How have my edits changed the meaning of the sentence? That wasn't my intent. Antelan 07:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

By removing the idea that he "backed away" from his endorsement and stating that people should question Quackwatch as much as the sites Quackwatch questions. I don't no if that is necessarily a criticism either, but at least it shows that he (or the government he represents) considers that Quackwatch shouldn't be placed up on a pedestal over any other sites. I think we best stay close to the source rather than taking a chance editorializing with such nuanced meanings which we can only speculate about. Sound reasonable. -- Levine2112 07:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Well that advice is always good and doesn't necessarily mean a change of his opinion, which he actually repeated. The "backed away" was editorializing by the author of the article, who was obviously antagonistic. She was the critic, not Eng. -- Fyslee / talk 07:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I see it as editorializing on the author's part. Nor do I view the author as obviously antagonistic. I think we have to take the source on its value and not try to extrapolate/interpret some version of reality - a violation of WP:NOR. -- Levine2112 07:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Very good wording, which conveys exactly what happened without misleading readers. It was praise, but the attacks of people there who objected got him to waffle, but he still expressed his real intentions while being politically correct. There was never any question that he meant to recommend Quackwatch as a good source. -- Fyslee / talk 07:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

So why include it at all here as criticism? The article space would be better served with including real criticism such as that provided by Prof. Kauffman. -- Levine2112 07:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It isn't included as a criticism. The criticism section is gone now. It was originally included as a recommendation anyway. Then critics here (yourself included) got fixated on Eng's waffling because of the actions of likeminded people at the meeting, and tried to turn it into something they could use as a criticism here. The fact is that there is (still) no question that he did recommend Quackwatch as a good source, and that he meant it.

The whole section is now a blending of praise and criticism, so there is no problem. It actually makes for a good ending, since it contains both praise and a seeming "retraction" (which it wasn't). This is basically what the mainstream position is - it supports and recommends Quackwatch as a resource for exposing the follies of the fringe. That is the reality of things, and weight must be given to the mainstream position. The fringe should not be allowed to dominate with their usually illegitimate complaints, even though they are documented here, as is proper. -- Fyslee / talk 07:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

We are reading the same text (the full text of the article) and we are both getting different meanings. I know what you think it means and I know what I think it means. Clearly it is nuanced. Rather than cherry-picking text to try to suggest a belief of the interviewees intent, let's just quote the reliable source which we are citing here in full. Chiefly, what is actually written in the article rather than place on our own biases on shaping it into what we want it to mean. -- Levine2112 07:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I actually have a problem with wholesale quoting. It seems to me that the author of that article is twisting Eng's statements to make them look more damning than they actually are. If we quote the relevant portion of the article, we will be quoting a twisting of Eng's words. Quoting the article itself is just fine, as is including its argument, but I would tread very carefully when quoting a contorted quote when doing so is unnecessary. Finally, adding the article's author's POV should come in addition to Eng's, not in lieu of it. Antelan 07:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

"Twisting his words" is just an opinion. The author may be doing just the opposite and reporting Eng's true intent. I don't think we should be second-guessing a source if we intend to use that source. We should stay true to the source or run the risk of violation WP:OR. -- Levine2112 19:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The final word goes to Chalka, who damns by faint praise. It seems reasonably balanced to me, but it's late so I'll sleep on this. Antelan 07:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Overcontextualization of a National Review Article

The National Review article on fluoridation comments that QW is sensationalist but not wrong. By providing such a long quote it seems to lead the reader to an assumption that NR had much more to say on the subject thant that. As I point out above, the NR article is simply stating that QW has a penchant for over-exaggeration: a characterization of the prose rather than the content. I believe that this diff: makes this distinction more clear and removes some of the irrelevant metaquotations which only serve to highlight their point rather than make any new analysis. ScienceApologist 22:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you just removed the context that makes their point. The reason they believe that QW is "not for the seriously minded people", is because of what they said : "the anti-fluoridationists' basic technique is the 'big lie'. Made infamous by Hitler, the 'big lie' is simple to use, yet surprisingly effective." Removing the context for their criticism will leave the reader wondering. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

But if they wonder, let them just click on the reference which actually states this in full! I just think that metaquotes are particularly poor editorial choices and since the statement is still being made I don't think that the evidence (as NR sees it) needs to be included directly but is fine to footnote relegation. ScienceApologist 23:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Removing the context kills the point of the criticism. I am in favor of adding it back in. -- Levine2112 01:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I too think the context is essential to understanding their point, but....I think their POV is achieved by a cheap shot - taking an isolated part of a quote and making it sound sensationalistic.

Here's the whole quote. In its context it makes perfect sense:

The antifluoridationists' ("antis") basic technique is the big lie. Made infamous by Hitler, it is simple to use, yet surprisingly effective. It consists of claiming that fluoridation causes cancer, heart and kidney disease, and other serious ailments that people fear. The fact that there is no supporting evidence for such claims does not matter. The trick is to keep repeating them -- because if something is said often enough, people tend to think there must be some truth to it.

A variation of the big lie is the laundry list. List enough "evils," and even if proponents can reply to some of them, they will never be able to cover the entire list. This technique is most effective in debates, letters to the editor, and television news reports. Another variation is the simple statement that fluoridation doesn't work. Although recent studies show less difference than there used to be in decay rates between fluoridated and nonfluoridated communities, the benefit is still substantial. In fact, the Public Health Service estimates that every dollar spent for community fluoridation saves about fifty dollars in dental bills.

Now does it make sense? Yes indeed. The three authors couldn't have chosen a better comparison than the infamous big lie and related quotes from the Nazis. The antifluoridationists do use this technique, and the antifluoridationists (and antivaccinationists) also use it. (I have experience with both groups and seen the antivaccinationists offer their own children to death and get congratulated for being firm to their "principles"!) The National Review has taken the the quote out of context - choosing a short mention of Hitler - and made a caricature out of it to find some fault, even while commending the article. It's a cheap shot that is more worthy of the National Enquirer. Before reading the whole context, I too thought the original was derisive, but it isn't. It's a precise use of a historically notable example. No derision. Just a precise description. -- Fyslee / talk 07:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Lots of people lie. Comparing anyone to Hitler is derisive. This is what the critique is about. Meaning, people who compare others to Der Fuhrer in order to push their agenda should not be taken seriously. Quackwatch's comparison is what is sensationalistic, not the critique of them making that comparison. So wither we add the context back in, or we add a word such as "derisive" to describe why the criticism was made. -- Levine2112 07:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It was a comparison of the method and words made famous by Hitler and his propaganda minister - repeat a lie enough and people will believe it. It might be possible to find another example that matches, but that is the one most familiar to people, and in the context of the fluoridation debates it can't be avoided, since the anti-fluoridationists constantly refer to the Nazis claimed use of fluoride. To really understand this it takes some understanding of the back and forth of these debates between the two factions in the fluoridation debates. It was the most logical comparison, considering the methods used and the anti-fluoridationists own arguments which constantly refer to Hitler. The three authors have just used their argument against them, but have fortunately refrained from comparing the persons to the Nazis, and only applied the argument to a description of their method of propagandizing their anti-fluoridation sentiments. -- Fyslee / talk 07:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Given the light-hearted tone of this NR article, I find the criticism a little ironic, and I question the weight we're assigning it. That said, I agree that the context is the criticism. If we're going to include this criticism, we should lend it the extra 20 words it needs to describe the context. Cool Hand Luke 07:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict

While making extensive revisions (formatting refs, reading the two sourced articles, and finding wikilinks), I ran into an edit conflict with Levine2112 and later discovered that the edit (now superceded by my own edit) had been the following:

• "... but criticizes its comparison of anti-fluoridationists to Adolf Hitler ..."

Well, anyone reading the original source in context (shown above) will see that that is simply not true. The focus is on the tactic used by the anti-fluoridationists, and does not compare them with Hitler. It compares their "basic technique" with the big lie. That's all. The current version should be pretty accurate without any unwarranted slurs:

• In regard to the debate over water fluoridation, an anti-fluoridation article in the National Review quotes a "generally informative and persuasive" Quackwatch article, but criticizes its reference to Hitler's "big lie" as "perhaps not the best way to win an argument, especially with serious-minded people."

-- Fyslee / talk 17:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That works for me. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Good. I fully agree with you that the context needs to be included (in the ref) to make their point understandable. Even though I don't agree with their point and think it's a cheap shot, it is a criticism we can use here. There are good refs, sources, and wikilinks for any readers who want to investigate the matter. -- Fyslee / talk 17:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

"discovered he had tried to slant the text into a direct slur against the three authors" - I resent this, Fyslee. I was not trying to slant or slur. I was merely spelling it out. By comparing the anti-fluors' technique to Hitler's technique, Quackwatch is comparing the anti-fluors to Hitler. If anyone was taking a cheap shot here, it is Quackwatch for making such a comparison. -- Levine2112 18:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. I have reworded it so as to avoid offensive wording. -- Fyslee / talk 01:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it reads better also. I had trouble getting past the Hitler comment that I left the article. --CrohnieGal 22:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Weston Price

Almost halfway down this page is an interesting rebuttal to Barrett's Quackwatch essay on Weston Price and holistic dentistry. I don't know if there is anything usable in here for our article, so please take a look and let's discuss. -- Levine2112 18:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not see a reason not to include a short sentence about it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This seems to say that Barrett's Quackwatch article on Weston Price is filled with contradictions, false statements and moralistic overtones. That's what I get out of it anyhow. How should we word this? -- Levine2112 03:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ask one of the editors on your opposing POV to to do it... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

There is an article in Misplaced Pages about his foundation in case someone didn't know. It can be found here; . I am still trying to finish reading the story at the above link so I can't comment or help, at least not yet. --CrohnieGal 13:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well if anyone wants to take a first stab out at it... go for it. -- Levine2112 19:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Question about Citation in Introduction

The site has been regularly criticized by the groups it investigates, such as herbalists, homeopaths and other alternative medicine practitioners.

How does the citation (Medical Sharks) at the end of this line support this statement? -- Anthon01 (talk) 12:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to. I am sure that there are better sources out there (if the criticism which follows isn't support enough). -- Levine2112 18:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that cite alone isn't enough, but there are abundant refs in the article to justify the statement. The lead doesn't really have to have refs if it is done properly, since everything in the lead must be based on article content, and that content must be backed up by references. If there aren't any refs in the article to back up the statement, then it should be easy to find them, but I think we have them already. The statement needs to be there because it is a significant part of mentioning that Quackwatch is criticized, and that it is! -- Fyslee / talk 06:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure but the link is inaccurate. The link needs to be replaced or removed. --Anthon01 (talk) 10:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Levine2112 17:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The "Peer Review" or lack thereof cite

The actual reference doesn't support the text in the article, or rather it does support it for a single article in QW, by a critic of the actual author of the article in QW. I recommend that a better cite be found or the text in the article removed. Shot info (talk) 22:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that the title of the article - When You Can’t Critique CBP In The Peer-Reviewed Literature, You Can Always Send Your Article To Quack Watch - certainly makes the assertion that all of Quackwatch is not peer reviewed, not just the one article commented upon. That being said, I am certain we can find others sources for this statement. Funny, I could have sworn that Quackwatch used to state that it wasn't peer-reviewed. What bothers bothers me now is that I can't find anything on Quackwatch which discusses it's fact-checking or publication process. Without this, it does make Quackwatch a less reliable source in the eyes of Misplaced Pages according to WP:RS. -- Levine2112 23:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the title of reference is irrelevant, because it isn't what the reference is about. If you read the reference, you too would see this. Shot info (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the title is relevant of this article. It certainly implies that Quackwatch is not peer-reviewed. Read my comment above again and realize what I mean. On a side note, I think that this article would be apt for a good ref for a bit of Quackwatch criticism. -- Levine2112 01:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems like "Critics have commented that the opinions expressed on the Quackwatch website are not subjected to formal scientific peer review" should go where the 150+ statement is. It gives context to the 150+ statement. Like this

Quackwatch engages the services of 150+ scientific and technical advisors. As of 2003, 67 medical advisors, 12 dental advisors, 13 mental health advisors, 16 nutrition and food science advisors, 3 podiatry advisors, 8 veterinary advisors, and 33 "other scientific and technical advisors" were listed. Critics have commented that the opinions expressed on the Quackwatch website are not subjected to formal scientific peer review"

--Anthon01 (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, don't mind this. Where it sit (sat) was just an example of poor editing. Shot info (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree too that it should be moved there. -- Levine2112 01:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Another critical source which points out that Quackwatch is not peer-reviewed. -- Levine2112 02:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, here it is. I remember seeing it on Quackwatch somewhere: Members of our medical advisory board review articles upon request. Clearly when articles are only reviewed upon request, we are not dealing with true peer-review. With this ref, we aren't dealing with a critical viewpoint, but rather a fact stated outright by Quackwatch and thus it should be worded as such in this article. -- Levine2112 02:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

A good solution. Even though I have included and edited that wording previously, it has always puzzled me why the point was included - much less belabored - at all. It has always been a deceptive straw man criticism, since no one has claimed it was peer-reviewed and such is not expected of websites. Sure, it contains alot of peer-reviewed references and bases much of its opinions on them, but it doesn't claim to be a scientific journal or scientific research. It's similar to the accusations raised against Barrett, such as "he is not a homeopath" "he is not a naturopath", etc.. Of course not, and he has never claimed to be such. It would be a demotion for him. It is similar to the problems in the criticisms section at the iPod touch article. To include a criticism of it for not having a telephone function is ridiculous. It doesn't claim to be an iPhone! (BTW, the iPod touch is great! Mine functions perfectly.) Criticisms need to have some relation to reality, not be trumped up straw man arguments or mere slurs without foundation in reality. That kind of stuff is not worthy of inclusion here. -- Fyslee / talk 06:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not what Quackwatch claims about itself which is the justification for pointing this fact out. Nor is pointing this fact out necessarily a criticism. Interestingly, the iPod Touch article does point out that the device is not a mobile phone; not as a criticism, but as a statement of fact. which clarifies perhaps a common misconception or highlights a key difference between it and something it is like (an iPhone). It would be one thing if we were to say here that Quackwatch is not a cookbook (or a mobile phone carrier for that matter). It is another, to state that it is not peer reviewed; certainly this could be a common misconception and at least highlights a key difference between Quackwatch and more reliable sources for health advice (say an actual peer-reviewed journal). So no strawman; just the facts. -- Levine2112 07:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Check it out. Read the edit summary: "rv vandalism"

Sneaky vandalism: Vandalism that is harder to spot. This can include adding plausible misinformation to articles, (e.g. minor alteration of dates), hiding vandalism (e.g. by making two bad edits and only reverting one), or reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages. Some vandals even use edit summaries such as "rv vandalism" to mask their changes.  Mr.Guru  talk  07:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I would surmise that like your attempted edit which this editor rightly reverted, your accusation here has no basis in reality. -- Levine2112 07:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

We've been through this many, many, many times. Another trivial criticism that some editors want to include in the article unsourced or poorly sourced. WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV all apply here. --Ronz (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that this is a criticism. This is just a statement of fact. Quackwatch does publish scientific related articles similar to how a journal would publish articles. To avoid confusion for the reader, we should spell out that a key difference is that QW articles are not subject to peer-review, but rather (as the site states) reviewed by their technical staff only upon request. Clearly there is no OR, V, or RS issues here as this is well documented in the QW site. I am curious though about your raising of the NPOV issue. What is the NPOV issue as you see it? -- Levine2112 18:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I don't think calling people "trolls" (even in a edit summary) helps this situation. Please follow the guidelines of WP:NPA and let's discuss this with civility. -- Levine2112 18:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to your many, many, many arguments of the exact same situation, and the many, many, many responses you've received. The "it's a fact" argument has been refuted many, many, many times. Please stop. --Ronz (talk) 18:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't find this response satisfactory (more akin to a personal attack... please stop). We are dealing with information which has been in this article for a long time with no argument against it. Please explain the NPOV issue as you see it now. Thanks. -- Levine2112 19:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

DNFTT Please follow WP:TALK. --Ronz (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Ronz, I find this very disheartening. You are calling me a "troll" once again here rather than discussing a point which you have raised. I believe other editors have pointed this out to you in the past. You have made a claim that this text somehow violates NPOV. You may indeed be correct and I don't see it yet. I just want to read your rationale. -- Levine2112 19:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Please follow TALK or you may be ignored. Repeat TALK violations will be reported to the proper venue. --Ronz (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have read WP:TALK once again. Please tell me the TALK issue as you see it. Then maybe you can delve in to the NPOV issue with the content we are discussing. -- Levine2112 19:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Please refer to your many, many, many past discussions on this very topic. Perhaps you should start with the ones in ANI or WQA. --Ronz (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Ronz, I am going to disengage from you for now. It is clear that you are unwilling ( and perhaps unable) to back your policy violation assertions against the material in question. Rather than backing your assertions with a requested explanation, you have rather chosen to turn this into an uncivil, personal attack war against me. When you are ready to discuss content and policy, please let me know. -- Levine2112 19:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Levine2112's interpretation of the title is plausible. However, claims should be verifiable by anyone looking at the source material. We can't bridge gaps with our own synthetic conclusions. The source therefore doesn't support the claim it's cited to support. Cool Hand Luke 22:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Another trivial criticism

"Another trivial criticism that some editors want to include in the article unsourced or poorly sourced. WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV all apply here." --Ronz (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion... It is not trivial. It is not a criticism. It has been in the article unopposed for a long time. It is neither unsourced nor poorly sourced and therefore OR, V, and RS don't apply. I don't know what your NPOV issue is with this material and I am kindly requesting that you explain your rationale. -- Levine2112 20:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no comment about the sourcing at this time. However, in my opinion, the statement isn't trivial. For many readers peer-reviewed makes all the difference in the weight they assess to a sources POV. If Quackwatch was a peer-reviewed website, many would insist, and rightly so, that it be prominently placed in the text. Anthon01 (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"If Quackwatch was a peer-reviewed website, many would insist, and rightly so, that it be prominently placed in the text." I agree, but it's irrelevant. There are an infinite number of facts about Quackwatch, that if true, would unquestionably need to be placed prominently in the article. That does not mean that it's worth noting them when they are not true. --Ronz (talk) 22:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The point here is that QW itself notes that its articles are not peer reviewed but rather only subject to some kind of review upon an ambiguous request. Again it would be one thing if we were saying that QW is not a cookbook since nowhere on the QW site does it state this. But int he case of not being peer reviewed, QW does find this fact notable enough to list on their all-too-important Mission Statement page! -- Levine2112 18:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Continues below: SYNTH violation -- Fyslee / talk 06:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

150+

Then what is the significance of the 150+ statement? Why bother noting all those peer advisers when they don't get used? --Anthon01 (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The answer to that can be found in the history of this article. Because of many objections claiming that Quackwatch wasn't notable and that it was a one-man operation, more documentation and information was included to meet those demands and document that Barrett involves more than Barrett and includes input and articles from other people, and this was just a small part of the other stuff that got included because of demands from anti-Quackwatch editors. We have seen this pattern many times here. More complaints means a better sourced article that invariably disproves the complaints and false charges. Why? It's very simple. Conspiracy theories that aren't founded in truth and fact are easy to expose by simply producing the facts. -- Fyslee / talk 07:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Quackwatch's reliability as a source is topic of much discussion not just here at Misplaced Pages, but throughout the web and in the real world. We have an entire section devoted to "Quackwatch as a source" after all. Given this, the fact that QW articles are not peer reviewed but rather only reviewed upon request is of paramount notability. The citation to Quackwatch confirms this so I can't imagine any OR, V, or RS violation. Which leaves us with Ronz's NPOV violation claim - I am not sure what he means and I would like very much for him to explain his rationale. He may have a point; we just don't know what it is yet. -- Levine2112 22:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"Then what is the significance of the 150+ statement? Why bother noting all those peer advisers when they don't get used?" I'm not following you and not sure with how this relates. --Ronz (talk) 22:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The 150+ statement is trivial if those advisers are not being used or are used infrequently, don't you think? You would like to leave the trivial statement up there without a balancing statement? It certainly looks more impressive, but it doesn't reflect the facts and it certainly creates a WP:POV issue. --Anthon01 (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Now there's an NPOV violation claim which I can understand. Yes, Anthon01, the omission of the fact that the 150+ advisers do not serve as a peer-review board but rather only review upon request would create an NPOV issue somewhat akin to WP:PEACOCK. -- Levine2112 23:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd think that having 150+ advisors is notable. Why do you think they're only used infrequently? Why does it matter? What does this have to do with supporting the inclusion of unsourced information, which so far you've only argued deserves mention if the information were not true?

Again, there are an infinite number of things we can say that are not true. People's assertions to include them are irrelevant. That's why I've pointed out OR, V, RS, and NPOV, all which discuss how and when we include information. --Ronz (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

There are an infinite amount of things we can say that Quackwatch is not. It isn't a cookbook and it isn't a lead pipe. But that isn't notable. However, given that we give so much discussion in the article about QW's credibility as a source, that Quackwatch is not peer-reviewed certainly is notable. Above you say that this statement is unsourced. How is it unsourced? Quackwatch's mission statement page outright says that the articles are only reviewed upon request. Anthon01 brings up an excellent point. Having all of those advisers, one might assume that Quackwatch is peer reviewed. To avoid confusion (and an NPOV violation), we must say that it is not. Since Quackwatch outright states this about itself, we cannot have an RS, OR, or V violation. Quackwatch is an RS for itself (hence the dozens of self-referencing sources throughout this article). The OR claim would suppose that this statement needs some kind of original research to support it; it does not. The V claim would suggest that this information is not verifiable, when clearly it has been verified. Let me ask you this, Ronz: Do you think that the articles in Quackwatch are subject to formal peer review? -- Levine2112 23:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Having 150 advisers isn't notable if all they are is window dressing. And Barrett himself says that he uses those advisders only upon request. Why do I think they're only used infrequently? Because he told me. --Anthon01 (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"Upon request" =? "infrequently" =? "window dressing"?! I don't see any reason to think "infrequently" applies, let alone "window dressing". It's a good example of why OR and NPOV are so important though, to prevent improper or misleading assumptions or biases.

Can we get back to the the subject at hand? --Ronz (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Because he told me means because Barrett told me. Is there a way to use personal communication as a source? --Anthon01 (talk) 23:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You need to review WP:RS and WP:V. Shot info (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the point here which Anthon01 makes is that if we are to state that QW has 150+ technical advisers, then one might assume that the articles are all reviewed by all or at least some portion of these advisers. We know from Quackwatch that this is not true. Article review only happens upon request. Whose request? We don't know. Who does the reviewing? We don't know. What we do know though is that the articles are not subject to the formal peer review process of a scientific journal. Again, this Wiki article has an entire section devoted to Quackwatch's reliability as a source. Its article review process is part of determining that reliability. So is having a board of 150+ technical advisers. Each fact is notable, relevant and verifiable. Hence, each fact is included in our Wiki article. -- Levine2112 01:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I can read what Anthon01 has written. I'm sure if he reviews the policy it will make it quite clear. You can continue to answer for him/her if you so choose to however, just means that it will be ignored. Shot info (talk) 06:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

"What we do know though is that the articles are not subject to the formal peer review process of a scientific journal." ?? Another straw man. It isn't a scientific journal! Websites are not "peer-reviewed", nor are articles on quackery and healthfraud on any website "peer-reviewed". They are prepared using advisors and many sources, including many peer-reviewed sources. That's it, and it's done well enough that the website is considered a good source of information regarding quackery and healthfraud by the mainstream, the press, and government agencies. Don't try to compare apples and oranges. Quackwatch doesn't pretend to produce peer-reviewed scientific research and it isn't a scientific journal. -- Fyslee / talk 07:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

No strawman at all. QW uses peer reviewed literature in their articles, QW boast recommendations from sources of peer reviewed journals, and QW also boasts about their board of 150+ advisers. Including the fact that QW articles (not the website) are not peer reviewed but rather only subject to review upon request is to state a fact which QW found notable enough to post on their website and to help avoid any confusion with the readers of this Wiki article. -- Levine2112 18:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. For a strawman argument, look at your own. You say that "websites are not peer-reviewed". Well, no one is claiming that. I am pointing out that the articles on QW might be peer reviewed. That is to say, that it is possible for any scholarly work to be peer reviewed. Please read the Wiki article on "Peer review" to learn more. -- Levine2112 21:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit war

If this doesn't stop by the time I get home, I'm going to protect the article and start issuing 24 hour blocks. Discuss changes here. Adam Cuerden 18:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Adam, sorry that I reverted, but I didn't see this message from you until after I made the edit. It looks as though my reversion was made concurrent to your message here. That being said, I liked your last version and have reverted Ronz's back to that version. You have made an excellent point about "viewpoints" and I think it reads well now. I am satisfied. I am confused by Ronz assertion that this somehow fails to meet NPOV. Ronz, please explain. -- Levine2112 18:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I said "by when I get home" to make sure everyone had a chance to read this and calm down. PP is probably the way to go. Adam Cuerden 22:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we need a much longer protection, and have requested it. This dispute is just another duplicate of the many, many, many we have had here, some of which have lasted for months because of outright refusal to follow WP:TALK and WP:CON. --Ronz (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The article is protected for two weeks. I hope everyone can respect WP:TALK and WP:CON while we work out the dispute. Please note that this is not the proper venue for reporting or discussing problems with individual editor's behavior. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH violation

• First of all, websites (and professions) aren't subject to peer review, only scientific research itself. -- Fyslee / talk 06:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:Professions. Well Yeah. That was an abbreviated way for me to make the point. My apologies if that confused you. Did you think I didn't know that? How does that fit into a WP:SYNTH violation section on a Quackwatch talk page? Why didn't you make the point on the "List of Pseudosciences" talk page where I made that statement? Do you believe it bolsters you argument of a WP:SYNTH violation?

Re: Websites. Yes websites are not peer-reviewed, but in some cases some of the data published on them is. One notable example is MedGenMed which is an wholly electronic based journal. In addition, many journal websites make abstracts and some full-text articles available online. That data is often peer-reviewed. --Anthon01 (talk) 13:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I had forgotten about MdGenMed. It is mentioned here. -- Fyslee / talk 21:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but Quackwatch is not a journal, nor a website for a journal, nor is anyone claiming it is. Again, just another of an infinite number of facts about Quackwatch that is unimportant. --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

If it is unimportant, then why does Quackwatch state it on their Mission Statement? Seems like an odd place to put a fact that is unimportant. The point is, QW finds this fact about itself notable enough to state outright on their Mission Statement, thus it is notable enough of a fact to include in our article here. -- Levine2112 18:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Secondly, this matter most specifically violates WP:SYNTH because it states one of millions of possible irrelevant facts that could be included, but which we do not include. We don't include information just to provide readers with a service (although that would be good if it were very relevant and was properly sourced, and in this case rebutted). It is a form of editorializing that has been used as a specious criticism based on the straw man fallacy. No reasonable person expects a website to be peer-reviewed, and Quackwatch has never claimed anything remotely related to such a thing. It is thus the ridiculous inclusion of an obvious fact that is unnecessary to include, all based on an unsaid and unsourced straw man criticism. No amount of back peddling, claiming that it's just a "fact", can get away from the fact that the only reason it even comes to mind to include it is because there are a few unreasonable critics who have made this straw man accusation as a part of their disinformation campaigns against Quackwatch, and some editors here are more than willing to bring that same agenda here to Misplaced Pages. -- Fyslee / talk 06:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to follow you arguments and have a few questions.

• The claim made on QW mission statement page says just that, "Members of our medical advisory board review articles upon request." I don't think he meant by his cleaning lady or gardener. :) There is a claim being made here of peer-review.
• Unless you know something I don't know, I think your jumping to conclusions when you infer why this point 'comes to mind." That may be true for some editors but I don't think the wholesale generalization is helpful or true.
• "No reasonable person expects a website to be peer-reviewed." I don't know what you mean by this since only "scientific research itself" is subject to peer-review. I'm not trying to be facetious, but because of your comment in item 1, I just don't know what you mean by this. --Anthon01 (talk) 16:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a claim of review, not scientific peer review. Websites aren't peer reviewed. Pointing that out here in this article is inappropriate. --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a claim of peer-review. Right? --Anthon01 (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a claim of review that is not in dispute. What are you trying to say? --Ronz (talk) 17:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I am saying it is peer-review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthon01 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

And I don't know what you mean, let alone what it means regarding policies/guidelines and our work to improve this article and end the dispute that resulted in page protection. --Ronz (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that the term "peer-review" has a special definition in medical circles. Just because some peers look an article over for accuracy, make some suggestions, maybe even additions and subtractions, doesn't make it a "peer-reviewed" article in the scientific sense, in large part because it is an article, not a scientific research paper, and the peer-reviewers are known to the author, in contrast to the peer-review process with scientific journals, where the author normally doesn't know them. There are a number of differences. Quackwatch is producing articles of all types by many authors. Some articles don't need any type of review, others do. Some simply report some type of news relevant to exposing quackery. Others go in depth and cover a subject from many angles using many sources and they may require double checking. Then those who know something about the subject check it over. It's as simple as that. Other times several work together on an article and their names appear as authors. Since most are medical professionals, this gives some weight to their opinions, and thus Quackwatch has garnered respect in the medical world as a source of information on matters related to quackery and healthfraud. -- Fyslee / talk 22:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

it states one of millions of possible irrelevant facts that could be included, but which we do not include. - If it is so irrelevant then why does QW make a point of stating it on their Mission Statement page? Clearly it is extremely relevant. -- Levine2112 18:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You have gone beyond what is stated, and it is that part that is a SYNTH violation. The first part of what you write is the problem (and I strike it out here) and where you go too far:

• "Quackwatch.org's articles are not subjected to formal scientific peer review, but rather, reviewed by the medical advisory board upon request."

A simple statement noting that "Members of Quackwatch's medical advisory board review articles upon request," would do the job just fine. -- Fyslee / talk 22:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

...which means that the articles are not subject to formal scientific peer review as one might otherwise expect. We need to spell it out to deal with this otherwise ambiguous statement. -- Levine2112 22:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

No reasonable person would "otherwise expect" that a website publishing articles on quackery and healthfraud would be "peer-reviewed". What part of "Quackwatch is not a scientific journal publishing scientific research" (my summation of an oft repeated point we are making) do you not understand? Are your refusals to understand this point and pressing the issue becoming disruptive? This question has only been raised on websites that have been banned from Misplaced Pages as sources for any purpose other than in their own articles, one of which has been deleted. To include the statement you must source it, and we would need to see that source here and approve it. Do you have such a source that is allowed to be viewed here? If not, just email it to me. -- Fyslee / talk 00:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but it is difficult to understand what you are saying here in this rant. It comes off as an attack on me and seems to be coming from frustration. I suggest that you have some tea (or your Zinfandel, as I know you are partial to) and come back here to restate the above in a more understandable and civil tone. Thanks. -- Levine2112 01:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

When you come back, I would like you to address your statement: "Quackwatch is not a scientific journal publishing scientific research." I agree with that. But how does the reader of this article know that? Do we need to include this in the Wiki article? Can it be sourced? If not, how do we know it is true? -- Levine2112 01:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thirdly, I find it rather amusing (and considering this discusion quite ironic) that JAMA recommends Quackwatch as a source for more information in a patient information article regarding the subject of peer-review and how to judge health information and evaluate medical research! Quackwatch may not be peer-reviewed, but the mainstream still considers it to be a reliable source of information for consumers. -- Fyslee / talk 06:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Fyslee, you just summed it up exactly in your last sentence. Yes, sources of peer-reviewed literature such as JAMA consider QW to be a reliable source, QW cites peer-reviewed literature in their articles, and QW has a board of over 150+ technical advisers. If I only knew those facts about QW, I would assume that their articles are also peer reviewed. Thus, knowing that their articles are only reviewed upon request, clears that ambiguity up (though it does open the doors on other ambiguities such as who makes these requests and who reviews the articles upon these requests and which articles have been reviewed and which have not). Clearly, to avoid confusion for the reader, this Wiki article must expressly state what it states now - that QW articles are not subject to any formal scientific peer review. (On a side note, I am surprised not to find any legal/medical disclaimer on the QW site which states something to the effect of: the views expressed on this site are not meant to supersede diagnosis of a trained medical doctor but rather to aid in blah blah blah, et cetera, et cetera. Something like WebMD has. I would think that this disclaimer is somewhere on the QW site, but I can't find it. Seems to me that if they don't have this disclaimer, it could be a lawsuit waiting to happen.) -- Levine2112 18:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Just knowing that true "peer-review" is only used for scientific research papers and that Quackwatch is producing very different types of articles should settle the issue. -- Fyslee / talk 22:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

That's just it. The layman reader may not know that true "peer-review" is only used for scientific research papers or that which Quackwatch are not scientific research papers. On the surface, they certainly appear to be scientific research papers. Especially to the layman. We must make this clear. -- Levine2112 22:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Levine2112, you write: "On the surface, they certainly appear to be scientific research papers." Only someone who isn't familiar with what a scientific research paper looks like would say that. That's absurd. Since I doubt that applies to you, I suspect that you are trying to make an absurd point (violation). If no editor mentions the matter in the article, readers won't even think of it. This seems only intended to bring the straw man criticism of Stephen Barrett's arch antagonist (whose website is blacklisted here) to Misplaced Pages.

Don't underestimate people. They are not as obtuse. I think they take the articles for what they obviously are. Anyone who confuses a typical article on Quackwatch for scientific research is certainly an unusual and rare person. Fortunately making such a mistake won't get them in hot water, in contrast to those who blindly believe anything on alternative medicine websites, precisely because it isn't peer-reviewed by Big-Pharma-Stooges-Who-Are-Part-Of-The-Grand-Conspiracy. Those types of readers have little respect for real peer-review and seem to have an anti-science gene that has been manipulated into their brains. They automatically believe any type of nonsense around and refuse to believe anything if they discover it is backed up by real research. They are often termed true believers. So the few who might mistake some article on Quackwatch for scientific research will be in good hands because they will learn to avoid getting that nonsense gene implanted in their heads by reading alternative medicine websites. -- Fyslee / talk 00:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Your POV on alternative medicine is entirely clear and seems well-aligned with that of Quackwatch. However, your POV is not relevant here. Quackwatch's is. Given that QW boasts a 150+ technical advisory board, publishes articles which propound scientific research, cite peer-reviewed journals, and that we dedicate so much of this article to their credibility as a source, I think it is reasonable to believe that some people think its articles might be peer reviewed. That it is not is verifiable, reliably sourced and made completely notable by QW's own mention of it on their mission statement page. That alone should be ground enough to include this in the Wiki article... nevermind the fact that without mentioning it, we may be perpetrating a factual misunderstand for some readers. -- Levine2112 01:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Without a notable third party V & RS that states it, I don't see much point in further discussion (with you) on this matter. We're not getting anywhere. 02:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, we both are speculating now whether or not a reader might think that Quackwatch articles are peer reviewed. Neither of us know for sure, but considering Quackwatch's lack of peer review has been verified by a reliable source (its own Mission Statement!), I think we'd all have to agree that it would be better for this Misplaced Pages article to lean towards being more informative to the reader rather than less. -- Levine2112 02:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Why you are now insisting on a third party source is odd, considering so much of this article is self-referenced to Quackwatch and the Mission Statement page in particular is referenced 4 other times in the article! -- Levine2112 02:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I wrote above:

You have gone beyond what is stated, and it is that part that is a SYNTH violation. The first part of what you write is the problem (and I strike it out here) and where you go too far:

* "Quackwatch.org's articles are not subjected to formal scientific peer review, but rather, reviewed by the medical advisory board upon request."

A simple statement noting that "Members of Quackwatch's medical advisory board review articles upon request," would do the job just fine.

If you want to include something that Quackwatch doesn't say, but which we know is true, then it should be possible to find it from a third party source. I have only seen it from a very critical source that is so bad it is blacklisted as a reference at Misplaced Pages, but if you can find a third party V & RS that says it, I am certainly open to including it. Let's see what you find. If it isn't an illegitimate straw man criticism, but a neutral statement of fact, then it would be a welcome addition, as far as I am concerned. Mind you, I have never claimed it wasn't true, but now that I understand the need for sourcing better and what is involved in a SYNTH violation, I regret that I have been a party to helping it stay in the article for so long. Now I know better and therefore I object to its inclusion without a good source. Find a good, neutral source and let's see what we can do with it. -- Fyslee / talk 04:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH deals with an A, B, and a synthesized C scenario. Can you please spell out the three variables here (A, B, and C) so we can all understand why you think WP:SYNTH applies. My position can be summarized with the metaphor foo and oof. All we need to know about foo is that it is the opposite of oof. When something is foo then it is not oof (and vice versa). I think this applies where foo represents peer reviewed and oof represents reviewed upon request. In other words, foo means that the usage of "peer review" is true and oof means that the usages of "peer review" is false. Quackwatch states that that it is reviewed upon request. Meaning that the existence of peer review is clearly false. There is nothing to synthesize. It either is or it isn't. Let's try another example: Either the ball is in the house or it is not. Those are the two possible states of the ball. In or out. Now we have a reliable source which says that the ball is in the backyard. We all know that the backyard is out, so clearly we can say the ball is not in. Well, we all know (or should know) what peer review means. Either something is or it isn't. We have a reliable source which says it's article are reviewed only upon request. We all know that this means it isn't peer reviewed. No synth necessary. Synth would mean that there is some source "B" , when all we really have is source "A" which verifies by itself that QW is not peer reviewed. "B" isn't even necessary. But still, I would like too see your views of the A, B, and C variables here. Perhaps SYNTH does apply and I am not seeing your rationale. -- Levine2112 04:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The matter isn't that black or white, simply because of the nature of how Quackwatch works and the nature of the misleading way that the "not peer-reviewed" criticism has been used. It has been used off- and on-wiki to imply (or outright state it as you and I'clast have done) that there is no editorial oversight at Quackwatch, that it is a one man operation, and that there is no fact checking. Well, none of those assertions have been true. Even if there isn't full "peer-review" as would be expected of a scientific journal publishing scientific research, even though Quackwatch isn't such a journal and isn't publishing original scientific research, there is some sort of fact checking going on. It just isn't strict peer-review, but it is the type of review appropriate for a website of its sort. The ball isn't quite "in" or "out", because there isn't just one ball, but two balls that are similar, but not equal. Now even I am getting confused....;-) I suggest that we get some input from others who understand SYNTH better. Let's get some input from admins who deal with this stuff all the time. -- Fyslee / talk 05:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

What kind of fact checking is going on at Quackwatch and can you cite where you get your information from? Let me get this straight, now you are saying that we can't say Quackwatch is not peer-reviewed (even though it is verifiable) because others have used this point to criticize Quackwatch? That's pretty twisted logic. If someone uses a fact as a criticism then we can't use that fact at all? I don't think so. -- Levine2112 07:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying that such criticism can never be used. Of coure it can. Just put on your NPOV glasses and see if it will make the article better, or will it make it a vehicle for further attempts to improperly slur Quackwatch. It depends on whether it's a V & RS or one of the typical critical sources, which are rarely good sources. Are you proposing to include legitimate criticism or illegitimate straw man slurs from fringe sources? If it's a deceptive statement that directly or by innuendo improperly slurs Quackwatch, then a rebuttal statement would be proper for balance. IOW, if you find a V & RS that criticizes Quackwatch for not being peer-reviewed, then a counter statement that "Quackwatch does not need peer-review or claim to be peer-reviewed" would be necessary. I can imagine it might look something like this: "Even though Quackwatch does not need peer-review or claim to be peer-reviewed, critic has leveled a straw man criticism that "Quackwatch is not peer-reviewed." Get the point? OTOH, if it wasn't a critical source that just makes it as a simple statement, it might be possible to include it without creating a doubt in people's mind, a doubt they would never have entertained if they hadn't heard it as a form of criticism, which is the purpose of straw man attacks. -- Fyslee / talk 07:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It isn't criticism. QW says that its articles are not peer reviewed. We are not sourcing any critics here to support this factual, neutral statement. We are sourcing Quackwatch itself. It is equivalent to saying QW has 150+ technical advisers; both statements have the same source and share the same POV. -- Levine2112 08:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it does not state that its articles "are not peer reviewed." You are synthesizing again. It does not address the question of peer-review for itself at all, since that is an irrelevant matter. Websites aren't normally peer-reviewed, with the exception of the one mentioned above, which is a medical journal that only appears on the internet. -- Fyslee / talk 22:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that there exists an exception is even more reason to clarify that QW articles are not peer reviewed. This notable exception adds more to the ambiguity. Perhaps QW is an exception too? We all now know it is not, however a new reader may be confused (or deceived by the 150+ advisers). And yes, that QW articles are not peer reviewed is completely verified in the QW Mission Statement when they state that articles are only reviewed upon request. It is like having a source that says someone is dead. And then sourcing it to say that person is not alive. No SYNTH is needed; just a basic understanding of what it means to be alive and what it means to be dead. -- Levine2112 22:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

But it is somewhere in between, not either/or, as I explained above. As to the "exception", the rare person who knows so little as to be confused doesn't know about that internet journal and even a surface comparison would show no resemblance. Just because you are confused and think that "On the surface, they certainly appear to be scientific research papers." doesn't mean others are in the same boat. Don't dumb down the human race as an excuse to push this through. Give people more credit than that. -- Fyslee / talk 23:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not in between. Quackwatch articles do not go through formal scientific peer review. And I am not trying to dumb down the article; only trying to include verifiable, notable and relevant information which helps with the explanation of this topic. -- Levine2112 23:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Websites often republish various journal articles, so the issue of whether the content is, or accurately derives from, current peer reviewed material, is of interest. Especially on such a site where scientifically literate inspection repeatedly confirms "contaminated with incomplete data, obsolete data, technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo...", both from Kauffman's examples and others. WP editors strongly favoring QW have tried to present & use QW as a WP:RS scientific source in areas where QW articles have howling technical discrepancies and rather biased opinions. So I think Levine's address of the "peer review" issue is valid. What sources are used and how summarized are a discussion but the SYNTH assertion and "troll" attacks appear to me to be part of a continual pro-QW promotional bombardment here that has yielded an increasingly POV and unreliable WP article that effaces legitimate criticism and less than favorable facts.--I'clast (talk) 13:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Outside opinions

I was asked by Fyslee for a third opinion . QW is not peer-reviewed, and there is no point in trying to say it is. It users a board of advisors, but that is not scientific peer review., which has a specific and narrow meaning. In fact, I know of no peer-reviewed website--the best ones are carefully edited and fact-checked, but that's not the same thing. the people running QW know perfectly well what peer review is, and don';t claim it for themselves. On the other hand, a great many non peer-reviewed sources are highly reliable. I think it fair to say that everyone thinks them so, except the people they attack. That's hardly surprising, after all. Just a brief opinion. and some personal advice to everyone: dont quibble over this sort of wording. DGG (talk) 10:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

DGG, I appreciate your third-party assessment. I think what you are saying here is pretty much agreed upon by all parties. Quackwatch is not peer reviewed. However, no one here is trying to say that it is. Just the opposite, we are simply trying to say that it isn't. Quackwatch itself says that it isn't right on their Mission Statement... articles are only reviewed upon request. It is this - the usage of this reference to state here that Quackwatch articles are not peer reviewed - where we disagree. Some editors feel that it is not notable to mention that Quackwatch is NOT peer reviewed for it is NOT many things. Others, such as myself, feel that it is notable because Quackwatch itself mentions it as part of their Mission Statement. Some editors feel that in order to derive from the Mission Statement that Quackwatch articles are not peer-reviewed, it requires WP:SYNTH. Others, such as myself, feel that there is no synthesis needed at all - that it is plainly obvious if the articles are only reviewed upon request then they are certainly not peer reviewed. Given your statement above, how did you conclude that Quackwatch articles are not peer reviewed? Bear in mind, peer review is a process which is not just reserved for the research of scientific journals but rather for any scholarly work going through an editorial and publication process. Anyhow, I hope that my summary of the various sides of this debate is accurate and I trust that I will be corrected if they are not. Thanks again for your input here and I would certainly appreciate further comment. -- Levine2112 17:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Review articles are not always peer-reviewed when they are published in in scientific journals and those are what in essence Quackwatch are providing. How about "Quackwatch provides summaries of the peer-reviewed literature, but does not publish original scientific or medical research." Tim Vickers 17:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that "summaries" is entirely accurate and I am not sure that they don't publish original scientific or medical research. Can any of this be cited? Their Mission Statement does state outright that Quackwatch articles are only subject to review upon request (and thus not peer reviewed). I think this is an important clarification which needs to be in this article. One might assume (I know I did at first) that given QW's impressive 150+ person technical advisory board, that their articles are subject to peer review; that some portion of this advisory board will review and verify every article published on the site. I now know that this is not true. Given the ambiguity, I believe that our Wiki article should make this clear (especially since Quackwatch makes it clear in their Mission Statement that their articles are not peer reviewed). -- Levine2112 18:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I had a look at some more of their materials and the testing of some products (eg link) would count as original research in my opinion. How about "Quackwatch publishes a variety of materials, including summaries of peer-reviewed research, accounts of medical malpractice or fraud, opinion articles, investigative reporting, and consumer testing on alternative medicine products." Tim Vickers 18:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

While this statement may be true, it still does not address the confusion of whether or not Quackwatch articles are peer reviewed. We know from their Mission Statement that they are not peer reviewed. A statement like the one you wrote, TimVickers, is welcome to the article (provided it can be sourced reliably). But we a currently addressing whether or not we should include a statement which explains to the reader that the articles of Quackwatch are not subject to any formal scientific peer review but rather are only reviewed upon request. -- Levine2112 18:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

"Quackwatch publishes a variety of materials, including summaries of peer-reviewed research, accounts of medical malpractice or fraud, opinion articles, investigative reporting, and consumer testing on alternative medicine products. Due to the varied nature of the material, the editorial process differs between articles, with some being peer-reviewed by members of the scientific advisory board, and others representing an author's opinion." Tim Vickers 19:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I applaud your effort. It all true, except most represent an author's opinion. How do we WP:V it? --Anthon01 19:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

We don't know if any of the articles are peer-reviewed by member of the scientific advisory board. The statement on the Mission Statement is too ambiguous to infer that. All we know is that the articles on Quackwatch are not peer-reviewed, but may be "reviewed" (by whom, we don't know) upon request (by whom, we don't know). -- Levine2112 19:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Barrett says that some are, but most aren't. --Anthon01 19:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Since we don't know the relative proportions, we need to just say "some" are and "others" are not, that is why my proposed wording isn't specific on that point. Tim Vickers 19:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

My sense of it is that even saying "some are peer reviewed" comes off as an overstatement. Regardless, there is no evidence that any article goes through the rigors of formal scientific peer review, but rather verifiable evidence to the contrary. -- Levine2112 20:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it actually possible, by definition, for a non-journal to be peer-reviewed? It's a long, formal process that only works with a very, very long lead time from article to posting. Adam Cuerden 20:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, according to the Wiki article for peer review, any scholarly work can be peer reviewed, not just those appearing in a journal. That being said, it might be enough to just state outright that Quackwatch is not a peer reviewed journal (to avoid any confusion). -- Levine2112 20:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not even remotely plausible that a reader might confuse a website with the name "Quackwatch" with an academic scientific journal. This isn't something you have to worry about. Tim Vickers 20:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but is this article suppose to be an adjunct to Quackwatch? Is this how this encyclopedia functions? With 150+ advisors and all, you would never know that from the article itself could mistaken its review process for something more formal. You would have to go to Quackwatch to find that out. Just like any other encyclopedia, shouldn't the article be able to stand alone on its own? --Anthon01 20:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I don't think I should depend on the 'title' or a visit to the website to clarify QW's review status. I think it should be part of the article. Just like any other encyclopedia, the article should be able to stand on its own? --Anthon01 21:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I was fooled at first. Even recently when we began this discussion and I couldn't find the text on the QW site, I started questioning my recollection and thought perhaps QW articles were in fact peer reviewed. I think we should err on the side of more information here rather than less, especially since this information is totally verifiable. -- Levine2112 21:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

No offence, Levine - and I do mean that, because the way I'm about to phrase this is rather awkward, but I can't think of a better way - but a moment of stupidity on your part does not mean that every person reading will make the same mistake. Adam Cuerden 22:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it is an honest and common mistake rather than stupidity. (No offense taken.) Don't forget that Quackwatch is written for the lay person, who might not otherwise no the difference between peer review and not peer review. BTW, I am a lay person. I am not a scientist, doctor, or even an alternative medicine practitioner. Again, since this information is verifiable per thei Quackwatch Mission Statement, then why not risk our encyclopedia being over more informative rather than less? -- Levine2112 22:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Review articles are either peer reviewed or invited, and they are always signed by named contributors, with a known and usually distinguished background. Some Quackwatch articles meet this standard. Some don't. the ones written by named scientists have the authority of their position. The ones that are copies of outside statements have the authority of the organization that made them, which is often very high indeed. The many written by Barrett rest on his personal authority--I consider him a very reliable medical journalist, but nobody has truly authoritative scientific knowledge over the range of the field he covers, and he does not claim to have such. The ones written by staff writers have only the authority of the publication as a whole, which is basically Barrett's--the reliability of good medical journalism.

I think the present statements in the article reasonably accurate about the authoritativeness. It is very widely accepted in the scientific part of the medical community. (and me personally. )

I suggest the way to go when quoting it is to give the nature of the authorship of the particular article. Most articles have good bibliographic references, which can also be quoted.

I would suggest to Barrett that what would add to the authoritativeness is the listing of names of individual reviewers for each article.

Calling his articles peer-reviewed, or the equivalent of peer-reviewed, is I think a confusion which should be abandoned. Calling them responsibly edited is much more accurate. DGG (talk) 23:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Calling them generally responsibly edited would be both OR and technically questionable in specific cases.--I'clast (talk) 13:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus on "peer-review"

Is it too much to assume that the lack of responses means we're reached consensus? Currently, the article reads, "Quackwatch.org's articles are not subjected to formal scientific peer review, but rather reviewed by the medical advisory board upon request." Have we agreed that "are not subjected to formal scientific peer review" is not verified and original research (a synthesis), and so should be removed? I haven't bothered to give much time arguing that it violates NPOV as well, given that it already these two other arguments against it.

Can we move on to deciding on an alternative for the text? There are some very good proposals already, but few editors have participated in working on them at this point. I think that more would participate in rewriting it if we all agreed that we've reached a consensus that will be respected. --Ronz (talk) 04:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It would make sense to rip that clause out and clarify upon whose request the articles are reviewed by the advisory board. Antelan 04:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately we don't know that information yet. Working on it. Until then, what is there is what we know for sure. -- Levine2112 06:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that Ronz's suggestion is correct, or should be. Describe the role of the advisors, and so on, but why say it's not something it never claimed to be? Adam Cuerden 06:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that we don't have and V RS to describe the role of advisers in terms of review other than that they don't lend peer review to the Quackwatch articles. This is from the mission statement of Quackwatch. Show me another V RS which describes their roles any differently. -- Levine2112 07:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

From the comments above, I think we've come to consensus that "are not subjected to formal scientific peer review" should be removed per WP:V and WP:OR. Thanks to everyone for getting us this far! --Ronz (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No consensus yet. Please don't take any action until a true consensus has formed. I am certainly against removing it and it seems several editors from previous conversations are also against its removal. Please continue this discussion as many feel that WP:V and WP:OR are completely satisfied here. -- Levine2112 18:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The discussion is over. Sorry that you don't agree with the consensus. Please see WP:CON on how to proceed. --Ronz (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I would surmise here that you don't understand WP:CON or are choosing to ignore it. No consensus has been formed here. Some suggestions have been made but certainly no agreement has been reached to do anything yet. I think your insistence here that consensus has been achieved borders on being disruptive. Please be more respectful of the opinions of other editors here. -- Levine2112 19:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Moving on, I think we've come to consensus that "are not subjected to formal scientific peer review" should be removed per WP:V and WP:OR. It's been days without any response to the many comments. Since I started this discussion here, it's apparent that we're ready to work on new wording. --Ronz (talk) 19:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see consensus yet either. Anthon01 (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS does not require unanimity. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I see very clear consensus, after discussions that cover maybe a fifth of this page, starting with Talk:Quackwatch#The_.22Peer_Review.22_or_lack_thereof_cite, consisting of over 200 edits here since 27 November 2007. --Ronz (talk) 22:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a fairly basic point. If several people disagree about whether consensus has been reached, that in itself is sufficient to prove that consensus has not been reached. Your statement that you see it means very little. If you had a true consensus, everyone would agree both that it exists and what it is, and an outsider like myself would quickly agree that it exists (while potentially remaining clueless as to whether it is right). To put it bluntly, your declaring a consensus does not create one. You and the others agreeing creates one. GRBerry 22:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus does not mean everyone agrees to the decision, but that everyone abides to it. This discussion page was dead for five days. I started this discussion with the assumption that this means we have an agreement. No one disagreed with me until I bring it up for a second time, and then one of the opposing editors requests the discussions be continued. I pointed out to him that consensus does not work that way. He responded with personal remarks, in violation of WP:TALK. I don't think the discussions have to be continued at all if no new arguments are being offered. --Ronz (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

We recently had an administrator lose their administrative status in part because they mistook silence for agreement. Silence is not consent, silence is silence. This is especially true when an article is protected - if it isn't popping up on the watchlist, a lot of editors go where their watchlist is active. Go forth and find a position upon which consensus can form, but abandon your claim that you already have it. I'll give you a hint - it will probably have to be something different than what has been proposed thus far, just saying "yes" "no" "yes" "no" will never reach a consensus. Consensus is formed when the discussion goes "Well, how about this", discussing the good bad points, then proposing a new alternative "well how about version2", "version3", ... until you find a version that people agree is the best chosen. Look at what happened at the Talk:Pace memorandum; they went back and forth and got outside opinons until they had seven different alternatives - had discussed the good and bad points of all of them - and then discussed which they preferred and measured consensus in a way that an outside party could see there was a clear consensus. You haven't done it. Try. GRBerry 23:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hence, I started this discussion. This discussion isn't about alternatives, yet. It's simply about the application of WP:V and WP:OR to an unsourced statement. On most other articles, such a discussion wouldn't even be necessary. After all, it's up to the ones that want the information to prove it belongs. However, here it seems even basics like this need to be discussed for days.

By my starting this discussion, I got other editors to start suggest alternatives, but when I brought up the assumption that they were working on, that there there was agreement on "peer review" being removed, it became apparent that the assumption was wrong. I'm simply breaking down a dispute into pieces, to prevent the type of stonewalling (three months of stonewalling, in fact) that has occurred in the past. If we continued discussing alternatives, I fear that all our work would be undone by someone simply disagreeing on the "peer review" matter. --Ronz (talk) 00:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

One way to look at this is that we could leave "not subjected to formal scientific peer review" in the article, but then who's to stop someone from adding "Quackwatch makes no pretense of being a government body," "Quackwatch does not taste like ice cream," or any number of true statements that are nevertheless "un-sourceable" to this article? Antelan 22:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

But your examples make no sense to the average reader. When you hear about 150+ advisors and the popular press sourcing of quackwatch, a reasonable person may wonder about level of credibility assuming perhaps that they might conform to the highest level of review.

I had an issue with "Consumer Magazine" about a year ago. I assumed that based upon their 'thorough' reporting on consumer issues, that they're methodology must follow standard scientific norms and perhaps 'maybe' peer-review. I called them to ask about their methodology. It turns out they refused to tell me how they tested their products. It was a surprise to me. Some of you might say, "Just look at Quackwatch, and it won't take long to figure ..." That may be true, but I don't think this article is meant to be an adjunct of QW. This encyclopedia article should be able to stand on its own. Making it clear to readers what is obvious from QW statement should be part of the article. Anthon01 (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That argument has been made before and it is a good one. However, that Quackwatch is not peer reviewed is made clear in their Mission Statement where they state that the articles are only reviewed upon request. The ambiguity here is what is meant by "reviewed" and whose request are they talking about. But what is clear from this statement is that the articles are not subjected to formal scientific peer review. Quackwatch felt it necessary to mention this (perhaps to avoid any confusion which someone - such as me - might have when questioning the research and analysis which goes into these articles). From the Mission Statement, now I know that these articles are not reviewed as a rule and are not formally peer reviewed at all. I think I remember seeing a statement made by Barrett in which he said he uses his wife to review his writings, but I hardly think that counts as formal peer review. -- Levine2112 22:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's not repeat old arguments. If no one has anything new to say, then I think it's time to move on. --Ronz (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Please respect Antelan's argument. It's a good point (even though it has been made here before by Fyslee). To Antelan, it is a new point and I have no issue with repeating the counterpoint to this argument. -- Levine2112 23:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Please respect WP:TALK and the header at the top of this page, "Please review the recent comments below. New views and ideas on the subject are welcome; however, if your beliefs reflect already existing contributions, please consider withholding them." --Ronz (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That's nice but it is still no reason to ignore or dismiss Antelan's point. That would be rude, in my opinion. -- Levine2112 23:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Please follow WP:TALK and don't make accusations that someone is being ignored, dismissed, or rude.

The problem is that while some editors may be interested in repeating the same old arguments, it is rude and dismissive of those editors who previously participated in the exact same discussions. They may not be able to repeat themselves, nor should there be a need for them to do so. Finally, this is not an argument where the last person to speak wins, nor where the person who speaks the most wins. --Ronz (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me that if consensus has not been reached you may need to repeat yourself. If fact that's what we have been doing through this discussion. Anthon01 (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. When I say to read WP:TALK, I mean just that. Repetition of arguments should be unnecessary. Clarification and progression of arguments are what we're after here. --Ronz (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ronz, I happen to agree with you on the content issue, but I think you need to cool down. Your refactoring of my comment to give it its own inaptly-titled section was inappropriate, and your aggressive argument against speech on this page is not a winning one. I would say that there are very few actually distinct arguments to be made on any one issue. Argumentation largely consists of re-seasoning the same ideas to appeal to different palates. This is acceptable, even desirable. Continued discussion does not mean that consensus has not been reached. Antelan 00:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to give it a new name. I think it deserves a new section. I'm cool. If you want to continue this argument, it would be helpful to at least to point to the identical ones earlier. You're already being nit-picked over issues that have no bearing at all. --Ronz (talk) 01:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I think it requires the context, which is why I didn't break it into its own section. I agree that I'm being nitpicked, which is why I took pains to emphasize my view that there is probably a consensus despite continued discussion, if that makes sense. I think the change can be made. Antelan 01:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

What change? Can you describe the change which you'd like to make. Above you describe alternate wording. What is your suggestion? (P.S. Sorry if you view this as nitpicking. To me, it is asking everyone to be absolutely clear about their rationale. I know that is a tall order at times, but I think if we can all be clear, there will be less misunderstandings and aggressive arguments made.) (P.P.S. I still maintain what others have maintained during the course of these discussions; that Quackwatch's lack of peer review is verifiable from the reliable source of their own Mission Statement. And while notability is not necessarily an inclusion criteria, the knowledge that Quackwatch articles are not subject to any formal peer review is certainly relevant to a website which propounds medical advice for the masses... much more relevant that Quackwatch not tasting like ice cream. Make sense?) Any how I am open to suggestions on how to improve this phrasing, but I want to be clear that there is no consensus here yet, but I am (as I always am) open to fostering one. Thanks all. -- Levine2112 01:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable for people to remove the line regarding the non-peer-reviewed-ness. I'm not going to do it myself, because I would prefer to wait until we can flesh out the rest of the sentence. But if someone wants to do that now, it seems reasonable. I know that you do not agree with this. Antelan 01:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

And neither does several other editors here. So why invite edits against consensus? I do think we can flesh out the rest of the sentence. So let's do so first... that's a compromise which I would certainly abide to. -- Levine2112 01:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"that Quackwatch articles are not subject to any formal peer review is certainly relevant to a website which propounds medical advice for the masses..." absolutely so. There is surely little really to argue about on that sentence. It should appear in the article. Peter morrell 15:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That's very well, Peter, but we need a notable reference or it's OR. Adam Cuerden 17:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, Quackwatch's Mission Statement makes it abundantly clear that their articles are not subject to formal scientific peer review. -- Levine2112 17:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems like you believe that unless QW says it verbatum, then it cannot be said? Is that what WP:OR really means? It certainly doesn't appear to be the case on Misplaced Pages. Does anyone here doubt that what QW posts on its Mission Statement means anything but ... they are not reer-reviewed? Is making an "In other words" statement OR? Anthon01 (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

In which case, you should really cite the mission statement itself either just as a cite or as a small quote with the cite. thanks Peter morrell 17:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

An excellent suggestion... and one which we have already done. (Great minds think alike!) In fact the very first sentence of this article relays Quackwatch's Mission Statement pretty adeptly. In fact, the Mission Statement page on Quackwatch is cited several times through this article. -- Levine2112 17:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"No peer review" unverifiable?

"Quackwatch.org's articles are not subjected to formal scientific peer review" is how the article currently reads. This phrase is not currently verifiable by the source listed.

WP:PROVEIT makes it very clear who and how this material should be verified. The editors claiming this is verifiable need to provide us with a source. That source should contain the phrase "formal scientific peer review" for it to be verified. Editors have repeatedly asked for such a source, but none has been provided (that I can identify in the discussions above, nor in any discussion that's happened around or since "peer review" was first added to the article unsourced .)

I am unable to find anyone ever mentioning any source that says "formal scientific peer review". If one exists, please simply identify it for others to evaluate. --Ronz (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't get mad at me for repeating myself, but the Quackwatch Mission Statement page makes it abundantly clear that their articles are not subject to any formal scientific peer review. The most we can expect in terms of an ambiguous "review" on Quackwatch articles is ambiguous "request" made by some ambiguous party. Clearly, there is no formal peer review process (as one might assume there to be from a publication which propounds medical advice for the masses and boasts and 150+ scientific advisory board... I know I assumed so until I read the Mission Statement page). Please re-read the discussions above which discusses these very points at some great length. Let's let our encyclopedia relay this verifiable point to clear up any ambiguity or misunderstandings about the subject at hand. -- Levine2112 17:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me for repeating it here but it seems apropros. Seems like you believe that unless QW says it verbatum, then it cannot be said? Is that what WP:OR really means? It certainly doesn't appear to be the case on Misplaced Pages. Does anyone here doubt that what QW posts on its Mission Statement means anything but ... they are not peer-reviewed? Is making an "In other words" statement OR? Anthon01 (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Anthon01 (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Disruption of talk page

While I've never investigated how or when it's appropriate to do so, but I think it might be worthwhile to seek an end to the disruption here. It appears, as has happened in the past, that some editors are refusing to follow WP:TALK and WP:CON. --Ronz 17:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

What specific issues of WP:TALK and WP:CON do you feel are being violated here? -- Levine2112 17:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Because this is a repeated problem and other dispute resolution attempts have failed, I'm asking for others' opinions, per WP:DR. I'm doing so here in an attempt to quickly stop the disruptions to this page. --Ronz 17:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a clear case of refusal to respect the consensus of others. I think an RFC/U is in order at this point. --Ronz (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Outside opinion. #Consensus on "peer-review" shows three who hold one position and two who disagree. Arthur Rubin's position is unclear. Looks to me like a clear attempt to declare a consensus where none exists yet. Seek compromise and consensus before declaring someone disruptive for disagreeing with one that doesn't exist. GRBerry 20:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think there was a previous discussion on this, in which a number of editors felt it was inapropriate, and only two (but a different two) felt it appropriate. But I can't find it. However, even if not, Levine has failed to recognize clear consensus in the past, and it is not a violation of WP:AGF to note that fact. QG may be pushing WP:CIVIL, but.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a reference or repeatedly adding unreferenced information to this article may be seen as disruptive.  Mr.Guru  talk  20:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

GRBerry, thanks for the outside opinion. I agree that there is no clear consensus here. And I appreciate your defense of me not acting disruptively as Ronz has incorrectly declared. Arthur Rubin, I can't think of a time when I failed to recognize a clear consensus, but clearly what we have here is not a clear consensus. So assume what you would like about me, but without a clear consensus, there is no consensus for me to even fail to recognize. QuackGuru, I am unclear what you are talking about, but Quackwatch's lack of peer-review is made clear on their own Mission Statement which currently serves as a citation for the statement. I agree with Arthur Rubin that you are pushing WP:CIVIL (and have been for quite some time). Please consider contributing to this discussion in a more meaningful way. -- Levine2112 21:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about a consensus reached by 8 (or so) editors making over 200 edits between 27 November 2007 and 30 November 2007. No one made any further edits until 6 December 2007, when I brought up the suggestion that there is consensus. --Ronz (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I remember it being pretty well split, though there have been some ideas to incorporate more information about how the articles are reviewed and what purpose the advisory board serves. However, there has been no verifiable evidence other than what is on the mission statement presented here yet. Please elucidate your comments above by providing diffs which show the 8 or so editors arriving at a consensus. Thanks. -- Levine2112 23:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a discussion I started about disruption of this talk page. If you would like to count editors, please do so and place them in an appropriate discussion. Please remember, however, this is not a WP:VOTE. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You are the one who brought the "8 (or so) editors". I was just looking for clarification. -- Levine2112 23:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Levine has legitimate points that are not being addressed in a collaborative spirit to yield an accurate summarization.--I'clast (talk) 13:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Please edit above the references section

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