Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:56, 22 May 2015

Ideal sources for Misplaced Pages's health content are defined in the guideline Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Identifying reliable sources (medicine). PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles) The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine. Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

To discuss reliability of specific sources, please go to Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard or to the talk pages of WikiProject Medicine or WikiProject Pharmacology.

view · edit Frequently asked questions This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Identifying reliable sources (medicine) page. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32Auto-archiving period: 30 days  Biomedical information This note is to explain the correction that I made here: MEDRS applies to "biomedical information". It does not apply to all medical content; It does not apply to all health content; it definitely does not apply to all content that could be (mis)construed as being health content. MEDRS only applies when you are making a statement that has both "bio" and "medical" components. Whether patients choose to comply with a prescription more frequently if the prescriber comes from their class is "medical" content. However, it is not subject to MEDRS, because there's no "bio" in that. Whether there are typically 46 chromosomes in a human cell is "bio", but it's not "medical". It's plain human biology. Therefore MEDRS is not required for that, either. I realize that this "limitation" is not popular with certain woo-fighters, who occasionally wish (for example) to demand MEDRS-compliant sources on the strictly non-biological (and therefore non-biomedical) fact that a huge number of licensed physicians choose to recommend chiropractic or acupuncture treatment to their patients – but that kind of statement is not covered by MEDRS. What we think of as a "MEDRS-compliant" source is required only for the biomedical subset of all medical- and health-related information in Misplaced Pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC) Why Under the question "Why do you have special rules for medical information?", it says that we want to get it right "Since Misplaced Pages's readers may make medical decisions based on information found in our articles". This is probably true for some people. However, I'm not sure that this is "the (sole) reason"; we want to get it right because we want to get it right. Also, the consequence doesn't follow logically: If the sole rationale is that people make health decisions with Misplaced Pages, then we need to get the information right. (We would also need to write in lay-friendly English and omit information that might cause someone to make the "wrong" choice.) Using high-quality sources is a means to an end, not an end in itself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC) When The section "When do I need to follow MEDRS?" says, "Content about human biochemistry or about medical research in animals is also subject to MEDRS if it is relevant to human health." I think this is too sweeping. Is there any aspect of human biochemistry that isn't – somehow, perhaps indirectly – "relevant to human health"? Also, why human biochemistry and not human biomechanics? And how far do you want to take this? Do you need a MEDRS-compliant source to say that children sometimes cry when they fall down? There's a whole lot of biochemistry involved in that process. Ditto for medical research in animals. This kind of oversimplification makes it very hard to write solid science about toxicology and environmental health research. I think this is going to lead to writing bad articles and blanking good content over needless sourcing disputes. It's a gift to POV pushers. We need to find a better way to say this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Review: ideal? I query the recommendation "For most (not all) purposes, the ideal source is a peer-reviewed review article", which goes along with "and the editor said I needed to use a review". As MEDRS pyramid diagram shows, clinical practice guidelines are probably the closest we have to "ideal". When such guidelines come from an international body of experts, reviewing and grading evidence, and combining that with "best practice" for all the things that RCTs don't necessary cover, then they really can be a gold mine for sourcing. We are, after all, supposed to reflect the expert consensus. There are various kinds of reviews. A narrative review may only reflect the opinion of the authors . A systematic review can be so algorithmically constrained, that the authors end up saying little that is useful. A meta-analysis can only be done if there is homogeneity in the studies. Editors seem often over-focused on "efficacy" and perhaps "adverse effects" which are important when covering treatments, but in a disease-focused article, or a treatment that is more complex than just taking a pill, that may only cover a small aspect of the article topic. A professional and condition/treatment-specific textbook may outclass all of these for some aspects of an article, as it can be more comprehensive and holistic than a journal review paper. Of course, such a book requires one to make more of an effort and commitment than following a PubMed link. So, in short, I don't think we should push "review article" as "ideal". It is merely "good" and "better" than a research study paper. I think we should also encourage editors to immerse themselves in the literature on a topic, before doing significant work on it. That is the only way we can determine WP:WEIGHT. I often see the addition of factoids linked to this or that review. The result is many of our articles are a fairly disorganised collection of facts, that neither introduce and explain nor are comprehensive. So really, what one needs is not "a review" but to collect several high quality sources, read them all, and cite one or two. That would be my advice in a FAQ. -- Colin° 16:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC) Agree. One problem I have noticed with review papers is that in aggregating the results of many separate trials a significant outlier may be omitted or downgraded, e.g. a result that only applies to a particular genetic population or diagnosis. Of course that is exactly what a review is supposed to do! But useful, reliable information (even from primary sources) may be lost, and the article may be misleading, especially with negative results such as "Xxxx has not been found to have any effect greater than placebo on Ccccc". D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC) Fake heading The navigation (esp. mobile) and editing of the page is a bit difficult now. This seems to have a reason, which I’m not sure I understand. Can we change it back? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC) This FAQ is transcluded at the top of WT:MEDRS (in a collapsed section). I suspect that @Seppi333 changed the formatting so that the section headings in the FAQ didn't appear in the Table of Contents for WT:MEDRS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2024 (UTC) Thanks WAID; your explanation clears things up! --Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC) It makes this page very hard to use though. Bon courage (talk) 06:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC) We could put {{vanchor}} on each section heading and something like #General • #Sourcing • #Neutrality • #Finding and using sources • #Conflict of interest • #Other helpful resources (only prettier) at the top of the page, if that would make it easier. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Medicine This page is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Pharmacology This page is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology 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.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Veterinary medicine

Does, or should, MEDRS cover Veterinary medicine? I have seen twice in the past week editors write that MEDRS may be applicable. I can provide diffs if necessary, but these comments were asides to other discussions, and the main issue here is whether animal health is within or outside of the scope of MEDRS. If this were made explicit, we could avoid future arguments over animal health sources.Dialectric (talk) 23:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC) @Dialectric: can yo provide the diffs in question? Montanabw 19:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

There have been some slight discussions on this in the past, but the main one is here: . Personally, I would say yes (or mostly) coming from a veterinary background. The only difference between the field of veterinary medicine and human medicine for us as editors here is that animal models aren't as much of an issue because the animal can be tested directly without the ethical issues of testing humans for certain things (e.g. lethal treatment groups, etc.). Beyond that, what MEDRS describes is pretty much parallel for the medical sciences or really science in general. Reasons why we as editors avoid primary studies for instance are pretty ubiquitous across disciplines. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the link - that discussion was a good start. Your bolded question 'Does MEDRS apply to non-human branches of medicine? If not, why?' is similar to what I'm asking here, and there are a few interesting questions raised about the bounds of MEDRS.Dialectric (talk) 04:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I would be against WP:MEDRS as it currently exists being applied to veterinary medicine (vet med). At the moment, WP:MEDRS contains sections called -

1) Avoid over-emphasizing single studies, particularly in vitro or animal studies

2) Use up-to-date evidence (<5 yrs old)

The first will be difficult to apply to vet med for several reasons. Vet Med often depends on single case studies (e.g. surgical techniques, diseases of zoo animals). These are published, but are very unlikely to be subjected to further research; their efficacy is subsequently reported and tested by word of mouth, electronic noticeboards, etc. but not in the scientific media. This first section is also problematic because it advocates not using studies on animals. Of course if a vaccine is being developed for cats, it should be tested on cats. This is a relatively minor point - I think a simple wording of "target species" could cover application to both humans and non-human animals.

Section 2 (up-to-date evidence) is likely to be problematic due to the nature of research in vet med. Once a practice, procedure, whatever, is established, it is extremely difficult to get further funding for this. Therefore, over time, the sources will slip past this 5 year cut-off (where does this come from anyway?). I have never seen guidelines applying a "recency" component to vet med writing.

I am not saying WP:MEDRS can not be applied to vet med, but I feel that as it stands, this would cause problems. For example, the section on suitable sources discusses the strength of experimental design/sources. It states that "meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the best design/source". It then describes the other exptl designs almost as if they should be never be cited. They are probably out there somewhere, but I can't ever remember seeing meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials in vet med. Unfortunately, an over zealous editor could quite easily use this to prevent an article from progressing. I also agree as suggested above, it would need to be clearly stated what is the scope of vet med or perhaps even veterinary science. Just thoughts - I hope these help.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Not too problematic tweaks indeed. The caveat with 1. is using findings from one species to infer something about another. That's the real meaning of the animal studies point, so it might actually be good to be specific about that anyways. For 2. that's really meant to say use the most recent studies available. 5 years is a decent cut-off in most sciences if reviews come out very often, so it basically means newer than 5 years, if none are available then use the most recent. I don't think availability of reviews is a problem though. I just checked Web of Science for reviews using "veterinary" alone in the last 5 years and got 608 reviews. I have never run into issues finding a review for veterinary topics I'm interested in either. Overall though, the spirit and scope of MEDRS would seem to be appropriate for veterinary med with some slight clarifications, so it would seem simple with slight clarifications. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Per the comment above, WP:SCIRS already does apply. I take no position for or against looking at bringing in MEDRS, except that given how some people treat MEDRS with extreme literalness, I'd suggest having a specific subsection for veterinary medicine that addresses the very legitimate concerns that DrChrissy raises. Also, because alternative medicine is more openly accepted in the veterinary world, we may want to note that some things that would not fly in human medicine may be acceptable in a veterinary article (so long as there is adequate sourcing) - for example, many veterinarians also do animal chiropratic medicine or acupuncture. Montanabw 22:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Question The article Specialty (medicine) lists psychiatry as a specialist topic. The Psychiatry article defines this as "the medical specialty devoted to the study, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of mental disorders." There are analgous processes in the veterinary world. Are people arguing to use WP:MEDRS on articles such as Dog training, Clicker training, Obedience training, Separation anxiety in dogs, etc, etc? This is not a rhetorical question.__DrChrissy (talk) 10:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• I think that animal training is closer to education as an analogous comparison to humans. By and large, I think that falls under a "don't scratch this if it doesn't itch" category. (And if some idiot is arguing for MEDRS, point them to SCRIS instead. Montanabw 05:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with you totally. I was thinking more about animal behavioural therapy rather than training per se. My concern here is that imposing WP:MEDRS on Vet Med, especially without carefully defining the topics, will wipe many articles from the project and cause an enormous amount of disruption. For example, the article describing a piece of veterinary medicine equipment, the Elizabethan collar, would not survive even the lightest of touches with WP:MEDRS, but currently reads sufficiently well for the average reader. If people want to get a flavour of articles, perhaps look at the categories pages. states there are 1,072 articles in this category (I have no idea how up-to-date this is). has 22 sub-categories (YIKES! I have just seen Winged cat! That needs to go!)__DrChrissy (talk) 08:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Forgot to reply to this, but for an example like Elizabethan collar I don't really see anywhere that MEDRS would apply. Basic equipment normally doesn't fall under a need peer-reviewed sources. It's when you start getting into details about a specific treatment that you'd really start digging into vet med journal articles. For instance, over at trocar, I wouldn't really think MEDRS sources are needed to describe what it is and what it is used for. How well it actually works for dealing with bloating cattle and survival after using it would be the specific piece of content I'd look for journal articles on. I believe this is how most medical equipment articles are currently handled as well. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

A lot of thoughts here, so bear with me. Training type articles would be describing what is done in training and doesn't really fall into the realm of any particular science (I'm not aware of journals covering something like this). That would be equivalent to say an article on human parenting methods where we don't really apply MEDRS per se. Saying whether a particular method is effective really does require scientific studies though. Once you start getting into actual health content though (i.e., diseases, disorders, nutrition, etc.), those are areas where there are plenty of scientific publications where we should be pulling from our best available sources (typically review articles). This is the area I see clearly within the scope of MEDRS because we are pulling from exactly the same kinds of studies in either discipline with the tweaked caveat about extrapolating findings from model organisms to the species of interest (human or otherwise).

That all does start going towards the question I asked here though about SCIRS. After wrestling with that question for awhile I would take the MEDRS approach for obvious health content (i.e. reviews and reputable organizations) because we as editors still should not be interpreting the findings of primary studies. As you move away towards more tangential topics that are not so much about health, but maybe general social behavior of wolves, chickens, etc. you still have scientific research there, so I'd look to SCIRS still looking to secondary sources, but acknowledging we might need to look to the introductions of primary sources in place of formal literature reviews with the cautions that come with that. Behavior is one topic that can straddle the line between MEDRS and SCIRS, so it really depends on what a specific piece of content is about.

So, I would put all of the training articles you listed as generally under SCIRS since there is a mix of topics in play. If one was to comment on how effective training methods are, that’s where I would be looking towards scientific topics specifically, but otherwise general sources are fine for general descriptions. The separation anxiety article would clearly be a health topic though, so I would be looking to journal articles for information there as opposed to people who just write about their ideas on it. The take home message is to pull from our best available sources regardless of MEDRS, SCIRS, etc. labels. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• Question: Why is this even being raised? Is there an actual problem somewhere? Otherwise, we may be discussing solutions in search of a problem! If nothing itches, I advise not scratching. JMO. Montanabw 06:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

If you worked on bird, frog, or bee articles, for examples, and the ways that various chemicals may be affecting them, you would understand. IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 07:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I do work on articles like that and I believe User:Montanabw also does (please correct me if I am wrong). Let's talk about the content, rather than the editors, please.__DrChrissy (talk) 08:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, the editor states: "... the main issue here is whether animal health is within or outside of the scope of MEDRS. If this were made explicit, we could avoid future arguments over animal health sources". Suggestions have been made that MED:RS should apply to animals as well and I am answering to that question. I do work in those areas (bees, etc.) and I have not noted Montana's involvement though certainly I could be wrong. Gandydancer (talk) 13:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

My question is if there is an article within the scope of WP:Veterinary medicine where this issue is actually being raised; it should be noted here so that we can be discussing ACTUAL problems and not theoretical ones. @Gandydancer: I work on some articles within the scope of WP:Veterinary medicine (for example, I created Colitis-X, and Parascaris equorum). Knock off the condescension and personal attacks. Montanabw 16:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Good grief, I had no intent of being condescending or attacking you! I always thought that I liked you and the work you do here and I've always considered you to be one of our best editors. I'm aware of the work that you do related to horses. I just wanted to point out that if we begin to insist of MED:RS for animals, animals include the health of birds, bugs, frogs, etc., which have of late seen a lot of connections to the ever increasing use of chemicals and their demise. I've already been told to leave chemical articles by chemists because they are supposed to be about the chemical and not about the way that a chemical is used when it is used as a pesticide and that this or that study is not acceptable because it is not MED:RS approved. I have no intent to argue here and am sorry that I said anything. Gandydancer (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Is there an actual problem in these topics though? We generally rely on reviews to interpret science sources in general (i.e., we're not qualified to assess the actual findings of primary sources). When it comes to chemicals and pesticides, reviews tend to come out pretty often summarizing the literature, so I'm not seeing any particular problems coming around by taking a more MEDRS approach there. The issues with primary journal articles and why we avoid them are generally the same across disciplines, so what distinction are you seeing here Gandydancer? I personally don't see any issues on the pesticide front. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The problem I see here is that adherance to secondary sources has not been as stringent in science articles outside of what is currently covered by WP:MEDRS. In my own editing of animal related articles, I very, very frequently use primary sources. TuT TuT I hear you say ;-). But, I follow with strict 100% adherance that content is verifiable. There would also be a problem with newspaper articles. WP:MEDRS views these as primary sources, but in other subjects they are viewed as secondary sources. In some subjects, newspapers might be the only source of information (e.g. attacks by animals, spread of a disease). I appreciate that in the human medical world it is critically important to have the most robust reporting of the appearance and spread of a new flu virus, but do we need the same adherance to report that "In 2014, an individual of species X was seen in location Y for the first time - as reported in The Guardian"?__DrChrissy 11:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll be away from any computer for the weekend, so I'll have to respond a bit more later. The problem with using primary sources is using their results or conclusions. I'm fine with using the introductions carefully when literature reviews aren't available, but we are no in position to use the findings of primary studies. That's the main thrust of MEDRS I'm looking at here. Newspapers articles generally wouldn't be reliable because they don't do a good job reporting on science with respect to research, but mundane things like a dog bite or reports of a disease occurring aren't exactly cutting edge science. There's a big difference between what's within the scope of journals in terms of research, and more basic biology that can be described by any number of sources. For instance, your "MEDRS" example here would be taking MEDRS a bit too far. Most of your secondary source required pieces of content do not need a review because they are just basic biology that are reported on in other acceptable sources such as extension publications, journal article introductions, etc. That's more SCIRS-y kind of content there. Content that requires more in-depth knowledge, such as your "The honey bee's venom . . ." would need some commentary form an outside source more in line with MEDRS though.

Basically, if it's basic biology, we'll have plenty of sources to pull from that are still reliable even if they aren't journal publications. When it comes to describing research that's more in-depth though, primary sources don't really work for us here, and that's where the general concepts behind MEDRS kick in. I'm not sure if you were picking that up reading over that example you made, so is that distinction making a bit more sense now? Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Seems to me that WP:SCIRS covers most of what is needed. Montanabw 19:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

In that particular case yes. It doesn't really get into the realm of vet med though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Meshing of MEDRS with animal studies

Here's a scenario I've been thinking about. Let's say someone is soapboxing on a particular article cherrypicking primary studies on a crusade to make chemical X look really good/bad, exposing the "truth", etc. In terms of content in the context of human health, primary animal studies would not be appropriate, and that's one of our guards against more advocacy in medical topics. Instead, the editor says the content is not about humans (not delving into whether that's a good faith intent or a slightly wikilawyerish move), and the primary source should be fine. Let's say it's a rat study. If someone is really fine with primary studies when humans aren't being mentioned, we technically could fill medical articles with animal studies at that point. It's a little bit of a potential loophole (and a slippery slope), so how would others deal with this example?

Personally, I'd be looking for context of whether the study was really veterinary in context (e.g. chemical X causes problems for livestock production/pets), or if it was just a general animal study just used as a model organism. The former would be veterinary where I'd still personally be looking for a secondary source to summarize the particular malady or treatment, whereas the latter would fit more squarely in what we don't include under MEDRS with regard to model organism studies. Essentially, what field does the weight originate from? Does that seem like a reasonable approach? Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that's a great place to start. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

BBC and Brussels Sprouts

I'd appreciate some comment, w.r. WP:MEDRS, on the following reverted edit and its immediate reinstatement . The content was removed with the summary "copyedit; rv WP:PRIMARY research; rv blog sources, WP:RS". This is not PRIMARY research or a blog, it's the BBC providing secondary reporting of it under their imprimatur, just as we look for. Also the Science Daily website, which I'm unfamiliar with, but again it's rather more than "a blog".

Looking at Special:Contributions/Zefr there is a rather obvious pattern here. Bulk removals of sourced content, claiming the sources are inadequate, with plenty of edit-warring to strong arm the changes into place. Looking at Ginger we see where work being published out via PubMed is getting removed as "rv WP:PRIMARY, not WP:MEDRS".

I'm no medic. I have no idea if Zefr is either (their userpage is silent). However I see their pursuit of source pruning as going way beyond any sensible imposition of sourcing policies, particularly when it comes to stripping sources for being too primary alone. That is not the purpose of WP:PRIMARY, when that primary material is being published via the route of credible academic bodies and peer-reviewed journals. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Andy Dingley,

BBC News (typical articles, including this one) is an independent source but not a secondary source. A secondary source is an intellectual work that does more than just repeat what someone else says by transforming it through critical analysis. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS for more details (spoiler: it's complicated, because some news sources really are secondaries). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Is Quackwatch a reliable source?

I have recently been editing the Acupuncture article. This has citations to pages posted on the Quackwatch web-site. e.g. I have concerns about whether these pages are a suitable source for a medicine article on Misplaced Pages. I have raised this issue here because in the past I have been told to seek questions about reliability here, rather than the article talk page. I also suspect this might affect other WP articles. These concerns are -

1) (minor concern) The articles are well out of date - considerably older than the MEDRS rule-of-thumb of more recent than 5 years old.

2) The articles appear to be blogs - they are attributed to a single author and therefore represent only the opinion of this one individual.

3) The articles may or may not be peer-reviewed. The FAQs on the Quackwatch website states "Are your articles peer-reviewed? It depends on the nature of the article and how confident I am that I understand the subject in detail. Most articles that discuss the scientific basis (or lack of scientific basis) of health claims are reviewed by at least one relevant expert. Some are reviewed by many experts. News articles are not usually reviewed prior to posting" So, how do we know which articles have been peer-reviwed and which have not?

My question is simple - are articles on the Quackwatch web-site reliable sources?

1. Stephen Barrett (March 9, 2006). "Massage Therapy: Riddled with Quackery". Quackwatch.
2. Barrett, S (30 December 2007). "Be Wary of Acupuncture, Qigong, and "Chinese Medicine"". Quackwatch. Archived from the original on 29 September 2010. Retrieved 3 November 2010.

DrChrissy 11:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

It depends on context. For example, a statement like Acupressure is oftentimes described as "acupuncture without needles" does not need a top MEDRS (is there any doubt about that statement?), and WP:PARITY tells us that Quackwatch is fine for commentary on Traditional Chinese medicine. Johnuniq (talk) 12:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

WOW! I have not come across that one before. It states "In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer reviewed journal." So, if someone uses a really rubbish reference to support a fringe medical practice, this can be discredited by an equally rubbish reference? This really does not sound like the principles of high quality sources behind WP:MEDRS.DrChrissy 12:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

It's focused around the idea that fringe content typically is ignored in publications by definition. It's not saying we use rubbish sources, but just acknowledging that if we need to describe a fringe piece of content, it's not afforded time in what we consider out most reliable sources. Without parity, fringe content can sneak it's way in through a deluge of books, blogs, etc. when they are considered semi-reliable sources, while scientific literature ignores what happens in that realm. It can be easy to create undue weight for re fringe theory without this in mind, so that's what parity is really trying to get at. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that. But returning to the Acupunture article, surely there are more robust (and recent) sources than what appear to be articles on the opinions of just one medic?DrChrissy 13:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

If there are such sources that address a specific piece of content, then by all means use those instead. Parity just helps give a baseline in dealing with fringe content, especially in context to how quickly fringe claims can be generated and the sheer number of them that scientific publications don't really deal with that well for our purposes. If a better source accomplishes ascribing due weight about a fringe view, that's what should be used. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I appreciate the explanation. I can't but help feel that this parity concept rather lowers the high bar that WP:MEDRS states it wishes to achieve. If as a reader I was to look at the Acupuncture article, I think I would expect a higher quality of medical article as a source being used to debunk the practice. Perhaps parity leads to rather lazy editing - the fringe practice is quickly debunked by a low quality source, but nobody goes back to replace this source with one of higher quality.DrChrissy 14:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

From the way I understand things, claims like Acupressure is oftentimes described as "acupuncture without needles" could conceivably be sourced by Quackwatch if nothing else is available, but it would best be sourced by textbooks or other high quality sources, and there are plenty of sources other than Quackwatch that define acupressure. Why don't we use those instead? Quackwatch is clearly not a MEDRS source, so we cannot use for medical claims. I don't have a problem with using it for some claims, like claims about what acupuncture skeptics believe, but statements like TCM theory and practice are not based upon the body of knowledge related to health, disease, and health care that has been widely accepted by the scientific community. TCM practitioners disagree among themselves about how to diagnose patients and which treatments should go with which diagnoses. Even if they could agree, the TCM theories are so nebulous that no amount of scientific study will enable TCM to offer rational care. I'm not sure Quackwatch is reliable enough to state what the scientific community does and does not believe, as a whole, or what TCM believes, as a whole, since Quackwatch is clearly a partisan source. If the FDA or the NIH or TCM bodies made claims like this, that would be reliable. But not only does this statement exist on the acupuncture page, it's in block quotes! So not only is it unreliable in this particular instance, it's also a weight problem because we're block quoting it, giving it a stage, lights and a megaphone. LesVegas (talk) 16:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

As a side note, I wonder if any editors happen to be connected to Quackwatch in some way? To use Quackwatch as a source to define acupressure is a little strange, and almost seems like some editors are trying to get a backlink for Quackwatch to help in SEO. I would hate to think that is the case. I might have to look into this further. LesVegas (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

You don't need to worry about search engine optimization, because links in Misplaced Pages have the "nofollow" attribute set. Search engines ignore them, so they do not help with SEO efforts. (Plain old spam still works, though: if you post your link to a high-traffic article, people might still click on it.) People who cite it are either looking for something easy and free, or because it aligns with their deeply held POVs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if it is worth pointing out at this juncture that it would be equally correct to say that acupressure is often characterized as delusional nonsense? There being no such things as meridians, qi and such. It has even less prior plausibility than acupuncture, but at least you probably won't end up with cardiac tamponade or sepsis I guess. Guy (Help!) 08:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

If would not be worth pointing it out, because it is factually wrong. Acupressure is not "often" characterized as delusional nonsense. Only a very small minority of rather strident sources choose inflammatory characterizations like that. acupressure "delusional nonsense" gives me just 30 ghits, and if you exclude blogs and reader comments, it's almost zero. It's much more common for reliable, non-self-published, non-activist sources to say that it's really no different from any other type of massage, and might provide some temporary pain relief or a relaxation effect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I have some reservations about PARITY. More precisely, I have some reservations about how PARITY is (mis)used on occasion. It seems to be used and presented to making angry, pointed statements. We rarely see something neutrally phrased, like "Critics like Quackwatch say this doesn't work". Instead, the statements tend to say things like "Critics like Quackwatch say that this is 'irrational pseudoscience-y quackery performed by evil charlatans on unsuspecting innocents'".

In an ideal world, we would cite Quackwatch (and all similar websites, regardless of POV) approximately never. If a source can be found that either is more academic in nature (any journal, even a minor one) or has better editorial control (any newspaper or magazine), then we should use that other source instead.

NB that I advocate replacing Quackwatch with more formal sources (see WP:NOTGOODSOURCE for a list of criteria to consider). I do not advocating blanking any barely reliable source and leaving the material unsourced. It's better to cite Quackwatch for its views than to cite nothing for views held by Quackwatch (and others). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree very much with excluding sources attributable to Quackwatch, however, I disagree with "It's better to cite Quackwatch for its views than to cite nothing for views held by Quackwatch (and others)" If we use that argument, we should be allowing sources by PETA or the Animal Liberation Front to stand.DrChrissy 20:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

We will not be excluding Quackwatch from Misplaced Pages, it has been time and again found to be useful and reliable in certain circumstances, but especially as a WP:PARITY source when better sources are not available. How reliable it is depends, as with all reliability questions, on context of what text it is being sourced to. Yobol (talk) 20:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

OK...users citing WP:MEDRS as the spine of all that is good in medical articles are now supporting the inclusion of non-peer reviewed, opinion articles. No wonder Misplaced Pages has the bad name that it does.DrChrissy 20:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Yobol Please could you provide links to where this has been discussed before. DrChrissy 20:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Extensively discussed at WP:RSN, see here. Note that we do not take any individual policy or guideline (whether it be MEDRS or NPOV or OR or RS, etc) in isolation, but apply them together to determine what goes in a Misplaced Pages article. There is no contradiction in using WP:MEDRS when appropriate and WP:FRINGE when appropriate. Yobol (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• If the topic is "acupuncture", then we should not really be relying on Quackwatch since there are numerous better-quality sources available. On the other hand, for obscure forms of charlatanry, Quackwatch may be the best available source, and so if we feel compelled to maintain articles on such topics then Quackwatch may in fact be the most reliable source available. The main point here is that reliability depends on context. MastCell  21:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to keep banging on about this, but how can a source that is not peer-reviewed ever be considered to be a suitable source for a medical article? It flies completely in the face of good editing and the purported high standards of WP:MEDRS editing. Would there be a problem tagging all citations of Quackwatch as "potentially not peer-reviewed"?DrChrissy 21:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, so let me give you a real-world scenario where we were just having a discussion on the acupuncture talk page here where an editor found a statement from a textbook published by the Royal Society of Chemistry that directly contradicts Quackwatch. So in that case, you think it's best if we use the much more reliable source and delete Quackwatch as a source in that particular instance? What about using Quackwatch as a source for what skeptics say, provided that we don't give skeptics more weight than they deserve? It seems to me like that would be a reasonable instance where we would use it; other instances not so much. And as for the backlinks, you're right, Misplaced Pages links are no follow. That doesn't mean they don't generate web-traffic from articles as you said. I mean, really, it makes me wonder when we're defining acupressure with a QuackWatch source. Then again, maybe that's the only source some editors around here read so they wouldn't know better sources actually do exist in this universe for claims like that. LesVegas (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Quackwatch is a reliable source for commentary on claims in the supplements, alternative and complementary medicine (SCAM) industry. It is cited by other reliable sources, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Science Panel on Interactive Communication and Health characterised it as a credible source, the American Cancer Society endorse it and so on. This is all in the Quackwatch article.

Obviously it is unpopular with the SCAM industry, but we must always remember Ersnt's Law: if you are investigating alternative medicine and the quacks don't hate you, then you're not doing your job.

I presume this question is motivated by your ongoing campaign to sanitise critical material form the article on acupuncture? Guy (Help!) 08:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I presume this question is directed at me. As I have made clear above, the reason I started this thread is because I believe (and continue to believe) that non-peer reviewed, single-author, opinion articles do not belong in medical articles. It would be the height of futility to try to sanitise an article of material by starting this thread. The Quackwatch articles are so old I am certain more recent, peer-reviewed articles exist, but perhaps the "medics" like Quackwatch because it provides lovely cherries for them to pick.DrChrissy 08:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

And I question why you have suddenly pitched up at a mature article and set about removing sources that you denigrate as not meeting our standards, all of which, purely coincidentally, appear to cast doubt on the elaborate charade that is Maoist acupuncture. Some of us have been aorund Misplaced Pages's alt med articles for a very long time, and I'm afraid this gives me a bad case of déjà-moo. I freely acknowledge deep cynicism here. Barrett is a source cited by major national institutions, and is a perfectly valid source where used int hat article - you will not find papers in the learned journals saying that acupuncture is implausible nonsense and why, because it's obvious and doesn't need to be stated, scientifically, but this is an encyclopaedia article so it does need sources written for the general reader discussing the many and varied problems with alternatives to medicine. Guy (Help!) 21:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

_{Guy, are you sure you didn't mean "déjà-woo"? Atsme☯ 22:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)}

Have you guys not thought that perhaps the reason that this issue is rearing its head again is because new editors come along and have the same concerns? Perhaps you really need to have a look at this WP:Parity concept. It seems absolutely ridiculous that intelligent people should argue "let's fight rubbish with rubbish"...surely if the evidence is that convincing, replace the very low quality primary source of Quackwatch with a decent secondary source and we can all go our separate ways satisfied. Is there not a single editor out there willing to take responsibility and put in suitable RS references ...or do you all just prefer to sit around insulting anyone who might question your dogma.DrChrissy 22:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

LesVegas, all sources are reliable for some statements, and all sources are unreliable for other statements. Your actual problem is with WP:DUE weight, not with reliability, and the policy at WP:YESPOV is pretty clear on how to handle it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

A convenient little break

• I have always argued that it would make much more sense to create a separate list of reliable medical sources based on several pre-defined criteria, rather than arbitrarily listing a source as reliable (or unreliable) based on whether it serves the needs of those fighting quackery. QW definitely is an unreliable source due to its status as a non-peer reviewed, self-published blog, but I could imagine the followers of Gorski and other SBM advocates desperately trying to push any source that opposes CAM therapies against prevailing medical consensus. -A1candidate 22:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC) (UTC)
  • It's impossible to make such a list, because reliability depends upon context. You could create a list of sources that meet most or all of the typical objective criteria (see WP:NOTGOODSOURCE for a bulleted list; Quackwatch meets three of the five), but that wouldn't help you determine whether a source is "reliable", because "reliable" is actually shorthand for "reliable for the specific statement being made in the article", not "reliable in general". Furthermore, even a source that is reliable might not be WP:DUE. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I agree, which is a large reason why I wrote the essay on identifying primary and secondary sources; an individual source may contain both primary and secondary content. However, Quackwatch articles are not (may not be) peer-reviewed. To my mind, this puts them way at the bottom of reliable sources for any article on WP, let alone medical articles for which we purport to have the highest standards. There really should be a ban on using these single-authored opinion articles.DrChrissy 22:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
    • The context is obviously within the realm of the Great Battle against Quackery, as the OP clearly indicated.

      Unreliable - All self-published Internet blogs participating in the Great Battle against Quackery including QuackWatch, SBM, "New England Skeptical Society", Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, Quackometer, Dcscience.net, The Nightingale Collaboration, xkcd.com, Orac's Respectful Insolence, and other advocacy sites. The personal blogs of actual CAM researchers such as Edzard Ernst and Ben Goldacre might be okay, but these should be used with caution if there are no better sources.

      Reliable - All major medical societies, reputable journals, widely used medical textbooks and reference works.

In other words, MEDRS is reliable. Non-MEDRS is unreliable, but many editors participating in this discussion are unable to accept the core policies and guidelines of MEDRS, so it makes the list necessary.

-A1candidate 23:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

User:WhatamIdoing User: A1candidate User: DrChrissy I'm afraid A1Candidate is right that proponents of Quackwatch will keep pushing for spamming or shoehorning it everywhere unless there's hard rules. But WhatamIdoing is right in that there are cases, albeit rare ones, where Quackwatch is a reasonable source. Or, as MastCell said, in cases of clear cut yet obscure quack remedies where it's the only reliable source. Perhaps the best way to end this perpetual standoff with diehard proponents of Quackwatch would be an RfC where we ask if the source is appropriate to use in condition x, condition y, and so on. Then proponents will have to live with the outcome across Misplaced Pages's articles instead of engaging in a constant knee-jerk revert of its removal. Would it be best to do the RfC here, since it's used on medical articles or would it be better elsewhere? And what would the reliability circumstances be? I'm thinking along the lines of "Is Qw reliable as a MEDRS?" "Is it reliable for claims of scientific consensus?", "is it reliable if it contradicts a statement by a government health body?", "is it weighty enough for parity if it is up against a peer reviewed medical journal?", and so on. LesVegas (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course, if there is a more direct option I'm all for that as well. If our policies are already clear enough I'm all for removing Quackwatch where it's a violation and reporting those that edit war it back in, but my experience thus far has been that they're let off with light warnings only to do it over and again. LesVegas (talk) 00:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Asking whether Quackwatch is reliable is not a useful question. It's like asking whether a particular piece of software is good. The only accurate answer is "it depends", and the answer you'll probably get is "yes, Quackwatch is always 100% reliable for everything" (which is factually wrong).

A more useful question would be something like "Is Quackwatch.com a {{better source}} than a (this particular peer-reviewed journal article, a book published by an academic press, etc.) for (this particular statement)?" The question isn't how to get Quackwatch's POV out of the article. It's how to fairly represent all of the POVs, including the skeptic's POV. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

So you think the only way to remove it via an RfC would be on a case by case basis with specific examples and not broader generalities or abstractions, like those I suggested? That would take forever, 1000's of RfC's as many times as it's poorly cited! It seems like there has to be a better way. Surely this encyclopedia isn't THAT broken, is it? LesVegas (talk) 02:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

On a case by case basis has always been the decision in RfCs and ArbCom decisions about the use of Quackwatch, just like any other source. It's a highly respected mainstream source. It's not a blog. It has a large group of experts used to vet its content, even when the article might happen to be signed by Barrett. It is not generally used for MEDRS content, but for the opinions of skeptics and medical experts on the topics of alternative medicine, health fraud, etc..

It is hated by pushers of pseudoscience, and thus any editor who opposes its proper use reveals their intentions, and those intentions are contrary to Misplaced Pages's aspirations to be a mainstream, scientifically reliable, encyclopedia. I suggest you read the many discussions about its use here. Several are listed at the top of Talk:Quackwatch.

BTW, MEDRS applies to specific types of content in ALL articles, and never to entire articles. Well-written medical articles, especially about controversial subjects, will contain a blend of MEDRS sourced content, popular RS content, and subject expert/skeptical content which documents the controversies. The latter will use QW and similar sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with WhatamIdoing above, but I have to add that for claims on medical efficiency, QuackWatch really should not be used. This works in both ways, though: any claim by fringe sources on medical claims should not be accepted unless it's accepted by a MEDRS compliant source. And when it's accepted by a MEDRS compliant source, where do we need the fringe source anyway? The same goes with QuackWatch.

As said above, there might be some fringe topics that are not paid enough attention to by the mainstream academic research. For these instances, QuackWatch might serve as a reliable source, but only on case-by-case basis. As far as I am concerned, the very topic has been discussed at Talk:Acupuncture more than once, and this was the conclusion.Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The mainstream sources in academic world are the peer-reviewed ones, those where any ambitious academic tries to get his work published. QuackWatch is a blog (and blogs naturally cannot be peer reviewed), and therefore I hardly find it as a "respected mainstream source". It's a website, a blog. However, I agree with BullRangifer that it can be helpful in some marginal cases, but should not be used with claim on medical efficiency. Marginal sources like QuackQWatch should only be used when the subject area is also marginal enough not to catch any wider academic attention. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Please excuse this intrusion into the main topic of this thread. I totally agree with your summary above of what a well-written medical article should contain. However, this is not what is happening! Please look at the recent edits on Acupuncture. I introduced a tertiary source summarising multiple Cochrane reports on human studies of acupuncture. The source has been thrown out...because the summary was published in a veterinary handbook! Furthermore, I have researched acupuncture in (non-human) animals and written a brief section into Acupuncture titled "veterinary acupuncture". This has now been labelled in an edit summary as "See WP:COATRACK. There should be only one sentence at the end of Acupuncture#Related practices. Some of the text is misleading and poorly sourced. See WP:MEDRS." There are editors out there who are so insistent on POV that they are seriously threatening the perceived standard of medical editing in the project.DrChrissy 10:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

BullRangifer, you seem to know quite a bit about the history of Quackwatch on this encyclopedia. As you said, Quackwatch is undoubtedly reliable for some claims and unreliable for other claims. Has it ever been discussed as to whether or not Quackwatch is reliable enough to make claims about scientific consensus, or at least what broad scientific opinion is on a subject? Or has it ever been discussed as to whether or not it should be used for parity purposes against claims made by MEDRS sources? Or even, do you know if there been any discussion on whether or not the stronger claims made by Quackwatch should be attributed? I'm mostly curious if the discussion has delved this deeply, or if it's been more binary in nature. LesVegas (talk) 04:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

It's been some time since I did any research about QW. I once contributed quite a bit to the article and learned a lot in the process. I don't know of any cases where QW has been proven unreliable, at least not in any serious manner. That's just a claim we often hear, and the claimants never back up their claims. On further examination, they are wrong, usually because they are parroting unreliable sources like Natural News, Mercola, NVIC, etc.. Their sources are often blacklisted here, they are that unreliable!

The discussions aren't fresh in my mind. I'm pretty sure they have gone much deeper than a binary discussion. The statements and POV expressed on QW are usually sourced, and they are therefore always in harmony with scientific evidence, where it exists. When it doesn't exist, then that's what QW says. Many articles and much content are not written by Barrett. QW amounts to a huge database. I have always been amaze at what one can find there. There are many government documents and research unavailable elsewhere. There are some areas where Barrett has sided with some forms of herbal therapy as being potentially useful, but the evidence base might not be enough for us to make such a case using MEDRS compliant sources. That would just be his opinion, and we can't use that for such content. If there is ever any serious disagreement with MEDRS sources, we would use them. If the QW opinion was still significant, it would be attributed as such.

I have always favored attribution when there might be any doubt. If an opinion is clearly allied with mainstream science, attribution may not be necessary, but otherwise it's often a good idea. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

LesVegas, it wouldn't take thousands of discussions. It might take dozens. It's only linked in about a hundred articles.

BullRangifer, Quackwatch isn't really a "highly respected" source. It's a popular source, particularly among people who hold a particular POV about altmed (just like Fox News is particularly popular among people who hold a particular POV about American politics). There's a difference. Quackwatch is like Snopes.com: it's fine as far as it goes, but it has nowhere near the level of respect that a good peer-reviewed paper or a book published by a university press deserves. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I would agree that they serve very different functions, and thus enjoy different types of respect. QW is a specialty site which has won many awards, and your comparison to SNOPES is quite appropriate. It's highly respected as a consumer protection, false health claims debunking, site, and is usually listed in university, library, medical, and governmental sources as a consumer protection resource. It's the largest and most well-known of its kind. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree, the reliability depends on the context. When it comes ot claims on medical efficiency, QuackWatch doesn't really meet the requirements. After all, it's a non-peer reviewed, self-published blog. Acupuncture, however, is a largely studied subject, and there sure are better sources available. There's been discussions over this at Talk:Acupuncture, and the consensus has been that QuackWatch is not reliable per se, but should only be used on case-by-case basis. Oh... Guy, you stated that: "you will not find papers in the learned journals saying that acupuncture is implausible nonsense and why, because it's obvious and doesn't need to be stated, scientifically". Exactly, that's why we don't include such things in Misplaced Pages. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

If QW is not reiable, it is not reliable. How can context suddenly make it reliable? ...unless of course it suits those who like to pick cherries.DrChrissy 19:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm losing patience with you a little bit, because people have repeatedly explained how context matters. Hell, it's explicitly written into our guidelines: Proper sourcing always depends on context (emphasis in original). We even have a handy policy shortcut: WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Start by reviewing those, and by re-reading the responses you've gotten here, and then maybe drop the belligerent tone and try again if you're still confused about context. MastCell  21:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Not sure where you think I am being belligerent, but in future, please refrain from comments on the editor and stick to comments on the content - OK?DrChrissy 22:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course context matters. I have just written an essay showing just that.Misplaced Pages:Identifying primary and secondary sources for biology articles. But what if a source is so totally rubbish that it should not be used in any context? Please realise that you are arguing Misplaced Pages should include in its top medical articles, sources that are not peer-reviewed and perhaps a single-author opinion piece. I for one would not be prepared to put my editorial name to inclusion of such low grade information. Use it at your peril - the standards of Misplaced Pages medical articles continue to plummet...DrChrissy 22:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Many of your comments, here and elsewhere, include some form of attack, sniping, or criticism aimed at other editors, so it's pretty hypocritical for you to lecture anyone about focusing on content rather than contributors. Quackwatch should be used sparingly, with proper in-text attribution, only where better sources are not available, and with a proper appreciation of its limitations, but it is not a categorically unreliable source. I agree with you that it shouldn't be used heavily, or even at all, in our article on acupuncture, but you're being extremely heavy-handed and not really listening to what other people are telling you. I also don't think it was a good idea to write an essay offering advice which explicitly conflicts with our existing guidelines, but I will leave that up to someone else to sort out. MastCell  22:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh - where does the essay offer conflicting advice? Here is obviously not the place to raise it so I will look forward to seeing your comments on the essay's Talk page. I guess we are done with QW here. It is still unresolved, so I am sure another editor wanting fairness and clarity in editing medical articles will raise the same issues again in the future. I think the major point which we seem to agree on is that the average (non-medical/non-scientific) reader will not understand QW is widely acknowledged as a sub-standard source and one that is only wheeled-in when there is no robust science to refute claims. But it is being wheeled-in under the guise of being as reliable as e.g. The Lancet. The cycle of questioning the robustness of QW seems to be about every 2 years....DrChrissy 23:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

DrChrissy, I'm seeing massive failure to understand previous comments, similar failure to understand our sourcing policies, and some pretty blatant straw man statements, so basically you are deluding yourself (and others, if they aren't paying attention). Medical articles, just like other articles, are required to cover the subject from all the angles found in RS, and we have many types of RS available to us. Only certain types of content is covered by MEDRS, and other types of content (in medical articles!) is covered by our normal RS policy. Controversies are often not covered in peer reviewed literature, and yet we must document them. Context, context, context! That's what determines whether we should use a source or not. Even if we don't use the source in a given situation, that doesn't mean it's "unreliable", and QW is reliable, get that straight. Reliable doesn't mean perfect, but unless you have proof positive it's unreliable in a given situation, you have no right to even assume it's unreliable, but that's obviously your basic assumption, and that calls into question the accuracy of your moral/scientific/medical compass. No one has ever placed QW on a par with Lancet. That's a truly absurd straw man. It's a website, and not a "blog" type website. NEVER call it a "blog" again, got that?! Learn what that term means, and even then, many blogs aren't what they used to be. Blogs by experts are allowed here, (but remember, it's not a blog). Most of its content is a team effort involving medical professionals. Websites aren't peer reviewed (only one has that status, that I know of), so that is not a legitimate objection. Please stop contributing to this absurd questioning of the robustness of QW, because all you're trying to do is poison the well. You have a severe case of IDHTitis. We will continue to use QW on a case by case basis, which means that sometimes there is nothing worth using, and at other times there is. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@BullFangifer. You stated above that you have contributed to QW in the past. I feel this gives you a conflict of interest, which makes me feel disinclined to continue this conversation with you, however, there are a couple of points I would like to make. You stated "I don't know of any cases where QW has been proven unreliable, at least not in any serious manner." There are multiple pages of complaints about QW, for example, here, here and most recently (current I think) here. I am not offering these as indicators of the quality of QW because it will simply turn into "My M.D. is bigger than your M.D." Rather, I do believe that Misplaced Pages has its own internal standards regarding the reliability of sources, particularly medical, and we should be big enough to question these from time-to-time. I believe we should open an RfC on the issue.DrChrissy 10:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

DrChrissy, regarding your statement You stated above that you have contributed to QW in the past. I feel this gives you a conflict of interest...: I think you misread what BullRangifer wrote. Bull didn't say he has submitted contributions to QW itself, he said that he did a lot of editing of the Misplaced Pages article QuackWatch, so that wouldn't give him a conflict of interest. Zad68 12:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

My sincere apologies - I misread Bull's comment. Of course, now that this is pointed out, I agree there is no conflict of interest. Should I strike my comment?DrChrissy 12:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Personally I think that'd be a nice gesture! Zad68 12:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Done! ...with further apologies.DrChrissy 12:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Why is a discussion about QuackWatch here?

Why is this conversation about QuackWatch happening here? WP:MEDRS doesn't make mention of QuackWatch so there's nothing to do here, regarding the MEDRS guideline. If you're questioning an individual use of QuackWatch at a certain article, that should be taken to that article's Talk page, or WP:RSN. Zad68 11:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I raised the issue here because in the past, when I have broached a medical subject about which there is debate, I have been instructed to take it to WP:MEDRS. If WP:MEDRS does not mention Quackwatch, perhaps it should? Quackwatch seems to be used in a rather ad hoc manner and one which is very open to interpretation. This is confusing for editors, especially non-medical editors. For example, if I was editing a veterinary article, would I be able to cite a single-author web-site which published articles that were not peer-reviewed? If I was editing an article on an animal behaviour, would I be able to cite a single-author web-site publishing statements on the occurence of a behaviour without any other supporting sources? (This is usually called "anecdote".)DrChrissy 12:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, the "parallel" argument you're making isn't very parallel because nobody is proposing to use QuackWatch in the way you're describing, at least not without a lot more context.

OK, so if you're talking about a proposal to modify the MEDRS guideline to mention QuackWatch specifically, let's see that proposal. Personally I don't think a direct mention of QW is needed here, the existing guidelines and policies already cover it. Zad68 12:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

First, I would really like to see a direct answer from an admin to my direct question above as to whether those sources would be considered suitable for a vet article or an animal behaviour article. Second, WP:MEDRS contains a section "Other sources" where it discusses that many web-sites are low quality and unreliable. Perhaps there can be a sentence saying that Quackwatch is an exception to this?DrChrissy 12:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Why "from an admin"? This is a content-related question and so being an admin would not give any special status or qualification in answering it. Admins act as admins on issues of behavior only, not content. Your Other sources suggestion presumes that QW is blanket unreliable, and that hasn't been established. Zad68 12:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@Zad68 I thought you as an administrator would be more aware than most users of which are reliable sources and which are not. I was therefore seeking this "higher level" of judgement and comment. As a user, please would you give me a direct answer as to whether they would be suitable sources for a vet article or an animal behaviour article.

Fair enough that you don't want Quackwatch in the "Other sources" section, although there are several other examples of reliable sources in that section so I don't think the section is a "blanket unreliable". I don't care where a statement like "Quackwatch is an exception and should be used carefully on a case-by-case basis" should be placed in the guidelines. It just seems to be needed for clarity of the reliability of sources for editing medical articles.DrChrissy 13:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Voters at RFA definitely value solid content contributions, and many won't support an admin candidate unless they see that, but I guarantee you that most of our best-respected content editors are not admins. An admin is likely to have competent understanding of content WP:PAG, but you can't say more than that.

Regarding your hypothetical, I can't answer without seeing the specifics of the source, article, context and content--exactly the same as with QuackWatch. Zad68 13:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok. If I am not misunderstanding you then, it is OK to use such sources.DrChrissy 13:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Nope, not what I said. I'm not sure why you're having so much trouble understanding that it's not black-and-white. Please reread all the responses you've gotten here and in the sections above, nobody is saying that there's a binary answer applicable in all situations. But at this point I've given all the time and energy I'd care to on this conversation, I may check back in later. Zad68 13:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

DrChrissy, thanks for striking your comment above. Much appreciated. I have never contributed to QW itself, although that would be an honor. I see you mentioned Sahelian and Doctors Data above. These are both examples of retaliation by those rightly accused of unethical behavior. They are the unreliable ones, but you're using them as examples of why Barrett should be considered unreliable. It's the other way around. History (lots of it) has clearly shown us that the basic assumption should be that QW (and also Barrett) are on the right side of the equation, and their critics wrong, unless proven otherwise. Court cases don't determine scientific accuracy. Even Joseph Mercola paid Barrett $50,000 in an out of court settlement on a libel issue, which is small change for Mercola. Barrett and QW are slandered all the time, but because Barrett is a public figure, it's almost impossible for him to win a case in the USA. Unfortunately people believe the slanderers.

QW should be judged like any other source, using our RS policy. Content in articles, including medical (and veterinary) articles, is not judged by a binary rule. Our articles contain all kinds of content, some of which (in any article) might be covered by MEDRS. In articles on alternative medicine, there are controversies which must be documented, and that content is not usually covered by MEDRS. Peer reviewed research articles don't deal with controversies very often, but skeptics certainly do, and that's where websites like QW, Science Based Medicine, the New York Times, etc. come into play. They are not being used as MEDRS sources, but to document the controversies. When they back up the scientific consensus or make judgments on what they consider it to be, their opinions can be cited, often with attribution. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

That's unnecessary speculation, I am afraid. QuackWatch is a source where the authors can publish their mere opinions without going through any sort of peer-review process, and therefore it avoids all scientific scrutinizing. Although QuackWatch can be used on a very few occasions, it can be used in absence of better sources when a topic is so marginal that it hasn't attracted any significant scientific attention. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

If this is the case, why is Quackwatch cited multiple times in Acupuncture? Surely there has been relevant recent research published in secondary sources? Oh, and the Quackwatch article was written in 2007, so it also fails the standards suggested by WP:MEDRS.DrChrissy 15:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

DrChrissy: "If this is the case"??? But it's not the case. That's an editorial opinion based on a failure to understand the purpose of Misplaced Pages. Our articles aren't like those in other encyclopedias, which stick strictly to the facts about the subject. We go much further. We must document the sum total of human knowledge, and that includes news, opinions, and controversies about the subject. That's where the publicity, comments, and opinions found in the news, magazines, websites (like QW), etc., come into the picture. A medical article will contain some very specific information, and the factual medical claims must use MEDRS type sources, but the subject itself will have been the subject of discussion and mention in many other situations. Even the medical claims which use MEDRS will have been commented on in other sources, and we can quote them. If those sources are fringe (IOW, not in harmony with mainstream science), we don't give them a platform to sound like truth, but just document their existence as inaccurate dissenting voices. We will usually make it plain (using RS) that they are fringe sources. Sources which are in harmony with mainstream science will stand on their own merits (and not be deprecated), which will often be on a par (as far as truth goes) with the MEDRS sources they have used to come to their conclusions. (QW always backs up mainstream sources.) The article will also include such information, and "when in doubt, attribute" (BR). -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

That's a good question since acupuncture is rather a well-studied subject. That discussion belongs to the article Talk Page though, not here. Anyway, QuackWatch should be never used as MEDRS, but only as RS in some few cases. And for RS, the five years rule don't apply. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Jayaguru-Shishya, I agree that QW should never be used as a MEDRS source, IOW not in place of them. It will stand as a confirming voice documenting how scientific skeptics back up the MEDRS sources when they deal with controversies, quacks, and health fraud. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Well I think it is quite easy to see that Quackwatch is being used as MEDRS in various places. As for the age criterion, I guess what we have know is that ancient, non-peer reviewed, single-authored, opinion pieces can be used in medical articles. Hmmmmm....DrChrissy 16:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Can someone explain how a site run by someone who lost there medical license and has been called "Biased, and unworthy of credibility" by the California Appeals Court in the case of NCAHF v King Bio is an ok source? -- Moxy (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Moxy, keep in mind that your statement is libelous and violates WP:BLP. If you repeat it you'll likely get blocked. Joseph Mercola paid Barrett $50,000 in an out of court settlement when Mercola repeated that false statement. Barrett was never "delicensed" or "lost his license". He retired. (Read the sources in Stephen Barrett.) The California court case was a travesty of justice with an idiot judge and poorly prepared people, and courts don't determine scientific fact or credibility. BTW, Barrett is indeed "biased" in the proper manner. He sides with science, and science agrees that homeopathy is bunk, yet that judge sided with a producer of homeopathic products. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

^Now who is misrepresenting the case? The appellate case cited above can be found here and by a search on the Californai Court's website of published opinions here. The assertion that an appellate decision is a single "idiot" judge is clearly incorrect. Most appellate decisions are decided by a 3-judge panel. The trial court judge Haley J. Fromholz first found against Plaintiff in Superior Court of Los Angeles County. No. BC245271. Plaintiff appealed that decision to a panel of three judges (Grignon, J., with Turner, P. J., and Armstrong, J.), who voted unanimously to affirm the decision of the lower court. Further a non-party requested that the California Supreme Court depublish the appellate case and lost that request here. To claim the decision was only made by a single "idiot judge" is untruthful ad hominem. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Well well... Let's have a bit of respect toward the court personnel as well, shall wel? :-) Those who truly side with science are those who - not just conduct some serious scientific research - but are able to get their research published in a notable scientific journal. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 11:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I stand corrected. It was three (or more). Regardless, their decision had no bearing on medical or scientific credibility or accuracy, only on standing in that case, and in no other situation of any kind. It certainly has no bearing here, since all their other work is good. As I recall, the plaintiffs accepted the offer of a California lawyer they had never used before. It turned out he had a practice of filing multiple identical cases. It was quite a few. He was the equivalent of an ambulance chaser. There was no proper preparation, and it was rather embarrassing that quackbusters got caught up in such a scheme. It wasn't illegal, but still poor practice. It's been a long time since I've looked at that situation, but it wasn't good. Poor preparation is a huge error. They made the mistake of assuming that scientific arguments would make sense in court. Few judges have a clue about such matters, and they ruled to protect the ability of the homeopathic company to sell its worthless products. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the acknowledgement. It is unfortunate if Plaintiff had inadequate counsel and was unable to sue for malpractice if that was indeed the case. The claim that the various courts "ruled to protect the ability of the homeopathic company to sell its worthless products" differs from what I read in the decision, which said:

Recognized homeopathic remedies are listed in the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia, which is updated by the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia Convention, a group of homeopathic practitioners.   The Convention will not accept a new remedy for inclusion in the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia without evidence of its safety and efficacy. (fn 2. Conflicting evidence was introduced as to whether the standards used by the Convention for acceptable proof of safety and efficacy would be accepted by the scientific community.)... All of the homeopathic remedies marketed by King Bio are listed in the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia and comply with FDA guidelines.

FYI, I am not an attorney and nothing I say on Misplaced Pages is legal advice. David Tornheim (talk) 07:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

As interesting as the case might seem, let me remind everyone that WP:NOTFORUM and we shouldn't be speculating here on such things. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 11:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@Moxy - It is not reliable for the article on acupuncture but User:NeilN seems determined to promote this source and he is ignoring the consensus here and elsewhere. What do you think should be done? -A1candidate 18:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

User:A1candidate, you're wrong. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Where is this "consensus" you speak of? Not just you and DrChrissy (who tried to disrupt the article earlier this week) agreeing with each other. As I noted on the talk page, the quote is attributed and has been in the article for some time. The source has been there since at least 2012. If you want it out, get actual consensus to take it out. --NeilN 18:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN Where is the consensus that Quackwatch is a reliable source? Has this been taken to RfC before?DrChrissy 00:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

There is a stable consensus that QuackWatch is not reliable per se, but it could be used on very few occasions. In other words, that doesn't value QuackWatch very high as a source (as does not the ArbCom case of 2007) and it may only be used when we are dealing with a topic marginal enough that it has not been covered by the scientific literature. Even then, it should not be used as MEDRS, but RS at tops. However, if plenty of other sources are available, we won't include statements by QuackWatch that are not already present in more reliable sources. And if such sources are available, we use those instead of QuackWatch. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 11:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Have you searched RSN? And you realize your "@"'s aren't pinging anyone, right? --NeilN 00:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I was actually hoping that an editor who is arguing that a source is reliable could show that it is reliable. The onus is on you to show that it is a reliable source if this is questioned.DrChrissy 00:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Read what you asked me. If you asked me to show why QW was reliable I would have pointed you towards Quackwatch#Influence. --NeilN 00:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the links Neil .. I do see the ArbCom saying its not a reliable second source...they called it a " partisan site". i will lookout for this site in the future. -- Moxy (talk) 00:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey Moxy. Can you link to the Arbcom statement? --NeilN 00:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN I did not ask you whether QW was reliable, I asked Where is the consensus that Quackwatch is a reliable source? You helpfully replied that I should look at RSN. I was hoping you might have something a little more precise, because I am asking you where the consensus has been reached. A diff for a user/admin closing a discussion on RSN will be fine. ThanksDrChrissy 00:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

From 2007 Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 4#Quackwatch. -- Moxy (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Given that editor was not on Arbcom and gave no link and seemed to be quite involved, I would not take their statement at face value. --NeilN 01:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

From what I see they gave the link Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal that leads to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal/Proposed decision...i am assuming its all about Quackwatch as a source no? -- Moxy (talk) 01:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@Moxy: Thanks, missed that. As far as I can determine, there were two relevant findings that passed. "Use of unreliable sources by Fyslee" and "Use of questionable sources by Fyslee". Be interesting to see what editors now make of that as Arbcom usually doesn't dictate content these days. --NeilN 01:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

If we're going by what ArbCom has stated, then the final case was amended specifically to remove mention that QuackWatch was unreliable. See here for the final version which does not mention whether or not Quackwatch is reliable. As has been stated over and over before, reliability contextual. No source is always reliable and no source is always unreliable. Quackwatch is generally accepted as a source on topics related to quackery and health fraud. That it is widely cited by other reliable sources such as government agencies and journal articles (how many other websites are specifically suggested by high quality journals like JAMA?) points to its high reputation for fact checking and therefore its reliability in the area of quackery and health fraud. Yobol (talk) 02:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Yobol, for clearing that up. Your opinions on Quackwatch's reliability in certain contexts mirror mine. --NeilN 03:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Yobol above, just have to add one thing: "Quackwatch is generally accepted as a source on topics related to quackery and health fraud when the topic is marginal enough not to have attracted scientific attention, or isn't otherwise covered by better sources." QuackWatch may be used on case-by-case basis, but it's no diamond standard and we should always look for better third-party sources. We should urge caution whenever using QuackWatch, like the ArbCom case of 2007 clearly put it. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 11:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment I have taken this advice and raised a Thread on the Talk page of Talk:Acupuncture about a specific QW statement in that article without changing the article content. I have already been told that I am being "disruptive" for doing so!DrChrissy 11:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up. I was going to link to my comments here (I was Fyslee at the time). I was vindicated and so was QW. The ArbCom decision resulted in the indefinite banning of my opponent. The original author of the libelous statement (that Barrett was "delicensed") which was quoted by Moxy above also is indefinitely banned from Misplaced Pages, and their websites are blacklisted. m-- BullRangifer (talk) 03:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the Barrett_v._Rosenthal Arbcom Decision: Although it is true this Motion removed the word "unreliable" from the title of the section regarding the sources used by Fyslee, it did not change the rest of the content, "3.2) Fyslee has repeatedly used Quackwatch and similar partisan sites as references ." In the Principles section of the decision, three separate votes were taken citing policy and guideline to caution against using (1) "online and self-published sources", (2) "Partisan, corporate, institutional and religious sources" and (3) "Extremist sources". The Remedies section addressing Fyslee's behavior starts: "Fyslee is cautioned to use reliable sources...." Although the Motion clearly was designed to avoid the implication that Quackwatch is always unreliable, it is clear that ArbCom found Quackwatch to be "partisan" and repeatedly urged caution against using it and similar sources and specifically admonished Fyslee for using such sources for the three reasons cited above. David Tornheim (talk) 08:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

No, it does not "repeatedly urged caution against using it and similar sources". When it was amended, the arbitrators noted: that the source is biased and it should not be misused, not "urged against using it". This quote by Vassyana appears to nicely sum up their position: "Quackwatch is obviously a biased source. It is just as obviously as reliable source. It clearly evinces a strong point of view, which is in essence the sort of strong skepticism usually seen among secular humanists. It is also clearly regarded as a reliable source by reputable bodies and figures within the relevant field (medicine)." Can we move along now? If world-renowned journals like JAMA says it is reliable, why are we talking about an 8 year old ArbCom case? Yobol (talk) 13:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The real merit of an academic source can be told by it's ability to pass through the peer-review process of a notable journal. That's not enough though, and after we pass that criterion, we start to look other criteria as well. Any scientist (and many of them do) is able to publish a blog of his own, but that doesn't bring what he writes to the same level with the works that he, or anyone else, has published in a notable scientific journal. "Quite sour, said the fox of rowan berries", or how is it put in English (The Fox and the Grapes)? ;-)

As pointed out above, QuackWatch is not reliable per se, but may only be used on case-by-case basis. It's time to move on now. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

We're not talking about academia, but about reliability here on Misplaced Pages. There is no binary reliable/nonreliable, but context. When high quality sources like JAMA specifically cite QuackWatch as generally reliable for medical content, we should probably listen.Yobol (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• We could move on if you weren’t using a logical fallacy. That about the JAMA. If you don't mind me saying so is a argument from authority. Just because a few contributers may mention QW doesn't mean that JAMA (et al) considers it to be a reliable source. So if WP continues to use QW, better references will not be searched for and WP articles will be the poorer for it. Steve said some years ago that his aim was to create a site that generated loads of traffic to the adverts -anything goes, as long as there is loads and loads of articles -to generate traffic (Never mind the quality, feel the width my son!). He done it and lets give him credit for that. But let us not go over board and suggest this is considered by the mainstream as reliable. Let us not mislead other editors into using it. Just saying. OK!--Aspro (talk) 14:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course JAMA considers it a reliable source, it specifically recommends Quackwatch as a site "that provide reliable health information" (empahsis mine). No one said to only use Quackwatch and not look for better sources (that would be the logical fallacy on your part), but when one of the most highly regarded general medicine journals recommends a website as reliable, we should probably listen. Yobol (talk) 15:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

We seem to have a small cohort of editors that are championing QW against a lager body that are asking for consensus. See: Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles The Wikimedia software is available free of charge to download and create their own wiki and then they can own their own articles there and do what they like – but not here thank you. They can even place adverts then, so as not to have to ask for donations. These arguments have fallen upon stony ground. Let us move on!--Aspro (talk) 15:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

No Aspro. You're wrong. There was no ownership behavior by anyone here until you came along. Your comment is uncalled for. A group of fringe editors are seeking to change longstanding practice here. They'd like to remove sources which back up mainstream science and thus remove criticism of their favorite fringe practices. That's not going to succeed. We don't allow whitewashing here. Articles will still contain explanations of the subject, as well as documentation of their reception. That's what we do here -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@User:BullRangifer Are you calling me a "fringe editor"?DrChrissy 10:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@User:BullRangifer Please respond here to this direct question with a direct answer. I am currently taking this to be a personal attack.DrChrissy 14:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

My comment on your talk page is clear enough. I haven't mentioned you in that manner, but you decide whether other editors will see you in that light. It's your choice. QW is the canary in the mine when it comes to identifying quackery and health fraud. That's its recognized specialty, and JAMA recommends it as a RS for that purpose. When someone joins other editors who seek to kill that canary, what are we to think? You should watch the company you keep. That's all. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree with BullRangifer above. Just to add one important pointy: QuackWatch is not reliable per se, but it depends on the context. QuackWatch also should no be used when there are better sources available on the subject. When it comes to JAMA, for claims on medical efficiency we need peer-reviewed MEDRS compliant sources, no matter whom JAMA cites. If the topic is well covered by scientific research, then we don't need QuackWatch. There are subjects though, that have been left in the shadows of mainstream science, and therefore QuackWatch is a decent source until better ones pop up. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Jayaguru-Shishya, I agree that it depends on the context, but your statement seems disingenuous. You say you "completely agree", and then you disagree almost completely.

Quackwatch IS reliable per se, and mainstream sources consider that to be so. Only you, and those who support most of alternative medicine, disagree. You're on the wrong side in this matter. Those are fringe opinions not based on good research. We don't accord such opinions much weight at all here. We merely document them, even when they come from blacklisted sources, and your opinion does originate there.

We never blindly accept ANY source here. No source is reliable for all purposes 100% of the time. We can approach QW the same way we approach the New York Times, Time magazine, JAMA, NEJM, etc.. Each presents different types of information in often very different manners. We start by assuming they are right, unless we have incontrovertible evidence they are wrong. We have had cases where otherwise reliable sources have contained clearly factual errors, typos, used the wrong statistics, etc.. Shit happens, even to the best. That doesn't change our default per se attitude toward them. We just keep in mind that if another RS, or many other RS, are clearly at odds with them, then there is a difference. That "difference" may or may not be problematic. If it's a difference of opinion, big deal. Both get their say. If there is a clearly factual error (100% wrong, no matter the beliefs of whoever reads it), then we obviously don't use the wrong source, including JAMA or QW, in that SINGLE instance that ONE time. Otherwise we still consider them to be reliable for the type of information they present.

OTOH, when we look at sources like Mercola.com, Natural News, etc., our default per se position is that they are likely wrong on health and scientific matters. Our history with them has shown that we must have that attitude. They can't be trusted for anything but their own opinions. There will be a mix of good and bad, but Adams (NN) seems to specialize in ONLY promoting what's inaccurate and wrong.

I don't think that JAMA recommendation elevates QW to the same level as scientific research. It's a different type of information they provide, and good enough for JAMA to recommend as reliable for their readers. We can safely do the same.

I also don't agree with another part of your statement: "If the topic is well covered by scientific research, then we don't need QuackWatch." You have said that many times, and each time it's wrong. It's not part of policy.

QW provides a different type of information and angle on subjects than does peer reviewed research. It applies the findings of research to that gray zone of controversy between science and pseudoscience, that area which research scientists tend to ignore. They may produce lots of research on the subject, but they ignore the controversies. The amount of attention and amount of mainstream research which exists (or doesn't exist) is therefore irrelevant to whether or not we use QW and other non-peer reviewed sources. If they provide a different POV, deal with the subject from a different angle, or comment on and explain controversies, they may well be good to use. Again, on a case by case basis. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

In case you had not noticed, canaries are no longer used in mines. Instead, mines have modernised and switched to science and technology to detect gas...perhaps WP should consider the same and let go of an archiac way of providing information - non-peer reviewed, opinion pieces.DrChrissy 19:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

DrChrissy, that's totally at odds with our content policies and the main goal for Misplaced Pages, which is to document the sum total of human knowledge. If we eliminated the use of "non-peer reviewed, opinion pieces," we'd have about 10% (or less) of our content left, our articles would be blah, super boring, and would not even begin to fully cover EVERYTHING about the topic. Misplaced Pages is more than a dictionary, and more than any other encyclopedia. Articles should contain all types of angles covered in all types of sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Is the JAMA that supports QW the same JAMA that published this paper showing the efficay of acupuncture?DrChrissy 15:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

When something is mainstream science, it means that there's plenty of scientific research around the subject and therefore a firm scientific consensus. When such sources are available, we don't need QuackWatch but we will use the the better sources instead. This works the other way as well: if QuackWatch presents a claim that is not backed up by scientific mainstream (providing that the subject is well researched), then such claim does not present scientific consensus (obviously) and we should avoid including such statements. As it's been voiced out by many editors, QuackWatch is an excellent source to fill in the gaps caused by the lack of scientific research, and this most likely the case with very marginal topics. Just come to think of it, how many scientists do you actually think to waste their time on debunking some hogus bogus theories like "reiki healing"? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 09:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Some do e.g. but I doubt it is many.DrChrissy 11:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the reliability of Quackwatch? Yobol (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

It's to do with the reliability/hypocrisy of JAMA! Anyway, I think we should return to the topic of the thread.DrChrissy 16:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

You were the only who brought up a completely unrelated study to this discussion. Perhaps you should think ahead next time before you make unrelated edits? Yobol (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear... I really don't think anyone can be bothered with this - please return to the topic of the thread.DrChrissy 17:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Query

I have never contributed to QW itself, although that would be an honor. ... BullRangifer (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Here's the arbcase: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal (BullRangifer has self-identified on this page as Fyslee.)

and the evidence page.

Perhaps you could explain your use of the qualifier itself, as it pertains to any potential COI you may have in your quite determined push to get Stephen Barrett's Quackwatch (which has involved an extensive network of websites and webrings) added to MEDRS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

"Itself" refers to the website, in contrast to the article here. I have obviously contributed to it. Nothing wrong with that. You are commenting so fast that I fear you are not reading carefully what I've written. I have informed you that I have no COI, and didn't even at the time of the Arbcom. I have never worked for or written for the QW website. I haven't participated in their discussion list for many years. I have no connection with the webrings (which were never connected to QW. I dropped that many years ago.) I haven't added any QW references to any articles for a very long time, and would only do so very carefully. It's been ages, possibly years, since I've done so. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Could you please explain this then? That is, how could you be the assistant listmaster for a Quackwatch discussion list, and not have a COI in this discussion? If you are saying that is related to you having dropped that activity years ago, it's not clear to me nonetheless that you should be continuing to advocate so strongly for QW as a reliable source. Discussion boards like that one died out when that kind of activity moved over to ... Misplaced Pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Lucky I spotted this. I almost missed it. I'll try to do my best to recall old events. My memory isn't what it used to be. I was one of the assistant listmasters for the Healthfraud Discussion List, an online discussion group sponsored by the Louisville Area Skeptics(?) I'm really not sure, but I know it was not started by QW or Barrett. He was a latecomer. I happened to join it around 1999 and was an active participant for about six years. We discussed quackery and healthfraud topics.

At some point in time, the moderator and list owner asked Barrett to take over as moderator (but not listowner). He did, but being a very busy man who traveled a lot, he discovered he needed help when he was traveling and not able to monitor the list. He rarely commented. He asked several members if they could help, and I was one of those volunteers. The only thing I did was to keep an eye on discussions and step in if trolls spammed the group, or if severe incivility occurred. I would then warn the person. I think I might have blocked about two people. That's all. There were a few times I wrote emails to Barrett asking for advice. He didn't always reply, and when he did he was usually VERY short and not very helpful or nice. We never had anything like a good working relationship. I was just an internet name of someone who watched the list.

At some point in time the connection to the Louisville Area Skeptics(?) stopped and the list was housed by the National Council Against Health Fraud, and later on at the QW servers. That explains why the instruction page is found on the QW website. When I signed up it wasn't.

The list is still active, as far as I know, but I haven't participated or monitored it since about 2005 2006 or early 2007 when I stopped completely. It has no connection to Misplaced Pages, and the only list member I know of who edits here is Barrett himself, and that has been very rare.

I have never been a member of any kind of society, skeptical or otherwise (except my professional PT organization), and have never met another skeptic in person, and never been to any conventions or meetings. It's always been strictly online contacts on that HF list.

My only alliance with QW and other skeptics is a shared POV. That is specifically NOT considered a COI here. It just gives more insight and expertise on those subjects. At ArbCom, my POV and the fact that I had once been on the same list with Barrett, was blown up to become me an actual operator of the website and contributor to the content, neither of which are even slightly true. That's a fabrication of the banned author of the blacklisted sources of misinformation, who has a way of creating some fantastic lies about me, Barrett, and anyone else remotely connected to skeptical POV, often without a shred of evidence. Pure conspiracy theorizing, regardless of well known facts to the contrary. That's why his writings are blacklisted. That he promotes some of the worst quacks and scams around seems not to bother those who oppose QW and Barrett here. He worked for Hulda Clark, among others, and was paid handsomely by them. Now that is a COI. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Pinging Sandy. I hope the above answers your questions. Feel free to ask more if necessary. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

BullRangifer, in December 2005 (on WP) you said you were assistant listmaster of the Healthfraud Discussion List, and linked to a Quackwatch page when describing it. In December 2006, again on WP, you called yourself "Stephen Barrett's assistant listmaster." For years on WP, you've closely involved yourself with his interests, website and legal issues. It would be difficult to argue that there's no COI. Sarah (SV) 16:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Sarah (SV), thank you so much for those diffs. I have corrected the date above. Otherwise nothing in my statement above has changed. I have never had any kind of involvement with the QW website. My hobby for many years has been dealing with dubious and false claims in the health care field, so my interests are aligned with other scientific skeptics, including Barrett. There is nothing wrong with that. A shared POV is not a COI. I totally agree with Jimbo's assessment of the issues as discussed in WP:Lunatic charlatans. Guy did a good job with that essay. That is my position too.

I suspect other editors would benefit from reading from the "request for clarification" to the end of the page. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarifications. I agree with SlimVirgin that it appears difficult to argue that you don't have a COI, or at minimum a strong bias, in this area, which is why I believe it would be beneficial for you to not dominate the discussion with dubious assertions of fact. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

More

Reply to the main question

There is no way I could figure out where in the hell to put my reply in all this formatting, so I will put it like this so it can be seen. Quackwatch can not be considered a reliable website and this can be easily seen by reading any article, in which the author is extremely arrogant, derogatory, etc. An article with a tone like that, if used to refute claims, is automatically not to be trusted. QuackWatch also, like the vast majority of "anti-alternative health" websites/blogs/writings/etc. which exists SOLELY to discredit what is frequently referred to as "alternative health" (rather then the ones which instead seek out the truth for individual treatments and individual lines of medicine), tend to simply "refute" arguments that the proponents of the treatment or line or claim are not even making. For example, blogs against vaccine activism like to state that "vaccines do not cause autism," instead of making the more correct statement that "vaccines have not been conclusively proven to be the only cause of autism", and they make this argument regardless of the fact that vaccine activism websites already address this in noting that it is brain damage in general, and not necessarily autism, that both vaccine-related autism claimants as well as other autism claimants are most often experiencing. Even more egregiously, they like to cite that a book was written by Jenny McCarthy, that the mere fact that she is an actor somehow automatically discredits anything she says regarding subjects which books can be based upon, and that if her book is wrong (which only reason for it being wrong according to such blogs is the fact that she is an actress) then the idea that vaccines cause any kind of harm whatsoever must also be wrong, or that if vaccines do not cause autism then they must also not cause any other kind of health issue and problem. But the most egregious part of such claims is the fact that vaccine activists, usually, had never heard of Jenny McCarthy until they saw her mentioned on a "debunking" website of why she is considered by the author to be unreliable. I have read QuackWatch's article on vaccines and it does devote large amounts of text to Jenny McCarthy - who generally has nothing to do with vaccine activists or their beliefs. They also reference unreliable sources such as the CDC (reliable for data in numbers, to some degree, but not, of course, reliable for information on what is or isn't harmful). In addition, such blogs NEVER make reference to the arguments that proponents actually do put forth, such as, in this example, the fact that Polio was in decline before vaccines were invented and that Polio declined faster in countries that do not use vaccines. QuackWatch, in addition to being demeaning and therefore obviously untrustworthy, is also one of the blogs which falls in the category of those that I am describing. For health issues which I wish to research into further-then-normal detail, and sometimes even when not, the University of Maryland is a frequent link which comes up. They seem to do many actual studies on the effects of various alternative treatments and other healthy living styles (for example, they have a very detailed result posted of vinegar vs. bleach for killing germs). If you are looking for a specifically "debunking" website, please find one that is not arrogant, that uses sourced information or has done the studies themselves, and that does not "refute" arguments which are not actually being made. Another option would be to find articles about a specific type of treatment or doctrine, which is done by proponents of alternative health in general, who are demonstrating why this particular alternative health method is not useful. For essential oils, you can find a licensed aromatherapist, who, if they are not a trained re-seller by Young Living or that other one, will usually do research regarding indications and contraindications, provide serious warnings against using full-strength oils, and often have documentation on the blogs and articles. whfoods.com also sometimes has detailed explanations of why some elements will be said to show different things in different places; for example, they explain in great detail regarding the different types of cartenoids.                     ~Rayvn  17:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RayvnEQ (talk • contribs)

that was way too long. and none of the sources you rely on for your personal information are MEDRS compliant. Jytdog (talk) 17:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm having trouble deciding where to reply, also. It's clear that we should use the best sources available. However, if Quackwatch says that a source is wrong, we should question that source's reliability, even if peer-reviewed. Per WP:MEDRS, we shouldn't use QW for a claim of medical efficacy. We can (and, IMO, should) use it for claims that a treatment is considered scientifically implausible (or even stronger statements), in the absence of a better source, such as Ernst. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Since quackery is not a form of medicine but more a form of charlatanism, it is the subject of study of social scientists and historians rather than medical researchers. Say for example a quack makes a fortune by selling a tonic that medical doctors have either ignored or dismissed as valueless. We would not need peer-reviewed articles published in medical journals for sources. News stories, well-respected true crime journalists and criminologists would provide reliable and more comprehensive writing.

However, where medical experts have extensively studied claims, such as acupuncture, an extensive coverage of those claims should be sourced to review literature in medical sources.

TFD (talk) 02:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Seneff redux

Don't know if folks here remember the Seneff article on glyphosate that caused some ruckus a couple of years ago, which we discussed here and found unreliable for making health claims (see here) but there is another review published in 2013, equally FRINGEy. See PMID 24678255. Apparently this has lit up the blogosphere. See the comments at the bottom of the abstract, which provide links to "Oh, no! GMOs are going to make everyone autistic!" and "Glyphosate – The New Bogeyman" at Science Based Medicine. In my view PMID 24678255 is not reliable for making any kind of health claim. Comments? Jytdog (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

the journal is not MEDLINE indexed. Publisher is Bratislava : Slovak Toxicology Society SETOX : Institute of Experimental Pharmacology & Toxicology, SASc.. Impact factor of 0,

The thing that has been conclusively proven that GMOs cause is cancer, not autism, though chemicals used on GMO crops do cause brain damage. The extremely cancerous compounds in GMOs were proven by a French scientist who's first name is Nick, and of course in France, since it is not America, this was front-page news. The study was then incorrectly redacted from the journal due to a frivolous complaint by Monsanto, stating that "the rat species he used is prone to cancer", regardless of the fact that Monsanto's own "experiments" which they claim to prove that GMOs are safe, used the same species of rat, as well as regardless of the fact that the GMO rats did get massive amounts of cancer while the organic-fed and non-organic, non-GMO -fed rats did not. There was great protesting by mass amounts of scientists to the magazine, and the journal eventually reinstated the study a few years later, admitting their wrongdoing. This was reported by Abby Martin at Russia Today (a source that EVERYONE agrees is reliable) on the week that it was reinstated. Obviously Agent Orange (glyphosate) does cause brain damage, but until the opponents are aware of the fact that autism and chemical brain damage will be very similar in appearance in many cases, it is not autism that is the main "speaking point" regarding GMOs. As for Dr. Seneff, I don't know about her articles, but there is a 2-hour lecture which explains in detail her information, which is easier to follow the scientific information on then an article is likely to be, because it is very complicated.                     ~Rayvn  18:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RayvnEQ (talk • contribs)

almost everything you wrote is wrong. oy. Jytdog (talk) 18:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to address Quackwatch by name in this guideline

I'm more than a little bored by the perennial Quackwatch complaints. I propose solving the problem by directly addressing Quackwatch, by name, in the guideline. My proposal is based on a comment above by MastCell. Here's the proposal:

Websites like Quackwatch should be used for biomedical information only when peer-reviewed journal articles, university-level textbooks, and scholarly books do not address the subject.

This means, in practice, that it should not be used in articles for which hundreds of scholarly sources exist (e.g., Acupuncture), but that it would be "officially" encouraged for at least most of the current (seven) uses in Alternative cancer treatment, because they're mostly things nobody has heard about. It would also be possible to use it for non-biomedical information (e.g., QuackWatch says that a seller of cancer-curing snake oil died of cancer).

The dual purposes of my proposal are:

1. to encourage stronger, more academic sources into articles when those exist, and
2. to stop complaints about the use of Quackwatch when those don't exist.

This represents a compromise (i.e., none of our honorable POV pushers get 100% what they want). Is this a compromise that you're willing to live with? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

This sounds like a good compromise to me. I would like to see included in the statement somewhere that Quackwatch is not peer-reviewed.DrChrissy 20:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Another thought - perhaps the statement should also include something like "Editors are encouraged to remove Quackwatch citations when these are superceded by peer-reviewed, WP:Medrs compliant sources".DrChrissy 21:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

ha ha ha ha _{ha ha ha ha ha} that is funny then becomes sad. Jytdog (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC) (what i meant Jytdog (talk) 23:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC))

Not sure what that was meant to mean.DrChrissy 21:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

key rule of negotiating: when someone offers a middle ground position, the best way to lose that ground is to try to push way past it. (file under "give an inch they will take a mile") your response was a perfect example of the kind of behavior/attitude that has made alt med articles the nightmare they are, and guarantees they will continue to be, for a long time to come. Jytdog (talk) 21:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I am taking your edit to be an uncivil behaviour to ridicule my posting. Please refute this. I would not wish to take you to ANI again only for them to find you guilty of uncivility toward me so recently after last time.DrChrissy 22:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@User:Jytdog Please, take my concern about your posting being uncivil, seriously. The behaviour of editors should be discussed on their Talk page. You have requested I do not post on there, so the next message will be a polite indication that I am taking you to ANI for a repeat of uncivility toward me.DrChrissy 23:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• I appreciate the effort to create middleground, WAID. so under the proposal editors could still use Quackwatch to say that "qi" is pseudoscience. I just did a pubmed search for reviews on qi and pulled up a bunch of woo including, and I am not joking, a review called "Human ultraweak photon emission and the yin yang concept of Chinese medicine." (PMID 21185536) published in the Journal of acupuncture and meridian studies. WhatamIdoing in your proposed content, you left out your #1 important quality-check, namely "independent". It is the absence of independent sources speaking on X that often causes editors to reach for Quackwatch per WP:PARITY. Jytdog (talk) 23:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

QuackWatch could be used for subjects that have not caught the attention of mainstream scientific research. This is hardly the case with acupuncture. There's plenty of high-quality studies available, and we can stick to what these studies say. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Jayaguru-Shishya what sources you would use to describe qi from a science-based perspective? Jytdog (talk) 04:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support This sounds like a good compromise to me. I am in support of the proposal by WhatamIdoing. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 13:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Fringe medicine can come up with new claims. Scholarly sources aren't going to bother covering these because the main pseudoscience has been debunked. --NeilN 13:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support Although Quackwatch is an advocacy source; its agenda happens to be strongly supported by a large editor demographic on Misplaced Pages, which is the only reason it's used. There are similar advocacy sources that support alternative medicine that are rejected, because they conflict with the POV of our editors. In any article like acupuncture, there are plenty of much stronger sources that can be used to establish that the practice is not accepted by western medicine practitioners and not found to have any benefits following the scientific process. CorporateM (Talk) 14:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose If quackwatch accurately summarizes a field as ineffective pseudoscience, but a textbook for the fringe topic claims it is effective, we should defer to Quackwatch (and properly reliable sources for the scientific community), not a textbook written by an advocate. All sufficiently large alt med systems have textbooks, which effectively pushes out Quackwatch as a source in all circumstances, since its summary will conflict with the claims of the practitioners. This does not document how wikipedia operates, it prescribes a new mode of operation which is not in line with existing practice of assessing sources on fringe topics.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support This is a very good compromise. Instead of getting rid of Quackwatch altogether as some editors propose, we can still have Quackwatch step in whenever there is a shortage of more reliable material. At the same time, articles won't pretend Quackwatch is more reliable than scholarly books or peer-reviewed articles. I do think that Quackwatch has its place representing the skeptic viewpoint in limited cases there. But we shouldn't elevate it to the same status as university level textbooks for our mainstream viewpoint. That discredits Misplaced Pages just as much as it would if we used naturalnews.com or similar sources. LesVegas (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "That discredits Misplaced Pages just as much as it would if we used naturalnews.com or similar sources." Whatever mechanism you use to evaluate sources is completely broken. --NeilN 17:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Indeed. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 17:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. My understanding is that Quackwatch is a self-published website, so WP:SPS and WP:BLPSPS apply. Is anyone other than Barrett involved in it? If it's something that might be helpful in FRINGE articles, it could be mentioned there, so long as it's used consistently with SPS and BLPSPS. Sarah (SV) 17:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Your interpretation of SPS is wrong in this case. Even ArbCom never took that extreme interpretation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Websites like Quackwatch can also be used for biomedical information. QuackGuru (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. Quackwatch is referenced by government bodies and other respected institutions. It is regarded as an authority on alternative health claims. Obviously promoters of alternative health claims don't like that, but this is not our problem to fix. It is not a one-man band, it includes content by people like Wallace Sampson and Sam Homola. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support This seems like a reasonable compromise to me. Gandydancer (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I've changed my mind after further reading, especially Sarah and Sandy (below). Gandydancer (talk) 00:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments

User:NeilN, I agree that "fringe medicine" probably will come up with new claims, but most likely the woo claims won't pass the peer-review process of notable journals, so we can rest easy. However, "fringe medicine" isn't a homogeneous category: there are subjects that have not been able to attract sufficient scientific attention, but on the other hand we have subjects that are studied quite diligently. QuackWatch can be used for the former. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Jayaguru-Shishya, we can't rest easy because these claims are quite appropriate for articles about fringe subjects. If chromotherapy adherents make a new claim, and these claims are covered by enough independent sources, I expect to see it in the article. I don't expect a peer reviewed paper appearing which evaluates these claims. --NeilN 20:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

If the claim hasn't been able to pass the peer-review process, I don't expect it to be included in any article. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

So we should remove the entire Homeopathy#.22Remedies.22_and_treatment section? --NeilN 23:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Could someone say who other than Barrett is involved in Quackwatch? Whenever I've looked at it, it seems to have been a one-person, self-published website, so I'm confused that anyone would support its use on Misplaced Pages. I understand why some editors like it, but not why they would regard it as an RS, especially as the editors who like it are those who otherwise insist on high-quality sources. If someone could explain, I'd appreciate it, because it's an issue that has puzzled me for years. I accept that I may be missing something about it. Sarah (SV) 21:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• "Quackwatch is now an international network of people who are concerned about health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct." QuackGuru (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• I've never been able to find any of their names. Are they posted somewhere on the website? Sarah (SV) 21:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• I assume it was intentional to leave out their names for obvious reasons. QuackGuru (talk) 21:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know what the obvious reasons would be. This is an example of what I mean. If a fringe person, or really anyone, set up a website saying "this is run by an international network, but I'm not going to tell you who they are, not even by pseudonym," you would question it. Sarah (SV) 22:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• I do know what the obvious reasons are. For example, if you are contributing to the site would you want alt-med practitioners to know who you are? QuackGuru (talk) 22:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• I can't see why not. Rather than hinting and teasing, please speak plainly. If people are worried about being exposed, they could contribute using pseudonyms. Again, why the confidence in whatever this one website says, including about how many contributors it has? Sarah (SV) 22:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
• Of course. If you want to make science, you make science with your own name. Otherwise, you won't make science. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• For further questions about the site you can ask them directly. This is not the place. QuackGuru (talk) 23:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• This is exactly the place if people are using it as an RS. Sarah (SV) 23:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Your questioning it and you oppose it? QuackGuru (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Quackwatch: Refinement #1

I like the idea and do want some guidance on QW in the guideline because it seems to have come up a lot recently, hasn't it? Issues I have with current proposal are, 1) "Websites like Quackwatch" isn't clear enough in defining what particular category QW is in (how can I tell what other things are like Quackwatch in this context?), and QW isn't (by its own definition) a website although it operates one; 2) I don't think QW should be used (as the current proposal seems to imply it could) for unattributed biomedical claims in Misplaced Pages' narrative voice at any time; 3) The proposed change implies QW content isn't peer-reviewed and I'm not sure either way on that; 4) I think it's a bit too prescriptive as to exactly what kind of sourcing is allowed to replace QW, it should refer to the WP:MEDASSESS scale.

Proposed refinement:

Some fringe claims may not find substantial treatment in mainstream scholarly sources because the claims are not taken seriously enough to warrant academic investigation. In such cases, well-recognized independent expert opinion (such as Quackwatch) may be used with care, in a manner that complies with WP:WEIGHT and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.

Workable? Zad68 12:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support The proposal by WhatamIdoing. I think it's more straightforward, and it doesn't speculate with the underlying motives. IMHO, "...only when peer-reviewed journal articles, university-level textbooks, and scholarly books do not address the subject." is simple, good and straightforward. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 13:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support Zad's refinement. --NeilN 13:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support Whether or not this blurb is included, it is perfectly descriptive of our treatment of fringe topics. My only concern is that the pointer to attributepov implies that information from quackwatch should always be attributed. I'm not sure that's intended. Of course, all information should conform to NPOV (including that section), quackwatch or not. Is there a way we can avoid the implication "According to quackwatch..." is always necessary?   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Jess well that's why I put "in a manner that complies with..." as opposed to instructing in-text attribution must be used. I personally believe that QW should always be used with in text attribution but I guess there could be exceptional cases where not, that'd have to be determined on a case-by-case basis. So I'd like the guideline to point to the policy but not state exactly how it should be applied, because a blanket rule is almost never possible. Zad68 15:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Imagine a new pseudoscience with a fanbase and literature, but scientists don't take it seriously enough to discuss at length. Quackwatch (and other comparable sources) document its reception in the most scholarly venue we can find. Should we say " believes . According to Quackwatch it is rejected by the scientific community"? That would be a misapplication of WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. This situation is actually common, which is why I disagree it always requires in-text attribution. If we are averse to a prescribing in-text attribution, I think we should also avoid implying it is required. "Use with care" is good, and "in accordance with our policies" is fine, but "" is something I think we can avoid.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Sure Jess I don't have any issue if the specific references to WEIGHT and ATTRIBUTEPOV were removed. They're policy and of course they always need to be followed. If it's a WP:BEANS problem to mention them here, not a big deal to remove. Zad68 19:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Mann jess, I guess it depends from the article. If we are dealing with a fringe topic that isn't well-covered by the mainstream scientific literature, I agree that having an in-text attribution isn't always necessary. And of course, in subjects that are well-covered by mainstream scientific literature, QuackWatch isn't needed anyway, but this should also be clearly voiced out. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
        • Ok. Thanks :) That was my only real concern.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support Either proposal is good; this one is probably better. Both imply it shouldn't be used when stronger sources exist, but can be used to state the obvious for minor fringe medical topics that haven't been investigated by better sources. CorporateM (Talk) 16:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose both as applied; we should always use the best sources available, but sometimes a nominally reliable source is so biased, or makes an obvious mistake, that we shouldn't use it. QuackWatch is a good source for pointing out those errors. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin: I don't understand your rationale. My reading of this proposal is that using Quackwatch is encouraged in certain circumstances, but your comment implies its use is being discouraged. Have I misread something? This proposal solidifies our existing practice of using quackwatch when peer reviewed scientific scholarship is not available, right?   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support refinement I like this now, so I'm changing. I think I was making a mountain out of a molehill earlier and this seems workable. Quackwatch is probably the only available source for certain topics we have. LesVegas (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support both, preferably the refinement - Yes, its self-published, but WP:V states "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Barrett's expertise is apparently widely accepted given 1) His receipt of FDA an Commissioner's Special Citation Award for Public Service in fighting nutrition quackery, 2) An honorary membership in the American Dietetic Association, 3) His receipt of 2001 Distinguished Service to Health Education Award from the American Association for Health Education, 4) He's the author of a college textbook on Consumer Health which is now in its 9th edition. Formerly 98 18:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • QuackWatch may be used when the subject is so marginal that it hasn't been able to attract sufficient attention by mainstream scientific medicine. If the subject is well-covered by mainstream scientific sources, however, we will favor those experts that have actually been able to pass the peer-review process of a notable journal instead of those experts that haven't. The world of science is rough, I know, and publishing your own website probably won't bring you any long-lasting merit. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
    • And that's exactly what I'm worried about... If some weird pseudoscience manages to get a bad paper into a "peer reviewed" journal that's not especially reliable and doesn't have strict standards, that paper doesn't automatically trump an actually reliable source like quackwatch. See, for instance, the Journal of Parapsychology. We need to be saying "quackwatch can be used when appropriate", not "quackwatch can't be used, even if appropriate, if another source is available." Some discretion is going to be necessary depending on the topic.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Exactly, User:Mann jess. That's why we pay attention to the notability of the journal, and we should mostly use only the reputable ones. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
        • The point is: there are going to be situations where Quackwatch is more reliable than a "peer reviewed" publication. Prescribing that "Quackwatch can't be used when X type of source is available" limits our ability to use the best quality sources in those cases. We should be encouraging its use when appropriate; the first proposal, for example, does not do that.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
          • User:Mann jess, in what situations QuackWatch is more reliable than a peer-reviewed publication? Aside from publications that are not notable enought to be included anyway... Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 23:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
            • I gave an example above. That something has ostensibly gone through peer review doesn't automatically make it high quality. Reliability is determined in other ways. I don't want our policy to state Quackwatch can't be used when peer reviewed articles are available, even if those peer reviewed articles are junk. We should use the best source available, and this addition to policy should reflect the already existing practice of using Quackwatch for fringe topics, not discourage that practice.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. The wording is too confusing. The part "in a manner that complies with WP:WEIGHT and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV" is not appropriate. You can say that about any source. QuackGuru (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Question: Would you support this addition if the last bit (about weight and attributepov) were removed? That's the direction I'm leaning.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Most of the wording is wrong. QuackGuru (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks for the follow-up.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose, this will just make the arguments worse. The arguments exist because SCAM proponents hate Quackwatch. That puts it on a very long list indeed. It's not our problem. We use it because independent authorities use it. Guy (Help!) 22:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Support The problem I had with the previous versions is that publishing a peer reviewed source is really very easy. Just because it is peer reviewed does not mean that the academic community believes you. The same applies to many textbooks. I think this is a fair compromise. QW is a mainstream academic perspective for alternative medicine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Quackwatch: Refinement #2

Quackguru added this wording to the page:

Well-recognized independent expert opinion (such as Quackwatch) may be used on various topics, especially when mainstream scholarly sources do not address the subject in detail.

Thoughts?   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support this or the alternate proposal above. I'm not sure about my preference quite yet.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support Editors at the talk page can decide how to use the source. I think it is better to keep the wording simple. QuackGuru (talk) 19:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I think the wording is still rather ambiguous. For example, what does mean "various topics, especially..."? There's been a lot of discussion about QuackWatch and when it's appropriate to use, and the consensus seems to be that QuackWatch can be used when "the subject hasn't attracted significant enough mainstream scientific attention." The formatting "various topics" is way too ambiguous as well. And it's not "especially when mainstream scholarly sources", but if and only if mainstream scholarly sources do not address the subject. Last but not least, "in detail", I think that's left rather unclear. For example, who is to decide what is "in detail" enough, and what is not? Certainly, if the subject is well-covered by mainstream scientific sources, we shouldn't excuse to use QuackWatch just because "some claims haven't been addressed by mainstream scientific literature", not even if one argues that the scientific literature haven't "addressed those in detail". Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• It is intentionally simple so editors can decide on each individual article what should or should not be done. QuackGuru (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Support. QW is referenced as reliable by independent authorities, we have no need to second guess this. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Suggesting that a self-published website is an RS for biomedical information would significantly weaken the guideline. If something is so lacking in notability that no RS has addressed it, surely the solution is for WP to say little or nothing about it. Sarah (SV) 23:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per Sarah (SV), who states the obvious once again. petrarchan47คุก 01:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose QW is not peer-reviewed and this means it is distinctively different from the sources we encourage editors to use. In my opinion, editors should be discouraged from using the web-site.DrChrissy 16:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Sarah and DrChrissy. LesVegas (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Also per Sarah and DrChrissy. Gandydancer (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Support prior proposals that do not include promotion of quackwatch: "Well-recognized independent expert opinion". We already have a definition of expert sources in other policy documents. CorporateM (Talk) 15:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Quackwatch: Refinement #3

The previous suggestion needs a slight tweak:

Well-recognized independent expert and notable opinions (such as found at Quackwatch) may be used when they cover aspects of controversies and opinions not generally covered in peer-reviewed literature, or when they supplement such coverage. This applies especially to, but is not limited to, fringe subjects.

This recognizes that expert and notable opinions are not usually the primary content we are looking for in peer-reviewed research. We often find such opinions in other sources. This applies even more so to fringe subjects, but to some degree mainstream and highly researched subjects. Improvements appreciated. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Refinement #1 has some good points; #2 is simpler and avoids needing to first argue whether the "In such cases" clause of #1 applies. I'm finding #3 most appealing at the moment, although "and notable" may need clarification, or perhaps could be omitted. Johnuniq (talk) 09:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Good point. That would inadvertently make notability part of inclusion criteria, when it only applies to article creation criteria. Stricken. Thanks. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support This one is preferable to the other options, IMO. Thanks for writing it up!   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support This version is better written than my proposal. QuackGuru (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
• I think that overall this is moving in the right direction. I'm a little concerned with the implication that only peer-reviewed literature outranks an expert's self-published website, and I'm a little concerned that "supplement" will be taken to mean "whenever I read anything in Quackwatch that I want to include in an article". BullRangifer, if this proposed sentence were accepted as standard practice, can you give me an example of a statement or subject that you previously have (or would have) cited Quackwatch for, but now you would cite a better source instead? Or an example of a statement that you would have previously cited Quackwatch for, but if no better sources contained that information, now you would omit it? Or do you intend this to mean that there should be no change on how you use Quackwatch? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Good questions. I don't see it really changing anything, just formalizing the description of standard practice. We would still follow ArbCom's directions to judge usage of QW on a case by case basis, just like other sources. No source is always a RS or always appropriate for every situation, and that certainly applies to QW. Therefore I would be better able to answer your hypothetical situations if I had real examples. I know that I have removed and allowed removal of QW when other sources covering the same POV were better for the purpose. I'm flexible. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I share Waid's concern when she states that she is concerned that "supplement" will be taken to mean "whenever I read anything in Quackwatch that I want to include in an article". For example, would it continue to be used in the Acupuncture article for which there are dozens of reviews and other good types of RS? Gandydancer (talk) 16:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

No need to worry. That extreme interpretation would never be appropriate or allowed to happen. We judge usage on a case by case basis. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

1. You intend no change at all.
2. You believe that the "extreme interpretation" of using it in the Acupuncture would never be allowed to happen.
3. Quackwatch is currently quoted in that article and cited for five different statements.

This isn't adding up for me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• Given the wording, the assumption here is that Barrett et al have no affiliation with, say, the FDA. However in court proceedings the opposite was revealed "Barrett also had to concede his ties to the AMA, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Food & Drug Administration (FDA)." (Google this quotation to find the case). Does Project Medicine in general find government agencies to be independent scientific bodies free of bias? In my opinion, if QW is the only source saying what an editor desires, then it is by definition a fringe viewpoint. Stick to high quality sources, as I was taught by the good folks here at PM, such as those found in PUBMED. petrarchan47คุก 19:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• That unproven claim is from an unreliable source. In fact that source is blacklisted at Misplaced Pages. It's considered libelous, and Barrett actually won an out of court settlement from Joseph Mercola of $50,000 for repeating it and other libelous statements from that source. (There is only ONE original source for that statement, and that person is also indefinitely banned from Misplaced Pages. All versions of that claim trace back to him.) -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. This version is worse and would allow Quackwatch to be used anywhere for any reason. It directly contradicts WP:SPS, which is policy. If you want to overturn SPS, that's fine, but please do it openly on the policy page and publicize it widely. Sarah (SV) 19:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "...used anywhere for any reason"? That's complete nonsense created out of whole cloth, with no evidence or precedent indicating it's even slightly true or a danger in the future. Also, your interpretation of SPS is wrong in this case. Even ArbCom never took that extreme interpretation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. First, this proposal seems largely redundant with WP:PARITY which is already a Misplaced Pages rule. However, I will oppose this because I'm not convinced that specifically calling out a source will help. Reliability is always determined on a case by case basis. A source may be reliable for content A in article B, but unreliable for content X in article Y. Reliability must always be judged on a case by case basis. See WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose (all three proposals), for reasons laid out at length here. It has not even been established that Quackwatch meets WP:SPS, its editorial oversight (indeed, its editors) is unclear, and for gosh sakes, we eliminate mention of sources like Mayo Clinic from MEDRS, yet we will undermine the guideline credibility by adding to it a partisan source of unspecified authorship and editorial oversight like Quackwatch?? Way to shoot years of work in the foot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I have a specific, stated goal: I want people to stop asking whether/when it's reliable. I'm open to anything that would actually solve my problem (which is the tedium and destructiveness of the repeated, angry "discussions"). How would you solve my problem? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    • It might be easier to cover the many options/suggestions etc in a new section .... because this (growing) problem affects more than how we write MEDRS. The debacle that has been repeatedly played out at ANI over alt-med, fringe, and quackery topics is painting the entire Medicine Project in a negative light, turning editors against MEDRS, draining resources from writing and improving the broad medical content we should be writing in favor of an overfixation on a few fringe topics, and probably resulting in more than one uneven, unjust topic ban while a very small handful of troublemakers continue to have editing privileges. The sky will not fall if we don't fight over acupuncture and chiropractic; the off-Wiki battles in certain topics that have continued in to Misplaced Pages articles need to stop, and there is every indication that is what is going on in this discussion. Is every editor who questions the zealotry in evidence on this page right now going to end up topic banned?

      In other words, WAID, I agree with you-- this needs to stop. The Medicine Project is front and center at ANI on any given week, while other content improvement suffers.

      The way to deal with the "is Quackwatch reliable" question, though, is not to give it more credence in MEDRS. I can continue here, or we could start a new section on this page, but as one example, see JzG on this very page misunderstanding WP:V. That the FDA cites Quackwatch as a source for discussing quackery itself is in line with what our sourcing policies allow for SPS, just the conclusion one could find if one bothered to read the many threads at WP:RSN, and not a recognition of it as an authority on any specific topic. That we have medical editors using MEDRS when it suits them, and then citing Quackwatch (not MEDRS) when that suits them, is inexcusable, and when this whole mess ends up before ArbCom (which it will if we continue), those medical editors who are damaging the Medicine Project will be discussed. Why is Quackwatch used in acupuncture and who added it there? The arbs ruled on that matter, and I'll be happy to put that evidence before them. We have WP:RSN, we have an arbcase, we can write an FAQ, we can do many things, but continuing to pander to the disruptors among us is not the way to go. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• SandyGeorgia raises an important point, namely that people are losing confidence in MEDRS because it's being misused or over-used, perhaps as a result of misunderstandings about its scope. I think it should be discussed somewhere in depth because it's popping up all over the place. Perhaps a MEDRS tutorial could be arranged. These things keep happening:

• forensic attention to the detail of MEDRS to keep out cetain material, particularly anything negative about the pharmaceutical industry and its products (this is leading to suspicions of COI editing, and unfairly linking MEDRS to that issue);
• claiming MEDRS sources are needed for non-medical issues in articles that make medical claims, even for history (someone wrote that we soon won't be able to say the Great Famine took lives without a MEDRS source);
• use of non-RS when adding criticism of altmed, or anything Quackwatch sees as altmed;
• no sources or poor sources to support health-related claims that the same editors agree with.

There are good editors involved in medical editing, and when objections are raised they listen. But there is a small group that meets objections with filibustering and attempts to paint the editor as a fringe supporter – which is sometimes true, but by no means always. Sarah (SV) 20:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

"anything negative about the pharmaceutical industry and its products" is an overstatement, to understate it. And mostly I hear alt-med POV pushers complaining; they always have and they always will. Jytdog (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how often the complaints are founded (outside of the issues we've already covered here); I've certainly seen quite a few of them that are utterly bogus. But that doesn't mean we couldn't lay out some examples. For example, I will frequently remove or replace a non-MEDRS source for history, culture, or other areas when a MEDRS-compliant source exists that does a superior job of citing the same issue. There exists the idea that we need not cite culture, history, social issues, etc to MEDRS sources, but we quite often do have MEDRS-compliant sources for such text, and there's no reason not to use them. And, when MEDRS-compliant sources refute or contradict non-MEDRS sources for the history, culture, etc aspects of a medical condition, we would prefer the MEDRS source.

And, a good deal of the complaints we see at ANI also come from folks with an ax to grind, because they were using non-RS for medical content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

And that's fine. The examples I have in mind are editors trying to keep material out that simply isn't liked. No one says "here's a MEDRS source instead." I don't have diffs to hand, but I should probably start keeping them; it's systematic, not the occasional edit. A discussion about what MEDRS does and doesn't say or imply would help a lot. The issue is going to end up with ArbCom if people aren't careful, and editors on both sides will fare poorly, so it's worth sorting out. Sarah (SV) 21:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

we certainly do struggle with the bias of editors. Jytdog (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, a few of us actually do say "here's a better source", at least on occasion, and I have a relevant example at hand: this edit replaced Quackwatch with something that covers the same material and appears to comply with MEDRS' minimum standard. I bring this up because there are other uses of Quackwatch in that article, e.g., for the description of the Hallelujah diet, that are so obscure that QuackWatch is almost the only independent FUTON bias-compliant source available. Which then makes me wonder: If nobody's writing about it except Quackwatch (don't be fooled by the journal article: the author's part of that business), should we have an article about it, and is it DUE to mention at all in Alternative cancer treatments?

On Sarah's issue: you're not likely to see me object to any source that meets SandyGeorgia's high standards. The only systemic problem with using gold-plated medical sources for social content is that it tends to exclude other POVs. Using a MEDRS-style source for history is only a problem if the use has the effect of violating YESPOV.

SandyGeorgia, I'm getting the feeling that you're leaning at least slightly towards a "ban Quackwatch" stance. I'm not sure that's realistic; it's too convenient for the skeptical half of our POV pushers.

On the broader question, one of the discussions I opened recently at WT:RS is on the question of the "good enough source" vs "the best possible source". Upgrading a source from Quackwatch to a high-quality review article is doubtless a meritorious act. So is sending pages off to AFD if nobody seems to write about them. (I'll go nom that diet in a moment.) But I'm not sure that removing content supported by Quackwatch, or blanking the source (and thus leaving it uncited) is an acceptable response. We don't give people much guidance directly in the sourcing policies and guidelines about how to handle the situation of a weak source behind good content. (And WP:Nobody reads the directions, especially not the ones in the WP:Editing policy, so it's no good leaving them there.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I'm getting the feeling that you're leaning at least slightly towards a "ban Quackwatch" stance. I'm not sure that's realistic; it's too convenient for the skeptical half of our POV pushers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC) No, and I've said no such thing; that would not be a position based in policy. It is an SPS, sources are dependent on context, and there are uses for it (as I pointed out somewhere on this page)-- just not what some have-it-both-ways editors would like for it to be (eg, for sourcing acupuncture). What this page has to do is stay in sync with WP:V and WP:RS; it is an extension of those pages that explains how to apply those policies and guidelines to certain (specific, medical) content. The proposals are over-extending, and weakening MEDRS by codifying use of one marginal partisan source. That doesn't mean there may not be policy-based uses for Quackwatch somewhere, sometime-- just that we shouldn't codify something into MEDRS which will weaken MEDRS by causing this page to reach beyond what it should be. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Which takes me back to my real problem: if this guideline doesn't mention Quackwatch by name, then how am I going to stop people from coming here to demand that their content dispute be resolve by this guideline explicitly {banning|endorsing} it for all possible uses? We don't have this problem with any other source—not journals, not books, not anything except this one website. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

My real problem right now is that this talk page is so long I can't find posts :) First, that people don't understand core policies (WP:V and WP:RS) is not our problem on this page. Second, that we only have this problem with Quackwatch says something about who/what is dominating the Medicine Project, and that needs to stop. (I may be repeating myself on that score :)

But that doesn't solve your problem, does it?  :) I think the solution is to point people ------> that-a-way when they want this page to do something for them it isn't intended to. Ok, so we develop an FAQ, and post it at the top of this page. Basically, it's going to say a) here are the core policies, and b) WP:RSN or WP:DR are over there if you have an issue and want to keep fighting with each other because you don't understand our sourcing policies.

We need a new section here to discuss what SlimVirgin is raising, because this thread is too long and rambling. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Same as above on prior proposal. CorporateM (Talk) 15:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Change of subject

WAID, I didn't offer examples because I don't want to personalize the point, but I'm talking about issues for which no medical source is needed (issues that aren't medical claims), but MEDRS sources are requested nevertheless. I do appreciate your trying to find solutions to the QW issue, by the way, even though I've opposed your suggestion. I also agree that if an issue is so neglected that QW is the only source, it's not clear why we would host an article (or section of an article) about it.

The broader issue is that a tutorial on how to use MEDRS would be very helpful. I'm wondering whether Doc James would be willing to create a tutorial video, perhaps with the help of WPMEDF. Pinging Anthonyhcole too. James and Anthony, the issue is that there are lots of misunderstandings about the scope and application of MEDRS, leading unfairly to mistrust of the guideline, bad feeling between editors, etc. If someone could explain – here's why we need it, this is how it protects us, this is where it does and doesn't apply, this is how to use it, here are examples of misuse (anonymized so that no one is singled out), I think it would be extremely beneficial. Would WPMEDF fund/arrange something like that? Sarah (SV) 03:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

My position is that medical sources are required for health claims. So if you are saying that substance X makes you happy or helps with pain you need a high quality source. If you are stating that X dollars was spent on Y substance you do not you just need an independent source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Sarah, I don't have time to catch up on this discussion so won't address the main themes. I do like the idea of a video tutorial. The best place to hash out the script would be here (or at WT:MED, where you may get more input from a wider range of people). Perhaps it would be best to wait until the current vigorous discussions have resolved (or petered out), though. There are a number of seasoned presenters (James, Jake, John, Lane, RexxS to name a few) and I'm sure one of them would be happy to present to camera. WPMEDF doesn't have a budget yet (members pay their own way or are funded via WMF grants). But you won't have any trouble getting a grant for production costs from the WMF for a project like this once the script is agreed. Getting agreement on the script will be the only real challenge.

User:Ian Furst, who made this awesome intro to Wikiproject Medicine, may be interested in helping or advising. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Anthony, thank you. I should open up a proper discussion somewhere about this, but you've suggested some good names to get us started. And I agree that it's better to wait until the discussions here have petered out. Sarah (SV) 16:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, when you get this going, I can find an abundance of examples from my unfortunate dealings with student editing. As an example, students heavily edited klazomania (about which nothing of consequence is written), so I did have to selectively use primary sources to salvage something there. As another example, see this unfortunate revert in the name of MEDRS via Twinkle which was actually a correct removal for the wrong reason. And this was a curious example of a lack of parity.

I'm going on vacation so will peek in mid-June. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Strike bad example per JzG, there was a secondary source there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

This might be the wrong place

Quackwatch can be discussed at the WP:FRINGE talk page. QW is often used on fringe or alternative medicine topics. QuackGuru (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

it is good to discuss here, in my view. Jytdog (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I posted a link to this discussion over there.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Jytdog. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I think I was right. This discussion and proposal belongs at the WP:FRINGE talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 13:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

example, for testing

under the original proposal or the refinements.. here is a question. Under either proposal, how would the following idea be stated and sourced: "Claims that qi exists and affects health are a form of vitalism and are pseudoscience". (part of the question is how that would be stated, i.e. with attribution or without) I encourage those who oppose the use of Quackwatch to respond too. Jytdog (talk) 19:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

If you are pertaining to acupuncture article, perhaps you can glance through the scientific literature and see what they have to say? If the scientific literature doesn't discuss that, it has either been seen irrelevant by the authors, or it hasn't passed through the scrutinizing eye of scientific peer-review process. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

it applies to most every TCM article since qi is a core concept. This is exactly the kind of statement that QW or SBM would be a useful source for; the standard literature doesn't rehearse obvious stuff like this very often. Jytdog (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Unless you can find a mainstream reliable source which says otherwise, QuackWatch is an adequate source for that statement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, where I'm headed with this idea is that this information should be included, and it should be included with a stronger source than Quackwatch. Why cite Quackwatch when ten minutes' effort will find properly published books on the subject?

You could be citing books like these:

"This whole resonance and vibration business is pseudoscience emanating from the myth of the human energy field—not the kind of energy physicists measure but some vague life energy like the acupuncturists' qi, the chiropractors' Innate…" ISBN 9780761862932 p. 69

"A symposium convened in June 1995 by the China Association for Science and Technology (CAST) and attended by, among others, a contingent from CSICOP repeatedly identified widespread belief in external qi gong as China's "major pseudoscience problem." One Chinese scientific journalist and policy expert, Lin Zixin, described rampant superstition in China as a threat to the country's technological development.' Needless to say, traditional Chinese medicine in general, and qi gong in particular, is not held in high regard by a major contingent of China's scientific community—a fact that has been given little notice in the West." ISBN 9780830822751 p. 105

So my question is: Given that Quackwatch is divisive, given that we're wasting time with questions about whether it's reliable, given than there are perennial problems with whether it needs to be attributed as one person (or one group's) opinion, then why would you prefer Quackwatch, when the same statement could be trivially sourced to a more formal, more "respectable" reliable source that says exactly the same thing (only even more so, since Quackwatch doesn't seem to have noticed that Chinese scientists reject qi as a load of pseudoscience, too)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for putting the question cleanly, WAID. (wunderbar on the content from the 2nd source!!) I hear you on the annoyance and tedium of the constant objections to Quackwatch and SBM. Two direct responses and a broader thought:

• The objections to QW and SBM are, in my view, just a proxy for the deeper POV dispute. An appropriate proxy, since everything here comes down to what kinds of sources are reliable for what kind of content. But a proxy nonetheless. Trying to move away from those two specific sources is not going to make the POV dispute go away - the focus will just move on to other sources.
• The problem with moving away from QW and SBM is that we end up in the even murkier waters of what books to rely on. The two you have chosen are interesting.
  • The first one (trying a googlebooks link there for convenience) Pseudoscience and Deception: The Smoke and Mirrors of Paranormal Claims, edited by Bryan Farha, has 4 of 17 chapters by Novella or Barrett (who run QW and SBM) and is just a book form of the content you find at those two sites and it is hard to see why it would be more acceptable to those who object to QW and SBM, than QW and SBM themselves would be.
  • The second one Examining Alternative Medicine: An Inside Look at the Benefits & Risks, is published by InterVarsity Press and asks "What are the benefits and risks of alternative medicine? Do some therapies have spiritual underpinnings that are at odds with a biblical framework?". This is not a source I would reach for, in a controversial article.

Which really points up what I said before - I think the discussion would get even uglier if we start letting in books like this as sources on alt-med; there is no end to woo-pushing books like this, as well as woo-busting books and a whole host of stuff in the middle with their own agendas (like the InterVarsity book). How would we have rational, PAG-based discussions about them? I think we want to stay away from them and stick to the best sources defined in MEDRS - reviews and society statements as much as we can, and use the well-defined QW and SBM for fringe-medical stuff.

• Finally, I've said this before, but to me the only way to really settle the POV war (and the concomitant use of, and attacks on, QW and SBM) would be to have long-term editors who watch them step back and agree on the scope of the articles and have both sides work to keep extremists from adding content outside that scope. And ideally the scope what include what is mainstream and leave out altogether kooky stuff (like acu as a treatment for cancer per se). Those are my thoughts. Thanks for really talking. Jytdog (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• • • Unmasking the POV dispute will solve my problem: It will get these endless "discussions" off this page and over to WP:NPOVN, where someone who has actually volunteered to deal with that type of mess can try to pacify the combatants. And I can send plain old "my book is better than your book" disputes to RSN. But I can't get rid of "this guideline needs to {endorse|ban} Quackwatch". This guideline's talk page is the only proper page for discussing changes to this guideline. (You're right: I hadn't noticed that it was a religious book. We will have to see if another source includes that very interesting claim.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks again for talking WAID. I appreciate your frankness about trying to solve what is bugging you. While this would resolve battles over QW, battles over whether an Intervarsity Press book (or the other book you suggested) would end up right back here since they would be used to support health-related content. Right? So... what kind of more general guidance could be added to MEDRS to help editors sort out stuff like where we apply WP:PARITY to health content? For example, to provide guidance as to whether either of the two books you suggested would be OK to use? Jytdog (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Is Quackwatch a self-published source?

Is Quackwatch a self published source, and if not who publishes it?LesVegas (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

yes: by an acknowledged expert, so is just fine. please actually read WP:SPS. Jytdog (talk) 18:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Jytdog I read it and had a question about something it said. Specifically, I had questions about the part which says Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. I'm not all that familiar with Quackwatch but it appears to be run by Stephen Barrett. Was Stephen Barrett's work in the relevant field previously published by reliable third party publications? And if so, which publications? LesVegas (talk) 20:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

pubmed is wide open to you, as is the bio and publications page at Quackwatch itself. Might be useful for you to read our article on him as well. I do not think you would be able to make a credible argument that he is not a recognized authority on pseudoscience and quackery. Jytdog (talk) 21:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not doubting that Stephen Barrett wouldn't be a recognized person in the field. He's no longer pursuing his career as an active scientist, is he? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 12:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion, Jytdog. I will check Pubmed. There is no reason for you to get upset with me, I am merely asking the question, much as you were doing when you opened the RfC on whether or not alt-med practitioners had a COI. I don't have an opinion on this matter, just as you don't have an opinion on your RfC. I just never considered the idea that Quackwatch might be a SPS until Sarah brought up the argument above, and I only wanted to ask the question. LesVegas (talk) 01:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry you took that as snippy. i meant it straight; no curveballs or sarcasm. i really don't think you could make a credible case that he is not an expert in quackery or pseudoscience. Jytdog (talk) 01:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages article on Quackwatch says that it originated in 1969 and that the publication went online in 1996. Is this information accurate? I'm sorry for being ignorant here but you seem like much more of an expert on it. LesVegas (talk) 03:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Quackwatch is a self-published source often used in violation of policy. The policy (WP:SPS) says (bold in the original):

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so. Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.

Quackwatch has been used widely, including in Acupunture, St John's wort, Chlorophyll, Christian Science. The Quackwatch owner is not an "established expert" in those fields. It's exactly the kind of source SPS is meant to guard against because there's no editorial oversight.

What has happened is that some editors interpret "the relevant field" as fringe generally. They also interpret anything Quackwatch's owner includes on the site as fringe by definition. It thereby becomes a tautology that he is an expert on anything he writes about. Sarah (SV) 17:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Your interpretation of SPS is wrong in this case. Even ArbCom never took that extreme interpretation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

That isn't an extreme "interpretation"; the words speak for themselves. Quackwatch is widely used in violation of the sourcing policies. I had no idea how widely until this discussion. BLPSPS, for example, makes clear that no self-published sources, expert or otherwise, are allowed about living persons, unless written by the subject. Sarah (SV) 19:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

So you're focusing on the BLP aspect? Okay, do you have any examples? -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not only focusing on BLP (you can do a search and find examples of it in BLPs). The whole point of SPS when it was written was to keep out sources like Quackwatch that had no editorial oversight. We didn't want a situation where one person on a website could say X and X would end up on Misplaced Pages, except in very limited circumstances, including genuine experts in the field. But even then with great caution. We don't really want self-published Christian Scientists sourcing Christian Science, except when used very carefully. We don't want self-published anyone sourcing WP as a rule; otherwise we could just get rid of sourcing and add our own views. That's effectively what's happening here. Sarah (SV) 20:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

SlimVirgin is correct throughout this discussion, and SPS has been widely misinterpreted here.

And speaking of the mention of the Arbitration Committee findings multiple times throughout this discussion:

What the arbs said (in the amended motion) was:

• Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources#Using online and self-published sources, a guideline, warns against use of sources whose content is controlled by their owner - "A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication."
• Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest, a guideline, warns:

1. avoid editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
2. avoid participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;

and that editors must always:

1. avoid breaching relevant policies on Misplaced Pages:Autobiography and Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, (emphasis mine)

... followed by the finding that:

• Fyslee (who self-identifies as BullRangifer on this page) "is a health activist who participates in a number of internet sites critical of alternative medicine, see "user=fyslee" and (contains list of sites)
• Fyslee/BullRangifer had "engaged in incivility and personal attacks".
• Fyslee/BullRangifer had "repeatedly used Quackwatch and similar partisan sites as references".

... followed by a caution to Fyslee/Bullrangifer:

• "to use reliable sources and to edit from a NPOV. He is reminded that editors with a known partisan point of view should be careful to seek consensus on the talk page of articles to avoid the appearance of a COI if other editors question their edits."

  BullRangifer/Fyslee, how can you seriously consider that because the other party behaved worse than you and was banned, that you can state here, on this page, with a straight face that you and Quackwatch were "vindicated"? And considering your COI here (or has something changed?), should you really be pushing so hard for this? Or editing non-neutrally anywhere on Misplaced Pages? Or should we post that question to a new arbcase, examining all of the alt-med and MEDRS issues? JzG, you were part of that arbcase; do you think Fsylee/BR should be editing non-neutrally and pushing for QW to be included in MEDRS?

  Slim was actively working on WP:V at the time of that arbcase (in fact, she always has), and although we had our differences then on the page, she knows the discussions that went into the development of that page and their intent; I agree with her (and the arbs) that our policies are designed to specifically avoid dubious sources such as QW.

  While I'm here, I oppose all three versions of the proposal above, which would introduce a controversial source which simply is not needed (if something is worth mentioning in an encyclopedia, a real source will have covered it), and whose introduction will only weaken a well-written and widely accepted guideline which already has opponents and detractors because of efforts like this to overextend its reach, unnecessarily.

  Editors who edit medical content and frequently reference MEDRS when it is convenient simply cannot continue to then discard MEDRS when they find it more convenient to their aims to ignore MEDRS, or to endorse sloppy sourcing to websites like Quackwatch, without calling into question the credibility of the entire medicine project and MEDRS. That is, you don’t get to have it both ways. Either you follow the guideline for sourcing health content, or you don’t, but Quackwatch is not the kind of sourcing either SPS or MEDRS intended.

  I oppose these attempts because they will weaken a guideline we have and need, and suggest that an overfixation by medical editors on alt-med topics is undermining overall medicine project work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The accusation of a COI was never proven. I have never worked for or edited the Quackwatch website. That's an urban legend. The fact that I share POV with QW (and thus all scientific skeptics) is not a COI. The fact that I have written a few emails to Barrett seeking information, is not a COI. I usually got no positive result. Frankly he's not always very nice, at least not in print. I have never spoken to him or met him. So, the COI idea is really a very bad faith accusation which needs to be laid to rest.

I and QW, were indeed vindicated by a later revision of that decision.

I did respond to many extremely libelous attacks by the banned editor, sometimes in an uncivil manner, and that was the extent of my offense. I doubt you would have fared better when being driven to near suicide. It was horrible. The lies were horrendous.

The "additions" of QW turned out, upon examination of each instance, to nearly always be restorations of improper deletions of that source. There were editors then who, like yourself, hate QW. They went around and systematically deleted every single QW reference they could find. When I discovered that, I (and others) examined each instance and restored those which should have been restored. There were a few instances where I did NOT restore them. The community deemed the inclusions to be good, and my actions were within proper behavior. My attacker falsely accused me of "adding" lots of QW edits, when I was only restoring them. Those were the findings of fact. Another editor defended me and did the work of examining it and presenting that evidence. Keep in mind that a charge is not evidence of a misdeed. The charges were listed, but not always found to be true. Yet the wording of the charges was left in place, and the wordings were made before ANY evidence had ever been presented!

FYI, I am not "pushing" for inclusion of QW in MEDRS. I saw what was happening here and decided to propose some wording. It's really not that big a deal to me, since RS is good enough to cover it most of the time. I have just been defending it against false charges from several editors, including yourself. I happen to understand the subject better than you. Next time try asking before making uninformed accusations and assumptions about QW. If I can't answer, I'll research it and get back to you. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

This isn't my first rodeo. Many of us were active on Usenet in the 90s, some of us even have more than one stalker from whom we aren't separated by oceans, some of us even alerted the arbs to certain internet personalities well before that arbcase. You are not telling me anything I didn't already know and haven't experienced likely in more frightening proximity than yourself. But not all of us resort to suicidal hyperbole when recalling internet issues and threats and stalking.

I'm sorry you felt so threatened, but Misplaced Pages guidelines and their talk pages and Misplaced Pages articles are not the place to resolve off-Misplaced Pages trauma and conflict. This is a page where we are discussing one of the most important guidelines that affects our medical content, and consequently affects real people's lives. Your personal attempts to pull at people's heartstrings in article, guideline and content discussions need to stop; this is not Usenet or a message board or another internet forum you frequent-- we have work to do. and our work has a serious impact on real people.

So, I am going to ask you for the last time. You have, as far as I can tell, an arb caution still in place. It doesn't appear to me that you are respecting the intent of their findings. Not only are you quite aggressively dominating this conversation and misrepresenting facts and intimidating people (who end up topic banned) with statements that you present as fact about Quackwatch but are quite dubious, in your attempt to push your views into an important guideline; but you are most certainly quite aggressively pushing your views into articles as well, and not always even using reliable sources. Please re-read the arb caution. And, again, I am asking you formally to stop filling the page with walls of text, back off, and allow editors who are neutral with respect to Quackwatch to have a reasoned discussion. Your posts here are over the top, and should. Just. Stop. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

This cuts both ways, so WP:POT obviously applies. When you present misunderstandings as fact, I just responded. BTW, I'm not sure about your Usenet references. I stayed away from it. I was referring to Arbcom, right here. You happen to be treating me the same way I was unfairly treated at Arbcom. Try AGF and dropping that. It doesn't increase collegiality. I'd rather see that here.

BTW, I can't even recall the last time I ever added a QW reference. It's been a very, very long time, so the caution has always been working. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Authoritative nature of Quackwatch

QW is more than Barrett. Many different authors contribute, each with their own forms of expertise. Some we would not use, and others we would. Some content is documents from the government, others are legal documents, and others historical. Some of those sources may be housed at QW, but QW really has nothing to do with the evaluation. Again, judge and use each on a case by case basis, as with ALL sources, including JAMA and NEJM.

As for Barrett, he is a recognized expert and authority in the field of health care consumer protection, more specifically as an expert on pseudoscience, quackery, health fraud, nutrition, and alternative medicine. Some of these are not typical academic or scientific fields of knowledge, so you likely won't find lots of peer reviewed research about every one of them, although he has been published in many venues, including in peer reviewed journals. Much of his recognition and fame comes from recognition by other experts in legal, scientific, educational, governmental, and consumer protection areas. The amount of documentation for this recognition is touched on in his bio here and in the QW article. It's definitely enough for us to recognize him as an expert, and all RfCs and ArbCom discussions, decisions, and rulings have recognized this. Another hallmark of the authoritative nature of QW is that all quacks and pushers of pseudoscience oppose QW. That's a badge of honor. Invariably, you will find that those who criticize QW are on the wrong side of the issues.

Use of QW content is governed by normal RS policies, and in some cases the content would also qualify as MEDRS compliant, and as with all sources, we use common sense and judge each use on a case by case basis.

In the beginning days of Misplaced Pages, sourcing wasn't always as careful, content was much different, there were far fewer policies and guidelines, and there weren't as many eyes. There was careless use of all kinds of sources, including QW, and examples of such careless use were found and removed. Since then we've been much more careful. All current uses have survived that winnowing process, and current attempts to remove them because they are from QW are simply disruptive and based on failures to understand our sourcing policies and the good reputation of QW as a source. Unfortunately we have a couple admins who consistently back pseudoscience and talk bad about QW, including on this page. Ignore them. They have no credibility when it comes to this type of content.

These disruptive attempts to demote QW are to be seen for what they are. QW is the canary in the coal mine when it comes to exposing pseudoscience, quackery, and health fraud. Enemies of anti-quackery efforts always attack QW. That's a big red flag. Anyone who does that should be watchlisted, as their actions against QW undermine the goal of Misplaced Pages to favor sources aligned with mainstream RS. These people tend to favor use of unreliable sources. Anyone who is against the anti-quackery efforts of QW is by definition pro-quackery. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

You forgot to mention another factor about QW - it is not peer-reviewed.DrChrissy 09:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

More IDHT behavior. This has been addressed before, so your lack of competence is showing. I will refer you to my previous explanation above. You know better than to raise this issue. Websites aren't peer reviewed (only one strictly online medical journal has that status, that I know of), so that is not a legitimate objection. Websites are considered usable and often reliable sources here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

A few comments to the long - but well descriptive - post by BullRangifer:

1. "Again, judge and use each on a case by case basis, as with ALL sources, including JAMA and NEJM.": I am glad to see that you accept this now. As it's been voiced out by many editors, the reliability of a source always depends on the context. So yes, QuackWatch is not reliable per se, and there is a strong consensus for that.
2. "Some of these are not typical academic or scientific fields of knowledge, so you likely won't find lots of peer reviewed research about every one of them": Exactly, BullRangifer. On such cases QuackWatch is an excellent sources. But on some other topic areas, such as acupuncture, where plenty of scientific literature exists, we shouldn't really use QuackWatch. Especially for claims that have not passed the peer-review process.
3. "It's definitely enough for us to recognize him as an expert, and all RfCs and ArbCom discussions, decisions, and rulings have recognized this.": I don't think anyone is trying to claim otherwise. Instead, the question is whether QuackWatch is a reliable source (yes, but not per se) and on what occasions it might be used.
4. "Another hallmark of the authoritative nature of QW is that all quacks and pushers of pseudoscience oppose QW.": Well, that might be the case as well. But when we have real sound scientific literature available on the subject, we should use those instead of a self-published blog. The scientific world can be rough, I know, and if you can't make your ideas pass the peer-review process of a notable journal, well it's not really helping your career and giving you a lot of merit - retired or in working-life.
5. "These disruptive attempts to demote QW are to be seen for what they are. QW is the canary in the coal mine when it comes to exposing pseudoscience, quackery, and health fraud.": I agree with you here BullRangifer, and by the way I like your parable of miners canary that you are using :-) Anyway, on areas where the sons and daughters of mainstream science have taken over, we can spare the poor bird, don't you think? ;-)
6. "Enemies of anti-quackery efforts always attack QW.": I wouldn't over simplify the issue like that, even though it might be the case sometimes, BullRangifer. That starts to sound like strongly dualistisc world view where the forces of Good and Evil are engaged in an eternal struggle. I think most of the editors are concerned with QuackWatch being a self-published source that is making claims that have not passed any peer-review process. Although QuackWatch might be used in areas that have not been able to attract enough scientific attention, just like user The Four Deuces demonstrated, in areas that have, we simply have better sources, i.e. sources that have passed the scientific process.
7. "These people tend to favor use of unreliable sources.": BullRangifer, the unreliable sources will be removed per WP:RS and WP:MEDRS.That will happen independent from QuackWatch. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

1. I'm traveling over many time zones for the next many hours, so I'll just start with point one: I have been saying that for years. It's always been my opinion. Case by case. So your statement is such a false implication as to be malicious personal attack. Strike the whole thing. Also, you have it backwards: We approach QW as basically a RS until proven otherwise. Also, there is not a large (or any) consensus against QW. On the contrary. Your repetition of that lie doesn't make it so. More later. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• Personal attack? No, not even. As you said, "case by case". In other words, the reliability depends on the context, i.e. QuackWatch - like any source - is not reliable per se. Reliability is not an intrinsic attribute of a source. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
• I agree entirely - we do not even say that JAMA is 100% reliable per se - it is a case-by-case basis.DrChrissy 21:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• Jayaguru-Shishya, you wrote: "I am glad to see that you accept this now." Your clear implication is that I haven't done that before. Who the heck do you think has been championing that expression for a decade here at Misplaced Pages when referring to QW? You're looking at him. I have ALWAYS held that position.

  It is not "reliability" which depends on context, but usage. QW is reliable (as in true or untrue) until proven otherwise, but it's usage is dependent on the context. Just because it might not be appropriate in some situations does not make it unreliable. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• The burden of proof always lies on the party who makes a claim, not the contrary. That's the problem with self-published sources actually: they are out of reach of scientific scrutinizing. That's why emphasizing the context becomes so important, and I am glad we agree with that BullRangifer. We should always seek first, however, for independent scholarly secondary sources. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and I believe we do seek such sources first. If they are found later, they can be added. In some cases QW becomes superfluous and has been removed, and in some cases the new source has been added while keeping QW.

BTW, there is an interesting phenomenon which has often occurred with QW and other such scientific skeptic websites. They have often been the first in the trenches to call out and expose dubious claims and health fraud. That's their unique contribution as sources, and why we use them. Research scientists don't usually deal with such matters. Later, as more research is done, direct, peer reviewed evidence comes to light absolutely backing up what QW has been saying all along. That's happened a number of times. Only a couple times has Barrett had to revise or retract his views, and he has done it. One of the latest examples is the research showing that typical use of vitamins and dietary supplements is often doing more harm than good. QW has been saying that for years. Barrett's expertise in nutrition earned him honorary membership in the ADA, and his book "The Vitamin Pushers" is excellent. All three of these books were well ahead of the curve and quite accurate:

1. The Health Robbers: A Close Look at Quackery in America, Barrett SJ, Jarvis WT, eds. (1993). Prometheus Books, ISBN 0-87975-855-4
2. The Vitamin Pushers: How the "Health Food" Industry Is Selling America a Bill of Goods, Barrett SJ, Herbert V (1991). Prometheus Books, ISBN 0-87975-909-7
3. Vitamins and Minerals: Help or Harm?, Marshall CW (1983). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins ISBN 0-397-53060-9 (edited by Barrett, won the American Medical Writers Association award for best book of 1983 for the general public, republished by Consumer Reports Books).

We usually attribute QW and Barret's opinions until research has confirmed their views. After that we include the evidence backing up their authoritative views and even use Misplaced Pages's voice. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

2. You wrote: "But on some other topic areas, such as acupuncture, where plenty of scientific literature exists, we shouldn't really use QuackWatch. Especially for claims that have not passed the peer-review process." Wrong again, and this has been explained to you, so this is IDHT behavior. QW presents a different angle on the subject. Discussion of controversies and notable opinions are definitely allowable content, even on highly researched subjects. Controversies and notable opinions don't go through any peer review process, and they are allowable content. You don't get to eliminate opposing POV. That's whitewashing. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Not quite. If we have two angles to the subject, one of a high-quality secondary source and another of QuackWatch, we should go with the former. BullRangifer, even if other editors might not agree with you 100 percent, could you please try to keep your cool? As you can read from the discussion, it has been voiced out by many editors that QuackWatch is an appropriate source when better sources are not available. This is the case with some topics, but not all. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 13:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

3. Already addressed above.

4. You called QW a "blog" again. Wrong again, and this has been explained to you, so this is IDHT behavior. There is zero evidence that QW is a blog. You need to get your facts right. You don't seem to know what a blog is. Stop saying that. Even if it were a blog, it would be a blog from a subject expert, and therefore allowable under our RS rules, and especially per PARITY, but that's a moot point because it's not a blog. It's been around since before blogs started their existence anyway and bears no resemblance to them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Many of your statements imply that nothing but peer reviewed literature is allowed in medical and other articles. That's not true. Opinions are also allowed. Our medical articles contain content based on ordinary RS rules and content based on MEDRS. Much of QW content would be under the first, but some would even qualify under the second. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

BullRangifer, you have a COI here. I am formally asking you to stand aside and let neutral editors decide this matter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not have a COI in regard to QW, as explained above. Please stop making claims without evidence. That's a very short answer to your latest wall of text. -- BullRangifer (talk)

• The FDA apparently recognise Barrett's expertise: http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/EmergencyPreparedness/BioterrorismandDrugPreparedness/ucm137284.htm Guy (Help!) 23:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I posed a question above for you, JzG: I would like to know where you stand on Fyslee/BullRangifer's editing in relation to the caution issued by the arbs in 2007, neutral editing, and also this matter of QW.

Now, if you all want to establish that QW meets SPS, here is a sample of what the G&S WikiProject did for

• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan/Marc Shepherd's Gilbert and Sullivan Discography.

If that's what you want to do, do it right.

That means no more walls of text from partisan Fyslee here (BR is not neutral on this topic, yet is dominating the conversation). We simply should not have someone who has already been cautioned for this kind of editing by the arbs making claims on this page like, "These disruptive attempts to demote QW are to be seen for what they are"; what the arbs said about QuackWatch is plain and clear.

Put together a page like that and take it to the entire community (WP:RSN maybe?) so as not to push something through here with a small group that endorses MEDRS only when convenient, and that will undermine the years-long efforts that yielded a widely accepted medical sourcing guideline. MEDRS is needed for areas beyond alt-med and should not be undermined by overstretching beyond what the broader community will accept. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I see some problems with BR's past comments (although no complaints about his article edits were substantiated; however, QW is considered expert in fringe phenomena, and should be considered reliable under WP:SPS in any subject generally (or even often) considered pseudoscience. This includes the articles mentioned above by SV. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I have removed non-reliable sources that were added by BullRangifer from articles. When an arb caution is in place, it applies to all editing, not just in the one article that prompted the arbcase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Public maintenance

Just a few questions and request to keep the course of discussion more clear. Thanks!

1. SandyGeorgia, you said that you oppose all three proposals (I guess you meant the "Refinements"). How about the original proposal, "Proposal to address Quackwatch by name in this guideline"? Do you oppose that one as well?
2. CorporateM, LesVegas and Jess, could I ask you to strike the votes that you are not in support of anymore? For example, CorporateM and LesVegas have changed their support from "Proposal to address Quackwatch by name in this guideline" to "Quackwatch: Refinement #1", and Jess from "Quackwatch: Refinement #1" and "Quackwatch: Refinement #2" to "Quackwatch: Refinement #3".
3. QuackGuru, you supported both "Quackwatch: Refinement #2" and "Quackwatch: Refinement #3". Later you said, however, "This version is better written than my proposal." So I guess you are in favour of "Quackwatch: Refinement #3" then? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 11:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, just couldn't help noticing that some editors seems to be supporting multiple options whereas we'd need to go with one! :-) Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 11:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I disagree; I support both proposals and do not see them as intrinsically in opposition of each other such that supporting one means opposing the other. CorporateM (Talk) 15:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

It's entirely normal to support more than one proposal in a discussion like this. I have a preference (which I've spelled out), but I'm also comfortable with several alternates.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Jayaguru-Shishya, regarding the idea that we need to "go with one", no we don't. We don't need to mention Quackwatch at all in this guideline, and doing so is a stretch that will weaken this guideline. I explained further here. Quackwatch does not meet MEDRS. It is an SPS. If anyone wants to use it anywhere, they can discuss at WP:RSN whether that specific use (dependent on context) is in line with WP:V. I am opposed to any wording in this guideline about how QW might be used as a source because that is already covered by WP:V. It should not be used in acupuncture, and if it truly is the only source on some fringe topic, then we shouldn't have an article. This guideline does not need to be weakened by discussing every marginal source (like Quackwatch, Mayo Clinic, so on.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you know what happens when someone takes a marginal use of Quackwatch to RSN? They're told that Quackwatch is absolutely reliable for any use that any skeptic wants to use it for, and that anyone who disagrees is welcome to read the archives to prove that The Community™ has always held this view. They're also directed to read WP:PARITY, which is the excuse for using low-quality sources to disagree with anything that isn't sufficiently "mainstream" or "evidence-based" or "Western", and to discuss it at WP:FTN, so that people whose personal POV happens to align very closely with Quackwatch can repeat the message that Quackwatch is an ideal source for discussing any subject that can't boast a Cochrane review. The RSN discussions on this subject do not seem to consider complicated subjects like "context" and "self-published (expert) websites". I believe that this is the most recent time that Quackwatch was mentioned at RSN (although the main subject is a blog with a similar POV). I'm sure it's a very enlightening discussion, if you want to learn things like "FRINGE trumps MEDRS". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

<sigh> Naturally (it's Misplaced Pages-- you've just described its essence-- dysfunctional). So here we are, talking about Reiki, when we have thousands of medical articles that need attention to fundamentals. Why are we allowing fringe topics of marginal consequence to drive the Medicine Project? So, Misplaced Pages is consensus driven, and on the internet, no one knows you're a dog, and anyone can say anything (including at the RSN). We can't fix that. We have WP:V and WP:RSN, and if they don't work, well, we can't fix it by extending this page beyond what the dysfunction in this place supports. At some point, they're all going to end up before arbcom. But damaging MEDRS for folks fighting fringe topics isn't the way to benefit our medical content across the board. MEDRS needs to stay rational for the rest of our medical articles; not fall prey to what is overtaking the entire Wikiproject Medicine (or as you say, even the noticeboards.)

So, I guess that is what this is about? By the way, WP:PARITY is indecipherable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Systemic bias 1

BullRangifer has proposed endorsing systemic bias based on country of origin here:

There are serious red flags regarding Chinese medical research. Especially China, Japan, Russia/USSR, and Taiwan have been shown guilty of systemic bias in favor of traditional Chinese medicine subjects like acupuncture. Editors should consider carefully how to manage sources from these countries. The problem also includes peer review scams.

References

1. "Some countries publish unusually high proportions of positive results. Publication bias is a possible explanation. Researchers undertaking systematic reviews should consider carefully how to manage data from these countries." Vickers, Andrew (April 1, 1998), Do certain countries produce only positive results? A systematic review of controlled trials., Control Clin Trials, retrieved May 11, 2015 {{citation}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
2. Ferguson, Cat (November 26, 2014), Publishing: The peer-review scam, Nature, retrieved May 11, 2015 {{citation}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
3. Qiu, Jane (January 12, 2010), Publish or perish in China, Nature, retrieved May 11, 2015 {{citation}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

I'm not sure that this information should be included here at all, but I'm certain that this isn't the best way to handle it. It declares that almost all publications by nearly all Asian researchers are suspicious based on the actions of just a couple of individuals for the peer-review scams.

While the 1998 study was limited to acupuncture, it's conclusions are outdated (it's based upon the three decades of papers, ending two whole decades ago) and it's not at all clear that these societies were treating TCM any differently from any other subject. Communist research frankly sucked. It worked pretty much like a first-year chemistry lab: find out what the acceptable answer is, draw the curve, plot the points, and, last of all, take your measurements and make sure they line up with what the teacher wants. That doesn't mean that all Russian and Chinese research publications are as bad now, and we shouldn't be presenting this 17-year-old primary study as if it said anything useful to tell us about recent research work.

The English Misplaced Pages has enough of a problem with systemic bias. I don't think that we should encourage it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Yow! And the assertion is that English language publications are less biased? Don't think we want to get into that food fight. Formerly 98 20:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no such assertion. We are just doing what the research recommended. Note that the wording is lifted, with some alteration, directly from the review: "Researchers undertaking systematic reviews should consider carefully how to manage data from these countries." That's good advice for us. This is far from "a couple". If we find such reviews showing systemic bias in other countries, we can add that. There is no reason to reject what we do know to be true.

The systemic bias WAID complains about is our systemic bias for quality research. This content reinforces that legitimate bias. By not warning against the inclusion of shoddy research, the balance tips away from quality research toward shoddy research in favor of TCM and acupuncture, which would suit acupuncturists just fine. This deletion undermines our efforts to improve the quality of our sources by warning editors to avoid shoddy research. I'm sure it can be worded better, but it should not be removed entirely. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• one of the two sources about chinese publishing is dated to 2014, and there is an update to the Vickers review dated 2014 written by (ahem) Chinese people. Reporting on systemic problems is not a reflection of systemic bias; that label is inaptly applied, i think. I would support a revision to make this more narrow and update the sourcing as follows:

As of 2015, there are concerns regarding positive bias in publications from China on traditional chinese medicine. Such sources may be red flagged. The problem also includes issues with the peer review system in China.

References

1. Li J, et al The quality of reports of randomized clinical trials on traditional Chinese medicine treatments: a systematic review of articles indexed in the China National Knowledge Infrastructure database from 2005 to 2012. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2014 Sep 26;14:362. PMID 25256890
2. "Some countries publish unusually high proportions of positive results. Publication bias is a possible explanation. Researchers undertaking systematic reviews should consider carefully how to manage data from these countries." Vickers, Andrew (April 1, 1998), Do certain countries produce only positive results? A systematic review of controlled trials., Control Clin Trials {{citation}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
3. Ferguson, Cat (November 26, 2014), Publishing: The peer-review scam, Nature {{citation}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
4. Qiu, Jane (January 12, 2010), Publish or perish in China, Nature {{citation}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 22:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a major issue which does exist, not just in China, though it is probably best documented there - e.g. I'm also aware of this as well. I also wouldn't characterize the problems described in citation 4 as "a couple of individuals" - they do provide an example but use it as an illustration of broader issues, e.g. "China's science ministry commissioned a survey of researchers...one-third of more than 6,000 surveyed across six top institutions admitted to plagiarism, falsification or fabrication." I do think the narrower wording is better, though perhaps with an acknowledgement that the problem may be broader. (I would also be careful to distinguish this as very different from saying non-English sources are more likely to be biased. It's true that the highest-quality research is disproportionately reported in English, as the lingua franca of science - e.g. the language of the top journals - but that is a separate issue which is unrelated to bias per se.) Sunrise (talk) 00:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a variation on a WP:BEANS issue. The people who can correctly interpret and apply the advice you're trying to give them already know there are issues with some of this work, and the people who don't know it don't understand what they're reading anyway and will try to lawyer around whatever advice you give them. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not often that we get solid reviews proving consistent and widespread systemic bias in ONE particular subject area (TCM/acupuncture), and the researchers recommend that "Researchers undertaking systematic reviews should consider carefully how to manage data from these countries." We should do the same in our evaluation of sources. This is clearly an improvement of MEDRS and should be restored. (Keep in mind that the initiation of this thread is extremely misleading and not to be trusted.) -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

That indeed might be the case, but instead of mere speculation we need sources to confirm this. Publication bias is quite regularly studied, it shouldn't be a problem to find such study. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no speculation. Some of the sources are used as references. The very idea for this content comes from referenced peer reviewed reviews on the subject. These countries have a well documented systemic bias using shoddy research to promote acupuncture and TCM. That's a huge red flag, and we should note this in MEDRS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

This is indeed a concerning state of affairs but it does appear to be well-supported that it's a problem. I'm not 100% sure something so topic-specific should be in MEDRS the guideline but it needs to be documented somewhere, maybe in a FAQ at the affected articles. Or possibly an essay that could be linked to when necessary when a relevant discussion arises at an article Talk page. Zad68 14:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: So will you share that "well documented systematic bias" with us, please? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

??? The references are right in the content. Also they are presented below, with more, by others. The bias is well documented in high quality sources, and it's a huge bias we should not ignore. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

← There are plenty of reliable sources to substantiate the concern over research fraud in China, often attributed to the academic culture there. A short list would include:

• Publish or Perish in China, Nature
• Rampant Fraud Threat to China’s Brisk Ascent, New York Times
• Research Fraud Rampant in China, Christian Science Monitor
• Fraud fighter: 'Faked research is endemic in China', New Scientist
• Looks good on paper, The Economist

A 2009 study by a Chinese computer scientist estimated that research fraud was a $150 million-a-year industry in China (in the form of ghostwriting services, fabrication of research, bribery to bypass peer review, and forgery). The study is mentioned in a number of the above sources, although I'm having trouble finding a direct link to it. In any case, this phenomenon is a real source of concern in the scientific world, as the above sources demonstrate. Now, I don't think we need to write anything into our guidelines and policies to address it—and I don't really want this to become another front in the acupuncture/TCM wars—but it is important to be aware that this is a real concern and not simply editorial speculation. MastCell  15:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

MastCell, I don't doubt it at all. Actually, that's why there are studies on the publication bias, and I think we should first preset those before jumping any conclusions of our own. Scientists are scientists, we are Misplaced Pages editors. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

One study found that 99.8% of randomized controlled trials of acupuncture published in China had a positive result. 99.8%. If that doesn't scream systematic bias I don't know what does. That level of bias I'm sure has had the intended effect on skewing systematic reviews in favor of their chosen result.... Yobol (talk) 21:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• It would be very silly to pretend this issue does not exist. It would be equally silly to pretend that "Western" scientific sources have an equal and opposite bias. The problem of systemic bias applies especially to China and Russia, the literature in most countries has no systemic bias other than towards reality and empirical verifiability. The idea that "reductionist science" is biased against empirically unverifiable notions is a fallacy to which Misplaced Pages should not succumb. Guy (Help!) 10:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Guy, I think I understand what you mean, but maybe this is what you intended to say...? "The idea that "reductionist science" should not be biased against empirically unverifiable notions is a fallacy...." because our bias should be against such notions. They are not founded in reality or promoted by RS. We will still document them, because they are part of the sum total of human knowledge and experience, but we won't give them any credence. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

  I suspect, BullRangifer, that you and Guy are using "bias" in two different senses. Guy is using it to mean "irrationally prejudiced against...". You are reading it to mean "likely to produce results (when carried out honestly and correctly) which contradict...". In other words, Guy is noting that the scientists don't have a bias against acupuncture and TCM, whereas you are noting that reality does. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes (and actually yes to both, but I meant what I said). Science, as a body of knowledge or system of inquiry, does not care in advance what the outcome of a test will be. If a test refutes the null hypothesis and provides robust proof that homeopathy works, then science will have to pick up the pieces, rewrite the laws of thermodynamics, conservation of energy and mass action, and so on. The point about SCAM is that a positive outcome seems, according to the evidence, to depend on the investigator having a vested interest in the outcome.

The only bias science has is against false claims. Guy (Help!) 15:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah! Okay then. I think we believe the same way. I just tend to see "bias" as a positive or negative leaning, and the negative being the same as a "prejudice", but that's just my careless use of language. I'm a bit "language confused", since I've lived in Europe most of my adult life and my daily language is Danish (or Swedish or Norwegian), rather than my mother tongue, which is English. That means my English grammar, punctuation, etc. aren't always correct, so don't hesitate to correct me.

For more about my use of the word "bias", see here, under "synonyms": "A bias may be favorable or unfavorable: bias in favor of or against an idea. Prejudice implies a preformed judgment even more unreasoning than bias, and usually implies an unfavorable opinion: prejudice against people of another religion."

Science is biased toward evidence, just as editors here should be biased toward RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The other day DrChrissy questioned whether or not this line of thought was racist and I can definitely see his reason for asking the question. It does seem that we could be stereotyping if we ever ignore research simply because of its author's country of origin. Just as we would never say all black people are X, it might be okay if we say "this individual black person is X based on these criteria", but even then we had better be cautious because we might rightfully be accused of being not very PC. To not take the same cautions regarding research is wrong and the Misplaced Pages community at large will really be upset if they find out these are the proposed new guidelines. And don't forget some research that comes from China has positive results simply because they have different testing methodologies resulting from their unique ethics. It is systemic bias if we ever refuse to include research from other cultures and we should tag articles where this is taking place. LesVegas (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. I am still waiting for those studies on the publication bias. I don't want to hear any explanations like "Some countries publish unusually high proportions of positive results. Publication bias is a possible explanation.". Here, "might be" might have two meanings: whether it has not been studied (quite basics), or more likely it has been studied but it didn't yield any results worthy of publishing. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Jayaguru-Shishya, I'm at a loss at how we can help you anymore, since you have refused to look (after being told repeatedly) at the research and sources we have presented to you above. It is not editorial speculation which you are rejecting, but reliable sources and a review of the literature showing the current miserable state of affairs. Much of the literature is outright fraudulent. You even refuse to accept the exact wording from the review! Such a refusal is OR speculation on your part. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

BullRangifer, I don't doubt at all that there might be serious problems with the Chinese studies. And that's the very reason we are implementing statistical methods instead of mere speculation. Statistics, BullRangifer, statistics. Unfortunately I don't have access to the full text, but so far the conclusions state: "Publication bias is a possible explanation.". Note: possible, so that would indicate that it hasn't been studied in that particular report. Anyway, that's not WP:OR, BullRangifer, that's a direct quote. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

please don't comment on papers you haven't read. Jytdog (talk) 14:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Why not? I have requested numerous times for the studies on the publication bias. Whether it is there, or then it's not. If it is, please bring it to the attention of all of us. Thank you a lot in advance, Jytdog! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Facepalm Jytdog (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

May I respectfully correct LesVegas, I believe I only asked the question of whether it was racist...I don't think I made an unequivocal statement that it, or the editor, were racist.DrChrissy 21:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)LesVegas (talk) 01:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, have you seen your Talk Page even: "Do you have an access to this article? If so, could you please send me that one? I'd like to see if and how they might have possibly studied the subject." No need for facepalms, just try to keep cool, will you? So far, the conclusion doesn't sound really confident about it's own findings. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

DrChrissy, I am so sorry I got that wrong! You are absolutely correct! I changed my statement above to more accurately state what you said. Please feel free to correct me anytime I get something wrong like that. I can't apologize enough. LesVegas (talk) 01:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

yes. you should not discuss sources you haven't read. that is scholarship 101. if your scholarship is so abysmal that you actually need to be taught that, please read Misplaced Pages:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Choosing_sources. Jytdog (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely not a problem - I guessed it was just a slip of the keys.DrChrissy 09:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Please don't discredit yourself any further, Jytdog. Back to statistics, is there any studies on the publication bias, or is it mere speculation? I am also waiting for the source to check it myself. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 15:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

If LesVegas is in agreement, I am happy to have the above 3 comments and this one hatted as "Off Topic" or something like that.DrChrissy 09:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

please read the references already provided. Jytdog (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely in agreement, Doc! I would hat them off myself if I knew how, so by all means go ahead. The statistical discussion above all of that is far too important. LesVegas (talk) 14:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure, Jytdog. Waiting for you to send the one I've asked. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

do not hat my comment, thanks. JS check your email, as i mentioned on my talk page. it is your responsibility to get your hands on sources; continually asking if there is evidence about X when you have been provided sources goes beyond bad scholarship to bad faith discussion. i won't be responding to you further. Jytdog (talk) 15:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Jayaguru-Shishya i emailed you through the WP system at 11 AM and have nothing back from you. I guess you are getting the Vickers reference some other way. Jytdog (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

You did? A big thanks, Jytdog! I'll have a look tomorrow, it's getting rather late here right now ... although I have a day off tomorrow! :-D Thanks! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Jayaguru-Shishya, such an analysis would be a form of OR. This is from MEDRS: "Editors should not perform a detailed academic peer review. Do not reject a high-quality type of study due to personal objections to the study's inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions." It seems you are pushing for rejecting the authors' conclusions if their statistics don't pass your peer review.

This is very confusing. We usually accept the conclusions of review authors unless there is unequivocally something wrong pointed out by other RS. Your objections are not based on anything like that, but the uncomfortable fact that research from these countries which supports acupuncture cannot be assumed to be reliable. That undermines the foundations of your support for acupuncture, which is understandably an uncomfortable position, but not grounds to reject a peer reviewed review based on your own OR speculation or own OR analysis.

By contrast, the rest of us are taking the review at face value as a call to increased awareness and caution when dealing with positive research, especially from these countries. This is a huge red flag which should be part of MEDRS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

You said: "That undermines the foundations of your support for acupuncture, which is understandably an uncomfortable position", at this point I'd urge you to keep your cool, BullRangifer. I am not in support of acupuncture, but I do embrace Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and proper use of sources. As I have already said earlier, I don't doubt the questionable reliability of Chinese sources. I just got my hands on the source today and indeed, the Vickers article does not study publication bias, but deals with the reliability of those sources (China, Japan, Russia/USSR and Taiwan) in general. It suggests that publication bias is a possibility among five other possible explanations, but it does not study it. The other five explanations are 1) the "sample of trials may not have been representative", 2) the "abstracts may not have accurately reflected the results of trials", 3) their "judgements of whether the test treatment was superior to control were, in some cases, subjective. ", 4) trials "conducted in certain countries may involve more outcome measures and “data dredging."", and 5) trials "may have been conducted with different levels of methodologic rigor.".

Does the source urge editors to caution with respect to Chinese sources? Yes, it definitely does. Is the source a study on publication bias? No, it's not. As I have said, I don't doubt the questionable nature of Chinese sources, but I am saying that the article doesn't study publication bias. There's a big difference. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Excellent response! Respect and great thanks, and apologies for the impatience, coming your way. We simply didn't understand what you were driving at. So have we been too simplistic? The problem is larger by a factor of six. We have used the term "systemic bias", rather than "publication bias". Is "systemic bias" inclusive enough to encompass those six factors? -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

No problem, apology accepted. It's good we got the misunderstanding solved out now. Anyway, I think we need find a good way to address the problem with respect to the sources in whole. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Systemic bias 2

To make this easier, I'm starting a new section. Here are the three suggested wordings so far. The first two use the 2014 Vickers review, and more:

1. This was mine, which is at the top of the previous section

There are serious red flags regarding Chinese medical research. Especially China, Japan, Russia/USSR, and Taiwan have been shown guilty of systemic bias in favor of traditional Chinese medicine subjects like acupuncture. Editors should consider carefully how to manage sources from these countries. The problem also includes peer review scams.

References

1. "Some countries publish unusually high proportions of positive results. Publication bias is a possible explanation. Researchers undertaking systematic reviews should consider carefully how to manage data from these countries." Vickers, Andrew (April 1, 1998), Do certain countries produce only positive results? A systematic review of controlled trials., Control Clin Trials, retrieved May 11, 2015 {{citation}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
2. Ferguson, Cat (November 26, 2014), Publishing: The peer-review scam, Nature, retrieved May 11, 2015 {{citation}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
3. Qiu, Jane (January 12, 2010), Publish or perish in China, Nature, retrieved May 11, 2015 {{citation}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

2. This was contributed by Jytdog

As of 2015, there are concerns regarding positive bias in publications from China on traditional chinese medicine. Such sources may be red flagged. The problem also includes issues with the peer review system in China.

References

1. Li J, et al The quality of reports of randomized clinical trials on traditional Chinese medicine treatments: a systematic review of articles indexed in the China National Knowledge Infrastructure database from 2005 to 2012. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2014 Sep 26;14:362. PMID 25256890
2. "Some countries publish unusually high proportions of positive results. Publication bias is a possible explanation. Researchers undertaking systematic reviews should consider carefully how to manage data from these countries." Vickers, Andrew (April 1, 1998), Do certain countries produce only positive results? A systematic review of controlled trials., Control Clin Trials {{citation}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
3. Ferguson, Cat (November 26, 2014), Publishing: The peer-review scam, Nature {{citation}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
4. Qiu, Jane (January 12, 2010), Publish or perish in China, Nature {{citation}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

3. This is now actual content, contributed by QuackGuru, and only using Ernst 2012

Chinese authors use more Chinese studies, which have been demonstrated to be uniformly positive in respect to acupuncture research.

References

1. Ernst, Edzard (2012). "Acupuncture: What Does the Most Reliable Evidence Tell Us? An Update". Journal of Pain and Symptom Management. 43 (2): e11–e13. doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2011.11.001. ISSN 0885-3924. PMID 22248792.

How can we improve this, based on the six factors mentioned by Jayaguru-Shishya at the end of the previous section? Does "systemic bias" still cover the subject well enough, or should we add more?

I think we should at least include more sources in the reference, as well as the wording of the actual six factors, and also deemphasize "publication bias", since it is not the only factor covered under "systemic bias". Thanks so much to Jayaguru-Shishya. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with BullRangifer. Publication bias should be de-emphasized since the article doesn't even study it, and we should find a better way to address the problem as a whole. Is it best done by adding the six factors as mentioned in the article? I don't know, but perhaps additional sources could serve as enforcement. The Vickers article is discussing these factors as possibilities, but I think it's rather good discussion they're having. For example, when it comes to explanation No. 1 (the "sample of trials may not have been representative") they say that:

Possibly, negative trials originating from eastern Europe and Asia are found solely in non-Medline journals. We believe that this is unlikely; Medline might be expected to be a conservative source of information on unconventional therapies. Moreover, anecdotal evidence, such as the results presented at acupuncture conferences, does not suggest any considerable number of negative results published in non-Medline journals. For example, of the many hundreds of trials reported at the third World Conference on Acupuncture , we were unable to locate any studies originating in East Asia that showed acupuncture to be equal or inferior to a control procedure.

I guess there is some thinking to be done in order to address these in an appropriate manner and to avoid representing them as too much of "carved in stone" kind of truths. I believe, however, that something can be worked out. As I originally pointed my remarks to the wording number one (the only one referring to Vickers), I think it could be used as the basis for further improvements. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Please read the other three sources before you pronounce, Jayaguru-Shishya. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I particularly like some aspects Jytdog's phrasing: "As of 2015" identifies that it is a current (but potentially temporary) situation, although strictly speaking, it ought to say "As of 2014" (publication date) or "As of 2012 (most recent sources used in the study). Also, saying "from China" identifies it as a geopolitical problem rather than a racial problem.

I think that "red flagged" is unclear; something like "should be used with caution" would make more sense. I'd drop the elderly Vickers source, and I'm not sure that peer-review scams is either accurate (it affected journals all over the world, not just in China) or necessarily worth mentioning (journals have improved their security since then and retracted hundreds of articles). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I really like some of your thoughts about Jytdog's wording. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

4. New proposal

Okay, trying to integrate the above discussion into text:

As of 2014, there are concerns regarding positive bias in publications from China on traditional chinese medicine. Such sources should be used with caution. The problem also includes issues with the academic system in China.

References

1. Li J, et al The quality of reports of randomized clinical trials on traditional Chinese medicine treatments: a systematic review of articles indexed in the China National Knowledge Infrastructure database from 2005 to 2012. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2014 Sep 26;14:362. PMID 25256890
2. Further information:
   • "Some countries publish unusually high proportions of positive results. Publication bias is a possible explanation. Researchers undertaking systematic reviews should consider carefully how to manage data from these countries." Vickers, Andrew (April 1, 1998), Do certain countries produce only positive results? A systematic review of controlled trials., Control Clin Trials {{citation}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
   • Ernst, Edzard (2012). "Acupuncture: What Does the Most Reliable Evidence Tell Us? An Update". Journal of Pain and Symptom Management. 43 (2): e11–e13. doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2011.11.001. ISSN 0885-3924. PMID 22248792.
3. Qiu, Jane (January 12, 2010), Publish or perish in China, Nature {{citation}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Changes from Jytdog's version:

• "As of 2015" -> "As of 2014" as the date of publication
• "may be red-flagged" -> "should be used with caution"
• As a compromise for Vickers and Ernst, I've put them in a "Further information" reference.
• Dropped the reference to peer-review scams. I replaced "peer-review system" with "academic system" since that's better supported by the remaining reference.

Thoughts? Sunrise (talk) 11:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Does MEDRS cover basic historical documentation and toxin levels from chemical contamination?

In this diff you see a user saying that my source on PCB levels in people who lived with the PCB factory in Brescia, Italy was cited as insufficient using MEDRS. Is this good practice, or is it going overboard? Does MEDRS apply to this? I think MEDRS exists to make sure claims about medicines and treatments and specific human health etiologies are carefully vetted, but i don't think it should apply to things like this paper that presents historical measurements of PCB contamination levels in people who lived in Brescia, Italy while the factory was there making PCBs and disposing of the waste badly in the dirt. I don't know if i'd find another source that would give these measurements that would qualify, if this one doesn't, and therefore this sentence that i think is important and surely verifiable, would be struck.

• Please help me to understand the scope of MEDRS, because it is being used quite often to strike my edits which mostly concern harm done by chemical spills, at the moment, as well as dynamics about glyphosate and simple statement like the presence of a certain enzyme in microbes that are in the gut microbiome. Things like this have nothing to do with suggesting treatments or medicines or practices that would in any way endanger humans if the information is wrong. These are about documenting chemical spills and dynamics about pesticides that may help our general health in the future by explaining what has happened in the past.
• About an event like a mass poisoning in Belgium with PBCs (the Dioxin Affair), or about Yusho disease in Japan, or this one about the levels of PCBs in people who lived in Brescia and worked in the factory that made PCBs, is it really a good idea to require the level of strictness that MEDRS confers? Is it really worth the tradeoff of having far, far less information about chemical spills, if there happens to be an editor with a chip on their shoulder who doesn't want any bad information about chemical companies to be seen, and so uses MEDRS to revert edits and disappear texts into a memory hole? I would like to know people's interpretations about the scope of MEDRS -- to what it applies and to what it does not. Like anything having to do with levels of a toxin in human beings, does that absolutely have to be sources as per MEDRS or could it be a basic, solid primary research article like the one i sourced which was claimed insufficient? I stand on the side of, the more information the better, about chemical contamination events. If it's used to simply support toxin level readings, and not so much interpreting about effects or anything else, then really, isn't it sufficient? Thanks. SageRad (talk) 00:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Really, wp:MEDRS is just making clear the application of broader policies at wp:V, wp:RS, wp:NOR, and wp:NOT. In this case the issue is that Misplaced Pages does not publish original thought, including wp:SYNthesis from primary sources. Feel free though to create that synthesis and get it published elsewhere, in a reputable peer reviewed journal. Then it will be usable. LeadSongDog come howl! 03:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you really engaging what i asked in my question, LeadSongDog? I don't get that sense. What i am asking is, what is included in the scope of "biomedical" and isn't there a danger that we will lose ability to provide very useful information that is found nowhere else, but is *not* making a synthesis, but only providing data that will probably not be published in a "secondary source". So, if you can please engage my question and give your thoughts, i would appreciate it.

My reading of wp:MEDRS is that it's a special-case stricter sourcing guideline to make information that may be used for health claims , which means it's more than wp:V and wp:RS. Isn't that the case?

This is a very real case in which there are people who were exposed to PCBs by a factory, and i put a simple statement in the article on PCBs that levels were 10-20 times that of non-exposed populations in former factory workers. Is are you calling this a synthesis? I cited this paper:

Turrio-Baldassarri, Luigi, et al. PCDD/F and PCB in human serum of differently exposed population groups of an Italian city. Chemosphere 73.1 (2008): S228-S234. PMID 18514762

to support this statement:

Research on the adult population of Brescia showed that residents of some urban areas, former workers of the plant, and consumers of contaminated food, have PCB levels in their bodies that are in many cases 10-20 times higher than reference values in comparable general populations.

Suppose that there is a single editor among 10 who appears to want to minimize any statements that may sound bad for chemical companies. Say that this editor cited WP:MEDRS on this, claiming that it's a biomedical claim that falls under the scope of MEDRS and therefore i need to find a MEDRS-qualified source or else the text that i included will be removed. Is that how we want Misplaced Pages to work? Please consider carefully, is this a MEDRS claim that would affect people's health decisions badly in the future, or is it historical data? Is this a synthesis or is it ok that i am simply reporting readings of PCB levels that were in the paper? Please take my question seriously. SageRad (talk) 07:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I am not being flip. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to wp:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The selection of a particular primary source among the universe of primary sources is wp:OR. It is also usually unnecessary. Most useful work does make it to a review, such as PMID 23672403. These reviews can give us a sense of which primary source findings matter, how sound they are, how to interpret them, and whether they are contradicted by other primary findings. As to your direct example, you say "Research on the adult population of Brescia" which might imply to our readers that you were representing the sum of all knowledge about that population rather than one paper. Does "in many cases" imply 40% or 4% or 4 people? How many had similarly high levels of dioxins? Did the body burden correlate to duration of exposure? Did it correlate to the proximity to the food contamination? What other anomalous exposures did that population receive? We have to rely on published experts to select the significant things to say. We cannot credibly do our own review. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

LeadSongDog, i do appreciate you revisiting my question. I see the points you're making about the specific language i wrote. To clarify, "in many cases" meant "in the case of many congeners of PCBs" and the levels cited were averages of those whole categories, like former factory workers. So that could be made more clear with the language. In this case, i was using it solely for measurements on levels, not interpreting it as body burden or effects resulting, or anything like that. Simply to show exposure levels as reflected by amounts in serum. The source is available for others to check, of course. I'm not trying to right great wrongs, but i am hoping to get some more details about specific incidents included in this article, so it better reflects the realities of the contamination events. My main question was, what is the ultimate "spirit of the law" about the MEDRS guidelines? Is it to protect against quack claims about medical etiologies, or is it to prevent data like this which relates to human health but is not interpretive, and which relates to a historical event, from being included in Misplaced Pages? SageRad (talk) 16:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The friction usually comes when there is only one study or a handful of studies making a claim, that is not accepted as legitimate by the majority of professionals in the field. Consider the vaccine-autism lie: it was ignored as stupid until it became impossible to ignore its effect on public health, at which point people had to study it and show that vaccines don't cause autism.

Including primary sources leaves us prey to repeating the beliefs of the lone maverick, before they have been analysed or rebutted. Guy (Help!) 15:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, i very much see that danger, Guy, and this is why i was asking specifically about measurements relating to historical incidents, and not interpretations of etiology. SageRad (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

the point of MEDRS is to have reliable content about health. Toxicology is part of health and everything that Guy said applies to that as well. With regards to the edits you made, I

• removed a Wiki that you had used as a source and left a "cn" tag
• formatted the PRIMARY source you had used and added an "mcn" tag The content there does not just report measurements but makes reference to 'reference levels". I am not too happy with lumping "residents of some urban areas, former workers of the plant, and consumers of contaminated food," together but i am sick of dealing with this so did the minimum. Jytdog (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I thank you for doing that, Jytdog and for leaving it and adding the mcn tag, and leaving the original source too.

In this question, i'm seeking to understand the scope of what falls under MEDRS and why. What's thew spirit of MEDRS? I've read the page, of course, and in the talk page archives, i searched for "scope" and read a lot. Still, i find it under-defined. SageRad (talk) 22:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

the intro paragraph to MEDRS was written carefully. you will see that it mentions "health information", "biomedical information", "medical knowledge", " medical and health-related content". That was done on purpose to avoid wikilawyering efforts to work around it. It is content about health - stuff people care about because it affects health. In other words, based on everything you have said about why you are here - exactly the stuff you want to write about the most. The effect of glyphosate on people, the effects of PCBs on people, etc. Jytdog (talk) 22:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, according to you, i will have to find a review article for every claim relating to biochemistry and humans. I probably can live with that. But if i find a relevant review that confirms the merits of a primary source, can i use specific details from the primary source that may not be mentioned in the review? Like, for example, the three subpopulations who have 10-20 times the PCB levels of baseline populations of some congeners of PCBs? SageRad (talk) 00:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

biochemistry is not necessarily biomedical. the context matters. but everything in WP should be sourced to secondary sources - every policy and guideline urges that. secondary sources are one of the linchpins of NPOV/NOR/VERIFY. relying on secondary sources greatly reduces the chances of people doing this then having to do this. (the original primary source was retracted in that case... it is not always that severe, but lots of primary sources in the biology space turn out to be nonreplicable) Jytdog (talk) 01:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, what i see in the first paragraph of the guideline is a reference to medical advice, and then "health information", "biomedical information", and "current medical knowledge". That, to me, implies that the purpose of MEDRS is to be very careful about any information that anyone could construe as medical advice. However, on the current question, i was asking if it's ok to use toxin levels from a PCB contamination incident in Italy, using only a primary source to support the mention of the toxin level readings. That was the text of the article which i intended to support with a primary research article in Chemosphere. I take the guideline as stating that ideally, everything related to medical interpretation that may be construed as advice to be sourced to secondary sources. But nobody ever doubts that avoiding exposure to PCBs is a good idea, so this could not be construed as providing advice. It's to tell a history. It's not science, but rather social history. SageRad (talk) 01:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that a good primary source (=peer-reviewed/decent journal/not contradicted or disputed by other sources) can, indeed, WP:Verify a statement like "In 1932, one study reported that the level of X in Italy was Y", but if you need to use that source, is that detail really WP:DUE, and is it being used to imply a conclusion that isn't in any source, e.g., that the levels now are higher or lower than they used to be? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Good point. In this case, the primary source provided the information about levels of PCBs in the bodies of people who were exposed in Brescia, Italy by working or living near the factory. In that article, there is a section about PCB contamination sites around the world, and i am paying attention to balance and weight. I have pruned some of the longer descriptions, and expanded some of the shorter, or absent ones. I am paying attention to balance and weight. It's not synthesis, because it's description of PCB exposure, and we already accept that exposure or body burden of PCBs are not a good thing. I just wanted to gain an interpretation of WP:MEDRS to know whether a primary source is decent for including a fact like this. Often, a review article will mention a study, with some kind of interpretation or synthesis, but it won't cite exact data like this, and in the case of Brescia contamination, i thought this was good info and reads well in the entry. Here is the section of the article about Brescia. I wanted to remove the sentence "The values reported..." and "As a result..." and re-work the section a bit, but when i did begin, i added the sentence "Research on the adult..." and then got this "medical citation needed" tag for that. I thought that was completely reasonable as a solid sentence about this contamination site, and so i had to come here for some interpretation, because i don't think this is what WP:MEDRS is about, or is intended for, to prevent an edit of this sort. Thanks. SageRad (talk) 09:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

You are still trying to use outdated primary sources, and worse you are using them for statements that are both in the present tense and in the voice of the encyclopedia. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Jeez, your level of condescension in naming this edit "still not understanding?" As for "outdated" -- the research was done when it was done. As for the phrasing, that's up for suggestion and i'd take your point about the present tense being used. Sure, that makes sense. It could say "levels in former factory workers were found to be....". As for "still not understanding?" -- heck, i understand a lot of things, and this is a dialogue that we're supposedly having, to hash out the finer points of things. What's with the tone here? SageRad (talk) 13:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Sage, you've been here about a month, and during that month you've been in conflict with nearly every editor you've had contact with. I suppose its possible that the dozen or so of us that you've interacted with are inappropriately censoring you, are unable to properly understand Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, and/or are pro-industry shills, but given that you apparently came here after having similar disagreements on other websites, perhaps its time to consider whether your own behavior is the problem? Formerly 98 14:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Sage, you've been given links to the policies and guidelines that pertain, yet you act as if you don't understand what they say. Either you don't understand, or you don't care. I'd prefer to believe the former, but you are making it difficult. "Dated" refers to wp:MEDDATE, an important part of wp:MEDRS. Your alternative of "...were found to be..." (as distinct from "...were reported as...") implies that the primary reports were accurate, significant, correctly reported, and never retracted. We do not have evidence that this is the case, which is exactly why we require current secondary sources, to avoid commiting original research. The apparent absence of secondary sources, even after all these years, could be taken as implying that the primary source you want to use is not seen by experts as worthy of note. Now, is there something about that which is still unclear, and if so what? LeadSongDog come howl! 15:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

LeadSongDog, i do care, very much, and that is why i am here asking for serious dialogue about this. I hve read and quoted the policy and asked for clarification, and yet i find that there is a smell of bias here. Here's an example. I understand the concept of "dated" and i do know that more recent research is preferable when available. I also know the guideline about MEDRS wanting a review article from the last 5 years, preferably. But i also know that this is largely for etiology of disease and health because of the extreme need for accuracy on any attribution of causal connections relating to human health. The historical data on a contamination event is often studied within a few year of the event, or at a certain point in time and then not again, because it's already been done. And it's also not an etiology thing. It's a measurement data thing. It's a simple measurement of PCB levels in certain populations exposed to contamination. I would like your admission on these points, one by one, or denial and reason behind it.

• As to your wording suggestions there, that's fine for me to hear and consider and discuss with other editors. I appreciate those distinctions. I wish it could be in a positive spirit of cooperation instead of an addendum to a fractured and contentious dialogue. I would love to be methodical and address each point until completion, but these dialogues do not go that way and tend to be one after another topic and never completion on one claim, and then to build up not to the reality but to the appearance of a preponderance, and that's not cool. That's really a sort of bulldozer approach to dispute resolution and it's not inherently just or correct or leading to good results. It's more like a herd attack. SageRad (talk) 17:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, you forgot to sign your comment.

So, in summary, i would like admission or denial, with cause, as to the fact that the claim is not an etiology claim.

Secondly, it's a historical event report, not a topic of ongoing research.

Thirdly, in light of the second claim, the preference for more recent research is less strong.

Fourthly, there's a lot to this conversation, and i am not being neither stupid nor uncaring.

SageRad (talk) 17:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I signed it, thanks for pointing that out. Apparently you have not understood MEDDATE: "If recent reviews do not mention an older primary source, the older source is dubious." That's pretty direct. Failure to understand does not mean that you are being stupid, and nobody said that you were, as there are many other possible explanations. In some similar cases, cognitive dissonance has been at play, but in the end, does it matter why an edit doesn't conform to policy?

You started off with "I think MEDRS exists to make sure claims about medicines and treatments and specific human health etiologies are carefully vetted, but i don't think it should apply to things like this paper that presents historical measurements of PCB contamination levels in people who lived in Brescia, Italy while the factory was there making PCBs and disposing of the waste badly in the dirt", and then repeatedly demanded a response. You haven't gotten a reply on etiology because MEDRS says nothing about etiology and little about disease. Its scope is much broader. When you characterize a "simple measurement of PCB levels in certain populations" you betray a great deal of faith in the capabilities of the researchers involved. Populations are rarely "certain", and measurements on blood chemistry in those populations are rarely "simple". How much of the veal did these farmers consume? Over what time period? Over what geographic area did the animals graze? Did the animals consume surface or well water? The humans? What time elapsed between last exposure and testing?

We can't assess these things, we must leave it up to published experts. We need those secondary sources. Please accept this and direct your considerable energy to finding those sources. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

What is a low impact factor?

JzG has made some comments at Talk:Acupuncture#Suitability of content for this article regarding whether certain sources are reliable, and one issue he has discussed is the impact factor of the journals in which they are published. He asserts that the Journal of Affective Disorders and several other journals have low impact factors. However I am not sure if they are really so low that we should not be including review articles published in them as sources. What do other editors think? Everymorning talk 00:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

We had a similar conversation here about this awhile back. Essentially, an impact factor of zero and very near it is our main red flag of a shoddy journal where we wouldn't use it. Once we start getting to the 0.5 region and above, it's highly field dependent what's considered reputable, and we aren't really in a position as editors to reject a source due to impact factor alone. At that point, you need to consider whether the idea being proposed is fringe and reject it from a weight perspective. Another way you could tackle things (though I rarely see this used here) is to look at the impact factors of all the journals being cited for reviews. If you're dealing with 10s for most journals, but a review with a unique or potentially fringe idea is at a 1, there's a good chance it's an extremely minority viewpoint there if there's even one worth mentioning at all.

Is there may a single source being discussed that could be used as an example in this discussion? Once you get over zero, we really can't be going by impact factor alone, but it could very well play a role in determining weight. In medical fields though, my gist of the topic seems to be that 1's and 2's are considered low. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I would support this notion. Cut off the absolute low ratings, and then take it on a case-by-case basis with the impact factor having some impact on the overall discernment.

The Seneff paper on glyphosate was published in the journal Entropy, which has an impact rating of 1.564.Entropy (journal)

That rating is not stellar, but it's acceptable. It can be considered.

I would not use the Seneff paper to support any claims, however, because it's a loose and wild ride in possibilities without careful research into whether any particular claim is likely or even truly possible. It uses sources loosely, and it speculates wildly.

There may be valid claims in the paper, but they are not developed with a degree of certainty that warrants serious reporting, yet. It is a good paper, though. SageRad (talk) 01:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Low impact factor depends on the subject--there is no general rule. It is generally more useful to look at the impact of individual papers, which is what impact factor is designed to measure. DGG ( talk ) 20:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

DGG, is there an easy way to do that? I think some of our editors are using impact factors for journals because it's an easy way to provide an "objective" objection to a journal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

For a particular instance of a challenged references, certainly there is an easy way to do that--for the paper whose degree of reliability in is in question, one looks at the citations in google scholar (or ISI or Scopus). Fo rthe general evaluation of a journal, it's more complicated; I and others have done it here sometimes in afds on the notability of particular journals. It is not a mechanical operation, but requires judgment, and a knowledge of the pattern of the literature in the subject, and the other journals. There is no mechanical way of doing this; there is no shortcut. Those shortcuts sometimes tried by academic administrators have no scientific validity. DGG ( talk ) 07:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course, there are potential pitfalls in counting citations as well. For instance, the VIGOR study has been cited more than 4,000 times, according to Google Scholar, but hopefully we're not presenting its conclusions as valid. There is ample evidence that retracted or discredited articles continue to be cited at an alarming rate (e.g. Budd 1998, and more recent coverage by Retraction Watch). MastCell  16:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I find it easy to concur with Kingofaces43. There's also been discussion about impact factor at Talk:Acupuncture, and many editors have expressed similar opinions. Impact factor cannot be used alone determine whether the source is reliable or not, a common mistake that some editors regularly make. I think LesVegas earlier well pointed out: "On another note, you noted that journals with an impact factor of >8-10 are a good benchmark for biosciences. But the American Journal of Sports Medicine (the highest ranked orthopedic journal) isn't even close to that high! (4.699)." Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 13:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I have raised the issue of impact factors and the absence of any guidance at Misplaced Pages talk:Identifying reliable sources. It might help editors in general if this discussion were held there.DrChrissy 14:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the viewpoint, expressed above, that impact factors have very little utility in evaluating the quality of a journal or individual papers. I guess I'm a little concerned, though, that the context seems to include a noticeable subtext of trying to shoehorn obscure, low-profile, or poor-quality literature into our articles. MastCell  16:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

User:DGG, could I prevail upon you to write something at Misplaced Pages:Impact factors that might be useful to editors and maybe even save you a bit of time eventually (if it means that you won't have to repeat yourself over and over)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

will do. But I can;t do it now. Remind in in a few weeks. DGG ( talk ) 15:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• Project-Class medicine pages
• NA-importance medicine pages
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• Project-Class pharmacology pages
• NA-importance pharmacology pages
• WikiProject Pharmacology articles
• Veterinary medicine articles by quality
• Veterinary medicine