Misplaced Pages

Misplaced Pages is for presenting all major POV, and significant minority POV -- without taking sides -- and the articles listed are representative of subjects of interest to debunkers as well as promoters of quackery. Editorial POV suppression is a violation of NPOV policy and should not be allowed here. The concept of quackery is very real, it exists, and it is unpopular with those who believe in it. They would love to delete the word and attempts to expose quackery. Such attempts should not be allowed to move from the real world and into Misplaced Pages. The list is still in its beginnings and it should be allowed to develop and strengthen as a valuable resource. -- Fyslee 16:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the personal accusations of carelessness in my examination of the content or that I'm trying to suppress a POV. Both accusations are wrong. There is a belief that by keeping silent on the reasons for an article's inclusion in this list that POV can be avoided. This is false for two reasons:

1. For people and organisations to be "related to quackery" they pretty much have to be involved in quackery or a campaigner opposed to it. The reader is not given the option of "neither involved in nor campainging against quackery" (i.e. "quietly involved in mainstream medicine"). Therefore an opinion is being advanced that requires sourcing.

1. For treatments and practices to be "related to quackery", the logical conclusion the reader will make is that someone thinks they (wholely or partly) are considered quackery. I can't see any other conclusion, but perhaps I "misunderstand" this too? Colin° 18:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for what is taken as a personal attack. I was indeed irritated by what still appears to be a "reading into" the list of something that is deliberately avoided, which is the idea of providing labels, which would indeed create serious NPOV issues. Even without any labelling and with very strong cautions against it in the editorial notes (invisible to readers) and talk page, there are still attacks (from many) based on what appears to be an assumption that such labelling is actually occurring, yet no one can point to evidence of such. If fact it is repeatedly discouraged. Even if it might not be outright stated (above) to be the case (and it seems to to me to be outright stated), readers who don't see the list itself will likely get the impression that POV labelling is actually occurring, which is not the case. I just want to make sure no one comes away from reading the AFD nomination above with that false impression. I will exercise good faith and assume that that was not Colin's intention, but that is the impression I got, and I know the content and cautionary messages very well! If I got that impression, how many others coming here will still get that impression, and then vote accordingly? I'm sure it wasn't Collin's intention, but maybe he could revise the wording to avoid that implication? (Unfortunately voting is already occurring based on a false impression, and even attempting to convey a false impression independently of the AFD nomination above.) -- Fyslee 19:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology. I'm afraid I've got lost with all those intentions, impressions and implications. Can you tell me what wording you think is giving the wrong impression? I don't understand how avoiding explicit "labels" helps (see previous comments at 18:59) Colin° 20:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that much of the problem hangs on what meaning one attaches to the word "related". I didn't choose the title, but have interpreted it broadly, since a narrow definition would immediately justify deletion. I want this list to be a resource for all parties, so "relation" refers to any concept, method, profession, organization, or person who has ever (including historical) been associated with the concept of quackery, whether on the "receiving end" of accusations, or on the accusing end, or on the study end (hence the inclusion of various terms related to psychology, logic, law, etc.). Thus it becomes a broad NPOV resource that is totally lacking here. (The articles themselves can do the labelling and have the NPOV problems!)

When the category was deleted, it was then suggested that a list would be better, but the list is still not acceptable to those opposed to the existence of the word. They won't be content until the word quackery is removed from the face of the earth. Without the category or a list, how can students of the subject be enabled to study what Misplaced Pages has to say on each topic?

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

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

A list is "a better option," and that's what we're doing here. By keeping it a bare list, we avoid NPOV issues altogether, yet we have a valuable resource that will make Misplaced Pages a better resource for many. -- Fyslee 21:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think can see where you are coming from now and the problem is perhaps few people take your broad no offence intended view of "related to quackery". Try replacing the word with "fraud" or "dishonesty" and you should see why people don't want to be associated in the slightest with those words. A well sourced and informative list can be so so much better than a category. You're just not allowed deliberately bare unsourced lists in article namespace. I sympathise with your desire to find a way to collect related articles for researchers. A solution in this hotly contested subject won't be easy. Clicking "What links here" on the Quackery article is a poor-man's solution. Perhaps shorter, more focused and well sourced lists (not necessarily stand-alone) are the way to go. Colin° 22:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I think this is a very valuable list. Bubba73 (talk), 17:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment I see nothing wrong with it being a list of articles. I use List of chess topics almost daily. Bubba73 (talk), 18:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Move to project space. This is not fundamentally an encyclopedic topic; it's a maintenance/navigation aid. Lists in main space are not an acceptable alternative to contested category designations.--ragesoss 17:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Obvious Delete. Delineated quite clearly by Colin above. A ‘commies’ list is a bad idea in that those with self-serving POV/agendas obviously intentionally exploit it. Instead of creating an environment of collaboration and community, this immediately polarizes Wikipedians so edit wars break out.

This hijacking of Misplaced Pages for personal satisfaction of a few does nothing but create ill will and wastes valuable time and energy for many, all in the name of hard-fisting a personal POV in our faces. Good editors are eventually discouraged from continued participation and leave in exasperation. It is obviously a smokescreen by a few editors to exploit the popularity of Misplaced Pages to further their own self-serving interests.

Clearly, this has no place in Misplaced Pages and should be deleted ASAP.

Steth 18:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yet another gross exercise of bad faith and another personal attack by User:Steth (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nothing new here from a very biased editor with a grudge against me and anyone who dares to confront quackery and fraud. Let's see now, an anti-anti-quackery person is a ... hmmm ... to figure it out one must account for the double negative, which equals a positive ....;-) -- Fyslee 19:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Um tricky. Thing is, criticisms of the article are definitely valid, but so is support. A move to project space has definite merit, and it would be better to have more prose and less of a laundry list (which tends by its nature to imply equal weight for all entries, which is not properly the case). The idea is sound, but possibly not as a mainspace article. Probably move to project space maybe as the foundation of a WikiProject. God knows we need to start chipping away at the puffery of quack remedies and other scams. Guy (Help!) 18:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Using a perjorative term (quack) violates Misplaced Pages's core of NPOV.--Hughgr 21:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a false charge. No one has used the term about anything or anyone on that list. It's a mixed bag and if readers supply the term in their own head, that is their own doing. In real life one can with impunity (in the USA) call anyone a quack without any legal consequences. That has been decided in court. I'm not recommending one do so without evidence, but that's the case. Free speech allows pejoratives, and since the concept is a serious issue that costs people their lives and money, it is far more than a mere pejorative, but a term describing a serious problem that should not be disparaged and ignored. The government (especially the FDA and FTC) certainly recognizes it as a problem, and deals with it within certain limits. It is in that sense (not as a pejorative) that it is used here at Misplaced Pages, and whenever I rarely use the term about anyone. It is then a descriptive term for actual behavior that can be documented, and not a careless pejorative. (There are a select few scammers for whom I reserve the term.) When others perceive the use as being a pejorative, it is often because they feel hit, which reveals their own self-described position on the subject. I can't say if that's the case here, but that's often how it is with many objectors, and that is not my fault, or the fault of the list, or of the term. -- Fyslee 20:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Your response Fyslee, is exactly why I support a deletion of this.--Hughgr 21:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Move to project space. "Lists of articles" are better placed outside the article space, and POV issues would not be criticial there. For the future, I recommend using List of groups referred to as cults as a model for how a list of quackery-related topics could be created in a verifable, NPOV manner. We require a reliable source for every entry in acordance with a strict criteria. That list has been remarkably stable despite the contentious nature of the topic . -Will Beback · † · 19:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly Keep. This is a valuable tool and resource for reading, investigating, and understanding many different topics on the subject of related in some way to quackery. It does not mean the subject is quackery. Just a relation to it. Both sides of the issues are present in the main articles. The list is the only way for students to resource so many different articles. Without this list it would be impossible to find and research the subject. I hope Wikipedians understand this list is an educational tool for readers of the subject. Perhaps, any misunderstanding are now cleared up. Additionally, there is a strong disclamer paragraph at the top explaining about the list does not define the article or subject as a quack, just a relation to it in some way. The reader can read any article and can easily come to their own conlusions. Again, the list is an extremely helpful educational tool. Possibly, expanding the first paragraph will avoid any more misunderstandings in the future. On that note. This is an article listing. Nothing more. Lists on Misplaced Pages is encouraged. Cheers. --QuackGuru 19:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment The "List of related to quackery" is an excellent representation of all sides of the topic. An Indispensible Resource! --QuackGuru 20:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Move to project space - This is not a mainspace article, but a place for interested editors to track articles they find to be problematic. It is not encyclopedic at all, but related to Misplaced Pages maintenance and editing. It has no reason to be in the mainspace. If no one is willing to move it to project or User space, then my vote would be to Delete as non-notable and non-verifiable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kesh (talk • contribs) 21:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

• Strong Keep The introduction to the article makes it very clear that the list is of articles that are related to quackery and is not a list of quack remedies etc per se. As a science writer I have found this list, despite its short existence, a great mine of information. I do not see any problem in deciding whether or not an article should be included in the list - if the 'mother' article indicates that the issue is contentious and that there are debates about the evidence related to the efficiacy of the treatment/drug etc, then it should be included. Maustrauser 22:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• It is a mistake to assume that a list can itself be supported by the content of (esp. references in) the listed articles. Lists are not exempt from the same policies and guidelines for other articles. Relying on such support is effectively using Misplaced Pages as a source, which isn't reliable. Colin° 23:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Greetings Colin. I think you are misunderstanding the title of "The list of articles related to quackery". The title which I carefully named and created actually has a double meaning. Related to quackery has a broad meaning. For example, a person who is opposed to quackery. Lots of people are gladly and willing to be associated with quackery. Skeptics are associated with quackery. The FDA is associated with quackery. Consumer advocates are associated with quackery. I, the QuackGuru, is related to quackery. We need to give the reader a little credit and allow them to come to their own conclusions. In conclusion, there needs to be a resource for people to learn and educate themselves on this topic. This is only possible by creating a broad list. Thank you. --QuackGuru 01:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)