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)

My, my. Is this always about you, Fyslee? Do you own quack-hate? Why don't we re-name this "Fyslee's personal shit-list". Others seem to agree that this should be deleted. It is obvious that it is a bad idea that doesn't pass the smell test. Why attack me? BTW, how many links have you added in WP to your friend/webmaster Stephen Barrett Enterprises (Donations gladly accepted!) Hundreds I would think by now. Would anyone else be curious to know? Steth 03:35, 4 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)

• Move to project namespace ASAP. 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)

Changed my vote as shown above. Amended to >>> move to project namespace. --QuackGuru 20:22, 4 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)

• Strong Delete I don't get this "article" at all. I think it is a reaction to the recent deletion of the pejorative category "Quackery". Anyhow, there is nothing encyclopedic about this article. It just lists a couple editors opinions. What qualifies something to be on this list? A subject merely being related to quackery? Who says the subject is related? How closely related does it have to be? The wording at the top is pretty weasel-ly and in the end says nothing. This is a lot of POV pushing and WP:OR. I can't imagine this being any help to anyone other than the person who needs to fullfill some inner desire to see these subjects and quackery existing somewhere together in Wikispace. Levine2112 02:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete Thanks for alerting me to this fundamentally unencyclopedic article. I am not sure what "moving to project space" means, but I tend to agree with User:Ragesoss. I think Quackery can be discussed - and rightly has it's own article. But when it comes to associating things to it, it almost always ends up being a matter of opinion. TheDoctorIsIn 02:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Projects are items not in the main article space. Misplaced Pages has several "spaces." Main articles are in "mainspace," while Users are in their own space, Help is its own space, etc. Project space is for pages about a specific project people on Misplaced Pages are working on. Things like WikiProject Doctor Who are in Project space. Because the link has that Misplaced Pages: designation in front, it won't show up when people search for normal articles. Just like you have to put User: in front of a user's name to get to their page. -- Kesh 02:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

And now I know! Thank you so much. I still think this should be deleted. The project space solution seems to be alright. TheDoctorIsIn 03:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Kesh said "Because the link has that Misplaced Pages: designation in front, it won't show up when people search for normal articles". That seems like a drawback to me. Bubba73 (talk), 03:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

"It's a feature, not a bug." The idea is to keep information that only relates to Misplaced Pages itself seperate from the actual encyclopedic articles people are looking for. So, Misplaced Pages:Template has all the information on Misplaced Pages's templates, versus Template which is the general encyclopedia article. -- Kesh 03:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

But it seems to me that if someone searched on "quackery" and it found this list, they would think that they have hit the motherload. Bubba73 (talk), 05:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per the reasons enumerated by Colin above. CuTop 05:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I think this list would be risky even in project space for defamation reasons; project space is still visible to the whole world. The present article I think is way below WP standards for NPOV and sourcing. A good article might be written in this area. As examples see Pseudoscience and Junk science. Even the present Quackery article might be brought up to WP standards by adding sources. But it would take tons of work and added references to bring this list up to the WP standard. EdJohnston 05:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep or Move to project space. I think the use of the word quackery is valid in this context. I'm not sure there is another word with the same meaning which doesn't have the perceived negative connotations due to the very nature of the subject matter. -- Qarnos 07:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The list offers no value and it so scattershot it seems that someone put words/phrases up on a wall and threw darts at the words -- whatever scored a direct hit was added to this rather ignominious and slapdash collection of concepts/ideas/words/etc. •Jim62sch• 09:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. A ] offers no more use than a category x would. Having such a category would be unlikely, though because of the problems the nom mentions. —Ruud 12:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. There was a category, but it had problems. It was suggested that a list would be better, and that's what this is, without any labelling or namecalling, with subjects on all sides of the issues. -- Fyslee 13:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. There are several problems with this list. The vague and fuzzy criteria for inclusion in the list violate WP rules that state that a list should have a precise scope. It also opens for endless edit wars with no way of determining who is right.

(It also give POW warriors in the pro Alt Medicine camp a tool to make a mockery of the list and destroy it by including everything under the sun: US Senate, Ronald Reagan, senator Kerry, Coca Cola Company, Monsanto, Prozac, Prilosec, Zoloft, Paracetamol, Merck, Wyeth, CNN, Nature, Financial Times, NY Times, JAMA, European Commission, Spain, US army, FBI, Truman Capote, Kevin Costner, Sharon Stone, Snoop Dog, Rolling Stones, organic chemistry, all amino acids, genocide, carbon, zinc, selenium, lead, magnesium, the Hubble Telescope, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.)

I also have problems with the claimed purpose of the list as a “guide to the subject”. Making a list with a disclaimer is new to Misplaced Pages. In my mind it is a self-serving and hypocritical trick to deceive readers and circumvent WP rules about verifiability of claims. The “quack-busters” lost the debate over the Category Quackery that got deleted. Now they want to reintroduce a way of indirectly labeling everything outside conventional medicine as “related to quackery”.

If the list is not deleted I can foresee endless POW wars when the Quackbusters will try to add reciprocal See Also links from most of the mentioned articles. The readers of the other articles will only see the link but not the disclaimer, and hence be deceived.

The article Pseudoscience has a sub-list List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts that works fine. The list clearly states the Reasons for inclusion which by the way are that there is a scientific consensus about the included items.

The problem is that the “Quackbusters” want to label everything outside medical orthodoxy as quackery (including a center at the National Institute of Health, NIH) without any arguments or justification.

I am sorry but the claim that everything outside conventional medicine is quackery is plainly an extreme position, that should be dismissed and removed from Misplaced Pages in the same way as other extreme and crackpot POWs. MaxPont 13:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Short comment. I certainly don't see any claim that "everything outside conventional medicine is quackery," nor do I believe that to be the case. That's a straw man. Otherwise you are correct about the List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. It has developed even further than this list, and it had a start. -- Fyslee 18:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete The inital edit history,specific discussions & Talk:List of articles rel'd to quackery reveal its flawed & POV premises as a list with unresolved (-able) WP:V, WP:RS issues. I agree with Colin & MaxPont I disagree with this list (article or project space) as the solution to ill-defined or recognized "quackery". "Quackery" is politically a very asymmetric area of scientific address. If some of the more technically literate editors began to try to achieve technical symmetry with questionable "conventional" medical therapies and branded products on this list, I suspect rancor, chaos & outside commercially related threats will ensue when it is found out these links can be longer than all the usual suspects linked so far. I strongly oppose project pages as even aggravating the previous Category & (article space) List problems with looser standards as a pet project. This is only a "help list" for someone's personal POV pages.--I'clast 13:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Riddle Here is a riddle for us: According to the article on Quackery, A "quack" is "a fraudulent or ignorant pretender to medical skill. A person who pretends, professionally or publicly, to have skill, knowledge, or qualifications he or she does not possess; a charlatan." Quackery

Now for some bizarre reason, Linus Pauling, the only winner of two unshared Nobel Prizes makes this list either as a quack or is related to quackery, but ex-psychiatrist Stephen Barrett, who failed his boards yet has represented himself in courts of law as an expert witness in psychiatry, is considered by his disciples to be the expert/guru/clearinghouse of who is and isn't a quack. Shouldn't he be considered a quack, too?

Links to Stephen Barrett Enterprises sites(Donations gladly accepted!) are liberally sprinkled here and around WP by his followers. Shouldn't his sites logically be purged from Misplaced Pages as unreliable? Just some thoughts that strengthen my reasons as to why this list should be removed. Steth 13:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Though an attempt to find a way to present the concept of quackery without naming names is not without merit, this method is an example of why avoiding NPOV doesn't work. It confuses the reader and leaves the wrong impression about most of the articles listed, creating a feeling of nonsensical disbelief. If this has some value to Quackbusters, so be it.. put it in a work space and use it for whatever purposes it might have value for, but I would think it will only take up space because they already know what they want on the list. --Dematt 15:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Dematt made the above posting but forgot to sign. MaxPont 15:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC))

• Delete Hell, no -Doc 15:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge & Relocate - the list contains many topics that I personnally indeed do view as more of a New-Age religious belief system than real verifiable scientific clinical therapeutic systems. As such some form of collection of articles on twaddle (for want of a better term) seems useful.
  • 1) However the term "quackery" is problematic - it presumes a deliberate intent to mislead or defraud customers, and whilst much of alternative medicine I would perceive as mis-guided or wishful thinking, I am sure that most practitioners of homeopathy, accupuncture or herbal medicine do not have criminal intent to lie. Whereas any claims from someone practising Crystal healing as curing cancer I might so view. I think items in the list that contains this term must, as far as an encyclopaedia trying to protect itself from any libel liability, be only practices for which reliable sourced third parties have made the claim.
  • 2) The second problem with the list is "related". I appreciate that this allows inclusion of both for and against articles, but its usage in the article is so wide as to make the list less useful. As an example Confirmation bias is a straight forward piece on psychology of interpreting results and data, but is it useful to so include it in the list between Complication (medicine) and Consciousness causes collapse (that concious thought has quantum effects thus linking meditation with hard science)?
  • 3) As MaxPont mentioned above, List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts seems a better constructed list, i.e. has more clearly defined purpose and inclusion criteria. The maintanece of the two lists seems duplication, and whilst I would vote to keep a modified form of List of articles related to quackery if it were the ony list, for now I vote for relocating the information; but I welcome opinions as to why these are different or separately worthwhile.
  • Should not therefore this list be dissipated - some items already included in List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts, others might be moved there (and that might include the articles dealing with underlying concepts needed in understanding the scope of pseudocience such as the Confirmation bias article). Other topics perhaps should be incorporated into Quackery, or the concepts that distinguish conventional from alternative scientific opinion might be mentioned under Pseudoscience (or if specific to a particular scientific discipline, then under that subject e.g. Medicine).
  • Finally suggestions for project space seem one means of covering much of the information, but that too I forsee as problematic - it will be objected too as POV as might Misplaced Pages:Wikiproject Allopathy watch. In essence it is really just an attempt to ensure that NPOV guidence is maitained across scientific/medical topics, namely that minority opinions whilst needing to be mentioned do not need to be given equal space in the encyclopaedia. Is not though this part of teh remit of such projects as Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Clinical medicine ? David Ruben 18:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Blank page, but leave talk history. (The history is important as a historical lesson.) Okay, we're not getting anywhere, and I can see the NPOV approach isn't working, and making it like some other lists will be too time consuming, so I give up. I didn't start this list, so let's hear what the prime mover has to say, and let him do it himself. -- Fyslee 19:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)