Misplaced Pages

Talk:Quackwatch: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:19, 31 January 2007 editValjean (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers95,355 edits →Another lawsuit?: not an active user← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:35, 17 July 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,013,434 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2] 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{Calm talk}} {{Talkheader}}
{{Calm}}
{{Rational Skepticism}}
{{Old AfD multi|date=27 August 2007|result=Keep|page=Quackwatch}}
{{Off topic warning}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine}}
{{WikiProject Organizations|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Websites |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Autism|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Disability}}
}}
{{tmbox
| type = speedy
| text = Please consider reading the information at ''']''' before asking related questions or starting new RfCs.
}}


{{Clear}}
<!--Template:Archivebox begins-->
{{ArbComPseudoscience}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo=old(90d)
| archive=Talk:Quackwatch/Archive %(counter)d
| counter=19
| maxarchivesize=150K
| archiveheader={{tan}}
| minthreadsleft=4
| minthreadstoarchive=1
}}


__TOC__
{| class="infobox" width="315px"
|-
! align="center" | ]<br />]
----
|-
|
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
#
|}<!--Template:Archivebox ends-->


== "Received criticism for perceived bias in its coverage" ==
== Peer Review as Article of Faith ==


Re: {{ping|Bilby}}, could you please demonstrate this summary is accurate and due by identifying the sources and quoting from each? --] (]) 17:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
'''I've moved this discussion to ]. Please respond there instead.''' This discussion was split up since someone decided to post it in both places, when it shouldn't have been posted on this talk page at all: it makes absolutely no reference to the content of the article, and should be discussed in a more general area where more people will see it. --] <sup>]</sup> 07:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:In the current "site reviews" section we list 11 reviews. Of those, six either suggest or state that bias is present:
:* Nguyen-Khoa: "the presence of so many articles written by Barrett gave one the impression of a lack of fair balance"
:* Ladd: "relies heavily on negative research in which alternative therapies are shown to not work"
:* Okasha: "fails to provide a balanced view of alternative cancer treatments"
:* Cuzzell: "had concerns about the appearance of bias in the selection of the material"
:* Brazin: "found it to be biased"
:* Vankevitch: "employing 'denigrating terminology', categorizing all complementary and alternative medicine as a species of medical hucksterism, failing to condemn shortcomings within conventional biomedicine, and for promoting an exclusionary model of medical scientism and health that serves hegemonic interests and does not fully address patient needs"
:I found others which expressed concerns about bias but they haven't been added to the article.
:* "He has his supporters and de-tractors and there is no getting around the fact that Dr. Barrett is a zealotand zealotry has its problems. Several medical librarians, with whom this librarian has discussed Quackwatch, have refused to endorse it be-cause of the bias they claim exists.", although the author is overall very positive about Quackwatch (Michael J. Schott & Shelda Martin (2005) The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly,Journal of Hospital Librarianship, 5:3, 43-54, DOI: 10.1300/J186v05n03_04)
:* "Addressing critics who accuse him of unbalanced reporting, Dr. Barrett writes ...",positive discussion, but acknowledges accusations of bias (Ohry, A; Tsafrir, J. Progress in Health Sciences; Bialystok Vol. 2, Iss. 1, (2012): 171-174).
:* "To get balanced coverage, you probably will need to seek comments from practitioners on the other side of the argument." (Bowen, Charles. Editor & Publisher; New York Vol. 131, Iss. 22, (May 30, 1998): 29. )
:] (]) 20:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
::Which critiques, positive/negative/other, go into any detail or are written by someone with clear expertise? I'm trying to figure out how the weighting was decided. For example, Cuzzell has almost no detail at all, so why mention it at all, let alone try to compare it (OR) to other sources? --] (]) 17:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
:::I'm just going by what we say in the article - if the majority of reviews we reference in the article state that it is biased, then shouldn't that mean it is worth referencing (in brief) in the lead when we mention reviews? - ] (]) 22:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
::::Context matters. Quality of sourcing matters. --] (]) 22:23, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
:::::The lede summarises the article. If the majority of the reviews being summarised in the article state that Quackwatch is biased, shouldn't an accurate summary of that section also mention that Quackwatch is biased? - ] (]) 22:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
::::::Not, for example, if the references were cherry-picked to support such a summary. Of if the summary violated OR by ignoring context. Or if some of the sources were of questionable value.
::::::I'm sure we can come up with many more examples why it's important to look closely at the quality of the sources and the context they give. --] (]) 22:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
:::::::That's more of a case for not using the sources, rather than a case for not accurately summarising them. But no, they weren't cherry picked. I went to database of journals, specified only peer-reviewed journals, and then did a search for "Quackwatch" with no qualifiers. Then discounted any clearly biased journals (skeptic journals and psudeoscience journals), and just read each mention in turn without selecting them with any other criteria. There weren;t a huge number of sources, but I was surprised to find that most of the reviews in peer-reviewed journals said somthing similar - good resource, be careful of bias. However, in regard to sources, "The Consultant Pharmacist" was already here, but is the publication of the ]. The Village Voice was also already here, but you know that one - not peer reviewed, but respected. ''The Lancet'', ''Dermatology Nursing'' and ''Journal of Consumer Health on the Internet'' are all peer-review journals. ''Plural medicine, tradition and modernity'' is published by Routledge; and of the three I mentioned that I didn't add, ''Journal of Hospital Librarianship'' and ''Progress in Health Sciences'' are both peer reviewed journals, while '']'' is a monthly magazine but I assume is not peer reviewed. Of those which we use that don't make mention of bias or indicate concerns, we normally like the Forbes.com "best of" lists but it wasn't be peer reviewed; ''Annals of Oncology'' is peer reviewed and a very good source; the Good Web Guide probably wasn't and doesn't seem particulrly notable. - ] (]) 23:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


== RfC on whether ] is a ] ==
Philosophus: Hi. Thanks for your thoughts. It was posted on this page because of the seemingly endless discussions having to do with peer review status -- which, in the light of these recent meta-analyses, have little import. It was cross-posted to Reliable Sources and a couple other locations ''as a courtesy'' to the editorial groups ''there'', who may not be aware of (apparently ''were not'' aware of, as far as I could determine) these publications. I am not interested in participating on those other pages because I do not have time for it; they can do with the information as they see fit. I AM interested in this page at this time, and since "peer review" was such a hot issue, it was manifestly relevant. If you want to make a radical change such as removing a whole section and putting it somewhere else, please drop us a line first, OK? Thanks! -- ] 19:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


There is a ] on whether ] is a ]. This RfC also concerns the application of {{slink|WP:BLP|Avoid self-published sources}} (]) to content from Quackwatch. If you are interested, please participate at {{slink|WP:RSN|RfC: Quackwatch}}. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 00:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
:This isn't a question of interest in pages. This page is for discussion of the Quackwatch article, and despite threads on some talk pages, it isn't for discussion of Quackwatch, peer review, or anything other somewhat-related topic. Crossposting this splits the discussion, angers other editors, and makes it difficult to read talk pages that are meant for specific topics. The appropriate place to discuss this is the ] talk page, and therefore I moved this after discussing it with other editors and notifying you. --] <sup>]</sup> 01:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


== Portuguese site ==
:: "This isn't a question of interest in pages. This page is for discussion of the Quackwatch article,"
:: . . . . yes, and I explained how it was relevant to the discussion of the Quackwatch article. If you have a problem with my explanation, please post it.
:: " and despite threads on some talk pages, it isn't for discussion of Quackwatch, peer review, or anything other somewhat-related topic."
:: . . . . ditto. The purpose was to set editors' minds at ease with respect to their apparent obsession with "peer review", which is quite unnecessary for reasons mentioned.
:: "Crossposting this splits the discussion,"
:: . . . . whatever. The post was intended for THIS group, primarily. It was posted ''as a courtesy'' to a few other places that might need the information. They can have their own discussion of it, if they wish.
:: "angers other editors,"
:: . . . . 1) why on earth would they be "angered"? 2) if they are -- i.e. if they really cannot stand a ''single'', polite, short, well-intentioned, informative post about a subject that is directly relevant to their pages -- then... well, then I don't know what to say. Hard to say anything that is not an insult.
:: " and makes it difficult to read talk pages that are meant for specific topics."
:: . . . . why? If you really are not interested in the matter, then skip over it.
:: "The appropriate place to discuss this is the ] talk page, and therefore I moved this after discussing it with other editors and notifying you."
:: . . . . perhaps would have been better to discuss it with me and notify them?
:: -- ] 14:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


The Portuguese language version of Quackwatch, linked in the article to appears to have last been updated in 2004. With no updates in over 10 years, it is reasonable to assume that the Portuguese site is defunct. This article should clarify that the Portuguese site is not updated.] (]) 16:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
::Philosophus, for your benefit, and for the benefit of the unnamed editors with whom you (supposedly) conferred, here are a few quotes from these talk pages emphasizing the (claimed, but unsubstantiated) importance of peer review, or simply assuming, without question, that it IS important. (And, incidentally, this error is made by the anti-QW crowd as often as the pro-QW folks. It is simply ''assumed'', by all, that "peer review" is a big honking deal, and the ''sine qua non'' of scientific reliability and veracity, when in truth there is no clear scientific evidence for this idea.) Mind you, these are just a few of the many, many references to peer review; consider them representative. Sorry that this is taking so much space, but you insisted...


== FV tag ==
:::ITEM: "Misplaced Pages relies heavily upon the established literature created by scientists, scholars and researchers around the world and The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in '''peer-reviewed''' sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals. The fact that the SSE is regarded as "fringe" by the scientific community affects all of us in WP, because WP doesn't want to be fringe and articulates itself as such. The real bottom line is, let's get better criticism. After all, it is everywhere out there... Shot info 23:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)"


by ] added a failed verification tag, in spite of the edit summary in my restoration of the deleted content immediately before the edit. I don't know why the tag was added.
:::ITEM: "if you want scientific credibility, you publish in scientific credible journals. If you don't you end up with the questions I am pointing out. It isn't a strawman argument. The exact reasons of why Kauffman selected this journal are irrelevant, the fact is he did and hence the credibility of the paper is questioned. This isn't a fictional reality, it's reality. Hence why WP:RS says Misplaced Pages relies heavily upon the established literature created by scientists, scholars and researchers around the world and The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in '''peer-reviewed''' sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals (which I have pointed out previously). Shot info 02:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)"


Here are a couple of links to searches of the book showing that both ] and ] are used in the book:
:::ITEM: "Misplaced Pages relies heavily upon the established literature created by scientists, scholars and researchers around the world and The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in '''peer-reviewed''' sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals. So, got another strawman for me to tilt at? Shot info 02:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)"


*
:::ITEM: Kauffman's piece has no credibility due to the fact it is published in JSE. You cannot prove that it is "based on research". The very credibility of Kauffman's work is at question here. You are assuming it is "based on research". I am suggesting that with the lack of '''peer review''' at the SSE, this is a bad assumption to make and one that WP:RS tells us not to use. In conclusion, in order for Kauffman's article to be "based on research", we must assume that the SSE is a credible organization that will force it's authors to engage in robust '''peer review''' system. It is obvious that the SSE do not, so Kauffman's paper cannot be credibly stated as "based on research". Remember, you want this to be helpful to the casual reader. The causal reader reading this article will believe that Kauffman's article is more robust than what it is and the JSE editoralising will encourage them to believe they are a credible organisation when many (including the CSI) do not agree. Shot info 04:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)"
*


The tag should be removed.
:::ITEM: "I find your dismissal of where something is published puzzling. It goes to the heart of credibility and WP:RS. If Kauffman's work was self published (like what you have criticized QW over..) then we would be all over it. Kauffman's criticism is no different to Bolen's. It is not '''peer reviewed''' (or rather, under peer reviewed). The only difference between it and Bolen's, is that it looks more scientific. It has a lot more references which helps it appear more impressive. These references may, or may not exist. Without been exhaustive, we just don't know. This is why we have '''peer review'''. Without it, Kauffman can be wrong. Hence it does not deserve to mislead the casual reader. Shot info 04:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)"


BTW (a bit of history here), this effort to delete content from the article is contrary to ]. The reason that content is there is because of many attacks on the article and attempts to get it deleted. Keep in mind that enemies of QW still exist and will return at the first signs of weakness. That's why many editors had to "beef up" the RS content to prove notability. If this effort to delete legitimate and long-standing content continues, we'll end up with these problems again, and the last time someone tried to seriously attack QW, two editors got community banned and one changed their username, stopped their attempts, and stopped editing in the alternative medicine topic area. By flying under the radar and avoiding this minefield, they have succeeded in surviving here. Good for them.
:: -- ] 14:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


Therefore, I suggest that deletions be very limited and first proposed on this talk page. They are VERY controversial. I AGF and do not think that current deletions are ''intended'' for the following purpose (although the effect is the same), but keep the following in mind: While killing this ] by an AfD, as previously attempted, is indeed dramatic, doing it in little bits, as is happening now, is insidious and contrary to the spirit of Misplaced Pages. It invites attacks on the article, and we should avoid all the drama that would then ensue. -- ] (]) 17:54, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
== "Quotes" ==


:First, that Barret is a contributer to the book does not mean that Quackwatch is recommended in the book. If anything, that would suggest that the book is not neutral on the topic. Second, the sole mention of Quackwatch is a very short description that does not consitiutute a recommendation as such, and it occurs in the chapter co-written by Barrett. Being used as a source is not a recommendation, nor is being described in the book, especially when the description comes from the site owner. Otherwise, at the moment this reads as highly promotional - mentions of Quackwatch become "recommendations", trivial recommendations become highlighted. If this was happening in another article it would have a severe trim to remove the promotional content. We don't insert promotional content in order to survive an AfD, and there is no way this would be deleted at an AfD even if all this promotional content was removed. - ] (]) 20:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Thees are "quotes" made by Kauffman in the correct order: Kauffman stated in a disclaimer that "any recommendations... are based on studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. I am not an M. D. and cannot engage in the practice of medicine."


:Neither in-text mention of a source nor use of a source as a reference is equivalent to a recommendation of that source. A recommendation should be explicitly worded as such, or in an obviously titled section consisting of recommendations.] (]) 16:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Do not tamper with the quotes. ] 21:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:Certainly agree with that. As long as we are only quoting what is relevant here (we can paraphrase for brevity too). ] 21:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


I think it is better if we just remove the reference to the book - based on the links above, it is neither a recommendation nor is it independent, given that as far as I can tell the only references to or mention of Quackwatch is in a chapter authored by Barrett. I'll give it a night to see if I'm missing anything, though. - ] (]) 11:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
::GB, Are you saying we should quote the entire disclaimer? --] 21:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:{{ping|Bilby}} The review section of the article used to include a number of quotes from consumer guides to health, all along the lines of "For good information on quack cures, check out Quackwatch".. I decided to move these out of the review section (because they are not full–fledged reviews), call them recommendations instead, and cut the quotes as undue/unremarkable. The line recommending Quackwatch in the book you marked as FV is (apparently) "Detailed information on today's questionable cancer methods is available on the Quackwatch web site".

:{{ping|BullRangifer}} I think that a general problem of this article is that it includes too much information that might be useful to a Misplaced Pages editor, but isn't to the wider population of readers: e.g., the fact that a public library in Ohio used to include Quackwatch in a list of online health resources. Cheers, ]] 15:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
:::I just removed this addition by GB:
::The biggest problem with that quote is that it is written by Barrett - even if we want to take that as a recommendation, Barrett recommending his own site isn't useful. - ] (]) 20:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
::::Kauffman cites literature to support his conclusions.
::: Hi Bilby. I'm not sure what quote you're talking about. Can you provide a URL or some other help for me? -- ] (]) 00:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
:::What does that mean? The citation provided doesn't state this, as far as I can tell.
::::The links are the ones you provided above. In the book, Quackwatch is mentioned three times - twice as a reference and once in the line provided by gnu: "Detailed information on today's questionable cancer methods is available on the Quackwatch web site." The problem is that the line and two references are in the chapter written by Barrett, "Questionable Practices in Foods and Nutrition: Definitions and Descriptions". As they were written by Barrett they aren't independent. - ] (]) 00:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
:::Constructively, GB, may I recommend reading ] and ]. If you truly are new to the editing scene, then the learning the policies here will help you out tremendously.] 22:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::Per the above, I've removed it for now. Barrett recommending Barret's site means that the source is not independent. - ] (]) 23:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

:::::: What seems to have happened is that the word "recommended" was used at the end, when the section heading (which defined the inclusion criteria) did not. I have restored the source and changed the inaccurate description at the end. That seems to be a better solution. -- ] (]) 15:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
::::I just realized that GB is a newbie! Welcome GB, if you have any questions about any of my edits, you can also reach me on my talk page! :) --] 22:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::No, what has happened is that this was used because it mentioned Quackwatch without consideration for the content. Fundamentally, Steven Barrett referencing Steven Barrett is not noteworthy. There is no value in mentioning that Barrett has referenced his own site, and it is misleading to the reader. Furthermore, it does not (as now claimed) even use content from Quackwatch, but instead just uses it as a reference to two brief claims. - ] (]) 20:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
:::GB's latest machination of this point stated: "Kauffman cited references to support his literature." I am not sure what "his literature" refers to. Additionally, GB provided Kauffman's review as the source of this statement. As the review doesn't state (to my knowledge) that Kauffman cites references to support his literature, then that statement is GB's assessment of Kauffman's review. GB's assessment = Original Research. Hence, a ] violation. ] 22:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Listing passing mentions of Quackwatch or instances where other publications have cited articles published through Quackwatch is undue: it doesn't serve the general population of readers. I agree with Bilby that Barrett's mentioning and citing his own site doesn't constitute independent coverage. Cheers, ]] 21:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

::::GB and Levine both warned for ]. (I think GB has 5 and Levine 3 in the past hour(!).) Let's keep this under control, ''please''. &mdash; ] | ] 23:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::But as you can plainly see, I am correct that her assessment of Kauffman's review creates an obvious ] violation. I am trying extremely hard here to explain this to GigiButterfly (I wouldn't bite the newbie, you know). But I invite you, Arthur (or anyone else here), to step up, revert her edit and do a better job explaining ] to her than I have done. If she is in violation of ] as you suggest, perhaps we should report her? ] 23:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::I agree, but I'clast asked me not to edit during this cooling off period, so I will respect that. Maybe he will "step up" and make the edit? ] 23:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::That's great. But can anyone explain to me what GB means with: "Kauffman cited references to support his literature"? Gigi? I'clast? TheDoctorIsIn? Dematt? How about Kauffmann? Are you out there? ;-) ] 23:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

== Is this vandalism under our noses ==

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Quackwatch&diff=102779963&oldid=102774375 {{unsigned|GigiButterfly}}
:It isn't vandalism. Please review Misplaced Pages policy which I'clast has afforded you. Then read his reasoning for deleting the passage. Next step, is to discuss his reasoning here (not to start edit wars). Make sense? ] 23:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

=="Superfluous quote material"==

Kauffman's own caveat was reverted despite it coming immediately after his discussion of "peer review" sources. What is superfluous about him pointing out that his review cannot be construed as medical advice while those who write for QW are actually licensed physicians? --] 00:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:Frankly I thought it was a no-brainer. For one, as *very* common "boiler plate" language, it is not especially notable. It's absence may be even more notable, say for previously licensed physicians whose assertions really might be confused with "medical advice". We should so spam every health and medical related article that *isn't* "medical advice" where the is no serious allegation of ] (which would also concern ]) that has a standard disclaimer?--] 00:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
::You hit the nail on the head there, I'clast. At least Kauffman puts in that bolierplate language (I have noted that he does this on other research papers as well). What about this statement: "Kauffman cited references to support his literature"? I still would appreciate an explanation of what this is trying to mean and where this is cited. Otherwise, we should delete it. ] 00:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:::If you are proud of the boilerplate language, why remove it? --] 01:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
::::In an encyclopedia? This is silly, you waste the readers' time & attention span, or possibly seek to imply something, like UPM.--] 02:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::I don't buy it. He is explicitly stating he is not partaking in the forbidden fruit of UPM. Unless you can justify with impunity that any mention of MD status is an open invitation to such speculation, you're going to have to do better than censoring for the sake of preventing readers from conjecturing that the man is outright lying. More than this, the "space" argument really holds no water. Compared to the rest of the quote we include from Kauffman, these dozen words are a pittance. --] 02:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::No.--] 02:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Kauffman cites many references to support his literature.

The disclaimer is notable. You do not want people to read the diclaimer. Suppression of information is going on here.{{unsigned|GigiButteryfly}}

:GigiButterfly, please respect ]. As far as the statement goes, wouldn't "Kauffman cites many references '''in''' support of his findings" make more sense. That, at least, is obvious. What you are implying is an opinion you formed in your assessment which is a clear ] violation.
:The disclaimer is fine, but it isn't really the meat of this article and I question the disclaimers' notability. ] 01:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

== Criticism ==

The criticism section is way way too long. Unless someone can explain to me the reason for the length then it is undo weight to that section. We need to be responsible editors. I think the section should be shortened. The criticism section is about half the article. This is wrong. This is undo weight. We should only keep the notable criticism and remove the remainder. ] 01:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:There are no criticism ceilings or floors on Misplaced Pages. Certainly, we can weigh proportionality and percentages of article space used by criticism, but there are articles out there with a higher ratio of criticism-to-praise than this one. (I'd conservatively esitmate that only a quarter is criticism now). Don't forget that Quackwatch itself is a very critical site (which often publishes its own criticisms right on their site). Criticism here is to be expected and is completely warranted. The amount we have now is pretty, but if you want to cut down might I suggest you cut out inanities such as: "Kauffman cited references to support his literature". ] 01:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
::I reverted your Totally Disputed tag as it is unwarranted. There is already a POV tag at the top of the article. Your edits are becoming disruptive. I suggest that you take a cooling down period and read up on Misplaced Pages policy. As a newbie, it will be most helpful. Thank you. ] 01:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

=== The criticism section is an attack page because it is way too long. It is unjustified to have such a long length. ===
It should be shortened to about half its length. The long length is undo weight compared to the rest of the article. I see no reason to have half the article being a criticism section. ] 01:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:Is this just your opinion? Or are you citing specific Misplaced Pages policy? (On a personal, I would just like to say how much I appreciate your command over Misplaced Pages editing codes. For a newbie, you sure learned quickly how to do multi-level formating, insert warning templates and tags. Usually, these skills takes a month of editing for most newbies to learn. Nice work.) ] 01:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
::Considering that GigiButterfly is mentioning ] by name, albeit incorrectly spelled, I would expect that the intention was to cite specific policy. --] <sup>]</sup> 05:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:I'm not pleased with the section, but it isn't a complete disaster or attack page. It is currently a list of quotations by various people, which is certainly rather unusual for a criticism section in a Misplaced Pages article, and in my opinion isn't the proper way to do a criticism section, as it makes the text too disorganized, with ideas repeated multiple times by different critics. Additionally, there is an undue weight problem with just listing quotes from each critic (in addition to it being contrary to ]) - I don't think that each critic's position on their own is notable enough to justify giving so much space. Collecting the positions of critics could alleviate this problem, and present a much shorter and more readable section while still giving the same information and being just as well sourced and strong of a section. --] <sup>]</sup> 05:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
::Sounds good. Looking forward to more suggestions on how to consolidate the criticisms without compromising the critics' positions. ] 05:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
::: A more encyclopedic method would be to summarize it all in some beautiful prose, including the essential phrases from the quotes with refs. The references would then include the personal identities of the critics (without all the vanity info) and the links to the quotes themselves, where people can go to find the context. Where accusations are the same, diffs to several critics who repeat them could be included, but let's limit it to those we already have. If others need to be added later, we can certainly discuss it here, since that may be meritorious. The criticisms section should definitely not be deleted, just made more encyclopedic, rather than a list. It should be possible to summarize it in a couple paragraphs. It would sure be nice if there were some criticism from mainstream sources, instead of so much ad hominem stuff. -- ] 09:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:::: Fyslee has a point. The problem is that those editors who would like to see the QW article as hagiographic advertisment over the heroism of QW and its founder disrupt any attempt to make a synthesis of the variuos critical quotes. Any attempt to write a narrative text would be deleted by these editors as "WP:OR" or "editorializing". ] 15:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:::::True. I think it works both ways on this one. IOWs, it looks as though there has been a consensus that the glowing part is in the beginning and the bad part is in the end. This apparently neutralizes the article. I think the only other real option is to write the entire article NPOV sentence by sentence from the beginning. Hmmm, anybody up for that:) --] 15:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:::::: That sounds like a nice but impossible dream for most controversial articles, but if at the least each section was written in a prose style, it would be nicer. I don't recall that there has been an attempt with the criticisms section, but I can't trust my memory. I'm a Quackwatch fan, and it was my suggestion to try a prose style, so I'm certainly open to giving it a try. Let the critics start working on it here and then we can all try to get it into a reasonably NPOV form and place it in the article. I think there are enough of us here from both POV who understand NPOV enough to manage that. -- ] 17:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:A major problem is also the notability of the critics. For example, the ] is a borderline crank journal, and the criticism should be portrayed as such. Moreover, many criticisms are actually just personal opinions sourced to people's personal websites. While these individuals may not be entirely `anonymous', it not clear in what respect their criticisms of Quackwatch should be considered notable enough to include in the article. Are we to include a paragraph on every personal opinion offered on the topic of `alternative medicine' and those who try to identify and combat it? ] 15:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

::::: Rosenkreuz posting proves that it is impossible to write a narrative NPOV text in an encyclopedic style when there is extreme controversy about almost every sentence and statement and zero willingness to compromise among the Quackfans. I put 90% of the blame on those who want to deify Quackwatch. ] 18:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

::That is a problem with all articles, for sure. I think all we can do is cite the source according to it's type, primary, secondary and tertiary, with peer reviewed being best (though as Alan pointed out even that has it's problems). Otherwise we have to draw an arbitrary line - and there are no guidelines for that. So consensus seems to be our only method at this point. The only thing that can make it fair as far as NPOV is "what's good for the goose is good for the gander." --] 16:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:::I'm sure my response here will illustrate MaxPont's point beautifully, but I will comment nonetheless. Let's not forget that Quackwatch itself is essentially just a collection of opinions sourced to Stephen Barrett's personal website. Being guilty of ] (and based on Rosenkreuz assessment above), QW shouldn't be considered a reliable source of criticism either. ] 18:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

::::True, but that does not mean we can't cite them. Some of the articles are opinion and need to be noted as such as well as some being peer reviewed by reliable sources. IOWs, if this subject was about peer reviewed and researched information, I don't think it would be appropriate to give someone elses opinion on it unless it was peer reviewed as well. It is just a matter of digging through and finding out how we can cite them. We just have to realize that if we choose to use someones opinion, we have to understand that another opinion has just as much right to be expressed. Eventually, we should have all relevant PoVs covered, right?. --] 18:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:::::Absolutely. If you allow one person's opinion to stand, then everyone's opinion should stand. And since Quackwatch is essentially a collection of opinions - there is no peer-review there - all critical opinions should be allowed here as well. (Barrett even posts the worst examples from his critics at the bottom of many of his opinion pieces.) Then again, if we don't allow just anyone's opinions to stand here, then perhaps we should rethink how we include Quackwatch's opinions in other articles. ] 18:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

::::::I think that QW is basically a forum of posted articles that can certainly be cited on WP in individual articles, like a resource list for scientific sceptics. Each one considered on its merits individually. There is nothing wrong with that. Each opinion would have to be presented NPOV, I guess. Lot of work. Then we treat all criticism sections like that, including this one. --] 19:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

::::::::JoshuaZ just removed 2 or 3 bits of criticism citing that they "are not notable and who seem to be mainly using their personal webpages and nothing else". I think their notability can be questioned... but couldn't the same be said for Quackwatch? This is basically a personal webpage of opinions citing only the research which supports their opinions. I feel that if Drs. Burton Goldberg and Ray Sahelian's opinions - both highly notable in their field (just look at their CV and bios) - can be removed from here, then why shouldn't Quackwatch's opinions be removed from other articles on Misplaced Pages? ] 20:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

::::::::: See among other issues ]. Quackwatch is a very notable organization. As usual, how notable something is is determined by how many independent sources find it notable. Goldberg and Sahelian have no one saying anything about them. In contrast, see the long section in this article about organizations that have recognized quackwatch. ] 20:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::I would suggest that you take a look at Sahelian's and then reconsider. Aside from being a best-selling author and having one of the top websites going dealing with nutritional supplements, Dr. Sahelian has been seen on television programs including NBC Today, NBC Nightly News, CBS This Morning, Dateline NBC, and CNN, quoted by countless major magazines such as Newsweek, Modern Maturity, Health, and newspapers including USA Today, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, and Le Monde (France). Millions of radio listeners nationwide hear him discuss the latest research on health. Many of his books have been translated into several languages, including Japanese, Korean, Italian, German, Russian, and Chinese.
::::::::::Burton Goldberg is also a best-selling author. I can't speak to his notability beyond that though. ] 21:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

== contests consensus ==

After reading that whole Kauffman article (yawn) it appears that we might be creating OR with this:
*Joel M. Kauffman, ] ] of the Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry at ]<ref></ref> ''who contests conventional medical consensus'' in nutrition on ] and ]{{cn}}
We need a source to back this up. If it is from the cited article, it appears to be ]. I think the only negative thing we can really say about this guy is that he may be Barrett's only competition. He does say something like that in the article. But, I am open to some clarification. --] 04:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:I don't have his book but i would expect it to be addressed in there:
::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
:Does anyone have easy access to a copy? ] ] 04:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Yes.--] 05:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
::::I rewrote a previous summary sentence to more neutrally point out that this guy does not agree with the common understanding of many doctors (and the ] salesmen) about the subject, although I have previously pointed out that he seems to be more or less in line with the Baylor College of Medicine's Lipids Online site on current understandings of the CVD researchers. Satisfying both the QW faithful and their skeptics about the best wording on this seems an onerous task.--] 05:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
::::: Ha ha! I'clast, concerning your last sentence above, you have my sympathies! But then again, no one ever claimed editing here is a dance on roses, except maybe on uncontroversial articles. -- ] 09:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::Okay, I'll take your word for it and as I don't want to hurt myself trying to think of another way of saying it that probably won't pass easily, I'll accept that just by using the title of his book as being "contesting medical consensus". Thanks for clearing that up for me. Though if we want to keep this from recurring, maybe we should cite it as a reference. --] 14:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

::::::: I haven't really been following this discussion, so if I've misunderstood the drift here, just ignore this. I think that the fact that Kauffman is an active member of says something about him "thinking outside the box." He is of course not alone, but their POV is not a part of dietary or ] '''yet'''....;-) If and when it becomes so, there won't be the same type of discussion, and there will also be other V & RS to choose from. Right now many of his positions are fringe positions, which explains why he's comfortable with contributing so often to the JSE. He may be making the same type of blunder that Pauling did - getting too far outside of his own field. If his POV ever becomes mainstream, then there will be V & RS about it, but until then, to claim he's mainstream is OR. -- ] 14:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::::I think this is one of those reasons why using the word "mainstream" is on the weasel list; because mainstream is such a moving target. And it means different things to different people. Every field likes to consider itself "mainstream" because that is where the money is until they find something new, then they want to be "cutting edge", but don't go overboard into "fringe" or you lose it all. It is more notable that someone who spent so much of his life researching for cancer cures and obviously obtaining a relative "height" among his peers as to be professor emeritus would go out on a limb. If we don't put some weight on something that a person like this says, then why are we using our tax money to educate these guys to make decisions for us - just to tell us what we want to hear?. I guess that is why we are supposed to just write what we can verify with reliable sources. We're not supposed to be changing the world here, that's their job. We're just reporting on their work. --] 15:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::::: Well put. That's the difference between our speculations and discussions here, and what finally makes it into articles. Good thing there's a difference! -- ] 16:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::So what makes it into the article with regards to this? ] 17:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::Well, obviously, that Kauffman is a Phd who also works to fight health fraud and he suggests that the site... (add his conclusions verbatum or paraphrase appropriately). <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 17:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> --] 17:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC) (boy, that hagerman bot is fast!) --] 17:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::Yeah, that sounds good.I'd be in favor of rewording it as such. ] 17:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Well, as long as we're feeling open minded, here's the real problem: (new section)--] 18:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

==Low carb==
''"...who contests conventional medical consensus in nutrition on saturated fat and cholesterol"''re JK's cholesterol and saturated fats "heresy" what the sentence would need to convey & address JK for accuracy:
Kauffman's real starting point is about NIDDM/Syndrome X susceptible type people, about 1/4 of the population, who greatly need to use low carb diets, and further that trans-fats and fructose may aggravate insulin resistance.

Since the early lab tests usually confused or counted trans-fats with saturated fats into the 1990s, saturated fats almost always got the blame as "bad". He also cites *many* disturbing test results with polyunsaturates, i.e. 3xRR breast cancer in a Swedish trial of saturated oil vs polyunsaturates and technically analyzes many connections of health problems associated with polyunsaturated oils. He proceeds to criticize the LDL cholesterol biomarker, statins, and dietary cholesterol restrictions as wrong headed; instead favoring fish oil, saturated fats and mono-unsaturated oils; avoiding transfats, polyunsaturated oils, sugars and starches. He thinks an additional 1/2 of the population would benefit from *appropriate* low carb type diets. All spelled out in terms of conventional scientific analysis and historical background, starting with what many think is familiar nutrition. Any suggestions now?--] 18:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:He sounds right on target with everything I know about nutrition. Yes to fish oils, no to transfats. Today, that kind of think is dead-on "mainstream". Hence all of the Fish Oil pills on the market and all of the food companies pulling "Partially Hydrogenated Oils" out of their ingredient - opting instead for the non-toxic alternative of cold-pressed and expeller-pressed oils. Excellent example of "alternative thinking" that was so dead-on right that it became "mainstream thinking". ] 18:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
::Certainly plausible. Do we have anything that says he is "outside" the mainstream, controversial, or questionable? What does Quackwatch say about him? --] 19:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticizing LDL as a useful biomarker and denying the benefit of statins (at least in high risk groups) definitely goes against current medical consensus. Of course, consensus is evolving particularly quickly in nutrition, so it's a moving target, but still. On the other hand, fish oil and avoidance of trans-fats are pretty widely accepted. I haven't been too active in the great JK debate recently, but really - the article's not about Kauffman. Why not a bare-bones summary, like "Kauffman Ph.D., prof emeritus of organic chemistry at USP, wrote a critical website review of Quackwatch in JSE." Then the relevant quotes. Really, people will pick up on the context without all of the verbiage that's been so controversial. ] 19:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

::Agree, as above. --] 20:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:That seem so right on, MastCell. Without a reliable source saying that Kauffmann's thinking is current outside the mainstream, then we can't say it for risk of ] and generally for just being plain wrong. What was once fringe is now conventional and vice-versa. LEt's just stick to the criticism rather than the criticism of the criticism. ] 19:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

::"Is Kauffman alternative?", especially in a negative sense, is an important question here. There is a tremendous economic statin presence in medicine that draws *severe* criticism from some very conventional MDs that have memories longer than ~7 years. Can statins reduce near term heart attacks? Yes. Do they show much mortality improvement at 7-8 years out? Not much yet, NNT is about 1 per 1000 improvement in tests questioned for high initial and continuing dropout rates (whither the real compliance problem(s) with 1 little pill per day?) and specific population application. The LDL components, apolipoprotein B and Lp(a) seem to be "very bad" in complex ways that may be best handled by other, cheaper, off patent chemicals as well as measured with the other emerging biomarkers. Are we waiting on new patents or just milking old ones? *One* of Kauffman's points: the fish oil alone is cheaper and has much better long term statistics, this has been known for over 20 years (*average* 1 oz of fish per day, ~ 1 meal per week).--] 20:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, statins are big business, and yes, they work. The benefit is bigger the higher-risk you are, and a lot of the disagreement stems from where to draw the line on who should receive them. I'd never discourage anyone from eating fish or using fish oil supplements, but I'd ''also'' recommend that people in certain high-risk groups benefit from a statin. But this is really neither here nor there, and maybe best addressed (if anywhere on Misplaced Pages) in the articles on statins, fish oil, the pharmaceutical industry, or heart disease risk factors and risk reduction. My point was that we can just avoid ''altogether'' the debate about how "alternative" Kauffman is, since we'll never reach an answer everyone's happy with. Why not just stick to the bare bones? I think people will pick up on the context pretty readily - it's not exactly subtle. ] 20:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:Agree with all of the above. --] 20:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

::The reason this is important is that in our original, extended October consensus purposefully had Kauffman '''above the "line"''', ''"The Quackwatch website has attracted critics, most of whom are alternative medicine proponents..."'' with the '''linked review''' first. This has several not so fine points: (1) Linking the review first makes it unambiguously accessible, "if you going to read something extra/worthwhile, read this" instead of burying it, Kauffman's criticism is more important than his bio; (2) some editors wish to light weight, discount or discredit QW counterviews automatically, such as GB's current, gratuitious little fecalith, , this is ]; (3) that Kauffman's review *is different* in nature than the others listed (economic independence, scientific background, precise criticism). MastCell, ''the content'' that you find agreeable I could live with, but I have a little chagrin over the placement and structure. Here is what I mean: as more content per your comments and Arthur's JSE comments.--] 21:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC

:::OK, I've taken a shot at simplifying things. I've inline-cited the article; we should use this for all refs, including Quackwatch at the top of the article, instead of using external links in the text. I've put everyone under "Criticism", and removed the "most are proponents of alt-med". I'm trying to simplify as much as possible, because I think that a) that's the only way we'll reach consensus, and b) people will quickly pick up on the difference between, say, Kauffman's article and Bolen's website without a lot of prompting. ] 22:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

::::... and I've changed Quackwatch in the lead from an external link to an inline cite, as above. "Fecalith"? I know ], but do we need that kind of language? ] 22:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:::::The JK entry is sleeker, if it holds, I could abide. "Flowery language" telegraphs extreme impatience & irritation.--] 22:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

No doubt it does, and I'm not saying those feelings aren't justified, but you've been around the block here. Anyhoo, my feeling is that the mention of "Malignant Medical Myths" sounds a bit like book-salesmanship or <s>]</s> oops, apparently it's now ] ("Biographical material that does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article"), but then I haven't read the book - maybe it deals with Quackwatch in some way. And I can live with compromise, although my preference would be to excise mention of the book as not directly relevant to Quackwatch. ] 22:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:I'm all for keeping it simple; though apparently ScienceApologist and GigiButterfly disagree. Maybe they haven't been reading this discussion here. Anyone care to revert? It would be better if it wasn't me reverting this time. And what's with this line Gigi keeps tagging onto the end: "The aboved mentioned critics are mostly proponents of alternative medicine"? Weasel?] 22:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:I would appreciate if you didn't solicit reverters, Levine2112. It is very poor form. Kauffman's affiliation with pseudoscientific and fringe science venues is well-documented and important if the reader is going to be able to determine whether they should take Kauffman seriously or not. Consider the source is important, but you can't consider the source if editors keep deleting the biographical information about the source. --] 22:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:::(edit conflict)Mastcell, good work, it was beautiful and you deserve an emmy. Sorry it didn't hold long enough for me to see it without scrolling the history. Maybe we can do like Fyslee suggested earlier and make the entire criticism section into a narrative. I bet you could make it all flow nicely. --] 22:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:::(edit conflicts)Mastcell, I know. However, the book to me looks like a notable aspect of JK in this area and it provides far more detailed references to what is in WTWQ. If I could link parts, I think we would have had fewer problems with agreeing how he classifies in the first place. There are dynamics at play here that probably look strange. Look now. Oh. Thank you.--] 22:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I went back to a streamlined version and suggested discussing here. I won't be reverting beyond that, because I really don't see the productivity in an ]. We go back and forth between puffing up Kauffman and cataloging his more questionable (dare I say crank-ish?) beliefs. The best approach is neither. Really, give the reader some credit - the agendas of Kauffman and Quackwatch don't require our expert help to recognize. If someone reads Kauffman's article and throws away their Zocor, it was gonna happen anyway. ] 22:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:Terrible argument. Misplaced Pages is about presenting (cataloging) verifiable information for readers, not about puffing up. It's clear that one agenda is promotional of criticism while the other is at the very least attempting to describe the context. --] 22:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

::Unreadable, partisan attack on Criticism.--] 23:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:::I guess the question is ''how much'' verifiable information to catalog on someone who's not, after all, the subject of the article. My point was that anyone who reads Kauffman's article will pick up on his, and the JSE's, agenda - no one's going to confuse it for the New England Journal. By the way, I agree with shortening the quotes/space given to Kauffman, but one thing at a time. ] 23:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

::::Enough to credibly alert the reader of various possibilities for *their* evaluation and at least a string that allows further investigation as long as they want to pull on the string.--] 23:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:::::We need to insert/summarize Kauffmann's actual criticism into this prose. Right now it reads like a lesson on who Kauffmann is rather than actually saying what his criticism of Quackwatch is. ] 00:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::It's a ''']''' of Kauffman, precisely by the editor who also said this, '''''''''.--] 00:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::Either way, the paragraph is dreadful. Try reading straight through it. --] <sup>]</sup> 00:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::I wouldn't say that it is beautiful prose; nor would I say that it is particularly dreadful. I am open to reading your suggestions. ] 00:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

::::::::
:::::::I suggest reversion to edit and then try to discuss Sahelian and Goldberg reasonably.--] 00:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::::I would love to limit this to actual criticism rather than prattle on about the critics. Let's just say who they are ina nutshell rather than go on and on about what organizations they belong to, who they voted for in the primaries, what their favorite color is, etc. ] 00:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::I think it is reasonable to expect to strike a balance. We should strive to describe who the people are. Kauffman may be an organic chemistry professor, but he reviewed QuackWatch because he is "familiar" with material related to their debunking. In particular, his support of alternative medicine and borderline fringe science/pseudoscience is an important marker which we should avail the reader. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 00:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

::::::::::I did not find examples of Kauffman *supporting* pseudoscience, just critcising someone's else lack of scientifically objective coverage on it, and him engaging in controversies. Labeling or implying him as PS seems to say more about his accusers. "alternative" seems pretty subjective, depends on the crowd you (or your critics) run with. Fringe, that is often the price of being right or too soon, knowing more (having more data &/or wit) than most.--] 15:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

== Criticism section ==

Okay, I hope we're not finished with the Criticism section. It looks a little ragged in this version. There is always the option of ditching the section and just incorporating this stuff into the article itself. I know a lot of people have been working hard on this and have poured a lot of blood and sweat into it, so I don't intend to suggest we ditch it all, but how much of this criticism stuff do we need anyway. Why don't we just write a NPOV article from the beginning and forget about a criticism section? --] 03:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:I'm not sure what you propose. Why not sandbox it and see what you come up with? --] 03:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

::I'm not to good with sandboxes, but if we just took out the section, how far are we off what an encyclopedia needs to say? I'm sure we need a little constructive criticism maybe towrd the end of notability (because the criticism actually makes it more notable), but just a few notes and it probably should be a Kauffman paraphrase or at the most three of four sentences. What do you think? --] 04:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Write something here as a suggestion or ] and try it. The worst that can happen is someone will revert it. --] 04:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

::::Who would that be this time of night;) --] 04:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:::::Works for me! What do you think? --] 04:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

::::::Color me skeptical, but I'm betting it probably won't last. The paraphrase is inexact and a bit equivocal and I'm not sure he's "noted" for what we are claiming he is "noted" for, but at least it's a start. We'll see what others think. --] 04:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:::::::Sounds like a plan. It probably does need some tweeking and maybe a once through on the rest of the article, but it says the same thing in just a lot less words. I think that is what MastCell was saying, too. I bet GB will be happy with it!:) --] 04:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I am very happy with it now. ] 05:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:I find the latest unacceptable, this article needs a criticism section due to the large amount it receives. I do think the version I reverted to is much better than a bullet point...--] 05:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Ahh, Hughgr! I ask you to look at it again. Surely you don't think that is better than the version? Do they not say the same thing? ..only so much more professionally. Have you ever read an encyclopedia with that kind of paragraph in it? How many times do we have to say this guy, this guy, this guy, this guy and this guy, don't like QW? Al we're doing is picking the best guy and saying the same thing... it's soooo much cleaner!!!! --] 13:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:: Wow, there has been some back and forth during the night (here in Denmark). The version is encyclopedic in form and contains a few criticisms that are pretty typical, but more serious than many one reads. While still inaccurate and straw man (seen from a pro QW POV), they are at least not the usual ad hominem attacks, which gives them a bit more credibility (seen from a critics POV). It even reads well. Good work. This is the type of prose version I had envisioned. It looks like an article, rather than a court docket. -- ] 07:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:::I'm still looking for something that is cleaner and more concise. Imagine a world where we can say something once, no apologies and that's it.. no big CRITICISM title.. no yeah, but he's an aardvark.. just pick the best and say it. Saying something 5 times does not make anyone anymore convinced of wht you are writing, it is just annoying. Am I wrong? --] 14:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this discussion before reverting in the article. However, the term Criticism is a de facto Misplaced Pages standard and I think it should be used here.] 15:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:WP standard for sure, but not policy, or even guideline. I really think it is just more of a way to divide us into "Us vs Them", when this is not what an encyclopedia is about. I ask everyone to read it through and maybe we can work our way through this mess on all articles. Maybe we can find a way to get what we all want, good clean articles that handle all the issues, without dividing the people who write them. --] 15:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

::I realize it was a shock to anybody that happened on the article, but, after reading this discussion, is anybody upset with the version that SA and I agreed to last night? <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 16:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->--] 16:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:::I missed that version. No objection from me. &mdash; ] | ] 16:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

=== Headings ===

:(edit conflict) Perhaps indenting it one more level, making it clear that the "criticism" section is part of "<s>noteriety</s> notability"? But the section is down to one paragraph. If the "Notability" section were renamed "awards" or "awards and praise", then "criticism" would properly be parallel construction, so should be at the same level.
:In other words, the present
4. Notability
::is acceptable, as would
4. Notability
4.1 Criticism
::and
4. ''Praise'' (or a section title to be named later)
5. Criticism.
:: but
4. Notability
5. Criticism
::does not seem reasonable. &mdash; ] | ] 15:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


How about modifing the ''Notability'' section?:

4. Notability
4.1 Favorable mention
4.2 Criticisms

-- ] 16:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:I still like the one without the word criticism . I haven't heard from you. --] 16:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
:::You forgot "notable criticism". After parusing the article in its present form it doesn't appear to have any criticism. I know there is that para., but I feel it needs a heading in order to be visable to the casual reader. --] 19:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

== Wow... ==

... it looks pretty good. ] 16:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

What about this one? --] 16:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:::I am very very sceptical and prone to revert. This compromise can only work if the pro-QW POV is also toned down. And if that is allowed to take place without the QW fan club reverting it. I believe it when I see it. ] 18:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
::::What is the exact, concise reasoning for shortening this down and cutting out all of the good criticism? Especially from Peter Barry Chowka? I'm not looking for a fight nor an argument. Just a reason spelled out simply. I've read everything above and I am still not sure. Thanks. ] 18:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

True, to be honest I thought PBC's criticism was the best. Sorry, I thought I was commenting on a stable version - I should look at the page history more closely next time. ] 18:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:::::For me its a matter of clarity and the KISS concept,"Keep It Simple Stu***" Read this:
:::::*QuackWatch has been criticised both by supporters of alternative medicine and by critics of mainstream medicine. For example, Joel M. Kauffman, a ] of Chemistry & Biochemistry<ref></ref> and author of ''Malignant Medical Myths'',<ref>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</ref> wrote a website review of Quackwatch entitled "Watching the Watchdogs at Quackwatch" in the ]. Kauffman examined eight Quackwatch articles and concluded that the articles were "contaminated with incomplete data, obsolete data, technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo..." and "...it is very probable that many of the 2,300,000 visitors to the website have been misled by the trappings of scientific objectivity."<ref name="Kauffman">Kauffmann JM (2002). Website Review: , ], '''16''', 2</ref> Elmer M. Cranton, MD, author of ''Textbook on EDTA Chelation Therapy'', rebuked criticism by Quackwatch of the ] that he explicitly supports by accusing the organization of having a "mission of attacking alternative and emerging medical therapies in favor of the existing medical monopoly."<ref name="Cranton">Cranton EM.''''</ref> Ray Sahelian, MD, an advocate of ] through vitamin supplements<ref>Sahelian R. Mind Boosters: A Guide to Natural Supplements that Enhance Your Mind, Memory, and Mood. St. Martin's Griffin; 1st edition. 7 July 2000. ISBN-10: 0312195842; ISBN-13: 978-0312195847</ref><ref></ref> accused Quackwatch of failing to point out "scams or inaccurate promotion and marketing practices by the pharmaceutical industry", even while praising Barrett for having done "good research on many of the people involved in the alternative health industry, and has pointed out several instances of inaccuracies and scams".<ref>. Accessed Sept. 3, 2006</ref>
:::::Then this:
:::::*Quackwatch has attracted criticism from both proponents of alternative medicine and detractors of mainstream medicine. For example, Joel Kauffman,Phd, a noted proponent of several alternative medical approaches and supporter of some of fringe science's more controversial concepts, suggests that visitors to the site should view it with some skepticism as some of the information may be dangerous to their health. Peter Barry Chowka, an investigative journalist and former adviser to the National Institutes of Health's Office of ], notes that Barrett "..seems to be putting down trying to be objective... But I personally think he's running against the tide of history."<ref>Donna Ladd, ''Diagnosing Medical Fraud May Require a Second Opinion'', The Village Voice, June 23&ndash;29, 1999 </ref><ref name="Kauffman">Kauffmann JM (2002). Website Review: , ], '''16''', 2</ref>,<ref>Chokwa PB. website accessed 24 Dec 2006.</ref>

:::::I think it says what you want it to say without getting lost in the words. More is not always better and criticism just for the sake of criticizing is really just "sticks and stones". All articles should be written this way. Just my opinion. --] 19:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

::::::Thank you for putting both in one place. Yes, I do agree with you that the second one reads much better. I do feel it should be under a criticism heading though, if only to be readily visible to the reader.--] 19:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:::::::Have you ever seen an encyclopedia with a section titled criticism? How about something less confrontational like ... ... ... ??? ??? ... hmmm. Are you sure we have to have a criticism section. It's just a neutrally constructed description of the subject that happens to be at the end of the article. Why do we have it called criticism? Technically the whole article could be considered criticism, some is constructive and some is not. --] 00:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

::::::::I'm not trying to set precident, just going by other wikipedia articles. --] 05:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

:Good point. I'll research that and get back to you. --] 13:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
::. Though there is some other good stuff about external links, etc. Not in , Nothing in , has some good stuff, but nothing about a criticism section. However, does say something about not creating arguments about changing style - noting that the original version rules. So, I don't want to cause an argument over this, but do we want a criticism "section" or can we just incorporate it into the article? --] 15:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


:::On another ] I worked on, there are two criticism sections...one on internal and one on external. It seems to be the norm for this encyclopedia to have a criticism section in controversial articles. I still feel it needs to have a "criticism" section heading because we all know how much a casual reader actually reads. Right now, skimming the article, it would not appear that there is anyone saying anything critique wise about QW. --] 18:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

::::Okay, lets go through this and get it to the point that we all feel pretty good about it, then fi you still want a criticism section, I will personally put it back in. If not, maybe we can rewrite the one you're talking about. --] 20:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

:::::What do you think? --] 05:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Second version is distinct POV, and quite pejorative. "Supporter of some of '''fringe''' science's more controversial concepts"? That would be as in "'''lunatic''' fringe", right? And what, pray tell, ARE these weasely, unmentioned "more controversial concepts"? Please, hang up the insults and innuendo, and bio-McCarthyite imperiousness ("...are you, or have you ever been..."). The first version is wordier but obviously more neutral. -- ] 14:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the first version: "Ray Sahelian, MD, an advocate of holistic medicine through vitamin supplements": vitamin supplements, as such, have little to do with holistic medicine. Further, he may actually be an advocate of "holistic medicine" (rather poorly defined on the WP page ont he subject), but we don't know that, and it is not relevant. Better: "Ray Sahellian, MD, an advocate of nutritional supplementation for a variety of common health issues..." -- ] 15:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

:That sounds reasonable, go for it. --] 15:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

== re-arranged ==

I re-arranged the second and third sections somewhat. I don't think I changed much content other than edited for weasel and peacock words that did seem to raise PoV issues. If I changed anything that was important, feel free to put it back. Hopefully, I've made some improvements in the two sections. --] 18:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

== Chowka quote ==

It seems to me that the Chowka quote should indeed be included, but I wonder whether it doesn't need a little context. Here is the way it is now:
:Peter Barry Chowka, an investigative journalist and former adviser to the ], notes that Barrett "..seems to be putting down trying to be objective... But I personally think he's running against the tide of history."<ref>Donna Ladd, ''Diagnosing Medical Fraud May Require a Second Opinion'', The Village Voice, June 23&ndash;29, 1999 </ref>
I suggest rewriting roughly as follows:
:Peter Chowka, an investigative journalist and former adviser to the ], remaked that Barrett's tendency to dismiss some alternate therapies out of hand without clinical evidence "..seems to be putting down trying to be objective."<ref>Donna Ladd, ''Diagnosing Medical Fraud May Require a Second Opinion'', The Village Voice, June 23&ndash;29, 1999 </ref>
I removed the "history running against him" as an editorialization that made sense in the article but doesn't add much here. (That is, it is alluding to the fact that alternate therapies are becoming more accepted at every level of society and that Barrett is out of step--which is, I suppose, a fair comment from its perspective but doesn't warrent inclusion here.) I'm going to make this change and you can edit some or all of it back. ] 19:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
::Souunds good to me. ] 00:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
:::I'm fine with that. --] 01:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

== waves ==
The JSE wikilink identifies and outlines the controversy around the site. "FriSci" at this level of detail is highly questionable, ] again. You may want to restart work on this section again.--] 05:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

:I think it is important to both name the journal and describe it for the reader. We should name the journal simply because it provides a context, but since the Journal's title is potentially misleading it is important that we describe what it is a journal devoted to. The wording itself doesn't concern me so much, but we should be clear that JSE is devoted to subjects outside of the scientific mainstream. --] 06:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

::I'm sure the wording doesn't concern you too much, a lot of useful details have been chopped out. There is a lot to describe to the reader. That is why the previous consensus version lasted over 2 months.--] 06:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Your current version works okay for me, though it usually isn't technically good practice to include an acronymn without saying what it stands for. Still, I'm not complaining. --] 06:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

== Another lawsuit? ==

Hey, anybody heard anything about CBP (a chiropractic organization) filing a lawsuit in September of 2006 against Stephen Barrett, Quackwatch and Alan Botnick? James Turner is the attorney for CBP. Apparently they can't find Alan Botnick to serve his papers. --] 22:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

::Yes, I know about it. It's one of the reasons I objected to the quote about Barrett "never being sued" without adding mention that that was no longer true. ] 22:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

:Maybe it has something to do with this?
* by Stephen Barrett with Botnick's comments removed
*
* A CBP® Instructor’s, Researcher’s, & Clinician’s Rebuttal to Allen Botnick, DC
* from the Bolen Report
* "Scientific" chiropractic technique debunked
* Be wary of Quackwatch
:] 22:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

::Wow, you are on the ball, Levine! Have you guys already discussed it? What's the net result so far? --] 22:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

:::No discussion here yet that I know of. I only know about this from researching Quackwatch and chiropractic jointly and I stumbled accross the Deed Harrison, DC statement on the Ideal Spine website. P.S. Ilena has a point above about the Barrett article stating that he has never been sued. Clearly that isn't true anymore (though I don't know that that statement still exists in the current Barrett article). P.P.S. Actually the statement is still there: ''In a biographical article about Barrett, Fred D. Baldwin wrote, "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)".'' I will remove it.] 22:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

:::::Instead of removing it, I would reference this case to add balance to the quote. ] 23:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

:::: Read it more carefully before you do anything. Don't act on a misquote. The quote is very specific, and is even qualified. We're dealing with two different types of suits!

:::: As far as a new lawsuit, when it actually becomes a reality, we should be able to find V & RS to justify inclusion. Until then, such mention risks being OR and may have BLP issues:

::::* "The evil that men do lives after them. Be wary of putting it into Misplaced Pages before then." (Formerly at ])

:::: -- ] 22:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

:::::Here is more from . ] 22:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

:::::: Until this is a reality, the deletions that were just made are improper. Even if the CBP suit becomes a reality, it would depend on the charges. The current subject is libel suits, and that hasn't changed, so the deletions should be reverted, preferably by Levine2112. -- ] 23:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

:::::::You say "when it actually becomes a reality" and "until this is a reality." Are you denying that Barrett has been served and this lawsuit has been filed? ] 23:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

::::::::It seems that we have neough to say that these is a suit underway (though prehaps not enough to discuss this case yet). Regardless, there is enough ] and ] to make the Baldwin statemtn seem innacurate at this point. I am not suggesting that we say that Barrett has been sued for something other than a countersuit, but rather just take the "never been sued" statement out until we can confirm if it is true. ] 23:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

::::::::::I am looking at the January 2007 The American Journal of Clinical Chiropractic quarterly (the CBP "newsletter"). It has an article on the top front middle that reads "Help Us Locate Allen Botnick". In the second paragraph it reads:
::::::::::*At the end of September 2006, CBP filed a lawsuit against Quackwatch, Quackwatch owner Stephen Barrett, MD, and Allen Botnick, DC.
::::::::::If that means anything that we can use.
::::::::::--] 23:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Three points here:

'''1.''' I don't know for sure. If so, and if the courts have accepted it (IOW, it's not just a charge on chiropractic websites), then we can use V & RS to document it. Sites of the involved aren't necessarily reliable at the present time as they have a vested interest in spreading this potentially damaging information. That's where the BLP and OR issues come into the picture. Misplaced Pages is not a place to post notification of pending lawsuits, made only by the accusers. It's not their noticeboard. CBP is a V, but not a RS in this case.

That's what Bolen and Negrete did with their ill-fated cross-complaint, which is now getting them sued in a malicious prosecution suit. They used their websites and myriad other website to publicize the case. That case was never accepted by the courts, but it was announced all over the internet by the accusers. Imagine if we did with their announcement, what you are proposing we do with CBP's announcement. What a scandal if it never makes it to court! In time such issues will be more clear.

'''2.''' This new suit only has relevance to the Baldwin quotes that have been deleted IF it is a libel suit. If not it shouldn't be touched. If so, the quote should be revised or supplemented with more information, not deleted.

'''3.''' Premature actions and inclusion of references regarding suits that MIGHT become a reality risk being OR, IOW jumping the gun, and we have already seen some itchy trigger fingers in action....;-) -- ] 23:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

:I agree that we don't have enough info to post to the article about the lawsuit. It does make the Baldwin quote inaccurate. If you want to still include the quote but with some supplemented info, then let's hear some discussion on this at the Barrett talk page. Fyslee, perhaps you can supply a suggested revision? ] 23:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

:: Until the case is fully accepted by a court, and it is clearly a LIBEL case, there is nothing to change. The statement is still accurate until that time. Patience. The current deletions should be undone. -- ] 23:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


The reasoning being used to justify the current deletion is based on a misquote, which I pointed out above, but which is being ignored:

* "Yes, I know about it. It's one of the reasons I objected to the quote about Barrett "never being sued" without adding mention that that was no longer true." Ilena

I you all above, but yet this discussion continues!

The misquotation leaves out the crucial part, so look at the '''highlighted''' words:

* "...he has never been sued''' for libel,''' except for a counter-suit to a libel suit he once filed (the counter-suit was dismissed)"

Such misquoting renders the whole line of reasoning null and void. -- ] 23:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

:::::Whatever he is being sued for is notable and should be included in this article. When Barrett sues ... he and others on his webring advertise the complaint as if the jury had ruled! Even when he loses, he has people making the identical claims the courts have shot down. So, for accuracy and balance, if he has been sued for anything, it appears a mention should be made. Thank you. ] 23:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

::::::: I don't know how many times I have to repeat this before it sinks in, but Barrett doesn't have any webring. It's mine alone and he has never had anything to do with it. He has a few sites in it because I invited him to submit them for membership, just as I do to other sites I find that are on-topic for the ring. There is no "his webring", period. -- ] 00:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

::::::::Which websites of Barrett's are NOT linked to the webring you own??? I was looking at it yesterday and it seems that they are all there. Which ones are not linked? Thank you. ] 00:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

::::::::: "Linked to"? I have no idea what he does of that sort, nor is it any concern of mine. He does his thing and I do mine. I only know that under half of his sites are in the , and a few are in the . Web rings are an interesting phenomena that are used extensively by alternative medicine practitioners and many other interest groups and people. They have very little effect on actual hits one receives if one has a large site, but small sites get some benefit because they get more exposure. You can take a look at the statistics that are always posted there that show incoming and outgoing hits. There is nothing odious about running webrings, unless one uses them to run scams, and that actually happens. -- ] 00:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

:::::: That's not how Misplaced Pages works. That's what's known here as Original research, and it is forbidden in articles, and if it violates BLP matters, it is forbidden on talk pages and user space. Misplaced Pages articles are not noticeboards. It appears from a link posted above that CBP is still raising funds. -- ] 23:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is . A simple Google search found it. Now I find that at the bottom of the page (not the end of the thread) he retracts his retraction! -- ] 00:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Wow, thanks for that link. I found this one after reading yours. It appears you are an administrator on Chirotalk with Botnick. (I made a copy of the page in case it gets cybershredded.) ] 00:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

:::: You should be aware that you can't use that information against me. My activities outside of wikipedia are perfectly legitimate and of no concern here. I rarely even visit Chirotalk anymore, so my so-called status there isn't worth much. -- ] 00:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

::::::This chirotalk link that links to the one you just posted says you logged in at "7:36pm today," that you're "active" and have made 667 posts since Mar 12, 2004. Thanks for posting the Chirotalk link. I had never visited there before and it is very informative. ] 01:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

::::::: It's an interesting site, as it's the only chiropractic forum that allows any criticism of the profession. All the others exercise strict censoring, which is their prerogative, just like on other types of lists. Since all discussion forums on the internet have their own rules, anyone who violates them can be bounced. At Chirotalk members can air their gripes and tell their experiences, both positive and negative. Many chiros are members at Chirotalk: active and former DCs, professors, researchers, leaders, etc.. I have access to their personal info (which I would never divulge), so I can see who some of them are, and the more important ones definitely hide their true identities. Openly being a chiroreformer can lead to harassment and worse. The profession has never been kind to reform attempts, which is a well-known historical fact.

::::::: As a registered user I have my PC set (with a cookie) and my Chirotalk profile set so that I am "always on". That means I don't have to log-in everytime I happen to look at the site, which is quite rare nowadays. (Now, in connection with your posting of links to Chirotalk, I have looked at them. So what?!) That link you mention shows my last post was:

:::::::* Chiro student-to-be at Student Doctor ..... on Aug 28, 2006, 7:27am

::::::: So you can see that I'm a oh-so-very-active user (Not!). (Five months ago!! I ought to get fired for not showing up or doing my work, but it's not a paying job.) Even if I was a user 24 hrs. a day, it's none of your business or of any concern to Misplaced Pages. Should I start listing all your posts and activities at Usenet and accuse you of being active there? I think not. I'm not going to play such games. It's beneath my dignity. -- ] 08:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

::::: At some point soon, preferably yesterday, I hope you cease your non-RfA activities and start providing evidence of relevance to what started it, and nothing other than that. Misplaced Pages talk pages are not to be used as discussion lists or like Usenet. They are to be used for discussion of matters directly related to editing. -- ] 00:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we need to wait till we have a reliable secondary source for this at least and then we can re-visit. If people want to talk about this on the talk boards or whatever, go for it, but I think WP needs to wait for now. --] 01:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

== External Link to be Considered ==
Very intelligent, documented rebuttal to Quackwatch. ] 23:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

== Looking up Allen Botnick and found him discussing his ''wikipedia expert'' ==
Very interesting comments. (I made a copy of the page if this link gets cyber-shredded). ] 00:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Actually, we had this conversation about a year ago. We all actually agreed that DD could well be called the first mixer because he used a lot of different therapies initially, but there were no verifiable or reliable sources that we could cite, and it would be unwikilike to use OR. I would be interested in seeing the source. --] 02:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

: Misquoting again (in the heading). -- ] 00:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

::Really??? Here it is again. ] 00:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

::: Recycling a charge doesn't make it any more correct. Take a really careful look at your heading, the emphasized part, and then take a looked at your statement itself and then the linked page. You are misquoting. -- ] 00:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

::::Uh, looks like a perfect c&p to me. ] 00:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:35, 17 July 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Quackwatch article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 27 August 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconSkepticism High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAlternative medicine
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine
WikiProject iconOrganizations Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAlternative views Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconWebsites: Computing Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
WikiProject iconAutism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and autistic culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutismWikipedia:WikiProject AutismTemplate:WikiProject AutismAutism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconDisability
WikiProject iconQuackwatch is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability
Please consider reading the information at Use of Quackwatch as a source before asking related questions or starting new RfCs.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience

In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:

  • Neutral point of view as applied to science: Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.
  • Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Misplaced Pages aspires to be such a respected work.
  • Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
  • Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
  • Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
  • Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

"Received criticism for perceived bias in its coverage"

Re: @Bilby:, could you please demonstrate this summary is accurate and due by identifying the sources and quoting from each? --Ronz (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

In the current "site reviews" section we list 11 reviews. Of those, six either suggest or state that bias is present:
  • Nguyen-Khoa: "the presence of so many articles written by Barrett gave one the impression of a lack of fair balance"
  • Ladd: "relies heavily on negative research in which alternative therapies are shown to not work"
  • Okasha: "fails to provide a balanced view of alternative cancer treatments"
  • Cuzzell: "had concerns about the appearance of bias in the selection of the material"
  • Brazin: "found it to be biased"
  • Vankevitch: "employing 'denigrating terminology', categorizing all complementary and alternative medicine as a species of medical hucksterism, failing to condemn shortcomings within conventional biomedicine, and for promoting an exclusionary model of medical scientism and health that serves hegemonic interests and does not fully address patient needs"
I found others which expressed concerns about bias but they haven't been added to the article.
  • "He has his supporters and de-tractors and there is no getting around the fact that Dr. Barrett is a zealotand zealotry has its problems. Several medical librarians, with whom this librarian has discussed Quackwatch, have refused to endorse it be-cause of the bias they claim exists.", although the author is overall very positive about Quackwatch (Michael J. Schott & Shelda Martin (2005) The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly,Journal of Hospital Librarianship, 5:3, 43-54, DOI: 10.1300/J186v05n03_04)
  • "Addressing critics who accuse him of unbalanced reporting, Dr. Barrett writes ...",positive discussion, but acknowledges accusations of bias (Ohry, A; Tsafrir, J. Progress in Health Sciences; Bialystok Vol. 2, Iss. 1, (2012): 171-174).
  • "To get balanced coverage, you probably will need to seek comments from practitioners on the other side of the argument." (Bowen, Charles. Editor & Publisher; New York Vol. 131, Iss. 22, (May 30, 1998): 29. )
Bilby (talk) 20:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Which critiques, positive/negative/other, go into any detail or are written by someone with clear expertise? I'm trying to figure out how the weighting was decided. For example, Cuzzell has almost no detail at all, so why mention it at all, let alone try to compare it (OR) to other sources? --Ronz (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm just going by what we say in the article - if the majority of reviews we reference in the article state that it is biased, then shouldn't that mean it is worth referencing (in brief) in the lead when we mention reviews? - Bilby (talk) 22:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Context matters. Quality of sourcing matters. --Ronz (talk) 22:23, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
The lede summarises the article. If the majority of the reviews being summarised in the article state that Quackwatch is biased, shouldn't an accurate summary of that section also mention that Quackwatch is biased? - Bilby (talk) 22:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Not, for example, if the references were cherry-picked to support such a summary. Of if the summary violated OR by ignoring context. Or if some of the sources were of questionable value.
I'm sure we can come up with many more examples why it's important to look closely at the quality of the sources and the context they give. --Ronz (talk) 22:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
That's more of a case for not using the sources, rather than a case for not accurately summarising them. But no, they weren't cherry picked. I went to database of journals, specified only peer-reviewed journals, and then did a search for "Quackwatch" with no qualifiers. Then discounted any clearly biased journals (skeptic journals and psudeoscience journals), and just read each mention in turn without selecting them with any other criteria. There weren;t a huge number of sources, but I was surprised to find that most of the reviews in peer-reviewed journals said somthing similar - good resource, be careful of bias. However, in regard to sources, "The Consultant Pharmacist" was already here, but is the publication of the American Society of Consultant Pharmacists. The Village Voice was also already here, but you know that one - not peer reviewed, but respected. The Lancet, Dermatology Nursing and Journal of Consumer Health on the Internet are all peer-review journals. Plural medicine, tradition and modernity is published by Routledge; and of the three I mentioned that I didn't add, Journal of Hospital Librarianship and Progress in Health Sciences are both peer reviewed journals, while Editor & Publisher is a monthly magazine but I assume is not peer reviewed. Of those which we use that don't make mention of bias or indicate concerns, we normally like the Forbes.com "best of" lists but it wasn't be peer reviewed; Annals of Oncology is peer reviewed and a very good source; the Good Web Guide probably wasn't and doesn't seem particulrly notable. - Bilby (talk) 23:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC on whether Quackwatch is a self-published source

There is a request for comment on whether Quackwatch is a self-published source. This RfC also concerns the application of WP:BLP § Avoid self-published sources (WP:BLPSPS) to content from Quackwatch. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § RfC: Quackwatch. — Newslinger talk 00:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Portuguese site

The Portuguese language version of Quackwatch, linked in the article to appears to have last been updated in 2004. With no updates in over 10 years, it is reasonable to assume that the Portuguese site is defunct. This article should clarify that the Portuguese site is not updated.Dialectric (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

FV tag

This edit by Bilby added a failed verification tag, in spite of the edit summary in my restoration of the deleted content immediately before the edit. I don't know why the tag was added.

Here are a couple of links to searches of the book showing that both Stephen Barrett and Quackwatch are used in the book:

The tag should be removed.

BTW (a bit of history here), this effort to delete content from the article is contrary to WP:PRESERVE. The reason that content is there is because of many attacks on the article and attempts to get it deleted. Keep in mind that enemies of QW still exist and will return at the first signs of weakness. That's why many editors had to "beef up" the RS content to prove notability. If this effort to delete legitimate and long-standing content continues, we'll end up with these problems again, and the last time someone tried to seriously attack QW, two editors got community banned and one changed their username, stopped their attempts, and stopped editing in the alternative medicine topic area. By flying under the radar and avoiding this minefield, they have succeeded in surviving here. Good for them.

Therefore, I suggest that deletions be very limited and first proposed on this talk page. They are VERY controversial. I AGF and do not think that current deletions are intended for the following purpose (although the effect is the same), but keep the following in mind: While killing this canary in the mine by an AfD, as previously attempted, is indeed dramatic, doing it in little bits, as is happening now, is insidious and contrary to the spirit of Misplaced Pages. It invites attacks on the article, and we should avoid all the drama that would then ensue. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:54, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

First, that Barret is a contributer to the book does not mean that Quackwatch is recommended in the book. If anything, that would suggest that the book is not neutral on the topic. Second, the sole mention of Quackwatch is a very short description that does not consitiutute a recommendation as such, and it occurs in the chapter co-written by Barrett. Being used as a source is not a recommendation, nor is being described in the book, especially when the description comes from the site owner. Otherwise, at the moment this reads as highly promotional - mentions of Quackwatch become "recommendations", trivial recommendations become highlighted. If this was happening in another article it would have a severe trim to remove the promotional content. We don't insert promotional content in order to survive an AfD, and there is no way this would be deleted at an AfD even if all this promotional content was removed. - Bilby (talk) 20:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Neither in-text mention of a source nor use of a source as a reference is equivalent to a recommendation of that source. A recommendation should be explicitly worded as such, or in an obviously titled section consisting of recommendations.Dialectric (talk) 16:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I think it is better if we just remove the reference to the book - based on the links above, it is neither a recommendation nor is it independent, given that as far as I can tell the only references to or mention of Quackwatch is in a chapter authored by Barrett. I'll give it a night to see if I'm missing anything, though. - Bilby (talk) 11:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Bilby: The review section of the article used to include a number of quotes from consumer guides to health, all along the lines of "For good information on quack cures, check out Quackwatch".. I decided to move these out of the review section (because they are not full–fledged reviews), call them recommendations instead, and cut the quotes as undue/unremarkable. The line recommending Quackwatch in the book you marked as FV is (apparently) "Detailed information on today's questionable cancer methods is available on the Quackwatch web site".
@BullRangifer: I think that a general problem of this article is that it includes too much information that might be useful to a Misplaced Pages editor, but isn't to the wider population of readers: e.g., the fact that a public library in Ohio used to include Quackwatch in a list of online health resources. Cheers, gnu57 15:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
The biggest problem with that quote is that it is written by Barrett - even if we want to take that as a recommendation, Barrett recommending his own site isn't useful. - Bilby (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi Bilby. I'm not sure what quote you're talking about. Can you provide a URL or some other help for me? -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
The links are the ones you provided above. In the book, Quackwatch is mentioned three times - twice as a reference and once in the line provided by gnu: "Detailed information on today's questionable cancer methods is available on the Quackwatch web site." The problem is that the line and two references are in the chapter written by Barrett, "Questionable Practices in Foods and Nutrition: Definitions and Descriptions". As they were written by Barrett they aren't independent. - Bilby (talk) 00:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Per the above, I've removed it for now. Barrett recommending Barret's site means that the source is not independent. - Bilby (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
What seems to have happened is that the word "recommended" was used at the end, when the section heading (which defined the inclusion criteria) did not. I have restored the source and changed the inaccurate description at the end. That seems to be a better solution. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
No, what has happened is that this was used because it mentioned Quackwatch without consideration for the content. Fundamentally, Steven Barrett referencing Steven Barrett is not noteworthy. There is no value in mentioning that Barrett has referenced his own site, and it is misleading to the reader. Furthermore, it does not (as now claimed) even use content from Quackwatch, but instead just uses it as a reference to two brief claims. - Bilby (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Listing passing mentions of Quackwatch or instances where other publications have cited articles published through Quackwatch is undue: it doesn't serve the general population of readers. I agree with Bilby that Barrett's mentioning and citing his own site doesn't constitute independent coverage. Cheers, gnu57 21:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Categories: