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 20:07, 12 February 2008 editRandom user 39849958 (talk | contribs)19,517 edits →Pseudoskepticism yet again← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:35, 17 July 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,013,105 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2] 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Homeopathy/Warning}}
{{Talkheader}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{Calm}}
{{Rational Skepticism|class=Start|importance=Top|nested=yes|class=B}}
{{Old AfD multi|date=27 August 2007|result=Keep|page=Quackwatch}}
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine|class=Start|nested=yes|class=B}}
{{WikiProject Organizations|class=Start|nested=yes|class=B}} {{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.
}} }}
{{talkheader}}
{{Calm talk}}
{{Off topic warning}}
{{Round In Circles}}
{{TrollWarning}}
{{oldafdfull|date=27 August 2007|result=Keep|page=Quackwatch}}


{{Clear}}
<!--Template:Archivebox begins-->
{{ArbComPseudoscience}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config
{| class="infobox" width="315px"
| algo=old(90d)
|-
| archive=Talk:Quackwatch/Archive %(counter)d
! align="center" | ]<br />]
| counter=19
----
| maxarchivesize=150K
|-
| archiveheader={{tan}}
|
| minthreadsleft=4
# ] - Oct '06
| minthreadstoarchive=1
# ] Oct '06
# ] Oct '06 - Dec '06
# ] Dec '06 - Jan '07
# ] Jan '07 - Feb '07
# ] Mar '07 (Some Jul '07)
# ] Apr '07 - Jul '07
# ] Jul '07 - Aug '07
# ] Sep '07 - Oct '07
# ] Nov '07 - Dec '07 (Partial)
#
|}<!--Template:Archivebox ends-->


<!-- **** PLEASE BOTH INCLUDE THIS SECTION IN A NEW ARCHIVE AND KEEP THIS SECTION ON THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
== References ==
{{reflist}}
<!-- **** PLEASE BOTH INCLUDE THIS SECTION IN A NEW ARCHIVE AND KEEP THIS SECTION ON THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->

== Barrett's response to my question ==
Email from Nov 28, 2007
{{ cquote |''>Hi,''
''>I have been reading your site. I find the information helpful and enlightening. I'm thinking about using some of your information and citing your site. Are you reports peer-reviewed? I've been looking on the site, and have not been able to find that.''

I write mainly in a magazine style. Some articles undergo expert
review. Most do not. It depends on the nature of the information and
how well I know the subject matter. There is also continuous
post-publication "review" in which articles may be modified in
response to reader suggestions. Our most recent peer-reviewed article
is http://www.dentalwatch.org/questionable/sargenti/overview.html
--

Stephen Barrett, M.D.
Board Chairman, Quackwatch, Inc.<br>
''... some contact info removed by ScienceApologist''
--------------------------------------------------------------------
''removed links''

''>Have you considered posting the review status of your internet articles on the articles themselves? That way if I cite an article I will be able to state that it is or isn't peer-reviewed.''

No, it would take too much time. In addition, peer review doesn't
ensure accuracy. It's only as good as the reviewers. The best
indicator of accuracy of my writing might is probably something you
would not think about. Our sites probably criticize more people and
products than any other sites on the Internet. If I weren't exceeding
careful, we would have been sued into oblivion long ago.
}} }}
] (]) 20:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for posting that. This answers the question, from above, of whether "review" means that they review outside articles upon request, or internal articles upon request (the answer is the latter). Cheers, <font color="red">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> <sup><font color="darkred">]</font></sup> 20:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

:I thought personal emails were not allowed. Am I misinformed? --]] 19:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
:: The email wasn't used for anything at all in this case, so no harm done. Generally, email won't meet WP:RS or WP:V. --] (]) 00:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

== An idea ==

Why not just remove all of the Mission Statement? It's really not that important. Along with the removal of the Mission Statement remove the names of those who are supposed to be keeping watch over articles. IMHO, all of this is unnecessary, the title Mission and scope. If that is removed then the warring hopefully will stop, at least about this. --]] 15:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
: I think that's an idea worth considering. ] (]) 15:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
::I'm in favor of anything that makes this article have less text at this point. ] (]) 16:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
:::I'm concerned by this statement. Do you feel that we should remove notable information just for the sake of removing information? &mdash;] (]) 22:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
::::I want to remove non-notable information. ] (]) 00:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
::::: Please note that ] is not concerned with material in an article but rather concerned with the notability of the article subject as a whole. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 05:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
:Crohnie I think you've got a great point. <font color="red">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> <sup><font color="darkred">]</font></sup> 17:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
::I agree. I've been in favor of such approaches for a very long time now. Since the last time I mentioned this is archived, I'm just going to copy it:
:: Ronz 22:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC) says, "There's one very important point that's made many times in the discussion archives that hasn't been mentioned in this latest round of discussions: Quackwatch, Stephen Barrett, and NCAHF are only barely notable. They certainly are all notable, and as independent entities, but there are very few independent, reliable sources that indicate they're notable. (There have been many discussions for deletion and/or merging, which is not the point.) Because there is so little written about them in usable sources, it's very easy to get frustrated looking for usable sources supporting details about them. In the case of both praise and criticisms (and just about anything else), we often find ourselves in a position where there are none we can use at all. This is to be expected given that they're barely notable to begin with. When we push the limits of NPOV, RS, and related policies/guidelines, it's useful to remember that perhaps the information isn't important enough to present at all." --] (]) 17:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
::: Fair points, I agree. I have been presuming that there was notability, but if this is in question maybe the article is in need of some trimming. How should we assess notability in this case? &mdash;] (]) 18:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
::::] addresses how to determine proper weight, which is what we're discussing here. "Notability" is usually only used when discussing entire articles. --] (]) 17:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

::What I have noticed in many of these "notability" and "reliable sources" arguments is that there is a double standard repeatedly being applied by some. If the article references support their POV, then they argue for their inclusion. If the article references are contrary to their POV, they argue for their exclusion. That is my observation over the last 14 months of editing Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 18:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

:::I think when someone raises notability or reliable sources objections, they should be heard, regardless of their perceived bias. &mdash;] (]) 19:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

::I totally agree that they should "they should be heard", but there should not be continual reversions that ignore the other side of the issue, without consensus nor discussion. ] (]) 20:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
:::So do you think Quackwatch is very notable, and why or why not? &mdash;] (]) 21:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
::::I know you are not asking me Whig but I hope it's ok to answer. I for one think it is notable. It has a lot of information on it that can't be found else where and being a Crohn's person and on a Crohn's group (s)I know others with IBD who have used QW to help them a lot. It sure helped me when I first got diagnosed and was hit with peddlers of things that only would have emptied my wallet. This is only one reason why I think it's notable. Everyone just has to use common sense with what they use it for. --]] 22:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

While I have no intrinsic objections to removing information about who the advisors for QW are, I don't think that they need to be removed in an absolute sense. QuackGuru reinstated the list in the history section. That seems to me, at least, to be a more appropriate location than the scope section. Anthon01 seems to think that this text cannot show up in the article ever. I'm really not too fond of this kind of approach. ] (]) 04:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

:I agree, I think it does belong where it is at now, the history section.--]] 12:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

:: So you believe the same text that played a pivotal role in this "peer-review" deadlock and that you suggested should be removed to stop the conflict, is now ok in another section? Seems like I misunderstood what this agreement was about. ] (]) 13:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

:: And how does the listing of current advisers belong in the history section? ] (]) 13:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

:::In my opinion having it in the history is in the past tense so it should be ok there. --]] 14:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

::::I think I am done here again. The constant arguing is unnecessary and unproductive thus I will move on. Good luck all of you, I hope you find some peace. --]] 14:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

::::: Actually the statement is in the present tense, ''Quackwatch '''now engages''' the services of 150+ scientific and technical advisors.'' Thanks for trying. ] (]) 15:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

::::::Anthon01, as you can see from inspecting Crohniegal's history on this page, she speaks with a candid, nonstrategic voice. She should be treated with more respect and deference than I think you're giving her. Scaring off neutral and thoughtful parties is not what we need to do on this page. What is more, you are arguing some issues from both sides, depending on what suits you in the moment. When I removed the advisor list and note about peer-review, you stated, "I don't know that a consensus has been reached on the current text." Now, you fall back on "Seems like I misunderstood what this agreement was about." So you both argue that there was and was not agreement on the removal of the text, depending on how it suits you in the moment. I am pointing this out not to attack you, but to help you realize that this type of editing makes it difficult for the less-involved editors to take part in this discussion. <font color="red">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> <sup><font color="darkred">]</font></sup> 20:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
::::::: I think you are misunderstanding what is going on with my edits. I have not attacked or disrepected CrohnieGal in any way. You characterization is unfair and inflammatory. First you come to ScienceApologist's defense on his talk page and now to CrohnieGal? I would appreciate it if you would stop. Your attempts to qualify my edits as 'aggressive' or 'disrepectful' as you did on ScienceApologist's talk page, and now here is unappreciated and bordering on harassment. ] (]) 15:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
::::::: I said ''I don't know that a '''consensus''' has been reached on the current text.'' because a large number of editors were not present and/or not enough time had passed. ''Seems like I misunderstood what this agreement was about'' because it was an '''agreement''' not a consensus. '''Note agreement vs. consensus.''' Finally CrohnieGal, and ScientificApologist were both present when that '''agreement''' (not yet consensus) was discussed. Your qualifications "aggressive" and "disrespectful" <s>or</s> are unjustified. Finally, you chose to attack me instead of respond to my "And how does the listing of current advisers belong in the history section" question. ] (]) 16:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

==Quackwatch is notable as a consortium with an agenda (cont)==

Yes ] QuackWatch is notable. It is particularly notable for being a cover for a few agenda-driven individuals who masquerade as the "final word" of "almighty science" that sends down judgements on what is "legitimate" in the healing arts, and what is not. They have no qualms of conscience to condemn entire professions in the healing arts, while downplaying and closing their eyes to abuses in conventional medicine. ] (]) 15:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

:Please review the ] before commenting further in this vein. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

:: A large body of off topic text was archived by Ronz. --] (]) 17:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

== Reverting due to lack of discussion ==

Anthon, your recent revert from "recognition" to "as a source" had an edit comment that made it seem like you reverted simply because it hadn't been discussed on the talk page first. Even though I think I agree with the effect of the revert, if that was the reason, please don't use it in the future. --] <sup>]</sup> 14:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

: I mentioned that it is a contentious page and ask the reader to 'read the talk page' so he could familiarize himself with recent discussions. Could you think of a better summary? ] (]) 15:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

==Protection==
I've requested protection. I think there's too much reverting going on, and it doesn't help that the discussion has been decentralized across so much of the project. ] '']'' 08:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

===un-]===
In an attempt to unify (or at least clarify) discussions, please ''list'' any suggestions you have for the current state of the article below using economical but specific language. If there is particular passage which you would like to see add/amended/deleted, please quote it. If there is a particular policy, please cite the specific portion of the policy which you feel is being compromised. (I understand that this may be repetitive, but the idea is to organize all of our thoughts, prioritize and then work at an amicable way to seek ]. Thanks. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 17:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

{{tlx|editprotected|Please add a {{tl|verify source}} tag to the Nguyen-Khoa paragraph. Part of the dispute is about whether the paraphrase is accurate, as well as whether it is appropriate or unduly selects part of a source which doesn't reflect the entire source.}} &mdash; ] | ] 20:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC) — {{cross}} '''Edit declined.''' Does not appear to have consensus. ] (]) 23:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

: It is an accurate paraphrasing, but if you have a suggestion on how to improve it, please provide your phrasing here and I promise to be open to it. It definitely doesn't unduly select part of the source, but rather keenly selects the portion most relevant to the "Quackwatch as a source" section as it describes the author's suggestion of how Quackwatch can improve as a source. If there are other portions of Nguyen-Khoa's review which you also feel are relevant to this section, please feel free to suggest how you would add them. Bear in mind that some of ideas and information from Nguyen-Khoa's review are already covered in our article by other sources, and thus is may be a good idea to shy away from repetition. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 20:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

:: We could argue the undue weight, but the source doesn't say that QW refers to medical articles being peer-reviewed. I think we'd need to actually quote the sentence from the source for it to be acceptable, as I can't think of a way of paraphrasing it successfully. The actual source states: "A giant step toward true legitimacy would involve active peer review of the articles to be published, a logical transition for a site that relies on so much of the accepted medical literature as its foundation." &mdash; ] | ] 20:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
::The only clean way I can think to write the paragraph, while avoiding misquotes and duplication of "peer-review", is :
::: ''Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa, ], in a website review posted in the '']'', comments: "A giant step toward true legitimacy would involve active peer review of the articles to be published..."''<ref name="ascp">Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa, PharmD, "Quackwatch.com", The Consultant Pharmacist, July 1999. </ref>
:: or
::: ''Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa, ], in a website review posted in the '']'', comments: A giant step toward true legitimacy would involve active peer review of the articles to be published, a logical transition for a site that relies on so much of the accepted medical literature as its foundation." ''<ref name="ascp"/>
:: &mdash; ] | ] 20:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
::: But I wasn't argueing for an immediate cleanup, merely an immediate tag. &mdash; ] | ] 20:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
:::: This tag is to mark items which are doubtful or false. This paragraph is neither, in my opinion. Please be specific why you think this paragraph is doubtful or false and would need to be verified. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 20:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
::: I really think it is the same difference - "a site that relies on so much of the accepted medical literature as its foundation" clearly advocates peer review. Plus (and I know that using this would be a SYNTH violation) we know that Quackwatch advocates peer review because they do cite so much of it in their articles and article tout their acceptance of peer review. All of that being said, if you really feel that a quote would be better than the hybrid quote-and-paraphrase which we are currently employing, please spell out exactly how you would like the paragraph to read in total so we can see if it has consensus. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 20:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
::: EDIT CONFLICT --> I see you beat me to it and have given your suggestions. One second for me to review. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 20:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

:::: I like your second one, but I would make minor tweaks as such:

::::: Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa, ], in a review published in the '']'', comments, "A giant step toward true legitimacy would involve active ] of the articles to be published, a logical transition for a site that relies on so much of the accepted medical literature as its foundation."<ref name="ascp"/>

:::: I'd be good with that edit request. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 20:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

::: How about "Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa, PharmD, ''in a review published'' in the The Consultant Pharmacist, recommends that Quackwatch implement formal peer review processes for their own web site, writing, " giant step toward true legitimacy would involve active peer review of the articles to be published..." ] (]) 20:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
:::: Personally, I like yours better, Anthon01, but this doesn't address ArthurRubin's concern about paraphrasing in a manner which he thinks is somehow "inaccurate" (something which I would love for him to expound on for us so we know specifically what he thinks is inaccurate about the paraphrasing). I did however, incorporate your "in a review published" into my suggestion above. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 20:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
::: I think ''in a review published ... '' is better than ''in a website review posted ...'' ] (]) 20:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
:::: Done. Incorporated in my suggestion above. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 20:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

::::: I thought his objection was to ''in accordance with their advocacy of peer review for medical publications, writing ...'', which I removed from the paragraph, and not ''recommends that Quackwatch implement formal peer review processes for their own web site ...'' ] (]) 20:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

:::::: I see. Yeah, that would work too. So:
::::::: Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa, PharmD, in a review published in '']'', recommends that Quackwatch implement formal ] processes for their own web site, writing, " giant step toward true legitimacy would involve active peer review of the articles to be published..."<ref name="ascp"/>
:::::: That would work for me too. Arthur? Anyone else? -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 21:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::::To avoid ''apparent'' duplication, I think I'd move the quote into the quote field of the reference. "Peer review" twice within a few words seems questionable. My version would then be:
:::::::: Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa, PharmD, in a review published in '']'', recommends that Quackwatch implement formal ] processes for their web site.<ref name="acspq">{{cite article|author=Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa, ]|title=Quackwatch.com|work=The Consultant Phrarmacist|publisher=]|date=July 1999 |url=http://www.ascp.com/publications/tcp/1999/jul/access.shtml | quote=A giant step toward true legitimacy would involve active peer review of the articles to be published, a logical transition for a site that relies on so much of the accepted medical literature as its foundation.}}</ref>
:::::::I'm still not sure that ] is not being violated, but these versions all clearly have a verified citation. &mdash; ] | ] 21:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::::: Seems good to me. I like how economical the writing is. I am unsure of your ] point. Please explain. Do you think that this - a review published in the ASCP's journal - represents a minority viewpoint? If so, how do we determine this? -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 21:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
::::::::: I'm not sure it's even a RS for the purpose we're using here. We're taking it out of context for the sole purpose of adding criticism, which is a violation of NPOV in general, as well as UNDUE in particular. --] (]) 21:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::: The review seems generally favorable, even for pages attacking pharmacists. The "limitations" section is the only negative part of the review, and I'd say that this reduced section would be an appropriate citation for that. However, much of the rest of the review is positive. However, there is another quote which would be appropriate elsewhere in the article: "Much of the criticism of Quackwatch.com stems from the claims made by product distributors in such organizations." (I'm not sure that "such" refers to MLM, but that seems the most likely interpretation.) &mdash; ] | ] 21:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

::::::::::: Similar text already exists in the article, in fact in the lead. ] (]) 21:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::: Similar, but not identical. Perhaps we should add Nguyen-Khoa as a reference for that statement, as well? &mdash; ] | ] 22:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::: Certainly worth discussing further, but let's stay focused on the issue at hand. Are we liking any of these version best or at least better than what is currently there? -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 22:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch is opinion informed by data. The data happens to be reliable and accepted, and this confers legitimacy on the opinion. However, it is no more expected that Quackwatch is peer reviewed than it is expected that an Editorial is peer reviewed. Quackwatch isn't claiming that they have some special data proving that quacks are quacks (i.e., research); they are, like any opinion-forming group, using data that is already out there to come to a conclusion. There is no reason this opinion would be peer-reviewed. As we've extensively discussed above, I don't think it makes any sense to draw a distinction between two entirely different things (opinion and peer-reviewed research) - we wouldn't say, "This apple is not an orange." The compromise position on this issue is to express exactly what type of review system is in place - but we are already doing that in this article. Consequently, I believe we are at the compromise position already. <font color="red">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> <sup><font color="darkred">]</font></sup> 18:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

: Decent argument. However, we have reliable references that describe QW's opinion as bias and recommend that it subject itself to "peer-review." We also have QW itself describing in it mission statement the current status of its review process. ] (]) 18:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

: Do you see the sentence by Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa as the compromise? ] (]) 18:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

::I reject using the sentence by Nguyen-Khoa without also explaining that he gave a favorable review of the article and properly contextualizing his critique. The shortened versions do not do this.] (]) 22:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
:::: It is not possible for ''every'' statement to convey ''all'' truth. The item was found and used to cite a source for the idea that some have criticized QW for not peer-reviewing it's own articles (not that they should! just that the criticism exists). The review said tons of things, but the ariticle is not about the review, it's about QW, and that review was used by us to provide that one source for that one factoid. If every word we quote were given all context, the wiki would be infinity-gazillion-plus-one words long. Sorta like our ongoing argument. ] (]) 17:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::So do you object to the current wording or no? ] (]) 17:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::: I have two goals. One, which really I don't care so much about, is a good article about QW. The other, is converging on good policy for dealing with areas where science and pseudo-science butt heads, viz, ending our fight. I'm not caught up, I'm swamped, I don't currently know the current wording and I despair of even finding it in the current mass of the article, but I'll look. However, it would be progress, to me, if you agreed that it is not necessary for a quote from a review to reflect the whole review; only that it is necessary for the quote to accurately support the claim in the article that cites the quote. I can quote Alan Baker that ''e'' is transcendental, without mentioning algebraic independence, even though the latter is a much more important reason for the book. I don't believe an arguement can end fruitfully unless someone somewhere is willing to make some concessions. ] (]) 18:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

::: I don't think that it is our job to contextualize a review as favorable or not. If there are other portions of the review which you would like to add, please add your suggestion to your favorite version above. This may be an integral step to help us reach a version which we can all live with (the essence of consensus). -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 22:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

:::: This issue came up over the weekend and can be reviewed . ] was the justification. ] (]) 22:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

]. I already made my proposal. This is the second time I've had to remind Levine2112 of this. ] (]) 01:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
: I responded in detail there that I like Version 01 better. ScienceApologist, saying, "''This is the second time I've had to remind Levine2112 of this''" comes off as hostile. Whether that was your intention or not, please be cognizant of how it appears to me. Now of the suggestions, is there one which you prefer? -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 03:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

:: SA. Your response doesn't answer the issue that you have raised, that is, ''the excerpt doesn't reflect the largely positive theme of the article and therefore cannot be used unless it is modified to reflect that general theme.'' Is this your personal preference or is there a WP policy that guides your objection? ] (]) 04:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

:::That's policy. ], ], ] all reference it. ] (]) 17:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
:::: Which specificially? The larger the collection of long texts cited to prove a point, the harder it is for opponents to find the specifics you mean. You want to make it ''easy'' for us to see exactly what you mean, so we concede your point. Chapter and verse, as the saying goes, will make your point. Since I don't believe any policy requires that every quote reflect all the context, only relevant context, I am disinclined to reread all the policies to prove that your specific interpretation does not exist. But you can point to a specific section, and boom, you win. I'd be forced to concede. ] (]) 18:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

===Proportionally Reflecting the ===
Like SA, "I reject using the sentence by Nguyen-Khoa without also explaining that he gave a favorable review of the article and properly contextualizing his critique. The shortened versions do not do this". "Proper contextualization" means no out-of-context quoting, Levine2112. You and Anthon01 may want to study ] again. The current version should be removed straight away, especially since no consensus seems in sight. SA's version #1 does a much better job. Remember hat the N of NPOV stands for Neutral. ] 16:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

: I read the review and it seems neutral to critical to me. It explains from a NPOV what is on the site, discusses two articles of interest to pharmacists and the goes into the sites limitations. The review itself does not praise QW but mentions as we already have here ''"the praise the site has won from reputable reviewers and rating services."'' The review is either neutral or critical of QW. That should be reflected in the paragraph we add to the article. ] (]) 17:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

:: This is the version which has garnered the most acceptance above:

::: Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa, PharmD, in a review published in '']'', recommends that Quackwatch implement formal ] processes for their web site.<ref name="acspq">{{cite article|author=Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa, ]|title=Quackwatch.com|work=The Consultant Phrarmacist|publisher=]|date=July 1999 |url=http://www.ascp.com/publications/tcp/1999/jul/access.shtml | quote=A giant step toward true legitimacy would involve active peer review of the articles to be published, a logical transition for a site that relies on so much of the accepted medical literature as its foundation.}}</ref>

:: To me it is both positive and negative. It is merely constructive advice on how Quackwatch could improve. Is there something which anyone feels needs to be added/amended to this before inserting this version? -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 20:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

::: Further note: AvB, can you explain exactly how you feel ] applies in this situation? I don't see it and would like your guidance here. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 20:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

::::This version is wholly unacceptable to me because Nguyen-Khoa was not writing to give constructive advice to QW. That's basically taking the quote way out of context. I also only see pro-alt-med types supporting this sentence (except for PeteStJohn who we haven't heard from in a few days). ] (]) <small>—Preceding ] was added at 20:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::::: Please read above. Of the suggestions, this is version which ArthurRubin was most partial to. The reviewer was writing specifically to review the website and in that review, he had some constructive advice. If there is another portion of the review which you would like to add to it, please suggest it so we can all consider your phrasing. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 20:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

:::::::I already made a suggestion. Even Anthon01 figured that out. ] (]) 15:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::::: Even? ] (]) 16:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

SA: I don't see how "pro-alt-med types supporting this sentence" makes a difference. Is there a guideline or policy that speaks to that? We want the sentence to reflect the gist of the article so add what you'd like to it. In your version you started with ''Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa, PharmD, in a website review posted in the The Consultant Pharmacist, gave QuackWatch a positive review for two articles on the site that discussed "natural remedies" available at pharmacies.'' This seems like ] to me. How did you get the word "positive" into that sentence without it being a WP:OR violation? ] (]) 23:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

:Did you read the review? It is clear that QW is praised for its efforts I outline. ] (]) 15:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

:: I read the review. Where was QW praised and by whom? Please quote from text of . Otherwise, your addition of 'positive' is OR. ] (]) 16:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

:::All you have to do is read the review to see that QW is be described as a competent source. ] (]) 17:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

:::: Let's start with just one sentence from the source which you think gives the overall impression that this review is a positive one (rather than a neutral or negative one). -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 18:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

:::::The article isn't very long. General impressions are easy to come by. ] (]) 02:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

:::::: Meaning you can't find a sentence from the source. It's OK to have a general impression but you can't change that general impression into WP:OR. IMO, your 'positive' impression is based upon your POV. On its face, the article is mostly neutral and a little critical. ] (]) 03:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

:::::::*I just read this pharmacist's review. . . it appears that calling it 'positive' is a stretch. . . incredibly, it reads pretty neutrally.] (]) 03:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

::::::::All this is irrelevant. If you disagree with the current wording, explain why. ] (]) 17:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

==Getting unstuck, revisited==
I'd like to emphasize one of the points I wrote in ]:
* Keep the discussion focused. Concentrate on a small set of related matters and resolve them to the satisfaction of all parties.

I think one of the biggest problems here is that we're unable to "Concentrate on a small set of related matters" and there is very little effort being made to resolve anything. Instead, the discussions go off in tangents and then come back around to the same questions being asked again as if they've never been discussed before, or people flat-out asking for repetition. Basically, we're falling into ].

Also, my apologies for saying "we" when it certainly isn't everyone doing this. For now, I'm trying to look for general solutions, rather than putting any focus on who might be causing these problems. --] (]) 03:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
:Cheers. Thank you for the re-focus. <font color="red">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> <sup><font color="darkred">]</font></sup> 03:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
:Certainly i don't chime in since i don't follow closely enough, there is so much happening at once. One at a time might well be a good way to achieve compromises. I see from ANI that Levine is getting a ton of flack. I just want to point out that when I have worked with him he has always been willing to compromise. But in order for that to happen there actually has to be some compromises available and everyone has to be willing to ''give'' a little. (''disclaimer'': The last point is a general point, I have not read through all the arguments above) ] ] 15:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
::I think the point of Ronz's statement was to get away from making comments on individual users. <font color="red">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> <sup><font color="darkred">]</font></sup> 16:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
:::Exactly, lets discuss compromises this has worked in the past. ] ] 16:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
:::: Thanks, David D. I try my best! For instance, everyone please read the string just above this one. We are trying to reach a compromise, but it stalled a bit when we started dealing with a tangent. I tried to rope it back in. I would love for everyone to weigh in on the proposed compromised offered up in that discussion. I really do think we are close to finding one which we can all live with. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 17:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

==Getting unstuck, allow intellectual integrity==
To me the best solution to this endless argument would be to have an accurate, direct sentence that shows at least one academic, in a V RS paper, has been directly critical of Quackwatch, citing by reference, his primary examples based on Kauffman's review, "Watching the Watchdogs at Quackwatch". I suggest this sentence as far more accurate and intellectually honest:
"David Hufford, Professor and Chair of Medical Humanities at the Penn State College of Medicine,<ref>, Center for Spirituality and the Mind, U. of Pennsylvania. accessed online 2 November 2007.</ref> wrote a paper in which he cites Quackwatch articles as ''sources...to find further examples of systematic bias'' <ref>Hufford DJ. David J Hufford, "Symposium article: Evaluating Complementary and Alternative Medicine: The Limits of Science and Scientists." J Law, Medicine & Ethics, 31 (2003): 198-212. Hufford's symposium presentation was the counterpoint for another doctor's presentation, which argued that "alternative medicine" is not medicine at all. See Lawrence J. Schneiderman, "Symposium article: The (Alternative) Medicalization of Life." J Law, Medicine & Ethics, 31 (2003): 191-198.</ref> extensively citing a review with Joel M. Kauffman's<ref></ref> concerns about Quackwatch's reliablity.<ref name="Kauffman">Kauffmann JM (2002). Website Review: , ], '''16''', 2</ref>"--] (]) 22:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

:Neither Hufford nor Kauffman are as ] as you seem to think they are. ] (]) 22:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
::What is wrong with Kauffman? And Hufford for that matter. Feel free to direct me to place where this has been discussed before. I don't agree with Kauffman's conclusions but I don't see how you can call him an unreliable source. ] ] 22:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
::: I would certainly like a concise straight answer to your questions, David D. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 22:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
:::: I'm confused by this also. Please clarify. ] (]) 22:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::Actually, Hufford ''may'' be a ], but the symposium does not ''add'' to his personal reliability. Similarly, Kaufmann ''may'' be a ], but that particular article was clearly not peer-reviewed even as JSE concieves it, and JSE is pretty far out in that respect. In other words, the articles are RS ''only if'' Hufford and Kaufmann are considered experts in the field (and if we could agree on what the field is). There's a rational argument that Kaufmann is considered an expert in medical study review, which might be the appropriate field. There seems be a general consensus that JSE is not, itself, a reliable source, and there is a strong consensus that symposium presentations are not reviewed in any way, and that only the decision to invite the speaker qualifies as an external review. &mdash; ] | ] 23:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Independent academic coverage of QW, its articles and its principals is pretty thin, period. Hufford's paper seems to be as good as it gets, whereas the current QW article is constructed with some less qualified or self interested pro-QW references presented in a one-sided manner, realisticly not held to similar editing standards. I don't think that as a biothics professor Hufford has to be *the* all-round expert (physiology, etc.) on altmed topics to criticize simple bias when he clearly has longstanding credentials in the altmed field and humanities going back at least 20 years (government contract consultant to US ], referenced by QW itself) written while embedded in a multidisciplinary studies Centre at a medical school. "Professor", "Medical Humanities" pretty much describes his qualification for weight. An explanatory note to Hufford's attributed reference, along with linked credentials of both authors (Kauffman, Hufford) should adequately address any issue of weight for the reader to consider the merits of points he raises, vs the current POV absence of meaningful, credible, credentialed, independent criticism in the QW article.--] (]) 01:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::Hufford's "Symposium article" isn't exactly a "paper" in the sense of most papers. Weighting is also about inclusion/exclusion along the lines of ]. ] (]) 01:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Kauffman has been up front with his agenda (cholesterol denial and anti-fluoridation being his common causes) which QW attacks. Hufford's spirituality-based medicine is also attacked by QW. What would lend credibility to this so-called "criticism" would be if you found a person whose ideas were not being attacked by QW who gave the cite a negative review. ] (]) 01:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
::I think your phrase "cholesterol denial" is a highly prejudicial deprecation of Kauffman's criticism, where "cholesterol critics" come in many sizes and shapes in the complex field of CV risk, when Kauffman (further in his book, ''Malignant Medical Myths'') differentiates amongst lipoprotein-cholesterol components (vs "total cholesterol" and simple LDL, vs certain deadly subfractions of LDL) and is critical of the statin marketing monolith, as well as other risk factors with complex independence and relationships that much better describe cardiovascular risks. The specific qualities of the lipoprotein subfractions is emphasized with the dramatic failure of Pfizer's HDL booster, torcetrapib, killed a lot of patients (apparently wrong HDL) in the early trials whereas niacin, boosting HDL<sub>2b</sub>, now the undisputed HDL champion (among other lipoprotein fraction firsts) is finally moving into mainstream pharmaceuticals, after 50+ years of evasion, out of sheer necessity. Ditto the Lp(a), Apo-B lipoprotein subfractions with vitamin C and niacin. Ditto fish oil , inflammation, insulin levels and CV mortality, largely ignored in marketing for 20 years. Ditto ''Lipids OnLine'' (Baylor Medical School) try to be that predictive with "total cholesterol" or LDL-C.
::If you really feel strongly about Hufford, feel free to start his bio.--] (]) 02:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
:And that's why less weight is given to these two. But can we legitimately exclude them? ] ] 01:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
::Kauffman, certainly per the reliability concerns of JSE. Hufford is questionable since he uses Kauffman as his resource. ] (]) 01:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
:::Hufford, who had access to his Center and at least two med school faculties, is obviously assigning weight to the Kauffman review *despite* its JSE pedigree. A clear, fair presentation of any cautions or quibbles in any Kauffman/Hufford biography ref notes should be fine. '''Let the readers''' decide the appropriate weighting. "Idontlikeit" because it effectively questions QW's POV pushed infalliblity here with cited and academically reasoned examples, is wrong, in many ways. As is gangbang blaming Levine. So far all this year's edit warring shows, is how fragile and brittle QW's "mainstream" views may be, even with tremendous pharmaceutically supported "attaboys" in (inter)national advertisers (certain highly compensated journals with nice glossies, ditto high circulation popular media.). Can't even allow the name of such a documented doubt to be spoken, or even referenced is not satisfactory, at all.--] (]) 04:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

::::Were these authors criticized by QW before they wrote their negative pieces about the journal? If we're going to cite them in this article, identifying who launched the retaliatory strike would be most interesting. <font color="red">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> <sup><font color="darkred">]</font></sup> 04:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::AFAIK, the QW ''et al'' "family" has criticized neither Kauffman nor Hufford to date, even 5 and 4 years later, respectively - they appear to be independent academic criticism. "Kauffman" simply returns no hits in the QW multisite search engine, "Hufford" only shows up in the references as an author of OTA reports without much more than 2 very minor, one sentence descriptive texts.--] (]) 07:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

::::::Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the spat is between QW and these authors by name. I was thinking more along the lines of, "Did QW attack Hufford's or Kauffman's fields first, or did those gentlemen attack QW first and elicit an attack against their fields." And I use "attack" simply for lack of a better word, meaning no affront to either QW or the authors. <font color="red">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> <sup><font color="darkred">]</font></sup> 07:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

:::::::Reading the opening paragraph(s) to Kauffman's , Dr Barret's presentation to a local skeptics society, including Dr Kauffman, seems to have triggered both the skeptical and academic professorial gag reflex inside Kauffman. On other sites, JMK's statements make clear Kauffman is obviously dissatisfied with the congruence between medical practice, medical science, and scientific analyses in chronic diseases where he has been spending his time researching and re-analyzing biochemically based medicine, subgrouped nutrition, and various contradictions in (medical) science & practice for scientific consistency and rigor, with criticism for all (including altmed).

:::::::On any background conflicts concerning Hufford, I am personally less clear about any more esoteric seeming psychoimmunoneurology interests, concerns & practices as indicated (and deprecated) by SA (and still presumably QW). Mainstream medicine seems to be rushing headlong into the field where some of your school's direct competitors that I've seen are spending big money there, literally laying bricks and mortar. To me, SA's deprecation of Hufford's bioethics & humanities background sounds like out-of-line speculation and OR for starters, where Hufford cited/criticized mostly on the biochemically related articles anyway. I think we are dramatically overlawyering Hufford's paper - he is not setting or meeting an FDA standard, announcing a Nobel prize winning discovery, he is criticizing a long known partisan site as biased, citing specific examples from a qualified scientist on a popularized but non-academically notable organization flying under the academic radar.--] (]) 11:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

:To answer Antelan's question, yes, QW criticized their fields long before these two criticized QW. ] (]) 13:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

::Thanks for reminding me, SA. I had forgotten your previous prejudicial statements about Kauffman '''''' <sup>3 Jan 2007</sup> and seeming complete misunderstanding on the potential benefits of well designed ] for diabetics and those genetically predisposed.

::"Kauffman's field" up to about 2000 was synthesis of new dyes, such as for lasers, with one other publication for ''Skeptic'' magazine in 1999. According to the Preface of his book, ''Malignant Medical Myths'', Kauffman *began* his research on his first research project ca 2000 that became "Myth #1" on aspirin use, presumably before his Low Carb diet (Myth #2 on low fat diets) and Chloesterol-statin critique (Myth #3), similar to his two lead sections in ''JSE'' "Watching the Watchdogs" paper. The start of the ''Watchdogs'' paper seems to date to around this time also. So no obvious long term "field" conflicts with QW when he clearly states what sounds like an unimpressed, critical first contact with QW's Dr Barrett.

::One might infer from SA's comments on Hufford's humanities studies, as anyone who ever goes to church or studies church-goers, is disqualified to say anything critical of QW.

::So SA's remarks above, sound like pure Doomsday Defensive POV on QW, to me, content-free OR, minus the R, just negative speculations, mixed with ad hominem and a failure on AGF about Kaufman's introduction in "Watching the Watchdogs" and apparent first contact with QW. Feel free to contribute *constructive* comments.--] (]) 18:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

:::SA, thank you for answering my question. L'clast, if you disagree, just say so. Especially with sources. As an aside, how does SA's alleged "misunderstanding on the potential benefits of well designed ''low carb diets''" has anything to do with this discussion? <font color="red">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> <sup><font color="darkred">]</font></sup> 02:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Round and round we go. There have been many discussions on Kauffman and Hufford. Repeating these discussions, and ignoring past discussions is not a way to solve the problem, but instead just more ad nauseum. Perhaps this section should be labeled to indicate it's another ad nauseum argument. --] (]) 17:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

:Not just stuck, an intractable unreasonable refusal to collaborate within any edit bounds of NPOV and factual accuracy. There are legitimate V RS critics & criticism and this article erases, reverses meanings, dilutes and / or deprecates them all. It will be interesting to see if this ever makes a "featured article" in the press, as one more example of the technical shortcomings of WP and the hopeless bias with known errors in certain acticles.--] (]) 18:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

: Might be a bit premature as this iteration of the discussion isn't more that a day old. ] (]) 22:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

::Sorry, I think ] has the gist of the problem, here. The Kauffman's and Hufford's references' journals clearly fail ]. I'm uncertain whether either Kauffman or Hufford qualifies independently as an expert on quackery or medical research; if so, we need a cite for that, and if not, the references are ''not'' suitable as a ] in this article, or any article which touches on a living person, such as Barrett. I don't think ] is really being that productive either, even if his statements are accurate. &mdash; ] | ] 21:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

::: Why do the references' jounal fail WP:RS. It has been mentioned here because of an anti-peer-review editorial but I have not been able to find it. Does anyone have a link to the editorial? ] (]) 21:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

::::There are answers to your questions in the archieves, principally as this has been asked several times in the past. Rather than rehashing them (again) it would be prudent for you to examine what has been discussed before. The discussion isn't more than a day old, it's now almost a year. Unfortunately a minority of editors have a problem with wikipedia policies when it comes to their pet POVs. ] (]) 00:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

::::::Arthur's argument overconstrain's WP:RS and BLP on a combination and application that has been being perpetually polished here to immunize QW from cogent criticism, that I think clearly violates the intent of the policies if not absurdity. Sociologists have been trying to keep score on methological processes and execution in the sciences where people problems form fundamental problems to achieving scientific progress but frequently wind up being targeted themselves by the dominant old guard in actual case studies. Hufford's comments pertain to QW in an area Hufford is a qualified professional as a tenured humanities/sociology professor within recognized medical schools and programs, with a number of distinctions (chair, director) and area specific. Hufford was a federal OTA consultant on CAM assessments reports, a compendium still considered unfavorable to CAM, with Hufford neutrally referenced at QW multiple times (where Hufford perhaps may not have been a dues paying QW member and/or friend of Herbert).

::::::Likewise, Kaufman critiques Quackwatch articles for ignoring scientific data, or at the very least scientific disputes with major points favored favored by current medical school research, in some areas such as the cholesterol and metabolic syndrome areas. Most of all Kauffman catalogs QW's methological errors & failings in science generally, with examples that are verifiable or sourceable, and classifies some: "inneundo", "obsolete data", "incomplete data", "technical errors", "unsupported opinions". Which as a doctrate from MIT, medicinal chemist, tenured emeritus professor at a health sciences university he appears qualified to do. Kauffman's review of QW's scientific shortcomings addressing classical homeopathy seemed especially precious, where no one could remotely consider Kauffman to be ] challenged on serial dilution.

::::::If Arthur ''et al'' are right, and this article is effectively unremedial, I think independent arbs/administrators should consider the more drastic remedies for such irreconcilable POV situations, such as stubbing or deletion.--] (]) 00:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

::::::: Have we ever tried to get a third-party opinion of Kauffman and Hufford as sources at ]? If not, may we try? If there is a consensus there that neither of these sources pass ] at RS/N then I am willing to move on, if - by the same token - the "other side" is willing to abide to the usability of these source if RS/N has a consensus that they pass ]. Does this sound like a reasonable solution? -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 00:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::::: That's not what happened with ]. --] (]) 00:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
::::::::: How do you mean? Please clarify. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 01:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

::::::::::A summary of the situation that Ronz is alluding to is this: Levine2112 is now suggesting that we get an independent editor to decide if Kauffman & Hufford satisfy WP:RS/WP:N. Levine suggests that he would "abide" by the conclusion of the independent editor. However, as Ronz points out, Levine asked for independent input on the '''peer review''' debate earlier this week. The third-party editor disagreed with Levine's position (that there should be a note in this article about QW's lack of peer-review status), emphasizing that such peer-review would not even be ''expected'' for such a site. Levine's response indicated that, though he was grateful for the editor's input, he would not be making use of the editor's suggestions. In other words, abiding by the independent editor's conclusion was not what occurred last time. <font color="red">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> <sup><font color="darkred">]</font></sup> 02:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::: THat may not be an accurate summary of what transpired. The three sources I posted there were in respect to the original inclusion of the lack of peer review in the "Mission and scope" portion of this article. When the suggestion to move this to the "Quackwatch as a source" section was made and to change the context of the usages (as a quote rather than a summary), I determined that the RS/N which I had posted was no longer applicable (as I state at the RS/N). Make sense. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 02:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't appear to be an accurate accounting. Here are a few quotes with timestamps:
* 04:57, 12 December 2007: I write, "It doesn't support what is currently in dispute, because it doesn't say anything remotely like what's currently in dispute. It might be used for an alternative though, something that would probably fit in "Quackwatch as a source."
* 21:07, 12 December 2007: Levine writes the RS/N notice beginning, "We are looking for confirmation that each or all of the following are or are not reliable sources to support a statement like: Quackwatch articles are not subject to peer review."
* 00:30, 13 December 2007: Levine concludes the RS/N, saying "We have decided to go another way with this information and are now only citing the first source but noting that this is the author's opinion."
* 18:30, 14 December 2007: Levine writes, "the only reason we are here dealing with this review in particular and not the other two sources we have which describe Quackwatch's lack of peer review is out of sheer compromise in the interest of promoting some greater harmony at this article."
--] (]) 02:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

: I don't see a discrepancy. ] (]) 02:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

::Well, I don't see consistency. Perhaps Levine can explain the apparent discrepancy. &mdash; ] | ] 14:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
::: I would be happy to explain. What is the discrepancy precisely as you see it? -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 20:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
:::: It seems to me that it is confusing to make a request on RS/N and then say never mind a short time later. If the question deserves outside editors getting into the sources and determining reliability and verifiability for us then we shouldn't make requests lightly. With that said, I don't see any discrepancy or lack of good faith here. There's no reason not to move forward toward resolving disputes. &mdash;] (''']''') 08:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

== new search ==
Here was a quick search about peer review of QW. From my quick look over it looks like it is. --]] 21:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
:WHat are these links supposed to show? I see no mention about peer review. Please specify. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 22:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
::Crohnie is offering sources that are peer reviewed (or at least, vetted by the federal government) and mention QW. ] (]) 22:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
::: Right. But none of these sources claim that Quackwatch is in any way peer reviewed, right? I thought that is what Crohnie was thinking. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 22:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

::::Just to clarify, I was trying to show what ScienceApologist concluded. The link which I showed had the search as 'Quackwatch peer review'.--]] 20:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

==RONZ'S reason for including the NEUTRALITY tag==
RONZ. . . please feel free to elaborate here as you have not given any justification for including this tag. . . How are we supposed to know how to get it removed if you don't tell us your particular issue(s)?] (]) 23:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
:] --] (]) 17:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

== Is it worth loosing your editing privileges for this....? ==

{{quotation|In discussing the site's limitations, Nguyen-Khoa recommended that Quackwatch institute mirrored "academic counterpoint" and that a "giant step toward true legitimacy would involve active peer review of the articles to be published.}}
vs.
{{quotation|Nguyen-Khoa went on to recommend that Quackwatch start a mirrored "academic counterpoint" wherein a "giant step toward true legitimacy would involve active peer review of the articles to be published}}

If you think it is worth edit warring for these minutiae, a temporary block may open your sinuses so some reason can sip in. ] <small>]</small> 22:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

At the 3RR noticeboard, it was suggested that edit-warring parties get ] ] <small>]</small> 23:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

:These distinctions are very important to SA. IMO, SA doesn't want the words "site limitations" because it spells out a POV that he doesn't want expressed, that is, the QW has limitations. The article itself spells out those limitations in a section appropriately titled "limitations." The second term he doesn't like is "and that a" meaning that it has two limitation. He conflated mirror counterpoint with peer-review to make it seem like they are one and the same. ] (]) 23:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

:: Yes, everybody is always right. But the issue is that you and SA ''must'' find a way to reconcile these fine points. Editwarring does not work. Rather than editwar, propose a different wording, find common ground. It is possible if you try. ] <small>]</small> 23:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

:: For example: This is the text from that source:
::{{quotation|For all the praise the site has won from reputable reviewers and rating services, the presence of so many articles from one author (Dr. Barrett) leaves one sensing a lack of fair balance in his condemnation of many dubious health therapies. Steps to correct this are under way, as many reputable professionals have signed on to populate the site in their areas of expertise. A giant step toward true legitimacy would involve active peer review of the articles to be published, a logical transition for a site that relies on so much of the accepted medical literature as its foundation.}}

::Which can be summarized as:
::{{quotation|Nguyen-Khoa asserts a lack of balance in Barret's condemnation of dubious health therapies, and states that if Quackwatch institutes an active peer review of the articles published on the site, that would be a "giant step toward true legitimacy."}}
:: or something along these lines. Stay close to the sources rather than editorializing. ] <small>]</small> 23:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

::: Great summarization. SA, how do you feel about it? Do feel that {{quotation|In discussing the site's limitations, Nguyen-Khoa recommended that Quackwatch institute mirrored "academic counterpoint" and that a "giant step toward true legitimacy would involve active peer review of the articles to be published.}}
:::is editorializing? ] (]) 03:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

:::: Yes, it is a type of editorializing. Not egregious, and even accurate in a sense, but still editorializing that should be avoided. Jossi's version still includes mention of what Nguyen-Khoa considers a type of limitation, and Jossi's version does it by quoting, not by editorializing. Actually a very good version which I would support. Nice work, Jossi. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 07:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

::::: I appreciate you input. Could you clarify what you think makes it editorializing? Most of 'it' is a direct quote from Nguyen-Khoa's review. ] (]) 12:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I want to apologize for edit warring. It is very frustrating doing the work I do at Misplaced Pages. Anyway, the proposed wording is problematic because it tries to position Nguyen-Khoa's phrase "leaves one sensing a lack of fair balance in his condemnation of many dubious health therapies" as an actual assertion when it is more of a vague discomfort. More than this, his next statement that "Steps to correct this are under way, as many reputable professionals have signed on to populate the site in their areas of expertise." is completely absent from Jossi's summary: as if Nguyen-Khoa is simply criticizing the site wholesale without pointing out that the site is aware of the perception issue and is correcting it. That's the sense of the supposed critique: Nguyen-Khoa is not offering some outright condemnation for lacking "peer review", but rather he is offering a suggestion for improvement which he seems to think is being acted on already. The spin being put here by anti-QW crowd is palpable. ] (]) 14:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

: Remember you tried to spin this as a ''positive'' review? No anti-QW bias. I am just trying to balance the article. Why not let the words speak for themselves? With your statement ''Nguyen-Khoa ... is offering a suggestion for improvement '''which he seems to think is being acted on already''''' you're conflating three criticisms into one. <br>
:1) Most articles published by QW are written by Barrett. Populating the site doesn't equal a variety of authors.<br>
:2) Need for peer-review. Populating the site doesn't equal peer-review.<br>
:3) Need for academic counterpoint. Populating the site doesn't equal academic counterpoint.<br>
:The review is from 1999. Nine years later, which one of these three do you believe has been or is being resolved? This may not matter, but what impression are you trying to leave in the minds of readers? ] (]) 15:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

::This is asking for ] by ] and exposes his goal in spinning his interpretation of the review. I think he has demonstrated why he is basically descending into ] tactics. ] (]) 23:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It is amazing how this extremely minor piece is getting such featured status in WP. I'm sure if the author had known he was going to be featured here, he would have written the article more thoroughly and carefully. This is a website review, lest we forget, not some sort of rigorous scientific evaluation of the site. <font color="red">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> <sup><font color="darkred">]</font></sup> 20:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

::If I remember correctly this article was written in '99. If I am correct on that then changes have already been made per this '06 article . So is this article outdated? --]] 20:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

:: Antelan. That's WP:OR. It is a site review in a peer-reviewed journal. ''That'' is what concerns us. ] (]) 21:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

:::There is no indication that this website review was peer-reviewed. It represents solely the opinion of Nguyen-Khoa. ] (]) 23:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

:::: Your argument is of no true consequence. It is published in a peer-reviewed journal. ''That'' is what concerns us. ] (]) 11:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

::::: ''Your'' argument is of no true consequence. As in Kaufmann's article, there's no real evidence that ''that article'' was subject to peer review. In the peer-reviewed journals in my field (Mathematics), web site reviews are hardly ever peer-reviewed. &mdash; ] | ] 18:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

:::::: Then perhaps I am mistaken. Please clarify. Is it usually the case that a peer-review article tags each article with a statement that the article is peer-reviewed? I looked at several articles in NEJM and found no such tag on those articles. How do we know ''any'' article is peer-reviewed? And why do we assume that this one isn't? Why do you attempt to refute my position and ignore SA's assertion that "It represents solely the opinion of Nguyen-Khoa?" Incidentally, the Kaufmann article was peer-reviewed as the journal claims it is a peer-reviewed journal and I confirmed per personal conversation with the journal's secretary that all their articles are peer-reviewed. ] (]) 11:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

::::::: In peer-reviewed journals, things tagged as "articles" are usually peer-reviewed. Things tagged as "letters", "commentary", or "reviews" are usually not. We're allowed to use common sense in choosing sources, even if we're not allowed to insert common sense into articles. &mdash; ] | ] 16:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

== Protection 2==

I have just lengthened protection to not expire, after reviewing the edit history. Actually the best for all concerned is probably to go away and never come back, leaving the article to a new community of editors; there does not seem to be anyone here who is not deeply invested in either rubbishing or defending Quackwatch. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

:And another group of POV-warriors will come to rubbish the article, claiming that Quackwatch is run by Aliens from Area 51. Then another group of individuals who actually care about what this project does will clean it up. I'm sure the protection is good, but I can email you about 25,000 other articles that are worse off than this one. I'm burning out from the POV-nutjobs around here. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 01:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
:: And how exactly your comment helps here? It does not. You may consider refactoring your offending comment about fellow editors. ] <small>]</small> 01:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

::: The text I was trying to protect was an accurate reflection of the source's comments. In fact most of it was a quote from the "limitations" section of the source's review. The article is mostly a QW promotional brochure and is in need of balance. Some criticism is rightly justified. The source sums it up well. I am not interested in trashing QW. Just getting some balance into the article. ] (]) 03:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

::::On balance, QW has received high praise from scientific and governmental groups, and criticism from groups that it has attacked. No need to say much more than that. <font color="red">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> <sup><font color="darkred">]</font></sup> 20:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
::::: If you list sources of praise then you should list the source of criticism, especially peer-reviewed sources. ] (]) 21:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
::::::Everything needs to be sourced. Is this what you are getting at? <font color="red">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> <sup><font color="darkred">]</font></sup> 22:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
::::::: What I mean is if the article simply states "QW has received high praise from scientific and governmental groups, and criticism from groups that it has attacked" then that is fine. But if you start enumerating the sources of praise (RS) then you should also list sources of criticism (RS). ] (]) 03:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
::::::::QW is only attacked by people who are quacks. That's already in the article. ] (]) 01:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
::::::::: Ronz, where are you? <s>Your</s> SA's characterization is UNCIVIL and factually incorrect. The Consultant Pharmacist and the Village Voice are not quacks. ] (]) 11:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::The Consultant Pharmacist article is not an attack (as you're trying to spin it), and the Village Voice piece seems to be a personal column. &mdash; ] | ] 18:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
(Unindent) Arthur: I'm not sure what you mean, so if I misinterpret, please clarify. I don't think I am spinning. Perhaps SA is the one who is spinning. The prevalent discussion over the past few weeks has been on the inclusion of the Consultant Pharmacist article to this page. I never claimed that the Consultant Pharmacist article was an ''attack.'' I didn't use the word ''attack,'' SA did. I said criticism, Antelan said criticism and SA responded attack. From some of his edit on this page, including this recent one, it appears that SA sees criticism as an attack on QW, at least in this case. The Consultant Pharmacist and Village Voice articles both contain ''criticisms'' of QW. Second, the Village Voice article is written by an ''investigative journalist'' and it doesn't suggest ''opinion'' on the Village Voice web page, so I'm not sure why you think it is a personal column. ] (]) 08:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::It is much better to refer directly to the sources rather than saying "there has been support and criticism". Then readers can make up their own minds exactly how critical or supportive statements are. Also, there may be mixed responses that are also worth including. ] (]) 09:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::: Agreed. I believe that this is what has happened in the article. ] (]) 10:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::: My bad on reading "quack" as "attack". However, I stand by my comment on the presence of non-peer-reviewed articles (such as web site reviews) in peer-reviewed journals, and of commentary columns in news-magazines and newspapers. The Kaufmann "article" has been clearly shown to be subject to only limited review, under JSE's editorial policies as seen on their web page (not even considering the question of whether an organization which doesn't believe in peer review would properly practice it), and there has been an arguument presented that the ''Village Voice'' column was a commentary piece. I don't recall the result of that argument. &mdash; ] | ] 16:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

== Minor thing... ==

Would the 'Quackwatch as a source' section be better named 'Quackwatch as a resource', similar to say the ] article? As it is now it seems focused on proving Quackwatch is a reliable source, requiring the documentation of praise for QW at length. If this was copied to WP: space and the article changed to look at various aspects of Quackwatch, disruptive editing by those it monitors could be minimized and the article improved.] (]) 09:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

== Comment on wether lack of peer review should be mentioned ==
After reading this article I've noticed at least once on a forum (something awful) that somebody said that this journal was revered for being peer reviewed which I learnt was false from the discussion above. It is tragic to see such a huge dispute about a minor point just because somebody feel that useful facts are POV. --] (]) 05:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

:The user was also wrong about Quackwatch being a journal, which it is not. The question basically becomes where do we draw the line. <font color="red">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> <sup><font color="darkred">]</font></sup> 07:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

:: Benjamin, I would be very interested in getting the URL to that discussion. It might be worth knowing who was making such a claim, as it is a possibly a triple whammy: (1) it is false; (2) leads to false expectations: (3) may have been intended to do just that. As to "useful facts are POV", they often are and if they are significant and documented using V & RS, they may even be included here. It all depends on how. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 07:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

:::Sorry, just an anecdotal evidence and I cannot remember the debate it was mentioned. But the article has huge readability issues because of this stupid debate now, and contains tons of unnecessary praise which isn't significant or even interesting to a reader. It seems to suggest to me that W:RS, W:NPOV and W:UNDUE should be debated in light of the new more stringent "source-based" editing methodology. Especially in fringe, but controversial, subjects where editors are more interested in the POV outcome rather than writing an engaging and useful story about facts. Are there any central place on the wiki a debate along these lines? It seems to me that FRINGE & RS is abused in such manner it oppresses the opinion of anti-establishment proponents whom usually is the opposing side in any debate. Hence the article turns out one-sided in favor of whoever the gods cheers on at the moment. Sorry for being ranty, but this is a systemic problem that is starting to flow over into more important articles than this one. --] (]) 07:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

:::: That's alright. Frustration levels can run high here! I think the following quote addresses the situation well. MastCell is an admin and physician:

::::* ''Look, the fact is that advocates of fringe or minoritarian viewpoints have a tough road to hoe on Misplaced Pages. This is supposed to be a serious encyclopedia. ] ] codifies this. Of course minority or fringe viewpoints can be represented and covered, but advocates who relentlessly push for favorable treatment of widely discredited fringe viewpoints and refuse to bow to any sort of consensus or Misplaced Pages policy don't last long (or rather, they shouldn't but often do).'' ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 00:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC) ''''

:::: He doesn't mention it, but other policies also make it difficult for anti-establishment proponents or those using Misplaced Pages for advocacy (highly forbidden). Things like NOR, "Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball," and the fact that we are bound to using V & RS (IOW we only write what is basically well-established notable history, as in very short or long term "past tense"), ensures that speculative personal opinions and "what might be proven in the future" are kept out, and things like collaborative editing and including all significant POV in the same article, etc., all work together to keep Misplaced Pages from reading like a huge collection of personal websites.

:::: You might be interested in reading about the ]. If you support fringe ideas, they are your worst enemies here....;-) Wishing you a Happy New Year! -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 08:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

::::: Hehe, but who decides what the majority is? And more annoyingly, the majority usually knows very little about any specific issue. So on fringe topics often the perceived "truth" is pushed, not the facts. And it is the perceived truth of the majority that wins on topics where the "truth is unknown". I am not terribly for alternative medicines, but yet I see relentless usage of policies against the few on many topics where WP:V and WP:RS should have been enough for inclusion. In most content rulings it has been stated that the article should rather describe than to outline an opinion. This article, which lists a dozens of pseudosciences out of the blue, is a clear POV-push. There are tons of other problems too. But since the majority of the editors of this article are heavy skeptics it outlines THEIR view on the topic. Personally I found the rebuttals helpful to delve further into the topic, and I personally found the sourcing good. Including them would make the article better, but it seems there is some ardent fear of WP:TRUTH here! Worst of all. This hard skeptics vs open-minded debate is an american cultural artifact. I would love to know why it is that way, but at least I haven't been able to find out why here on wikipedia. So this whole thing reeks of a systemic issue where policies does nothing but to give wiki-lawyers more weapons. It seems the policies are made in moral problems in mind, not issues where the "truth" is unknown. --] (]) 08:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::: Very good observations. ] (]) 16:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

== Wanted to add ==
{{tl|editprotected}} 20:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to add some information to the article (as Further reading), but it is locked:

* ''Paranormal Claims: A Critical Analysis'', 2007, edited by Bryan Farha, ], ISBN 978-0-7618-3772-5. Three of the eighteen chapters are reprints of Quackwatch articles.

] ], 01:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Where is this going to be added? There is no consensus for this addition, just one editors request. ] (]) 20:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

: As I said above, I'd like to add it as "Further Reading". I can't see that it would be controversial at all. ] ], 21:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

:: I missed that. I don't see how it fits in this article. This isn't an article on Paranormal phenomena. ] (]) 22:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

::: It is a simple statement of fact that three of the chapters in that book are reprinted from Quackwatch. It has nothing to do with the arguement going on. ] ], 22:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

:::: I see. ] (]) 22:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

::::: Seems benign; and in fact I'd welcome it, as a gentle reminder that "quackery" is not a synonym for "alternative medicine". They overlap, but they are not equivalent. But more to the point, it helps illustrate the actual scope of the website. ] (]) 23:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::: I had no intention of making any kind of point. I got the book last month, and several of the chapters were reprints from ], several from ], and some from QW. I had no problem listing that fact on the first two articles. ] ], 01:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::: Here is a . ] ], 01:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

{{tick}} '''Done.''' ] (]) 17:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

==Proportionally Reflecting the ==
Text from Consultant Pharmacists review.
{{quotation|For all the praise the site has won from reputable reviewers and rating services, the presence of so many articles from one author (Dr. Barrett) leaves one sensing a lack of fair balance in his condemnation of many dubious health therapies. Steps to correct this are under way, as many reputable professionals have signed on to populate the site in their areas of expertise. A giant step toward true legitimacy would involve active peer review of the articles to be published, a logical transition for a site that relies on so much of the accepted medical literature as its foundation. Further, an area for academic counterpoint would be a good addition. As stated, Dr. Barrett often inserts his strong opinions directly into sections of an article already well supported by the literature. Although entertaining, this direct commentary may be viewed by some as less than professional medical writing and may be better reserved for its own section.}}
Previous text posted by Anthon01.
{{quotation|In a 1999 review published in the '']'', Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa ] discussed two articles from Quackwatch of particular interest to pharmacists. One article reported on the conflict of interest posed to pharmacies who sell "dubious" alternative therapy products, remarking that an independent survey determined that pharmacists were motivated by profit margins greater than those for conventional drugs. '''In discussing the site's limitations, Nguyen-Khoa recommended''' that Quackwatch '''institute''' mirrored "academic counterpoint" '''and that''' a "giant step toward true legitimacy would involve active peer review of the articles to be published.''}}
Current text of article:
{{quotation|In a 1999 review published in the '']'', Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa ] discussed two articles from Quackwatch of particular interest to pharmacists. One article reported on the conflict of interest posed to pharmacies who sell "dubious" alternative therapy products, remarking that an independent survey determined that pharmacists were motivated by profit margins greater than those for conventional drugs. '''Nguyen-Khoa went on to recommend''' that Quackwatch '''start a''' mirrored "academic counterpoint" '''wherein''' a "giant step toward true legitimacy would involve active peer review of the articles to be published."''<ref name="acspq">{{cite article|author=Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa, ]|title=Quackwatch.com|work=The Consultant Pharmacist|publisher=]|date=July 1999 |url=http://www.ascp.com/publications/tcp/1999/jul/access.shtml}}</ref>}}
Jossi suggestion subsequent to page protection.
{{quotation|Nguyen-Khoa asserts a lack of balance in Barret's condemnation of dubious health therapies, and states that if Quackwatch institutes an active peer review of the articles published on the site, that would be a "giant step toward true legitimacy."}}

Perhap a RfC would be helpful. ] (]) 18:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

* The paragraph (as it evolves) has two main parts; the part I want, for nefarious reasons of my own, paraphrase: there exists a critic who suggests QW would benefit from peer-review; the other part, that for reasons of his own SA wants, that (paraphrase) there is at least some praise of QW in the afore-mentioned review. Since both those paraphrases are essentially true, I can accept that both parts be present in the paragraph (reasonably worded). The points of disagreement, as I understand it, are these:
* 1. It is not possible, or desirable, for every quote to reflect all of it's context. It was not ''necessary'' for a fact that may be taken to be critical of QW to be balanced by another fact that may seem complimentary. The article as a whole should strive for balance, but particular quotes need only establish the particular claims which cite them. So in my view, SA is wrong to insist on this addition. But since the addition is factual I don't object to it. I object to the apparent necessity of argueing every proposed wording with religious fervor, but SA probably doens't love that either.
* 2. In contraposition, SA believes (I think) that by establishing that a critic exists who advocates peer-review for QW, I'm kowtowing to a (wrong-headed) quackery-movement to claim QW falsifies itself by not adhering to it's own guidelines for peer-review. In essence, we both concede each others facts (mine, that the criticism exists, his, that praise exists also) but object to each others reasons and/or unintended effects. To me, allowing criticism (even from crackpots) is as important to science as rebutting the criticism. Unlike religion, science is absolutely not, and can never be, above criticism (else it ceases to be science). ] (]) 19:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

::There is no evidence that Nguyen-Khoa was acting as a critic. Jossi's and Anthon01's versions are wholly unacceptable to me. The current wording as present in the article is fine. If you disagree please explain. ] (]) 19:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC) ] (]) 03:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

::: OK, if I make the (conventional) use of "critic" for "author of an apparent criticism" then I can be misinterpreted as implying that the author of the review hates QW because QW is incompetent, etc. So "Reviewer". "A reviewer exists who..." instead of "A critic exists who...". SA, IMO you are overly defensive about small things, and super-sensitivity is deleterious to consensus building, but all things considered I'm happy to accept that as an improvement in my wording explaining wordings. ] (]) 17:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

:::: Peter: I don't see how this review could be categorized as positive. I believe the article is mostly neutral, ala WP:NPOV, with some criticism. Nguyen-Khoa does not praise Quackwatch in any way. He simply describes the website and discusses two articles of interest to pharmacists from a NPOV.
::::] (]) 03:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
==="start a" vs. "institute"===
<s>I don't really care about whether we use "start a" or "institute".</s> Is there some rationale for liking/disliking one or the other? ] (]) 20:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

: I think institute sounds more professional for the WP project and QW. ] (]) 20:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

::Overly jargoned. Again, I change my vote. I think "start a" is a plainer read. ] (]) 20:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

::: I'm ok with "start a." ] (]) 21:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

:::: This may sound silly, but I commend you both for agreeing quickly on a triviality. In the context, it is ''not'' silly. ] (]) 19:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
::::: Thank you. Do you believe that this is all trivial? ] (]) 22:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

==="and that" vs. "wherein"===

<s>I don't really care about whether we use "and that" or "wherein".</s> Is there some rationale for liking/disliking one or the other? ] (]) 20:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

:Wherein links academic counterpoint with peer-review as if "peer-review" would be included within 'academic counterpoint.' Wherein would be inaccurate. One problem solved in record time.;-) ] (]) 20:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

::But they are connected, peer review is included within academic counterpoint. Therefore "wherein" is accurate. So maybe I'll change my vote to supporting "wherein" instead. ] (]) 20:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

::: I appreciate your taking the time to point out the parts of the text you are uncomfortable with and why. ] (]) 20:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

::: From the Pharmacist Consultant Review {{quotation | A giant step toward true legitimacy would involve '''active peer review''' of the articles to be published, a logical transition for a site that relies on so much of the accepted medical literature as its foundation. '''Further,''' an '''area''' for academic counterpoint would be a good addition.}}

::: The article clearly separates the two recommendations. Your version is WP:OR. ] (]) 20:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

::::No, "further" connects the two and as peer-review is an academic activity, it is naturally part of the recommendation. "Further" means that a broader context could be provided for the narrower antecedent. Nguyen-Khoa is suggesting a new way for QW to publish articles. My version is an accurate appraisal of the source. ] (]) 20:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

::::: IMO, "Further" here means "in addition to." Any other interpretation is OR. ] (]) 21:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::So you don't think that peer-review is academic then. ] (]) 21:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::: I believe it is academic, but I don't believe it is counterpoint. ] (]) 21:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::You don't believe peer-review is a counterpoint to things that aren't peer-reviewed? ] (]) 21:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::::: Respectfully, I believe you are unknowingly setting up a strawman argument for me to respond to. I am saying that the text says "QW should do A." then it says "Further Quackwatch should do B." It doesn't say A is a subset of B and your saying it is WP:OR. ] (]) 21:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::The text is saying "further" as a consequence of the antecedent. Therefore A and B are connected. ] (]) 21:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::: I will let others comment. ] (]) 21:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

* Academic Peer-review is a proper subset of academic counterpoint, if by "counterpoint" we mean avenues for (possibly) mutual and (possibly) constructive criticism. "Area for counterpoint" probably means "open criticism", e.g. letters to the editor publishing outside criticism, or invited "opposing point of view" editorials, and that would be a nonoverlapping subset because APR is generally anonymous and the referees' reviews are not published; only the editor gets the feedback, and he in turn shares his own selection of that feedback with the author.
* There is a bigger issue, though, regarding the use of logic by editors. ''It is inescapable'' but too many of us don't realize that, and think that following NPOV means there is no interpretation. I think this needs to be addressed with a new policy item but I'm not sure. In the meanwhile, I urge finding mutually acceptable wording. Either of you could accede to either wording and I'd be content, that particular is a very small thing in the scope of the mess we have here.
* "further" connotes consequence but does not denote it; the subsequent phrase can merely be the next item on a list, which can be e.g. a todo list with no connection internal to the members, like "do laundry" then "call Bill". So my vote would be to acknowledge common-usage validity in SA's arguement but concede to Ant's on the grounds of erring on the side of what is least uncertain or least ambiguous. ] (]) 19:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

::Who has ever said, "Do the laundry. Further, call Bill" ? ] (]) 20:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

::: Within the confines of a website, "area for counterpoint" likely means a 'web space' for commentary. BTW, can we agree to drop the word 'mirrored?' I am not sure how that got in there. ] (]) 21:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

::::Mirrored is a good word. ] (]) 21:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

::::: What does 'mirrored' mean here and how does it reflect the text of the review? ] (]) 21:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
::::: Do you think it is ok to add criticism to the QW article? It seems that you are against it.] (]) 21:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::I don't understand these questions, try rephrasing them. ] (]) 18:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

==="In discussing the site's limitations" vs. "Nguyen-Khoa went on to recommend"===
SA: The section of the Nguyen-Khoa review where the above text is taken from is titled "limitations." Why do you object to "In discussing the site's limitations?" ] (]) 22:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
:That title is ungrammatical. <font color="red">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> <sup><font color="darkred">]</font></sup> 04:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
:: Thanks ] (]) 18:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Because it is not a limitation to make a recommendation. ] (]) 18:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

:::: '''The recommendations are made to help erase the limitations.''' Here is the text from the Nguyen-Khoa review.

::::{{Quotation|'''Limitations:''' From a technical perspective, the site is poorly organized. The home page is used more like a document warehouse than a rational starting point. With the addition of dozens of forthcoming articles, readers will encounter some trouble finding what they want or discovering interesting topics. The site has a link to a search engine that helps somewhat, but the searches return line-by-line keyword results without displaying the title or context of the page.<br><br>For all the praise the site has won from reputable reviewers and rating services, the presence of so many articles from one author (Dr. Barrett) leaves one sensing a lack of fair balance in his condemnation of many dubious health therapies. Steps to correct this are under way, as many reputable professionals have signed on to populate the site in their areas of expertise. '''A giant step toward true legitimacy would involve active peer review of the articles to be published, a logical transition for a site that relies on so much of the accepted medical literature as its foundation. Further, an area for academic counterpoint would be a good addition.''' As stated, Dr. Barrett often inserts his strong opinions directly into sections of an article already well supported by the literature. Although entertaining, this direct commentary may be viewed by some as less than professional medical writing and may be better reserved for its own section.<br><br>'''Related Sites:''' The success of Quackwatch has spawned two new sites... }}

:::: Why is the section of the review titled ''Limitations'' if it is not about enumerating limitations? Note that the section right after ''Limitations'' is called ''Related Sites.'' Within the bounds of ''Limitations'' is the text in question? --] (]) 19:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::Some of the issues are related to limitations but are not themselves limitations. ] (]) 03:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

==Has Quackwatch addressed all the issues raised by Nguyen-Khoa?==
The problem I have is this was written in 1999 and your quote even states "Steps to correct this is underway". On Quackwatch here which is dated 2006 shows steps were taken to add more professionals to the site. So I think what you want is already shown to be out of date. --]] 22:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

:I think you're right, CrohnieGal. If this website review from 1999 had the weight of say, the ] and improving Quackwatch was as historically important as improving medical education, I could understand keeping this historical footnote in the article. It's not though - it's a website review that made recommendations that were, probably incidentally, implemented to a greater or lesser extent. <font color="red">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> <sup><font color="darkred">]</font></sup> 17:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

::CrohnieGal and Antelan: I appreciate you comments. However, I wonder what your thoughts are on the specific points that are the reason for the previous section. That, the recommendation for peer-review and academic counter point are located in the "Limitations Section," and that the reviewer was discussing ''limitations'' of the site in that section. Please contrast this assertion against SA's comment that they are not limitations. ] (]) 18:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I think the whole article is out of date and thus should be removed in total. QW shows in 2006 to have taken steps in correcting the "Limitation Section" so why should it be put into the article? It seems to me that it no longer has any weight nor importance to the article in 2008. I think Antelan explains the reasoning quite well. --]] 18:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

:I was hoping to get a response to the issues I had raised, but instead, you have raised another. So I have created a new section so that these issues can be discussed separately. So the following is my response to your suggestion. The Limitation Section discusses at least three issues
:*One Man Show that is, writing all the articles - partially resolved
:*Peer-review
:*Area for academic counterpoint

:Populating the site with professionals and technicians, as QW has done, only ''partially addresses'' the first issue, that is one author writing most of the articles. From the review:
{{Quotation|'''Limitations:''' From a technical perspective ... page.<br><br>For all the praise the site has won from reputable reviewers and rating services, the presence of so many articles from one author (Dr. Barrett) leaves one sensing a lack of fair balance in his condemnation of many dubious health therapies. Steps to correct this are under way, as many reputable professionals have signed on to populate the site in their areas of expertise. ... <br><br>'''Related Sites:''' The success of Quackwatch has spawned two new sites... }}
:I believe most of the writing is still being done by Barrett. No one here has suggested adding text that reflects the first of these three issues, only the last two. ] (]) 18:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I would not object to removing the article on the grounds that it is out-of-date. ] (]) 03:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

:Can you give a recent link that Dr. Barrett is "'''For all the praise the site has won from reputable reviewers and rating services, ''the presence of so many articles from one author (Dr. Barrett) leaves one sensing a lack of fair balance in his condemnation of many dubious health therapies?"''''' (quote from what you wrote above.) Also, the next quote you have is; ''"'''Steps to correct this are under way, as many reputable professionals have signed on to populate the site in their areas of expertise'''." '' Which brings me back to saying that this article is out of date unless you have new information that you can show stating that Dr. Barrett is the main person writing articles. You state '''"''I believe most of the writing is still being done by Barrett''"''' (Italics and boldness are from me to show where my concerns are.) Again, is this just an opinion or do you have recent proof of this? I am not trying to be difficult here but I truly believe that this article is out of date and should be removed from the article in total. I believe that 'cherry picking' like this does nothing to help improve this article. Again, I am just trying to understand and not be difficult with you, I hope this you do understand. It's terribly early here and I had a bad night so I hope this all makes sense. If there are more questions please don't hesitate to ask it here or even on my talk page. Thanks, --]] 11:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

:: I wouldn't consider the review to be out-of-date unless/until more recent material describes a materially different situation, e.g. a citation that later, QW ''did'' introduce peer-review for its articles. Dated, but not out of date. ] (]) 20:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

:::Unless you think QW is being deceitful then this proves that is it out of date. I still believe that it should be deleted from the article because it's also not ] and ] just to name a few policies. Of course this is just my opinion,--]] 22:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

:::: Respectfully, your link ''does not prove'' the Nguyen-Khoa review is out of date. In fact, it confirms what the Nguyen-Khoa review said. From the Nguyen-Khoa review {{quotation | For all the praise the site has won from reputable reviewers and rating services, the presence of so many articles from one author (Dr. Barrett) leaves one sensing a lack of fair balance in his condemnation of many dubious health therapies. '''Steps to correct this are under way, as many reputable professionals have signed on to populate the site in their areas of expertise.'''}}
::::Please note the bold text. You link reinforces the claim made by the reviewer. The Nguyen-Khoa review says "many reputable professionals have signed on to populate the site" and your link, the QW page, confirms that.
::::But, I think you might be 'missing the point' that I have tried to make in this section. No one has ever suggested that we add text that reflects the issue you are highlighting, that is that "many reputable professionals have signed on to populate the site in their areas of expertise." I have discuss that above as the first item in the list of limitations. Below I have listed them again with numbers for clarity. Item 1 is related to the link you are highlighting. The limitations list include<br>
::::* 1) One Man Show that is, writing all the articles <s>- partially resolved</s>
::::* 2) Peer-review
::::* 3) Area for academic counterpoint <br>

:::: Item 1 is not an issue in this discussion. Items 2 and 3 are the ones that are the topic of this section. '''Items 2 and 3 are not addressed by your link to the QW site.''' Items 2 and 3 are not out of date. Items 2 and 3 are the items we are striving to reach consensus on. ] (]) 23:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

==Request to remove until consensus is made==
{{tl|editprotected}} 20:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

''In a 1999 review published in the The Consultant Pharmacist, Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa PharmD discussed two articles from Quackwatch of particular interest to pharmacists. One article reported on the conflict of interest posed to pharmacies who sell "dubious" alternative therapy products, remarking that an independent survey determined that pharmacists were motivated by profit margins greater than those for conventional drugs. Nguyen-Khoa went on to recommend that Quackwatch start a mirrored "academic counterpoint" wherein a "giant step toward true legitimacy would involve active peer review of the articles to be published."''

Copied from article, as can be seen, there is a long discussion about this being inserted into the article. Would someone remove this until a consesus to add or keep out is agreed to?

Also, editors we can use this like Dematt suggested as a way to show why and why not it should or should not be in the article.
Thanks, --]] 13:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

: I disagree with removing the text. This is the closest we have come to consensus. This should remain until consensus is reached. ] (]) 14:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

::I disagree with the assertion regarding consensus. Too many people talk about consensus on this page when this is probably the page where consensus is farthest from being realized. ] (]) 17:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

::: Actually, the present text is a mixture of what you and I wanted in the text. There are points that need to be rectified. ] (]) 18:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

:While Crohnie has some good points here, I don't see the need to change the article. The problem here is that editors are not working to consensus. This won't be solved by changing the article, but is likely to make some editors even more adamant in their feelings that this is a ] where they must ] their viewpoints at all costs. --] (]) 17:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

== Wikiquette Alert notification ==
] has posted a Wikiquette alert regarding Ronz ]. ] 00:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

'''Third Opinion''' - I'm here from ]. It is not canvassing, and maybe even ''required'', that when dispute resolution (such as ] or ]) is sought, the parties of the dispute are notified, and a note is placed at the page where the dispute took place. If this page ''is'' the primary location of the dispute, ''and'' no "]" took place, I see no reason to label this notice as canvassing. ] (] ]) 21:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
::I have inserted a simple notification as indicated by Krator and removed the content not related to QuackWatch from this section as proposed by Ronz. Feel free to discuss on the relevant user talk page(s). Please see ]. ] 00:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

* The Wikiquette item is now escalated to ]. ] (]) 17:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

==How to solve the mess that is this page==
In response, let me give you guys some actual constructive criticism on how to solve the mess that is this page. Mind you, this is without in-depth analysis of most of the discussion, but this discussion does fit several stereotypes of disputes I've seen around. First of all, relating to what User:PeterStJohn wrote on my user talk page, I have encountered this issue before, and that culminated into ]. Some general problems I encountered in this article, and that are really easily solved:
*Some statements have multiple references. This is a strong indication that they violate ]. All of the statements with more than three footnotes in this article violate that policy. It's quite a good read, too, so I recommend it.
*Judging by the edit history, it has been difficult to find the correct balance between ] and ] here. Both are good reads, and offer a good insight in the discussion above. ''Note: consider quotes the same as weasel words.'' To sum up what I think is best in this case: do not state the names, but do not generalise to indicate a greater scope than the source warrants. In the dreaded example:
<blockquote>'''Current''' In a 1999 review published in the The Consultant Pharmacist, Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa PharmD discussed two articles from Quackwatch of particular interest to pharmacists. One article reported on the conflict of interest posed to pharmacies who sell "dubious" alternative therapy products, remarking that an independent survey determined that pharmacists were motivated by profit margins greater than those for conventional drugs. Nguyen-Khoa went on to recommend that Quackwatch start a mirrored "academic counterpoint" wherein a "giant step toward true legitimacy would involve active peer review of the articles to be published."</blockquote>
<blockquote>'''Better''' A 1999 review of two Quackwatch's articles recommended the magazine to become more academic.</blockquote>
The writer and the magazine it was published in were not spectacular, negative or positive. My suggestion: omit the detail.
] (] ]) 21:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

:Thanks. I'm looking forward to reading the recommended articles. BTW, most of this articles citations aren't spectacular. ] (]) 22:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

: The sentence quoted has been through alot of disputatious compromising. The original intent was to merely cite a reference that QW does not use peer-review for it's own articles. This seems to be motivated by the (false) idea that 1. QW advocates peer-review (for journals); 2. QW does not employ peer review for itself (a whistleblowing website which is not a scientific journal) so 3. QW is hypocritical. If that motivation is correct, then the opponents of citing the reference seem to want to defend QW from that attack. But regardless of motivation, it is true that a reviewer (this guy), in a reputable publication (a website with reviews) sponsored by a reputable organization (pharmacologists), has recommended that QW use peer-review for itself. So it's to some extent a valid, anyway citable, criticism; and the QW page will never know peace if we aren't willing to compromise. The upshot is that just deleting the reference won't resolve the continuing motivations. Unfortunately folks are willing to fight tooth and nail ''ad nauseam'' over minutiae here. ] (]) 22:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

:: The current version is a compromise. I would also accept a compromise where we omit this cite (the review can be listed under External links). ] 01:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

::: The citation was intended (by me) as a concession to sympathetic-to-alt-med (not as an anti-science attack). Science must face criticism and address it; it actually embraces self-criticism, exactly contrary to Dogmatism. Deleting any reference to the critique rebuffs the criticism and is a victory for the policy of abhorring criticism of science by non-scientists; we mustn't abhor it, we must face it. The specific item (QW implementing peer-review, or not) doesn't matter to me so much as the editorial policy. We (meaning, pro-science) must embrace criticism (well-posed with citable references) so that Science can flourish by it's own standards and win by its own merits. That's what's important to me, personally. I want to win over the anti-anti-science crowd to the pro-science side. We have coffee every Thursday :-) ] (]) 16:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

::::I strongly disagree with PeterStJohn's rationale. This is an encyclopedia article we're writing here. This not a place to demonstrate or participate in some battle between science and non-scientists. --] (]) 16:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

::::: Actually the criticism came from a scientist, a pharmacist. Not that it should matter, since a non-scientist criticizing science can be notable depending upon the source. You don't have to be scientist to criticize science. I too am pro-science, and think that '''criticism shouldn't be censored.''' It is part of the evolution of science. Many of the most significant advances in science come from those who once held fringe or minority views. I think QW does a good job in many cases, but it could be better. I think readers should know that. Eliminating this reference (criticism) makes the article less credible and more like a promo piece. '''QW is not beyond reproach.'''
::::: Ronz: Nice to see you commenting here. How did this move from a debate to battleground? I don't see any mention of battleground? ] (]) 17:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::: I used the word "battle" (not "battleground") to tie in with my relate comment in ] where I referred to WP:BATTLE and WP:NOT#ADVOCATE.
:::::: I've greatly reduced my involvement here because this all appears to be just a continuation of the disruptive editing that has been going on since late November 2007. --] (]) 17:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

::::: Ronz: Do you disagree with PSJ's entire rationale or just the part that you perceived to mean 'battle?' You are correct it's battle not battleground. ] (]) 17:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

== Moving reflist to top ==

:Why not place the reflist at the top of the page instead? Just as accessible. ] (]) 14:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

:: Interesting idea. Since this is a talk page, the usual rules don't apply and the main idea is to make them easily accessible. What do others think? -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 15:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

::: Would this be a matter for ] (not that anyone reads those pages)? I have no objections to moving the reflist to the top. &mdash; ] | ] 15:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

:::: I don't object either. A better idea ''might'' be if talk pages were modified to keep the reflist at the bottom. Who would we talk to about that. ] (]) 15:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::Support from three contributors, no real disadvantage, significant advantage of being able to add sections without extra steps? ] I'll be bold if no-one else want to risk the possible smack-down :) The only real disadvantage would be archiving, but anyone doing archiving would know enough to leave the section there. ] (]) 18:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::: I meant who would we need to talk to regarding a software change the identifies the reflist and puts it automatically on the bottom of the page. It could be duplicated on the archives page. ] (]) 18:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::::No idea, sounds like you'd have to talk to the wikimedia software developers and I doubt it'd be a priority - not often you see a talk page with {{tl|Reflist}} at the bottom. Until then, any objections to me moving it to the top? ] (]) 18:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::::: None at all. I too have thought it should be a built in function on talk pages. What is often forgotten by people who wonder why there is a references section on some talk pages, is the real purpose of talk pages - to discuss and develop article content, especially if controversial. The best way is to make a working trial run, refs and all. That way the text and refs are checked out and any mistakes are caught on the talk page before they end up in the article. It actually works quite well. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 02:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::::: The logical place for it is on the bottom. But because of the problems with new sections, I have ''''no objection to moving it for now.''' ] (]) 12:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::'''DONE''' ] (]) 12:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

== Website Review ==

Quackwatch website reviewed in Running and Fitnews Sept/Oct 2007, a magazine of the American Running & Fitness Association.
"Cutting through the haze of health marketing claims"
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NHF/is_5_25/ai_n21119961 ] (]) 05:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
:Interesting. Looks like a useful RS. No author though? From what I can find, "Running and Fitnews" is the newsletter of the American Running Association. --] (]) 05:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

== Dispute ==

OK, what's causing the revert-warring and how can I help with this?? Thanks, --] (]) 12:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

:Here is an example of the dispute we are having. ] (]) 15:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

:I see this as a dispute that has been going on since ], when an unsourced criticism was slightly changed to something that could be at least partially supported with sources. Since that time, a number of editors have been working to find some way to support the original, or a similar, criticism. --] (]) 19:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

== Notice ==

This article is under probation. See the top of this talk page.

Per ],


__TOC__
<blockquote>We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Misplaced Pages aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.</blockquote>


== "Received criticism for perceived bias in its coverage" ==
<blockquote>Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.</blockquote>


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)
Per ], to give "undue weight" to critics is a NPOV violation. This directly applies to the text.
: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 ] ==
] says that the article should fairly represent all ''significant'' viewpoints. Alternative medicine promoters/critics are a ''tiny'' minority. Misplaced Pages does not promote ] editing. ] ] 18:50, 31 January 2008 (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)
:Where are you going with this? I'm asking as your wording "Alternative medicine promoters/critics are a ''tiny'' minority" seems to mean that Quackwatch's views aren't notable, unless I am misreading. Since NPOV, FRINGE et all are applied in a case by case basis and ''article by article'' basis, this means that criticism of Quackwatch, unless notable, gets kicked down to the bottom of the article if it's a Fringe/non-notable or minority take on the subject of the article, which is Quackwatch. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">] § ]/]</font></span> 18:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


== Portuguese site ==
::Quackwatch is manistream POV. The criticism is mainly from promoters of alternative medicine. The article will have a good ]. If you disagree, that's fine. Remember that this article is under probation. Disruptive editing (]) will result in a ban or revert limitations or even a block. It's that simple. ] ] 19:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Er... I'm on the side of the good guys in this case; no need to warn me. Your wording just seemed a bit obtuse to me or wonky, as if it was saying that Quackwatch itself was a "fringe" view. For a moment I thought a fringe pusher was trying to pull a reverse psychology trick and apply some idea that Quackwatch was a fringe whackadoodle outfit. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">] § ]/]</font></span> 19:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
::::The article is about Quackwatch, so the viewpoints expressed there are most certainly topics for discussion within the article. --] (]) 19:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::Within limit, yes. But the viewpoints of a subject (Quackwatch) are not going to be treated as Fringe Views within their own article. It would be absurd. Responses/criticism/etc. would be evaluated as always on a case by case basis, with the notable ones getting appropriate coverage that does not dominate the Quackwatch information, and the FRINGE viewpoints in ''regards'' to Quackwatch will get relegated to very low priority, the same as we do with Fringe views on any and all topics. You got it exactly right. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">] § ]/]</font></span> 19:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::The notice above is to inform all editors here. Per ], minority viewpoints will be limited. Agreed? ] ] 19:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::Obviously. Non-notable criticism or FRINGE criticism of Quackwatch and it's aims will be relegated to a very low profile. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">] § ]/]</font></span> 19:39, 31 January 2008 (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)
Correct me if I am wrong, but are you using the probation period to make significant changes to criticism section? Obviously this article has had two side battling over the criticism section for a long time. It seems like one side wants to remove it, the other wants to add it, in varying degrees. Using a probation period as a tool in this war seems rather slick. ] (]) 16:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


== FV tag ==
Seems to be the case.] (]) 22:04, 7 February 2008 (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.
== PseudoTemplate at the bottom ==


Here are a couple of links to searches of the book showing that both ] and ] are used in the book:
I removed the link to ] from the 'pseudotemplate' at the bottom of the page and changed the name of the list to 'Related topics' to keep it NPOV. Hopefully that is a pretty self explanatory edit. ---- <b><font color="999900">]</font></b> <font color="#009900" size="1">]</font> 04:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
: Perhaps a better idea is to actually create a real template and see if it survives through an MfD. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 04:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
::The template is disputed. Forking the content to another page may be in direct violation of POVFORK. Demanding the community to create a traditional template in order for you to MFD it smacks point. ] ] 19:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
::: You need to create an actual template before one can be disputed. I suggest you do so. Until then, this "See also" thing you created is being removed because it smacks of undue POV. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 19:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
::::You are disputing the content and now you want me to POVFORK it. I will not violate POVFORK policy because you want me to. You have not gained broad consensus to remove it. ] ] 20:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


*
I have restored the version edited by Dematt as it seems to have consensus in view of the edit summaries and the above discussion. Please add or remove articles from the section as warranted, or discuss here. Even if this were a template (and I would support its creation as one), MfD would not be the way to go; discussion on its talk page and collaborative fine-tuning would be the first thing to attempt. ] 22:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
*
:Collaboration is the key. Instead of delete, just improve the edit. ] (]) 22:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
:: I like Dematt's improvement of it for sure. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 23:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


The tag should be removed.
==Pseudoskepticism yet again==
Pseudoskepticism does not belong linked in the article space per ]. Thanks. ] (]) 00:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
: Other than your own User Page writings, are you citing any actual real Misplaced Pages policy? -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 00:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
::Um, Levine, that's an ] ]. You've been warned before. ] (]) 00:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
::Ah Levine, jeeze your a good disruptive editor. But FWIW, I don't mind it in there. False skepticism is rather apparent - it's just those who aren't skeptical, but tell everybody they are :-) --] (]) 00:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
:::It's a ] for one, though. Iteratively irrelevant, you see. Marcello Truzzi never read Quackwatch or commented on it. ] (]) 00:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
:::: No personal attack intended. It's just that ScienceApologist is trying to justify a reversion on content based on a policy which only exists on his User Page. Seem unjustified. What I would like is a real policy (or some consensus) to justify not including Pseudoskepticism to this "See Also" pseudo-template. (] is pretty weak, especially for a "See also" section... besides, the term is over 20 years old!) -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 00:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::No one said it was policy: it's just an argument that gets made over and over again that has a standard response. If you have issues with the content of the response, let them be known. Stonewalling as you are doing without addressing the actual substance (just as you did over on ]) is not helpful. Pseudoskepticism is a neologism that enjoys almost no exposure. Therefore it qualifies as a ] as would, say, using ] to describe the color of grass. That term is even older! ] (]) 00:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::: "Pseudoskepticism is a neologism that enjoys almost no exposure." How do you know this? -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 00:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Compare with . Similar number of hits, roughly similar notability. It's a quick way to check, you see. ] (]) 01:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::::: Google search results are not a good result (at least that was an exact argument made when I pulled thousands of results of "Deadly nighshade" + "Homeopathy"). Anyhow, ] is notable enough to have its own article at Misplaced Pages. I just read it and found out that the usage of the term predates Truzzi by more than 100 years. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 01:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Google searches are good for weighing relative notability of terms. Their absolute numbers mean nothing, but comparisons are pretty good. You'll note that ] have their own article on Misplaced Pages too. Those terms have some antecedents before Nelson Goodman's famous use of them. In short, your arguments that this term is not neologistic are not convincing. ] (]) 01:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::: Two things: 1) Your argument that Pseudoskepticism IS neologistic is not convincing. 2) Your argument that ] should affect the content of a "See also" section (especially one so replete with links) is not convincing. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 01:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::: ] is notable enough to have a Misplaced Pages entry. Has a reliable source called Quackwatch pseudoskeptical? &mdash;] (''']''') 02:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::::That, in the end, is what this all comes down to. If we have at least that, then regardless of notability of the source, a See Also link is the minimum we should use. Now, since it's impossible to prove no such source exists, the burden is on those supporting inclusion to show such a source before we add this to the article. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 03:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::::: Please see ]. Inclusion in "See also" is based on common sense. Otherwise we would have to delete pretty much all of this pseudo-template because we lack any sources to confirm that those other topics have anything to do with the subject of this article. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 04:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Tit for tat rationale which is the hallmark of disruptive editing. Please provide a source that uses pseudoskepticism and quackwatch in conjuction. I see 175 webpages in my google search. If one of them is good enough to show a connection then I'll agree to its inclusion here. However, on going through the first 50 or so, I see no evidence of an obvious connection. ] (]) 14:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::: I could do that, or you can show me why that is necessary when ] makes no mention of needing a source to show the connection. If that were the case, we'd probably have to delete over half of the links in the pseudo-template because we haven't seen any sources which make the connection. I would also appreciate that you ] in me and recognize that I am discussing this issue (your claims of ] are wholly unjustified). -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 20:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Looks like you're stonewalling again. ] (]) 20:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::: Please define "stonewalling". -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 20:07, 12 February 2008 (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.
== QPW banned on Misplaced Pages ? ==


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)
I noticed an editor said in their edit summary that the link and source quackpotwatch.org is "forbidden at Misplaced Pages." I did a search and found this site mentioned on several User talk pages regarding the Quackwatch page, but I couldn't find any mention of the site specifically being forbidden. Does this prohibition apply to any mention of this source on the Quackwatch main page or any page? Can someone direct me to this policy? <font color="blue">]</font> <sup><font color="purple">]</font></sup> 18:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
:It's forbidden as an inaccurate, misleading, unreliable, hostile, and biased site. Remember, this is an encyclopedia. --] (]) 18:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
::Thanks. Can you direct me to somewhere I can read about this policy? <font color="blue">]</font> <sup><font color="purple">]</font></sup> 18:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
:::The following are a few of the policies and guidelines that have been violated by past additions of the link in question: ], ], ], ], ], ], and ]. --] (]) 19:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
::::Yes of course, but is there an arbitration or something that forbids quackpotwatch? I'm asking since says Quackpotwatch.org is forbidden on Misplaced Pages. I'm sure there's a long history here, trying to familiarize myself with the history of this page, related disputes, etc. <font color="blue">]</font> <sup><font color="purple">]</font></sup> 19:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::Please remove the BLP violation link from this talk page. Thanks. ] ] 19:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::Reading through ], the issue seems to be "unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material." I haven't posted any contentious statements about any living person. I asked a question about . <font color="blue">]</font> <sup><font color="purple">]</font></sup> 19:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Search this article's archives for discussions about the link. It's also been discussed in the other Barrett-related articles. --] (]) 19:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there an easy way to search just this articles talk archives? Thanks in advance. <font color="blue">]</font> <sup><font color="purple">]</font></sup> 19:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
:Sadly, no. Try these to start: ] ] ] ] ] ] --] (]) 20:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
::That is sad, and frustrating. Thanks for directing me. I also found that doing a google search of wikipedia brings up pages references this topic, many of which are related to discussions of this article or Dr. Barrett. This link to an AfD is also useful: ] <font color="blue">]</font> <sup><font color="purple">]</font></sup> 21:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
:::Having simply taken a look at the named site, it contains a number of unsubstantiated allegations and involves at least one criminal prosecution which the author seems to feel was unjustified. It should therefore be treated at best as a primary source and it would be hazardous to link given the potential defamatory nature of the material. &mdash;] (''']''') 00:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
See also ] ] 15:20, 12 February 2008 (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. - ] (]) 20:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
== Why does this article have its own navbox? ==


: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)
This looks like it might not be out of place as a general navbox, but why is there a navbox just for this one article? Is this a POV fork of an existing navbox? —] 19:55, 12 February 2008 (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)
: If you are referring to the pseudo-template at the bottom, there is a discussion of it a few threads up from here. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 19:57, 12 February 2008 (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)
::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)
::: 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)
::::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)
:::::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)
:::::::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)
:::::::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)

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: