Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:51, 29 August 2006

First comments

group has been criticized by many advocates of natural remedies. should include more information on criticism. --204.78.10.224 17:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

-I removed the last paragraph since it was nothing more than a thinly veiled attack on the group. It added nothing to the article other than the possibility of discrediting it.

QuackPotWatch link

Re-instituted an external link that cites a court case in which NCAHF lost and provides criticism of the organization. Unsure why it was deleted in the first place. Please explain. Wwindsor 01:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposal For Article Balance

Thanks for the invitation to discuss this matter here. You have reinstated the Quackpotwatch link, which apparently has been removed several times by various editors.

Your edit summary:

The opinion piece link has relevant factual information about court case quotes that are a direct source for the article. Please leave it as is or discuss if you think the quotes are inaccurate)

Okay, if that is the case the information - not the opinions in the "opinion piece" (Bolen's appropriate description) - should be in the article itself, as per your suggestion here. I don't see what it is documenting. The only thing I can see in the article that it might remotely relate to is this critical paragraph:

The NCAHF has been accused of attacking many professions and of using the guise of consumer advocacy to present false indictments of complementary and alternative medicines. Some critics have accused the NCAHF of being a front for pharmaceutical companies and corporate medical interests.

That paragraph needs documentation, preferably using original documents, rather than an opinion piece from Tim Bolen. He only includes two paragraphs from one court case. Knowing him very well, I wouldn't be surprised if they were taken out of context, but even if they weren't, his site and opinion pieces are hardly good sources of documentation, when original sources would be much better.

The paragraph contains a number of charges, and each one needs to be documented from both the critics and the NCAHF. Listing accusations without documentation is equivalent to including editor's POV.

1. "The NCAHF has been accused of attacking many professions...."

• Which professions? We need links and quotes from the NCAHF site.

2. "... and of using the guise of consumer advocacy...."

• Examples of this from their site.
• Evidence that it is a "guise."

3. "...to present false indictments of complementary and alternative medicines."

• Examples of the indictments from their site.
• Evidence that they are "false."

4. "Some critics have accused the NCAHF of being a front for pharmaceutical companies and corporate medical interests.

• Which critics? Names, quotes, and links please.
• What evidence do they present for each charge?

Do you believe this to be a fair approach? -- Fyslee 23:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Reply from Metta Bubble

Hi Fyslee. First of all, thanks for discussing it here. That link has also be instated by various editors. I'm not married to the phrasing of the criticisms and I believe improvement can be made. However, the criticism section is actually a little slim if anything, so I'm fairly comfortable with the current state of the article. The article doesn't even mention the somewhat dubious affiliations between Quackwatch, Chiroweb, and NCAHF.

The fact that the NCAHF has offered a public statement rebutting criticisms is more than enough proof of both the existence of criticisms and their notability.

The criticism by Tim Bolen is notable in comparison to the overall notability of NCAHF. The court case against NCAHF is also notable. So, the assumption you made about my position being that only the court case is notable is mistaken.

There is more information that Tim Bolen provides other than the link in this article, which is adequately sourced (by comparison to the notability of this article). I am not open to removing the criticism section of the article or removing a link to relevant critical information. In regards to referencing each an every criticism, I believe I have summarised criticisms that are easily accessible. And I believe I have summarised them fairly (but I don't claim infallibility on summarising criticisms).

In direct response to your final question. No, I don't believe your suggested approach is even close to fair. The criticisms can only be as well sourced as the promotions are. If we are going to put a microscope up to the article we should approach every assertion the article makes, not merely the criticisms. So, if you want to source the following statements adequately I might consider rising to the challenge you posed, but I have a far better proposal at the bottom of this post.

1. is a US-based voluntary private nonprofit health agency

• Are these traits proven or asserted? There are accusations of double dealing that this phrase doesn't adequately take into account.

1. NCAHF unites consumers with health professionals, educators, researchers, attorneys, and others who believe that everyone has a stake in the quality of the health marketplace.

• POV? Who says NCAHF unites these groups? Chiropractic groups claim NCAHF create problems for their practices! So do many other groups who consider themselves health professionals. And who says all these people mentioned in the article have a stake in quality? There are many sources for stating some of these groups prioritise quality far below profits, brand-recognitioin and share price. This statement doesn't reflect these sources adequately.

1. Membership is open to everyone

• Who says this is true? There are accusations out there of the opposite. Who are the members historically? What does membership guarantee?

My proposal

Overall, I suggest we leave the article much the same as it currently stands. It states the NCAHF position and it states the critical position and then states the counter to the critical position. This is a wonderful situation and is entirely encyclopedic. Some tidying might be in order but not whitewashing criticisms.

I hope that works for you. And again, I thank you for discussing it here. I hope I haven't said anything that offends you. I appreciate you being open about how close you are to this article and Tim Bolen. Peace. Metta Bubble 07:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Fyslee's reply

Dear Metta Bubble, I fear that you have misunderstood my intentions. That's probably my own fault, since I'm rather long-winded.....;-) I am not at all interested in any removal of criticisms or whitewashing. Criticisms certainly do exist, but there are also false accusations in circulation. My concern is that the criticisms be verifiable, as per Wiki verifiability policy. If they aren't documented (it doesn't have to be as extensively as I suggested above), then they are editorial POV statements, a practice which isn't allowed here. Using that method, any editor can insert their own criticisms, praise, or accusations, all under the guise of someone else saying it. Without documentation, the words just stand there as POV statements provided by an editor. It's easy to imagine how this could lead to absurd situations, for example: "George Bush has been accused of torturing and eating babies." Without documentation that would stand as a very POV accusation, being included in an article by an editor, and thus the editor would be poisoning the well, which is probably the worst form of POV editing.

I'm just interested in:

• 1. Verifiable documentation for criticisms.

They must be verifiable or be removed from the article. I believe they can easily be documented by the editors who have included them. If they are unwilling to provide the documentation, then the undocumented criticisms shouldn't be taken seriously, and are thus unworthy of inclusion. If they are documented, then it's another matter entirely. The editors who made the edits need to make up their minds. To protect their edits, they must verify them.

• 2. Real criticisms, not undocumented ad hominem hate statements, libel, lies, spin doctoring, or conspiracy theories.

That's the kind of stuff that Tim Bolen includes in practically all his newsletters. That's why his newsletters (the main content on the Quackpotwatch site) aren't reliable as documentation. He rarely, if ever, deals with the real issues raised by the NCAHF, such as the false claims made for products, false advertising, illegal practices, etc. He only seeks to undermine the NCAHF, for the purpose of defending those accused of making those false claims. He is paid to defend them, and he does it by attacking, rather than defending. That's called "poisoning the well", which is a particularly vicious tactic used to unwarrantedly and improperly divert attention (an ad hominem trick) and to detract from the reputation or authority of a person or source.

• 3. Original documents do exist for documentation purposes.

Since they are available, they should be used. The NCAHF makes charges, and they can be documented. The accusers make countercharges, and they can be documented. I could easily present both sides of this matter, but it's the editors of the "criticisms" section who need to start doing this work.

Your proposal

I basically agree with your proposal, but just need to have the above matters tended to. There should be no whitewashing. You have definitely not offended me, and I appreciate your candor. I am always open for constructive suggestions and criticism, and seek to play with open cards. You are always welcome to ask me questions about both sides of these matters, since I'm in a position to either answer you myself, or get the information from the involved parties. You can do so on my Talk page. -- Fyslee 12:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Criticism Statements

Hi Fyslee. I liked your reply. You are completely free to edit anything you like. That's what a wiki is.

Your comments on Tim Bolen and his motives are not indepedently verifiable. The only factor here is notability and verifiability. Bolen is a known critic of NCAHF and his opinion is verifiable no matter what you claim his motives are. I don't consider it hate speech any more than the NCAHF attacks on chiro and other professions can be considered hate speech.

This is a mute point of course because all this talk is simply over a small section of the article that both of us feel can be bettered:

* The NCAHF has been accused of attacking many professions and of using the guise of consumer advocacy to present false indictments of complementary and alternative medicines. Some critics have accused the NCAHF of being a front for pharmaceutical companies and corporate medical interests.

Although I feel it can be bettered, I think this wording is real and adequately sourced. Could you please put your suggested wording below and any references you'd like to add. How would you like it to read? Please let's just workshop this here and then we're done. Simple. If you don't want to suggest anything I'm fine with that too. I'm content with the article as is.

Peace. Metta Bubble 03:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Suggested Wording of Criticisms

Dear Metta (may I call you that? It's very similar to a common Danish girl's name - Mette - which happens to be a cute name.)

I appreciate very much your professional and cooperative spirit in this matter. I'm not used to that here at Misplaced Pages. This is the way I envision that the editing of controversial subjects should be done. Even though editors have different viewpoints, it should still be possible to cooperate in the production of a good article that covers the various aspects of a subject.

Here is the current wording:

• The NCAHF has been accused of attacking many professions and of using the guise of consumer advocacy to present false indictments of complementary and alternative medicines. Some critics have accused the NCAHF of being a front for pharmaceutical companies and corporate medical interests.

There are basically four charges:

1. "attacking many professions": This should be easy to document, and I'll provide the proof myself in the revised version below.

2. "the guise of consumer advocacy": This is an ad hominem attack, without any proof, since such a charge cannot be proven. It's just a negative opinion. Interestingly I have never heard this charge before, so I would like to know the source. Since it can't be verified, it should be deleted. Otherwise it must be considred to be the contributing editor's POV, which can't allowed. If allowed to stand at all, it should at the very least have a linked source.

3. "present false indictments": This is also an ad hominem attack, without any proof or even examples. I have never heard this one either, so I would like to know the source. If it can't be verified with concrete examples, it should also be deleted.

4. "a front for......": This is an old conspiracy theory charge that has been rebutted many times, and no evidence has ever been presented for the charge. I'll accept it for now, since a good rebuttal is in place.

I guess the part I object to the most is the two words "guise" and "false." They are very POV statements, which stand there as accusations without any verification. The sources need to to be verified. All parts of a Misplaced Pages article are subject to the verifiability rule. If they can't be verified, they can summarily be deleted by any editor, and the deletes will be backed up by Misplaced Pages policies and administrators.

You write above:

• "Although I feel it can be bettered, I think this wording is real and adequately sourced."

I haven't seen the sources you refer to. Which ones are they? Please provide the links here.

I'm not sure what you mean by "real." As the statement stands, there is really only one serious ("real"?) charge (the first one), the rest are ad hominem attacks, so they hardly deserve to be in a criticism section. They are beneath that level. I guess we need to decide just how low we will go. They are predicated on the conspiracy theory ("front for.....") being true. Since it has been rebutted, they fall to the ground like a house of cards.

If there were really "serious" charges of inaccuracy, wrongdoing, or other matters that could be verified and rebutted (even if unsuccessfully), then such charges and rebuttals would deserve to be part of the article. Ad hominem attacks are unworthy of being taken seriously, and only make critics look frivolous and unserious, since they appear to not be able to deal with the issues, and thus revert to desperate attacks on the person.

Here is a proposed revision:

• The NCAHF has been accused of unfairly attacking some professions, among them acupuncture, chiropractic, herbal remedies, homeopathy, and naturopathy. Some critics have also accused the NCAHF of being a front for pharmaceutical companies and corporate medical interests. A natural consequence of belief in this conspiracy theory, is that some critics do not believe the NCAHF's "consumer protection" claims, and feel that it is only interested in attacking all forms of complementary and alternative medicine as a form of turf protection.

I believe the first charge is partially legitimate, and the others are worded so as to represent real charges, regardless of their legitimacy or illegitimacy. If there are any other "serious" charges, I'm sure someone will add them later......;-)

I deal with these charges and the people who make them all the time, so I have some understanding of this matter "from both sides of the fence." (I am myself a former user of alternative therapies, including having my own patients die.)

What do you think of the revision?

I also need some links to those sources you mention. -- Fyslee 22:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Suggested Wording (round 2)

Please don't make demands of users. I find it uncivil. Add more sources yourself if you want them. You mentioned you had enough materials above already to argue both sides of the article.

Also note, from the WP:V policy:

• The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth

Nobody here is asserting the NCAHF uses a guise, we are saying the NCAHF is accused of using a guise. Which is a verifiably true as a summary of criticial opposition. The simple fact is that the criticisms verifiably exist. A link has been provided that founds the views presented.

Regarding your suggested wording: Inline external links to rebuttals are unhelpful to a criticism section of any article, as are terms like "conspiracy theory". I've re-edited below what I find more reasonable:

• The NCAHF has been accused of using the guise of consumer advocacy to unfairly attack complementary and alternative medicine professions; among them acupuncture, chiropractic, herbal remedies, homeopathy, and naturopathy. Some critics have accused the NCAHF of being a front for pharmaceutical companies and corporate medical interests, dismissing the NCAHF's mission statement on consumer protection and claiming the NCAHF's real interest is in criticising alternative medicines as a form of turf protection.

Let's stay focused on the article and the wording. I think we're making progress. I note another editor has already added more information to the article. So you're getting your demands in a roundabout way. Metta Bubble 01:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

skepticism and pseudoskepticism

In light of the recent discussions on the all inclusiveness of categories, should we be discussing skepticism and pseudoskepticism on this page? --Dematt 18:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Funny Dematt, I was just thinking the same thing! If a notable source has raised the issue, sure. I was just reading the article that redirects from pseudoskepticism and was somewhat amazed by how well Truzzi's criteria fit some would-be skeptics. cheers, Jim Butler 07:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?

I just ran across this article and am stunned by the POV. Perhaps it should be moved to "Criticism Against The National Council Against Health Fraud"? If not, no discussion of litigiousness belongs in the introduction. Certainly, claims of the amount of litigiousness should be cited. Why is there no summary of what information the group provides, and who uses that information? Why is there no cross linking to the medical standards and consumer protection laws they claim to uphold? Why is the bulk of the article criticisms against the organization? --Ronz 01:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)