Talk:Quackwatch/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9 →

Contents 1 Pseudoskepticism (Part 2) 2 WP:WEIGHT 3 Quote formats 4 Edit warring 5 Protected 6 Matthew Ramsey quote 6.1 Vote 7 Thomas R. Eng statement

Pseudoskepticism (Part 2)

I personally can see a need for pseudoscience and quakery as "See Also" links, but I must admit, I cannot see the reason for pseudoskepticism. After all, QW the organisation doesn't really use the word regularly (as opposed to the other terms), and it only really appears to be applied by others onto QW as a criticism (at least, it appears to be, I personally cannot find links saying "QW is pseudoskeptical/behaves in pseudoskeptism etc."). I cannot remember what the policy is for "See Also", does anybody know? Nevertheless, I think comments are warranted. Shot info 11:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticism, OR, SYN, POINT. We've been here before. All the discussions to date make for pretty good evidence that it's just another case of finding another way to attack Barrett and Quackwatch rather than writing an encyclopedia article. --Ronz 16:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd favor it if it was not OR. Article seems to correspond well to some of the criticismd against quackwatch, but wikipedia is not a forum for original synthesis. Cool Hand Luke 16:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not OR, SYN, POINT or, often, even criticism. It is a natural and relevant subject for any skeptical site or exercise. The WP article can be a splendid aid to sharper assessment of controversial material, especially where the controversial material *is already known* to contain some cases of poorly founded material that has been previously detected, analyzed, increasingly well documented for decades, and yet persistently remains for years.

Pseudoskepticism is a relatively new term, initially popularized in skeptic cricles. The term encompasses and fairly summarizes many of the external views on some subjects covered in Quackwatch.

Question: For a "see also" link, is there a necessity to find an inarguable WP:RS source (e.g. a pharma sponsored journal) with a direct quote using the word? I am not aware that "see also" requires it.

It is reasonably easy to show that Quackwatch is associated with pseudoskepticism as used in well educated, analytical discussion on the internet, even where the author's conflict of interest goes the *other* way, e.g. [1]. It would not be not too difficult to provide WP:RS for broad coverage of some other QW-author associated sites (e.g. SB's CSICOP where "pseudoskepticism" is WP:RS, initiated by CSI cofounder Truzzi, who broke away after a only year and developed the term). Linus Pauling, who knew something about science and skepticism, took to pains to clearly describe it in some of the actions of Quackwatch author Victor Herbert over a period of 25 years.

Wikipedia happens to already have an excellent article on pseudoskepticism, it is a fine aid to clear skeptical thinking to help avoid some common pitfalls. This is probably something all serious skeptics should do automatically, but is perhaps too foreign, too blinded off, or too painful for many claimants. Its use would be similar to some self-checking drills that good scientists use to try to reduce bias in their work with varying degrees of success (bias perhaps sometimes less successfully avoided than apparent to outsiders).--I'clast 11:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Soooo, what is it's relevance to QW the organisation as discussed in the article? The above is all fine for an essay, but for the article in question? I think the last paragraph though really is OR to apply as a reason to say "yes include". And the third paragraph is a bit odd, given that it can be argued that Truzzi dropped out of CSICOP (for whatever reason) then developed the team "pseudoskeptic" to apply to people he didn't like. Then SB was a member. So did Truzzi call SB a pseudoskeptic? Did he call QW pseudoskeptic? Is there a RS that supports it? I asked my question to explore this as I don't mind "See Also" links, but I think the reasoning of yours (ie/ invoking Truzzi) is not applicable to QW. CSICOP yes, SB perhaps, but QW????? I would suggest, in the context of WP:V (and Wikipedia in general), no. Shot info 11:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The link is [[pseudoskepticism]] not pseudoskeptic. Sort like recognizing the difference between a cold or flu and something permanent, congenital and/or usually terminal. The last paragraph is just general discussion pointing out parallels and benefits, WP article content policies not relevant to Talk. QW's characteristics juxtaposed alongside the PS article, form a qualitative evaluation metric about applied skepticism and common pitfalls, useful to both WP readers and editors. Truzzi wrote that CSI had demonstrable cases of PS and spent a lot of effort to document his concerns and develop more formal and better thought out methods . That there may be disagreement about who has exhibited pseudoskepticism, or what is pseudoskepticism, is beside the immediate point, the reader can link all articles, and decide for themselves - i.e. Balance and NPOV.--I'clast 11:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Umm, what happened to my original questions/comments? BTW, the article pseudoskepticism doesn't make the distinction between the -ism and -ic especially using Truzzi's quote (-ic). So I don't see how your argument works other than in a OR sense? Shot info 12:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Definitely criticism, OR, SYN, and POINT per I'clast's essay above. --Ronz 15:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The discussions here in Talk and the "see also" don't contravene WP:OR, WP:SYN, WP:POINT.--I'clast 20:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Correct. They just demonstrate that what you're trying to do is WP:OR, WP:SYN, and WP:POINT. --Ronz 20:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

For the focus on see also pseudoskepticism, as long as I follow WP policy and show reasonable context and good faith, such discussion is without merit and seems to be just "I don't like it". The "see also" subjects like "skepticism", "scientific skepticism" and "pseudoscience" beg for balance and comparison in extraordinarily controversial subjects like this. It is time for some of the QW activist/"skeptic"/flattery POV here to yield gracefully to some form of collaboration. The basic threads concerning the elements of pseudoskepticism form long running discussions and public exchanges between QW and its quarry & adversaries for 30+ years, hence a reasonable, useful link here.--I'clast 10:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

So far the only clear motivation for adding the link (as evidenced by their clear statements here) is that I'clast and allies believe that Quackwatch and Barrett are pseudoskeptics and therefore they wish to push their POV on readers by including a POV link in the See also section. Quite unwikipedian and against rules here. -- Fyslee/talk 16:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Elementally, a significant part of the public exchanges for 30+ years. Quite topical about a significant part of the nature of the controversies. I might suggest that *all three*, skepticism, scientific skepticism and pseudoscience are something of a POV push but I am flexible.--I'clast 10:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't understand still what pseudoskeptism is, would someone explain in clear English for me? --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Very understandable, since it's been spelled wrong and is now corrected. Just read the article. It's a term used by skeptics and invented by them, but when used by quacks and believers in various pseudosciences in their attacks on skeptics and scientists it is a pejorative. It is a very human failing and skeptics can certainly fall into it, but when done only occasionally it's no problem. When skeptics engage in informal rants and jokes at the expense of pseudoscientists, they are engaging in a form of pseudoskeptical behavior, but that isn't their serious mode of dealing with things and to then accuse them of being pseudoskeptics is improper, since they don't normally deal with things in that manner. OTOH, if that is the way they normally and exclusively deal with pseudoscience when serious, then they have a problem and are guilty as charged.

Skeptic humor is often funny precisely because it employs the logical fallacies commonly used as the normal mode of thinking among believers in pseudoscience. People like Penn & Teller often use pseudoskeptical humor in their entertainment shows, but when they are serious they are not only very intelligent, but serious skeptics who then avoid using logical fallacies. (Unfortunately their victims aren't readers of their more serious writings and utterances.) Their type of humor is easily understood by most (but not all) who are highly educated, but goes right over the heads of true believers, who consider it simply insulting (which it is!) and then only focus on the logical fallacies (and scream "pseudoskepticism"!) and totally miss the whole point, being the butts of the joke that they are. It's just too complicated for their brains to handle.

The term is also used as a pejorative by scientists when describing those who claim to be skeptics, but whose actions and beliefs show they are only skeptical of the topics that scientific skeptics accept as fact (for example, that the earth isn't flat and that homeopathy is nonsense) and are believers in the subjects laughed at by scientific skeptics (most types of alternative medicine). Such persons would have a hard time if they actually joined groups like the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, The Skeptics Society, the Healthfraud Discussion List, or wrote articles for them. They would be laughed right out of the room, and rightly so. We even have editors right here who have attempted to infiltrate Wikipedia:WikiProject Rational Skepticism by joining, but their actions and editing show they are either sneaky or self-deceived. You'll recognize their user names. -- Fyslee/talk 06:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

"Skeptic" humor must be especially funny when the big cheeses can join the laughter at themselves after blowing their legs off in terms of fundamental scientific (il)literacy and (anti-)scientific positions (e.g. greatly misstated results from multiple, *badly* rigged tests, enduring citations and complaints decades long, mangling even the basic notion of hypothesis testing). I have to say the black knight gag was a scream. Oh, Fyslee, incidentally, I noticed your name first on the aforementioned list.--I'clast 20:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This is unreferenced and therefore POV and original research.  Mr.Guru  talk  21:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT

WP:WEIGHT is a part of WP:NPOV. I see on this discussion page what I can only discribe as editors repeatedly, deliberately ignoring it to promote their own viewpoints. Some of those editors have even gone so far as to admit this. The only solution to this, short of AN/I and RFC/U, is to ignore these editors. --Ronz 18:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, some editors throw their weight around spewing policy acronyms in inappropriate ways. Also there are a lot of undiscussed connections to internet activism that are coming home to roost here, that make editing the article extremely difficult and time consuming.--I'clast 20:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• creak, creak, creak*. Hey, what's that sound...surely it isn't yet another COI allegation being brought out of the closet???? Shot info 22:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Quote formats

I have thought about this for some time and here are my thoughts with examples:

Formats we normally shouldn't use for quotes, at least not on controversial subjects:

“

In extracting the pure principles which he taught, we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms, as instruments of riches and power to themselves. I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill.

”

[2]

In extracting the pure principles which he taught, we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms, as instruments of riches and power to themselves. I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill.

[3]

We should just stick to using the simple indent, with or without italics:

In extracting the pure principles which he taught, we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms, as instruments of riches and power to themselves. I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill.

Why? Because the first two risk being misused to include POV emphasizing of some quotes. Either all quotes should be done that way, or none of them.

This cuts both ways (POV-wise) and to avoid any risk of accusations of using quote formats to subtly sneak in a POV emphasis, I think it best to use simple indents. On non-controversial subjects it's a matter of taste. -- Fyslee/talk 18:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I have now followed through with my proposed solution. Now all quotes, regardless of POV, are treated equal. -- Fyslee/talk 23:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

While I have no opinion or preference on inclusion/exclusion of the Ramsey text, I will say that if I see this article vacilating between versions much more I will likely protect it in whichever wrong version I happen to come across. If you all can't come to some sort of consensus amongst yourselves then it is time for some form of dispute resolution.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm for article protection. --Ronz 17:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: Just so we are square here, Pseudoskepticism's preemptory removal[4] a few weeks ago by an editor new to the QW article, first edit, was done without consensus, edit summary, or even any real discussion since then by him. Some of my effort to even communicate on other edits have been pretty summarily rebuffed, e.g. plain query, editor's bold edit summary & disposition. Pseudoskepticism, a stable see also link since December last year, was also a part of a major, stable consensus in the spring[5] where some of us allowed, perhaps against our better judgement, a shorter article to remove major chunks of criticism which Fyslee and several others then thought was very favorable. The article has "mysteriously evolved" back toward the "QW ad". Pseudoskepticism *is* in the consensus version, and its continued removal is an edit war item against an established consensus.--I'clast 19:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ronz and Isotope23, the article needs protection with all the edit warring going on about Ramsey. Though, I think a consensus could be usable about this. From the talk page there seems to be more who believe the footnote should not be in the article. --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected the article from further editing given the back and forth version flipping that I've observed here. I don't see any justification for the recent removal of the Pseudoskepticism link, so I added that back in, but I notice the last edit went to the "no Ramsey mention" version. I have no opinion on whether or not the link or the Ramsey text should be here, but I'm going to request that you either come to some sort of workable consensus here or pursue dispute resolution.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Over the past two days, Stephen Barrett‎ has been edited even more briskly. Same parties as here, including several who apparently interpret the 3RR to mean that editors should revert on each issue twice daily. Might be worth managing both of these cases together. Cool Hand Luke 21:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Matthew Ramsey quote

I realize there is a whole thread about this above, but I wanted to start a fresh conversation. I'm not steeped in the history of this dispute, but it appears that that there is at least some level of support for the addition Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs) made as well as some opposition to it on the grounds that even in a new area it is still undue weight. Is this correct?--Isotope23 ^talk 20:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been waiting for the main proponents of the Ramsey material to make a discussion concerning WEIGHT. Alas, I guess it's not coming. (I don't count harassment, reversal of responsibility, disruptions, etc). I guess the rest of us will have to figure this out. I'll read it over again and comment further shortly. --Ronz 22:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The full footnote, and only mention of Quackwatch that I could find:

133 A well-funded voluntary organization known as the National Council Against Health Fraud, which describes itself as a consumer advocacy group, has been active since 1984. The very militant Quackwatch, Inc., assumed its present name in 1997 but has been in operation since the 1970s; it has a French-language Web site based in Canada, http://www.allerg.qc.ca/quackwf.html. The US is also the home base of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal and its journal, the Skeptical Inquirer, which for two decades have maintained a steady campaign against "antiscientific" claims, many of them related to health and medicine; an affiliated journal, The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine, was launched in October 1997.

To put the footnote in context, here is the sentence that refers to it:

As this essay has tried to suggest, a dialectical relationship exists between the public claims of official and alternative medicine. One effect of the efflorescence of counterhegemonic medicines, particularly those related to New Age movements, has been a renewal of the old Enlightenment discourse on popular errors and superstitions, though not on the same scale as in the US, where a vigorous anti-alternative medicine movement has developed pari passu with the alternative medicine renaissance.

The article contains three other uses of the word "militant" used in the same way. He's using it to mean "active and aggressive", something that may be hard for us to convey properly.

Given the call to include this information, shouldn't we also include the link http://www.allerg.qc.ca/quackwf.html, which is weighted just as stongly? --Ronz 23:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

That link doesn't seem to work. ornis (t) 23:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I can see how you might find that a desirable, weighty link for our better QW references Ronz: Not Found The requested URL /quackwf.html was not found on this server. Seriously, what I found interesting (I traced it earlier to 1998, Archive is still down) was that Ramsey picked up the foreign QW link up so soon since it seems to have occurred only shortly before his paper, I wasn't familiar with it and it looks like I wasn't the only less informed editor here. Maybe MR has more breadth or depth to his QW notes than we collectively have given him credit for?--I'clast 02:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Please save your harassment for elsewhere. Thanks! --Ronz 04:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I would have called that a tantrum, but YMMV. ornis (t) 05:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Pls lighten up and try to collaborate. We've discussed the nature of the weight for a brief, pretty obvious (to the long time QW readers) statement that reflects a notable aspect of QW for unfamiliar future readers. Militant? QW (or it principals) seeks support, is aggressive, recruits, has indoctrinating literature, presents action plans, and leads or participates in attacks, (discussed above) noted by friend, foe, principals & materials, alike, almost signature characteristics in this area. To me, it would take an extreme dose of deletionist POV to not "get" (or allow) MRamsey & "militant" if someone can't come up with a *better* word, source &/or quote. If we start hiding or holding back this kind of detail, we are not benefiting readers.--I'clast 06:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the link doesn't work. Of course, it takes some work to figure that out, doesnt it? My point here is that it's going to take some work to decide whether we mention anything from this footnote at all, and if so we still have to determine an appropriate presentation that doesn't misrepresent what (little) is actually there. --Ronz 04:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, a good justification for including what amounts to no more than a passing mention, is yet to materialise. ornis (t) 05:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

So long as it is described as coming from a footnote, I don't see any good reason not to include this quote. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, the fact that it is just a footnote, is excellent reason to exclude it. ornis (t) 06:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Footnote texts provide higher levels of detail than are typically desired by readers and distract from the view of the article's points & their flow. Footnotes are still subject to review processes. Do you think you have some clear WP policy otherwise?--I'clast 06:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

"Militant" is accurate here. I don't think we should go off on OR fishing expeditions with long papers on whether the author has SAT-V 800 on "militant" & that we agree with his research on other things, where he is likely to be more researched or expert than us. Arthur made a good edit, if it can be further improved, then let's let someone do that, too, whenever. Time to finish up obvious content.--I'clast 06:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Where in Wikipedia's policy does it say we can't include information gleened from footnotes? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't mind it in, however it does suggest that the article is desperate for material. Shot info 06:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Independent, unassociated, academic material on QW is very rare indeed (that is why I mentioned indexes). No reason to help preserve the rarity, eh?--I'clast 18:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that you have used more words to describe the footnote that the relevant parts of the footnote, it's your call whether you think that you are "clutching at a straw" with the need to include it. Heck I don't mind as it shows just how needy one side of the discussion is :-). Shot info 01:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a good thing that an administrator stepped in a with a block to cool down feelings. It is a reprimand for all of us and I hope the issues can be discussed in a less inflammatory way now. I apologize for being overly assertive about the notability of the author. I just took it for granted that everybody would look his CV and come to what I believed was an obvious conclusion.

Anyway. Here are some highlights from his CV[6]: The guy is a summa cum laude from Harvard in History and Literature and a ΦBK. He is Associate Professor of History, Vanderbilt University, since 1986 with previous positions at Harvard. He is Founding Director, Vanderbilt Center for Medicine, Health & Society, 2003-2006.

His main publications are about European medical history but if you look at his breath of experience in teaching, as a reviewer etc. it is hard to believe that his knowledge and understanding of the parallel historical development in the US would be shallow or uninformed. It is also hard to believe that an academic on that level would allow himself to make sloppy statements without a solid support from facts.

His publication list is very long. It is hard to see a pro/con bias regarding alt medicine. Publications that might appeal to quackbusters could be:

“Remedy Vendors and the Printed Word in 18th- and 19th-Century France," Symposium, Quackery in History, Literature and Art, College of Physicians, Philadelphia, May 2005.

"Medicine and Revolution in Comparative Perspective," American Society for Eighteenth - Century Studies, plenary session, New Orleans, March 1989.

Keynote lecture, "Witchcraft and Magical Healing: In Search of a Narrative," international conference, "Healing, Magic, and Belief in Europe, 15th-20th Centuries," Zeist, The Netherlands, September 1994. MaxPont 20:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I personally found his writing very enlightening and interesting. That he called Quackwatch "militant" was no surprise and a compliment, considering that is what they do. They aren't joking, but take exposing quackery and healthfraud very seriously. This stuff costs lives, and when you have people like Bolen (who actually claims to use military tactics and poses beside a tank) defending Hulda Clark you get an idea of how common these types of dangerous quackeries really are, and how their scams are being defended. It takes cajones to deal with such matters and Quackwatch is doing a service by writing about them and exposing them. This saves lives. -- Fyslee/talk 05:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that these personal attacks on Bolen and Clark are appropriate for this page. Please consider removing. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Riiiiiiiight. Shot info 01:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I have revised and softened my statement above, even though Bolen and Clark don't need defending. It's quite telling that an objection to telling like it is about them finds room here, but the same editor has made numerous attacks on Barrett (and defended the attacks made by other editors) many times during the last 2½ years here. Why don't we hear him objecting to attacks made on Barrett? Do I smell inconsistency here? -- Fyslee/talk 05:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Watch out, there probably an NPA tag on it's way to your talk page (or mine, or any other random editor's really...except I'clast's though, there will be barnstar on his page). Shot info 06:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that wouldn't be anything new. We've seen it before. The adult thing to do is discuss rather than complain, which was basically the advice given the last time that was done.

But let's get back to the point here, which is that Ramsey's description is actually quite accurate and a compliment. Quackwatch does what it claims to do, and that is recognized. Even HHS official Dr. Thomas R. Eng recognized that and had this to say:

• Eng later backed away from his Quackwatch endorsement, saying consumers should question Barrett's site as well as those it targets. "The government doesn't endorse Web sites," Eng says. Still, he says, "[Quackwatch] is the only site I know of right now looking at issues of fraud and health on the Internet." [7] (emphasis added - Fyslee)

-- Fyslee/talk 07:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Rather than baiting me, why not participate constructively. I think that the quote you cite above my find a home in the article. Don't you think? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

What on earth makes you think we are baiting "you". Constructive edits are viewed and responded to constuctively. Edits that aren't so constuctive are viewed and responsed to as appropriate. I suggest that rather than continuing your mission to turn Barrettland into some personal war of your own imagination, you "participate constructively" as noted in your recent WQA. Shot info 07:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

No personal war of my own imagination here. But more baiting from you. Please disengage. I will respond to you when you are only adding something contructive to this discussion. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 08:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed that you have used that expression on multiple editors now, which would imply that the rest of the world is out to get you. Just remember, it is all about you... Shot info 08:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing the posts, I might suggest Levine was responding to the Bolen & Clark comments, and then the NPA & Barnstar aside but let's just get finished. After Isotope23's edit war & lock warning & QG's deletion sequence, I waited for some minutes looking for others' comments rather than play the "wrong edit" race games with QG. Can we sumarize what is missing from this QW page? Basically I think if we can settle on the Matthew Ramsey sentence with Arthur's version as the stable consensus version sentence we could all go on to other things. Maybe lock the article for a month after that, too, while we just exchange ideas at Talk.--I'clast 09:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Getting back to the issues: I'm concerned that quoting Ramsey will not get across meaning (and the context), or at least no one has proposed anything yet that does. --Ronz 18:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, how about suggesting something. Ramsey's statement is a factual statement and not a negative one. -- Fyslee/talk 21:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd first like to know if anyone shares my concern, because I don't see an easy solution. Given this, I'm more and more inclined to exclude it per WEIGHT and NPOV in general. There's not much to draw from, and we don't currently have similar context in which it can be easily included. --Ronz 22:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Vote

Let's get a vote to see how many will support I'clast's suggestion that we support Arthur's version as the stable consensus version sentence (minus the period after the ref....;-)

• Support -- Fyslee/talk 15:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional Support -- only conditional inasmuch as it can be slightly better fleshed out, but I personally cannot see how that can be done without making it larger/longer than the very footnote (or rather sentence) that is the reference. Shot info 21:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Object per Shot info comments. The footnote is being given too much WP:WEIGHT.  Mr.Guru  talk  22:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Object Ramsey is a historian? If the head of the AMA called it militant, that's significant. Let's go with critiques that are better written and meaningful. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Object It's a passing mention in an article about regulation of CAM in france, that's being given way too much weight. ornis (t) 22:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Object per NPOV. To include it requires giving it undue weight and placing it in a context which doesn't currently exist in the article where it would be readily understood. --Ronz 22:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support good content that I would have embraced 25 years ago as accurate & complimentary to QW--I'clast 06:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Object per comments of Orangemarlin, Ornis and Ronz.--CrohnieGal^Talk 14:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The 4 votes and comments to the "write" of Fyslee and Shot_info are bemusing. A sentence used to develop, source and show a notable characteristic seems pretty ordinary to me, excerpting the relevant information from several places in a long paper. If the head of the AMA were an expert on anything about "militant", I might ask for his PhD professorship in a social science or, at least, a few years in ROTC - last I heard, AMA was into gun (& CAM) control. Also Ramsey's super discussion group Center (a medical policy "think tank"?) has diverse backgrounds including medical professionals. The article is largely a comparison of academic & literature treatment of CAM between the French and English spheres, a scope that includes QW, however small that notice or notability may be. If its notice is too small, maybe the subject is less notable than supposed and perhaps we should just AfD or stub the article. "militant" is a very noticable chararcteristic of QW, this happens to be a direct quote from a notable source, and appears to me to be the *only* independent, academic source here (outside the medical-pharma complex) used in the WP article. Well, at least the vote helps provide a taxanomic characterization of persuations, where Fyslee is looking pretty moderate.

Pls feel free to offer a more encyclopedic version.--I'clast 19:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'clast, please refactor your comment above in light of WP:TALK and WP:NPA. Thanks! --Ronz 05:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

"outside the medical-pharma complex" come now I'clast, you know that there is nobody except for a small enlightened few outside the complex. Join the Conspiracy, you know its the only way... Shot info 22:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The medical-pharma-insurance/industrial complex, along with its advertising media, from Time to NEJM, BMJ, JAMA, etc. are pretty pervasive, with reach almost *everywhere*. Those are V RS facts.

Conspiracy? Nah, normal, pervasive business & marketing activities, misc. minor opportunities, goodwill and er gifts, (may) buy plenty of (young) hearts. It is a matter of scale. I know a non-medical/pharma family that has gotten expensive cruises (6?), cross country plane tickets, hotels and $$$$ for a few hours face time here and there, on different occasions, with an unrelated pharma, *all done by the several "kids" individually*, high school teeners and twenties, despite some concerns of the parents. Come to the Other side, they may only (ask to) offer your first & second born (directly). Then some most probably can't even (control themselves to) hold out that long. Makes me wonder about the revenue (or script) generating perks for real producers. Right, Shot? bank shot.--I'clast 09:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, pharmaceutical companies advertise and are willing to shower prescribers with perks. These perks influence prescribing habits. Those are generally pretty verifiable. How all of this relates (via reliable sources) to Barrett and the question at hand, though, is unclear, at least to me. MastCell ^Talk 17:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

"militant", as a word and description here, is both V RS *and* notable, in a general area of altmed topics where RS *has been* often compromised by gigabucks and not acknowledged. "militant" is a neutral or even favorable description of a substantial aspect of Quackwatch's history and activities for the new or unfamiliar. It seems to be an outstanding aspect to Ramsey in his article (related but with a different focus) whose qualifications as an outsider are relevant. The controversy here sort of seems like going to a Thai resturant and the someone erasing "spicy" off only the hotter parts of the menu because they don't like the red lettering. I am concerned that Ramsey's notable descriptor, is as yet, unable to be properly presented with its source for a pretty simple item. I am still looking for positive suggestions to a satisfactory edit of the sentence. --I'clast 20:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

An excellent example of POV pushing. "I like this...because it supports my POV". "in a general area of altmed topics where RS *has been* often compromised by gigabucks", sheesh Conspiracy Theory much. Lets forget the minor fact that altmed topics are often comprised by their own lack of scientific merit and credibility. All topics discussed before but heck, let's keep pushing the conspiracy canard. Thanks for letting us see your POV push however. It makes it easier to realise that when you say "independant" you actually mean something else (mind you, your support of the SSE as a "skeptic" organisation was a redflag...) Shot info 22:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

So now Arthur[8] and Fyslee[9] share or push some part of "my" POV? Ramsey and Vanderbilt 's Center for Medicine, Health, and Society = SSE ??? The SSE aspersion, see "association fallacy", perhaps denigrates Truzzi's vision of skepticism. I would never be that interested in most of either CSICOP's or SSE's content on weird stuff, but I know some here seem to follow (or relish) it.--I'clast 06:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:WTF???? Shot info 06:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Shot, thanks for the support and the humor.--I'clast 20:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. Join the Conspiracy, it's like the Dark Side but with more paperwork. Shot info 22:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thomas R. Eng statement

Copied from above:

Quackwatch does what it claims to do, and that is recognized. Even HHS official Dr. Thomas R. Eng recognized that and had this to say:

• Eng later backed away from his Quackwatch endorsement, saying consumers should question Barrett's site as well as those it targets. "The government doesn't endorse Web sites," Eng says. Still, he says, "[Quackwatch] is the only site I know of right now looking at issues of fraud and health on the Internet." [10] (emphasis added - Fyslee)

-- Fyslee/talk 07:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Copied from above:

I think that the quote you cite above my find a home in the article. Don't you think? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it could indeed be used. Of course the quote is taken out of context, but there is useful stuff in the Ladd article. Eng was naturally careful in that situation, and realizing that his utterances could be misunderstood he withdrew his spoken endorsement, making sure people didn't get the idea that just because the government thought it was a website worthy as a resource, they were not giving it some official stamp of approval. The site was just presented as a helpful resource for consumers. That's my impression of the scenario and what would seem logical. He covered his ass by making a precise disclaimer:

• "The government doesn't endorse Web sites,"

He then went on to still give the site a personal recommendation as what he saw as the only site dealing with those types of problems. (Since then other websites have joined it in the same mission, but it is still the first and largest site of its type.)

Does that sound like a reasonable interpretation? That also fits in a certain sense with the mission statement of the website:

• "Its primary focus is on quackery-related information that is difficult or impossible to get elsewhere." [11]

Regardless of what one's personal opinion is of the website, or whether one believes its mission is misguided or wrong, it cannot be denied that it does attempt to do what it claims, and both Ramsey and Eng recognize that fact, and Eng sees a need for that type of website, hence his recommendation.

I have no objection to some type of citations from Ramsey and Eng in this article. We just need to find an acceptable way to do it. There are likely quite a few such recognitions and recommendations from others who see the need for sites like Quackwatch, and who also recommend it.

We could even have the makings of a new section, all the while recognizing the truth of Eng's statement about caution: Quackwatch should not be unquestioningly worshipped. It's a valuable resource and should be used accordingly, but we should still use common sense. All very good advice. -- Fyslee/talk 15:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't trust any Republican appointed department head. Eng works for the same administration that appointed someone at NASA to put "Theory of" in every NASA reference to Evolution or the Big Bang or a Department of Interior bureaucrat who is opposed to upholding the Endangered Species Act. Republicans wasted valuable taxpayer dollars forcing NIH to set up an alternative medicine research wing (which I hope proves most of this garbage as garbage). Republicans support pseudoscience in all forms (Creationism, Homeopathy, Naturopathy...all the same non-reliance upon scientific reasoning). Eng probably was called to the carpet by the Bushies. Curious how the radical left and the radical right believe in the same stuff. Oops. I digress. I don't like the quote because of Eng's position, it makes it appear as if he is almost in support of the alternative medicine pseudoscience. The wealth of his writings do not actually support this out-of-context quote. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I like the idea of NCCAM. There's a desperate need for reliable, methodical investigation into what works and what doesn't in alternative medicine, especially given how widely used it is. And of all the recent wastes of taxpayer money, it seems among the more innocuous. But to go back: it sounds like a useful quote. I encourage the use of Ladd's article, too, as one of the more balanced and reliably-sourced criticisms. Much preferred over the, er, DIY variety. MastCell ^Talk 22:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The Bushies have taken so much money out of basic science research, stem cell research, and other areas. NCCAM is a waste of money right now, since most work already completed doesn't show much promise. Wasting money on double-blind clinical trials is a waste, if the basic research does not indicate much hope. Water does not retain "memories" of molecules. That's not science. So why should we spend any further money? I don't mind criticisms of Quackwatch, especially since I don't use it much, just the underlying references to peer-reviewed articles. But let's use notable and reliable criticisms. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Are we talking about the U.S Government here? I'm not trying to get off topic, but regardless of which political party is in power, it is their job to waste money needlessly. That doesn't change the fact that the Eng quote is pretty much the only reliably sourced quotation, with context, by someone who could reasonably be considered knowledgeable about the subject matter, that has been produced here. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go wield my "ban uni-directional impact generator" elsewhere...--Isotope23 ^talk 18:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)