ebooksgratis.com

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.

CLASSICISTRANIERI HOME PAGE - YOUTUBE CHANNEL
Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Terms and Conditions
Talk:Quackwatch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk:Quackwatch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 The Wikipedia Community has placed homeopathy and pages subject to related disruption on probation (see relevant discussion).
Editors making disruptive edits may be placed on revert limitation or topic-banned by any uninvolved administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages. Editors must be individually notified of article probation before being banned. All resulting blocks and bans shall be logged at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation#Log of sanctions, and may be appealed to the Administrators' noticeboard.
An arbitration case, reviewing the results of the probation and various editors of homeopathic articles is currently ongoing. If you would like to participate, please go to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Quackwatch article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, and are not for engaging in discussion of off-topic matters not related to the main article. User talk pages are more appropriate for non-article-related discussion topics. Please do not use this page as a discussion forum for off-topic matters. See talk page guidelines.
Discussions here have repeatedly involved the same arguments and views.

Please review the recent comments below, or in the archives. New views and ideas on the subject are welcome; however, if your beliefs reflect already existing contributions, please consider withholding them.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 27 August 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.


Archive
Archives
  1. Archive 1 - Oct '06
  2. Archive 2 Oct '06
  3. Archive 3 Oct '06 - Dec '06
  4. Archive 4 Dec '06 - Jan '07
  5. Archive 5 Jan '07 - Feb '07
  6. Archive 6 Mar '07 (Some Jul '07)
  7. Archive 7 Apr '07 - Jul '07
  8. Archive 8 Jul '07 - Aug '07
  9. Archive 9 Sep '07 - Oct '07
  10. Archive 10 Nov '07 - Dec '07 (Partial)
  11. Archive 11 Dec '07 - Jan '08
  12. Archive 12 Jan - Feb '08


Contents

[edit] References

[edit] Moving reflist to top

Why not place the reflist at the top of the page instead? Just as accessible. WLU (talk) 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? -- Fyslee / talk 15:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Would this be a matter for Wikipedia Talk:Talk page guidelines (not that anyone reads those pages)? I have no objections to moving the reflist to the top. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 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. Anthon01 (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Support from three contributors, no real disadvantage, significant advantage of being able to add sections without extra steps? Who would you need to talk to? 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. WLU (talk) 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. Anthon01 (talk) 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 {{Reflist}} at the bottom. Until then, any objections to me moving it to the top? WLU (talk) 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. -- Fyslee / talk 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. Anthon01 (talk) 12:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
DONE Anthon01 (talk) 12:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] critics

I think "chiropractors" needs to be added to the short list in the following sentence: "Quackwatch has been regularly criticized by the groups it investigates, such as herbalists, homeopaths and other alternative medicine practitioners.[7]" Considering this article reads like an homage to Quackwatch and less an encyclopedia article, it would benefit first-time visitors to the page to learn that the organization still considers chiropracty to be quackery, even though the American Medical Association does not.

24.163.88.175 (talk) 06:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC) DEL

Doesn't the AMA consider Chiropractic to be quackery? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BLP violations, unrelated content, and controversial changes

This controversial change added some BLP violations and some content about Barrett and not Quackwatch. QuackGuru 23:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Please point to specifics. Where is BLP violated? Barrett, as the founder of Quackwatch, is quite relevant, and should be directly included in this article. The criticisms were all directed at Barrett/Quackwatch, quite specifically. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 23:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Some of the refs are unreliable. This article is about Quackwatch. QuackGuru 23:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Can you be more specific? I only added two references. One is from Quackwatch itself; the other is from leading nutritionist Ray Sahelian, whose site gets much more traffic than Quackwatch. His criticism, which is directed at Barrett's work on Quackwatch, certainly fits. His article is called Quackwatch, and the first paragraph references "Barrett and Quackwatch". ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 23:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
For example, the Sahelian, R. reference is a BLP violation. QuackGuru 23:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
You're going to have to be specific in that point, because I don't see it. And I mean I need to see a quote from the BLP rule that backs up your assertion. You need to be that specific. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 23:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Edited that criticism somewhat. What's your take on the revised edition? ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 23:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP

Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, subsection headings should reflect important areas to the subject's notability.

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material WP:GRAPEVINE

Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, though editors are advised to seek help from an administrator or at the BLP noticeboard if they find themselves violating 3RR, rather than dealing with the situation alone. Content may be re-inserted only if it conforms to this policy.

These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel.

Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no neutral version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion criterion G10 for more details).

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.

–Jimmy Wales

No evidence has been presented that the Sahelian, R. reference is reliable. QuackGuru 00:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Nutritionist Dr. Colgan claims that one of Dr. Barrett's books, The Vitamin Pushers, hardly discusses supplements but is rather "filled with derisive statements about individuals and organizations in the health care and natural foods industry" and lumps scientists with obvious charlatans indiscriminately.[71] This content is about Barrett and not Quackwatch. QuackGuru 02:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The Vitamin Pushers is sold on the website. It is written by the founder, who has written 90% of the work Quackwatch. The website says that sales of these things actually help support Quackwatch. We can try to do a dispute resolution, but that criticism by Michael Colgan belongs. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 03:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how it possibly meets BLP either. Hasn't Sahelian been brought up and rejected multiple times before? --Ronz (talk) 04:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I already took out the Sahelian article. We're talking about Colgan and The Vitamin Pushers now. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 05:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
The Colgan reference is an alternative medicine supporter. Barrett criticizes alternative medicine. This is not a third-party ref. BLP is highly relevant while the BLP violation text is unrelated to Quackwatch. Nutritionist Dr. Colgan claims that one of Dr. Barrett's books, The Vitamin Pushers, hardly discusses supplements but is rather "filled with derisive statements about individuals and organizations in the health care and natural foods industry" and lumps scientists with obvious charlatans indiscriminately. This sentence is the definition of a BLP violation. QuackGuru 08:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe we've already brought up and rejected the Townsend Letter for Doctors multiple times. --Ronz (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
The Townsend Letter for Doctors is not WP:RS. QuackGuru 17:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] the lead

This controversial edit added text to the lead about Barrett but this article is about Quackwatch. QuackGuru 08:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] missing sentence

previous version

Quackwatch has been regularly criticized by the groups it investigates, such as herbalists, homeopaths and other alternative medicine practitioners.[7] A number of practitioners and supporters of alternative medicine criticize Quackwatch for its criticism of alternative medicine.[67][69][70] Of one of the criticisms, Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa wrote, "It appears that Quackwatch.com uses the emotional reaction of its critics to substantiate its position."[40]

David Hufford, Professor of Medical Humanities at the Penn State College of Medicine, wrote an opinion paper in which he asserts that Quackwatch would be more effective if it relied more on research and less on personal beliefs.[70] In regard to the debate over water fluoridation, an anti-fluoridation article in the National Review quotes a "generally informative and persuasive" Quackwatch article,[71] but criticizes its rhetorical style as "perhaps not the best way to win an argument, especially with serious-minded people."[72]

current version

Quackwatch has been regularly criticized by the groups it investigates, such as nutritionists, herbalists, homeopaths and other alternative medicine practitioners.[8][68][70] Of one of the criticisms, Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa wrote, "It appears that Quackwatch.com uses the emotional reaction of its critics to substantiate its position."[41] Nutritionist Dr. Colgan claims that one of Dr. Barrett's books, The Vitamin Pushers, hardly discusses supplements but is rather "filled with derisive statements about individuals and organizations in the health care and natural foods industry" and lumps scientists with obvious charlatans indiscriminately.[71]

David Hufford, Professor of Medical Humanities at the Penn State College of Medicine, wrote an opinion paper in which he asserts that Quackwatch would be more effective if it relied more on research and less on personal beliefs.[70] In regard to the debate over water fluoridation, an anti-fluoridation article in the National Review quotes a "generally informative and persuasive" Quackwatch article,[72] but criticizes its rhetorical style as "perhaps not the best way to win an argument, especially with serious-minded people."[73]

This controversial edit removed a sentence. A number of practitioners and supporters of alternative medicine criticize Quackwatch for its criticism of alternative medicine. I suggest all the recent controversial changes be reverted to the last stable version. Make small edits and save them and discuss substantial changes here. QuackGuru 08:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The sentence was completely redundant. To emphasize this point, I will be redundant: that first sentence and the sentence I removed say exactly the same thing. Wordiness should be avoided. You still have not responded to the fact that The Vitamin Pushers is sold by Quackwatch; the criticism by Colgan remains. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 08:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
The sentence that was removed was very interesting. It is irrelevant what Quackwatch sells on their website. A BLP is still a BLP violation. QuackGuru 08:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
The book is published by Prometheus Books, not by Quackwatch. Quackwatch is not a publishing house. The book is sold many places, including at Quackwatch, which is quite natural considering that one of the authors (Barrett) is the primus motor there. -- Fyslee / talk 23:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this a joke for you? I don't have time for it. Explain these sentences are different:

1) Quackwatch has been regularly criticized by the groups it investigates, such as herbalists, homeopaths and other alternative medicine practitioners.

2) A number of practitioners and supporters of alternative medicine criticize Quackwatch for its criticism of alternative medicine.

As far as the Colgan criticism, there's no BLP problems there -- he is reviewing a work published by Quackwatch, and his book review is published in a third-party periodical. I don't see us making much headway here. If you try to remove it, I will revert. We can do a dispute resolution or, if need be, a RfC. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 11:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Take it to WP:BLPN rather than refusing to review the prior discussions that led to the Townsend Letter being rejected as a source. --Ronz (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
There's no consensus. Townsend Letters has not been rejected as a source so far as I know -- the source was linked when I came here. I just fleshed it out. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 18:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe this was resolved on BLPN a few months ago, but I can't find the reference, nor do I recall the resolution. I lean toweard the Townsend Letter being rejected as an WP:RS, but I don't recall my reasoning. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Here was my previous missing comment in case anyone wants to read it. We have common themes here. Things are missing from the article as well as the talk page. I don't see consensus for any of the recent controversial edits. QuackGuru 02:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] recommendations

I have dealt with the concerns raised above by restoring the last, stable, consensus version, thus undoing the controversial edits which, if appropriate at all, belong on the Barrett article. Those sources have already been dealt with on both articles and the current state of the articles, as regards use of those sources, are consensus versions. They should not be added again. -- Fyslee / talk 04:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I restored to the last stable version minus the colgan ref. There is no consensus for the controversial edits. QuackGuru 23:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Explain why we can't add information on the founder to the lead. This reverts good writing. Likely I will have to do some sort of dispute resolution for this. Does anyone else agree with QuackGuru that the changes he's reverted, referenced above, were bad? The first two sentences in the Critics section are redundant. Also, I'd like an administrator's advice on where I go to appeal this kind of tendentious editing. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 23:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Second opinion on QuackGuru's most recent edit

I see nothing controversial with the edits which QuackGuru reverted here, which is why I'm seeking a third opinion. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 00:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quackwatch&diff=215201781&oldid=215083847 You were already reverted before. QuackGuru 00:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Quackguru reverted the improvements here, claiming that the improvements were controversial when all they did was reduce wordiness (see two sentences below), make a title professional (Critics to Criticism) and put basic information on the founder of the organization to the lead. QuackGuru also asserts that these two sentences, which occurred together, are not redundant:

  • 1) Quackwatch has been regularly criticized by the groups it investigates, such as herbalists, homeopaths and other alternative medicine practitioners.
  • 2) A number of practitioners and supporters of alternative medicine criticize Quackwatch for its criticism of alternative medicine.

He complains because I took the second one out. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 23:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ImperfectlyInformed (talk • contribs) 00:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

All of ImpIn edits were previuosly reverted. QuackGuru 00:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I reverted Fyslee to put back in the improvements while taking out the controversial stuff. Then you edited out the improvements, which is what we're discussing. Reversions are irrelevant -- we talk about content. Note that Fyslee's claim to be reverting it back to the way it was is false; she didn't put back The Vitamin Pushers citation, which was here for a long time. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 00:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

ImpIn restored parts of the controversial edits. QuackGuru 00:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Please explain exactly what is the difference between my edit and Fyslee's edit. QuackGuru 00:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I see as controversial was the Michael Colgan criticism. I reject that the others are controversial, and since you are unwilling to discuss why these other edits (detailed above) are controversial, I'm requesting a second opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ImperfectlyInformed (talk • contribs) 01:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

my (second) opinion...
allow me to break this down into specific points, based on the diffs given above.
  1. I see no reason to exclude the name of the author (Stephen Barrett) and link to his bio from the lead paragraph. the Quackwatch home page itself clearly states "Operated by Stephen Barrett, M.D."
  2. for the edits beginning on line 272, I think both versions are biased, but I prefer "were doubtful of the efficacy of such many alternative medicines, they continued stocking many remedies because..." in particular, I think that the term dubious is heavily loaded, particularly when placed in scare-quotes as it is. perhaps you could use an edit such as this: "were doubtful of the efficacy of such many alternative medicines, they continued stocking them because..." this removes the scare-quoted words entirely.
  3. I do agree that these two lines "Quackwatch has been regularly criticized by the groups it investigates, such as herbalists, homeopaths and other alternative medicine practitioners A number of practitioners and supporters of alternative medicine criticize Quackwatch for its criticism of alternative medicine." are redundant, and should be replaced by a single line, such as "Quackwatch has been regularly criticized by the groups it investigates, such as herbalists, homeopaths and other practitioners and supporters of alternative medicine." keeping all three citations.
  4. I 'm not going to comment on the JSE quote, except to say that I could cut the hostility on this talk page with a knife. Quackwatch, like anything else, has its good points and its bad points: please allow both sides appropriate representation.--Ludwigs2 (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Journal of Scientific Exploration

I will be adding a "website review" by the aforementioned journal, listed on this page. The review is done by a Dr. Joel M. Kaufmann, who did his PhD in Organic Chemistry at MIT. I listed this source at BLP/N, since I expect QuackGuru and Fyslee will contest it. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 01:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You will be editing against an established consensus, and thus resurrecting old edit wars that resulted in that source not being used. That is disruptive editing and will only get you in trouble. Please read the archives before attempting this move. If you can come up with (1) other and (2) better arguments than have previously been used for inclusion, ONLY then try this, IOW do your homework first. So far your user name seems to apply, at least in this case, and you've just been edit warring and creating disruption on an otherwise relatively stable article. So far you haven't done anything that hasn't been done or considered before. -- Fyslee / talk 05:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
If I may, reading the past discussion - which I encourage anyone to do - will reveal that there is no established consensus against using JSE. There was a prolonged dispute with mixed feeling, lots of tempers, multiple instances of edit warring, but the only reason why the JSE source isn't included is because is from burn out from its supporters in the face of months of stonewalling from its detractors. One side had to finally just give up. But don't take that to mean that there was any consensus against inclusion. Finally, please also remember, WP:CCC (not that this is applicable as there was never a consensus on this matter). -- Levine2112 discuss 06:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Speaking as a scientist, this journal has so little reputation it's laughable we're even discussing this. Essentially it's a true believer rag. It's never cited by reputable scientists, a very quick search of impact factors reveals absolutely nothing. Jefffire (talk) 08:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] JSE is unreliable (BLP violation)

Here are some examples that show JSE does not pass the rigors of BLP policy. Editing is based on Wikipedia policy.

  1. JSE is a fringe science journal because they attempt to rationalize UFOs while a true skeptic journal publication is critical and/skpetical of UFOs. The journal attempts to rationalize the evidence for the existance of UFOs. Moreover, JSE describes itself as a fringle journal because they assert on their website it is a "critical forum of rationality and observational evidence for the often strange claims at the fringes of science." Saying JSE is a skeptic's journal would entirely be original research. So what is the point? The journal is a "forum" for "rationality" of "the often strange claims at the fringes of science" which would make it a 'fringe science' journal. If any Wikipedian thinks the journal is not a fringe science journal, what kind of journal is it then? Keep in mind that current consensus for the JSE article is for it to remain in the fringe science category. Robert Todd Carroll of the Skeptic's Dictionary[1] stated in part: "In fact, the so-called Association for Skeptical Investigation is a group of pseudo-skeptical paranormal investigators and supporters who do not appreciate criticism of paranormal studies by truly genuine skeptics and critical thinkers. The only skepticism this group promotes is skepticism of critics and criticisms of paranormal studies." He also stated in part: "However, Gary Schwartz, in a published paper, refers to several of the deceased—including William James!—as “departed hypothesized co-investigators,” so perhaps the group considers the spirits of Keen and Truzzi as active investigators.[2] The Society for Scientific Exploration was founded by Marcello Truzzi. The only conclusion demonstrated by the examples is a fringe science journal.
  2. If you believe the journal is not a fringe science journal, then what type of journal do you believe it is. Moreover, if you believe the journal is not a fringe journal then what is a fringe science journal (A definition of a fringe journal is requested). Please provide specific examples and descriptions of the differences of a fringe science journal versus JSE.
  3. If you believe JSE is a skeptic organization then please provide examples of JSE being the same as other skeptic organizations.
  4. Kauffman is a person and therefore not formally peer-reviewed. We cannot use his asseration on it own face value. Moreover, his notability (or more precisely, lack of notability) is a straw-man argument. Is there even an article on Wikipedia on Kauffman? Per BLP policy, we insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability. Kauffman is not a third-party published source. If you disagree, please explain. When you cannot explain how Kauffman satisfies BLP policy, you (yes, I mean you) have conceded Kauffman is not a reliable third-party published source. This isn't my rule, this is Wikipedia's rule as required by BLP policy. Again, how in the world is Kauffman independant of a third-party published source satsifying to BLP policy. The answer is obvious. He does not satisfy BLP policy. BLP policy drives editing on Wikipedia articles on notable individuals. A couple of editors are asserting but are actually refusing to explain how Kauffman meets BLP policy. You must properly show and not assert based on Wikipedia policy. Again, how does Kauffman specifically meet BLP policy. Please explain by citing BLP policy. Do you agree to abide by BLP policy anyhow.
  5. The journal describes itself as a fringe journal on their website as well others do.[3] They describe themselves as a fringe journal because they assert the rationalizing of "strange claims at the fringes of science." For example, Michael D. Lemonick wrote an article about the Society for Scientific Exploration called Science on the Fringe for Time Magazine.[10] My recent edit was not reverted because of any misleading statement. The other editor felt it was not necessary to say what the journal is and to, nevertheless, keep the description of what the journal is only after you went to the editor's talk page.
  6. Barrett studies quacks which would make him a skeptic. See at the bottom right hand corner of this article: American Skeptics. Barrett is in the category of American skeptics. The journal studies fringes which would make it a "fringe science" journal. For example, the journal studies for the rational evidence of UFOs, reincarnation, and crop circles.[1][2][3][4]
  7. Moreover, the journal describes themselves as rationalizing "strange claims at the fringes of science." The point is that they "rationalize" the "fringes of science." Thats exactly what a fringe journal does. Please contact them directly. In fact, the journal is proud of being a fringe science journal. See what they will tell you about themselves. What is scientific about crop circles? Hmmm. The journal studies the so-called science of crop circles made by UFOs. Everything the journal does is obviously on the "fringes of science." Therefore, it is clearly a fringe science journal when they are a forum to "rationalize" the "fringes of science." For example, it is a group inclined toward belief in paranormal phenomena.[5] The fringe journal clearly fails the rigors of BLP policy becuase it is not a third-party source. While Barrett criticizes various forms of alternative medicine topics, JSE attempts to rationalize alternative medical practices.[6]
  8. This is an example of how the term peer-reviewed can easily be misused or misunderstood. The JSE is reviewed by a minority group of fringe supporters. This minority group who share the same fringe ideology, without any review from dissent, falls into the category of reviewed by true believers of the so-called rationale fringe of true believers and their self-serving bias. They are fringe supporters because they attempt to rationalize such things as UFOs. For further information about how JSE portrays themselves, please visit the website.
  9. See: Journal of Scientific Exploration. JSE is subject to review "at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief." If the paper is accepted "but there remain points of disagreement between authors and referee(s), the reviewer(s) may be given the option of having their opinion(s) published..." The journal clearly is subject to the discretion of a single person which is the Editor-in-Chief. Therefore, the journal clearly publishes opinions without always having editorial review. Furthmore, the journal is reviewed by a small group of fringe supporters who attempt to rationalize such things as UFOs at "the fringes of science." Hmmm.
  10. The journal represents unconventional views. For example: In established disciplines, concordance with accepted disciplinary paradigms is the chief guide in evaluating material for scholarly publication. On the matters of interest to the Society for Scientific Exploration, however, consensus does not prevail. Therefore the Journal of Scientific Exploration necessarily publishes claimed observations and proffered explanations that will seem more speculative or less plausible than in some mainstream disciplinary journals. See Refereeing at the JSE article.
  11. Please take a look at the Journal of Scientific Exploration at the bottom right hand corner. What do you see. Is it >> Fringe science journals? Specifically what category is the fringe science journal in? Also, what do you see is the first listing in the see also section?
  12. Per WEIGHT: 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. Wikipedia 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. If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. Views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all.
  13. Per BLP policy: The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article. Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.
  14. Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material: Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). If the material is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply to its removal. Content may be re-inserted when it conforms to this policy. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel.
  15. Blocking: Editors who repeatedly add or restore unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons may be blocked for disruption. See the blocking policy. This is an official notice to all editors involved. This is a very serious matter.
  16. Multiple Wikipedians have deleted the Kauffman attack piece from the article. Avb, + ConfuciusOrnis, + Crohnie, + Fyslee, Orangemarlin, + QuackGuru, + Ronz, + Shot info + THF. As the discussion continued, Arthur Rubin, an administrator in good standing in the community, stated that JSE is clearly a fringe journal. According to policy, While the consensus process does not require posting to the discussion page, it can be useful. That means we do not have to continue to work on discussing this matter. Their points are based on valid reasons to exclude the POV material which is to be respected. Clearly there is no consensus to re-add the Kauffman/JSE bit to the article. It was removed for various reasons including, but not limited to, BLP policy, WEIGHT policy, and POV. It is considered highly disruptive to re-add BLP violations against consensus. Re-inserting BLP violations is against Wikipedia policy and by extention against Wikipedia. Any editor who continues to try the patience of the community by engaging in disruptive editing may be blocked for disruption in accordance with blocking policy or community banned.

Please provide specific responses to each and every point made above or we will consider that the editors have conceded that JSE fails to meet the inclusion criteria because the journal is not a reliable third-party source. (a) Per WEIGHT policy, the Kauffman criticism represents the view of a tiny minority, therefore it has no place in the article. (b) We have clearly shown based on Wikipedia's BLP policy that Kauffman as well as JSE are not third-party published sources. Thanks. QuackGuru 01:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you write that all up, or did you copy it from someone else? Aside from that question (which I really would like answered), it's clear that this article has been washed of all criticism in a way which violates WP:WEIGHT. The criticism of Quackwatch is widespread, and it has been done by many people with strong credentials. This should be reflected in the article -- and that is the best reason to add this website review to this article. I think I'll be doing a Request for Comment on this article, because it's clearly heavily biased in the pro-Quackwatch direction. Joel Kaufmann raises many good (obvious) points: QuackWatch is rife with inaccuracies, often does not cite sources correctly, usually cites only one side of research, and is filled with ad hominem attacks. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 02:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Please answer all my above questions I wrote. If not, then the source is unreliable. QuackGuru 02:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] JSE is run by academics with PhDs

I'll field your comments; thank you for numbering them.

  1. This is pure rhetoric. You need to distinguish between a fringe journal and a journal which specializes in researching fringe topics. The people who publish in JSE have PhDs and they apply the scientific method to a fringe area in science. I daresay that they are probably the leading journal in the study of these fringe topics. One biased man's perspective (Carroll) does not change this. We cannot arbitrarily take the biases of a an opposed group and categorically call a journal "fringe".
  2. It is a journal specializing in a fringe topic. I don't think that a journal published by scientists (people with PhDs in science) can be considered "fringe".
  3. All skeptic organizations are not the same. Skeptic is just a word. Whereas most skeptic organizations polemicize the paranormal, JSE studies the evidence available. It's not a skeptic organization; it's a scientific journal.
  4. Kaufmann is published in a third-party scientific journal; further, he has a PhD from MIT in Chemistry. Thus he is more reliable than, say an article in the Washington Post by a journalist criticizing Quackwatch (or paraphrasing the criticism of, say, Dr. Joel Kaufmann). The latter would likely pass RS because The Washington Post is a "high-quality" news org., but I don't see why Kaufmann's critique, which is actually more reliable, should not. Further, there is an extreme lack of proper WP:WEIGHT in this article.
  5. I don't think JSE claims to be fringe. Your footnote doesn't work. They study the fringe of science; there is a marked difference.
  6. Barrett is a polemicist, not a scientific. If you read JSE, you'll find that its articles display a fairly objective and skeptical tone. Its researchers are nevertheless curious as to the data available, and wish to analyze and document that data.
  7. JSE is reviewed by academics with PhDs. Thus, it is peer-reviewed.
  8. First, the review is not subject to Editor-in-Chief's discretion'; that's a mistake on the page which I've fixed. Second, referees often have misgivings about papers, but are still willing to accept them -- thus the option to publish a referee comment. However, a paper in this journal must be reviewed and accepted to be published -- it must undergo peer review. That's more than articles in the New York Times have to undergo -- NYT articles do not even cite their sources.
  9. JSE states that it requires a rigorous level of argument. It may publish on uncommon occurences in the interest of investigation.
  10. That was likely not discussed, and should be changed to Journals on fringe topics.
  11. As I've stated, WP:WEIGHT goes the opposite direction. This weighted too far in favor of QW.
  12. Already covered above. A short mention of Kaufmann's criticism, published in a third-party journal, is appropriate.
  13. Already covered above; third-party source, refereed by people with PhDs, written by a professor with a PhD from MIT.
  14. I don't intend to add it until we've established consensus.
  15. And many others have put it in. What's your point? I disagree with those individuals if they think that this is not a RS.

Most of your comments are pure rhetoric; the single question that we have to answer is whether Joel Kaufmann's publication in JSE is a RS for criticism of Quackwatch. Given that Kaufmann has a PhD from MIT and he is publishing in a journal which is reviewed by people with PhDs, I think this is plenty reliable. When someone with a PhD from MIT is considered unreliable when commenting on science but a journalist writing in say the New York Times, would not be, we have a problem. ImpIn | (t - c) 03:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely — wrong. It's been established that JSE is not a peer-reviewed journal, even though individual articles may be peer-reviewed. It's also clear that JSE is WP:FRINGE. Finally, web site reviews, even in normally "peer-reviewed journals", are usually not peer-reviewed. (It has not been established that the individual review was reviewed.)
The only reason the reference might be included is that Kaufmann, himself, might rise to the level of an "independent expert" whose personal writing would be considered reliable. I don't have a strong opinion on that last, although his own conflict of intrest seems to lean somewhat against it, in that Kaufmann is a "skeptic" in regard the efficacy of some aspects of conventional medicine which QW takes as given. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Are you going to back up your assertion that JSE is not peer-reviewed? Note, as I pointed up above, that articles are not reviewed at the Ed-in chief's discretion -- that was a false claim made on the WP page, which I corrected. Anyway, DGG said that JSE is not a fringe journal, but rather, as I pointed out, a scientific journal aimed at raising discussion on fringe topics. ImpIn | (t - c) 20:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Even if the website review was not peer reviewed - which is only a matter of our conjecture - this does not invalidate it as a WP:RS. And if Barrett's COI doesn't invalidate his Quackwatch articles as a reliable source of his opinion in several dozen articles on Wikipedia, neither should Kaufmann's alleged COI. And I agree with you, Arthur Rubin; as a respected professor emeritus, Kaufmann himself is a reliable source of his own opinions, especially within in the fields which he is a noted expert. There is not doubt that he is more than qualified to provide a website review of a "scientific" website. -- Levine2112 discuss 13:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:REDFLAG. Kauffman has some pretty outlandish fringe ideas that are directly contradicted by the facts provided for by QW. As such, his review falls under the category of QW being criticized by those who QW critiques. In other words, already fairly well-covered in this article. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
DGG has said on the BLP/N that we should just include the link as a footnote. That's fine by me. ImpIn | (t - c) 20:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
One person wrote: I don't think we should make an end-run around the discussions on the notability of this source. QuackGuru 20:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The Kauffman article is a RS even if it is not peer reviewed. There is no rule that only peer reviewed mainstream journals are allowed as sources. The WP rule is that we should build on RS secondary sources. JSE has an editorial policy and is perfectly OK as a RS. MaxPont (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. JSE may have an editorial policy, but, even under the stated policy, Kauffman's article would not have been reviewed. He still may be an independant expert, but, as his article is primarly on Barrett, it may fail under BLP. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
All articles in a publication with an editor in chief etc. are approved for publication by the editorial team. By definition. Most academic journals accept pieces outside the blind peer review process. These articles are also published by a RS secondary source even if they are not peer reviewed. MaxPont (talk) 14:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Wrong again. "Letters" and short reviews are not normally approved by the "editorial team", even in reputable journals. And, in fact, if you look at JSE's detailed editorial policy, you'll find that the category of paper which we're talking about is not normally peer-reviewed. As JSE does not appear to have an external reputation for fact-checking, I don't see that the journal lends any reliablility to the paper. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
My point was that everything that is published in a publication is approved by the (editorial) staff in that publication. Otherwise it would never have made it there. The legal responsiliity of the editor in chief also includes everything published in the publication. The analogy should be made with normal daily newspapers. The editorial oversight in a daily newspaper for freelancers, columnists etc. is considered good enough to allow these articles as WP:RS. By analogy all articles in a publication run by a team of academics should be considered a WP:RS unless there are some compelling reasons not to allow it. MaxPont (talk) 05:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, there's nothing there which complies with Wikipedia policies.
  1. Everything, including letters to the editor and advertisements, in a publication is approved by the (legal) staff (not necessarily the editorial staff). That doesn't mean that they consider it reliable, only that they consider it safe to say.
  2. Yes, the analogy could be made with normal daily newspapers. We do not consider columnists writing opinion columns to provide evidence of the facts alleged in the column. Daily newspapers also print unedited press releases, from time to time, verifying only that no one other than the author/subject is libeled.
  3. The analogy is good, but even recognized peer-reviewed journals frequently have letter columns and editorials, which cannot be considered WP:RS.
So, as book reviews in recognized journals such as the American Mathematical Monthly (source: my late mother) are not peer-reviewed, why should we expect a website review in an (arguably fringe) journal such as JSE to be be peer-reviewed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Peer review is not necessary for something to be a reliable source. A book review in the AMA would certainly be reliable, and could be put in the article. This website review, similarly, is published, but it is also from someone who has published in the biomedical field and got a PhD at MIT. Did you see the discussion at BLP/N? Both of the uninvolved admins, DGG and MastCell, believed that it could be added. If you'd prefer, I will add it as a footnote to the second sentence in the Reception section. I added it as a sentence at the bottom for balance, so that it would figure less prominently, and also so that I could add that it was published in "the controversial" Journal of Scientific Exploration. Incidentally, I even discovered a couple errors in one of Barrett's articles -- one of the only ones I've glanced at. ImpIn | (t - c) 23:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why this argument is still going on. <sigh...> let's look at what it says in wp:Fringe#Identifying fringe theories:

We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study.[3] Examples include conspiracy theories, ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have not gained scientific consensus, esoteric claims about medicine, novel re-interpretations of history and so forth. Some of the theories addressed here may in a stricter sense be hypotheses, conjectures, or speculations.

In order to be notable, a fringe theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents.

so...

  1. Kaufman JSE article is not a scientific theory in its own right: it's a critique of a scientific position held by quackwatch, and as such it is not "fringe." Kaufman is not saying that Alt Med proves Barrett wrong (which would be a positive theory, and so end up in the fringe category); Kaufman is saying that Barrett's assertions about Alt Med are questionable, which is the way scientific investigation is supposed to work.
  2. the Kaufman JSE article is referenced in the Hufford article in J Law, Medicine & Ethics (mentioned in the quackwatch article). we have already established Hufford as a valid academic source, and Kaufman is referenced extensively and used in a serious way by Hufford. therefore, even if it were fringe, it would be notable fringe, and still worthy of inclusion.

policies are tools, not weapons. please use them accordingly. --Ludwigs2 (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see WP:FRINGE as being relevant here, actually, although JSE would be subject to that. The question is reliablility (both in the real-world sense, not necessarily Wikipedia's sense). And this article fails because:
  1. JSE's peer review process is fringe, at best, and probably non-existant for the article in question. In any case, even if it were a reputable journal with an established peer-review process, whether that particular article is peer-reviewed would still be questionable.
  2. If Kaufmann is an indepedent expert in the field (whatever the field is), to the point that his self-published material would be considered reliable, then the article could be include.
  3. Hufford, not being an expert in the same field, doesn't lend reliability to Kaufmann, only notability.
So we're still back to the question of whether Kaufmann is an expert in the field, which is (IMO) accuracy of medical studies — not medicine, in which we might consider Kaufmann an expert. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

To repeat. The Kauffman article is a RS even if it is not peer reviewed. Would we reject exactly the same article had it been in published in Slate (a RS that is not peer reviewed)? MaxPont (talk) 06:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

To repeat: No, and yes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Arthur, have you even bothered to read the Kaufman article? here's the disclaimer he writes at the end

Disclaimer: Any recommendations herein are based on studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. I am not an M. D. and cannot engage in the practice of medicine. My degrees are: B. S. in Chemistry from the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy and Science, and a Ph. D. in Organic Chemistry from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. My experience includes about 10 years of exploratory drug development at the former, now called the University of the Sciences in Philadelphia, and 4 years at the Massachusetts College of Pharmacy, where the major effort was on synthesis of potential anticancer drugs under contract with the National Cancer Institute (NCI), and writing the chapter on Cancer Chemotherapy in the 2nd and 3rd eds. of W. O. Foye, Ed., Principles of Medicinal Chemistry; this also appeared as Kauffman, J. M., & Foye, W. O. (1979), The Nature and Treatment of Cancer, The Apothecary 91, May/June, 7; and Kauffman, J. M., & Foye, W. O. (1979), Antineoplastic Drugs, The Apothecary 91, July/August, 7. Later I served as consultant to the Franklin Research Center in Philadelphia, PA, partially in connection with their contract with the NCI to develop anticancer drugs.

is an established biomedical researcher sufficiently expert in "medical studies"?
also, the term "self-published" has a specific meaning - i.e., the author pays a publishing firm out of his own pocket to get an independent manuscript distributed. this clearly does not apply to Kaufman and the JSE article. I see no evidence that Kaufman ever self-published anything; in fact, he too is published by reputable publishing firms as an expert in his field.
finally, the purpose of the notability clause is to ensure that established scientists treat this author's work as reputable. your use of the word 'reliable' is odd - it doesn't conform to the scientific usage of 'reliable' (which means that a specific experimental result can be achieved consistently), and apparently is distinct from reputable, and it certainly can't mean 'accurate' (since it's not wikipedia's purpose to decide the accuracy of arguments). what exactly do you mean by 'reliable'?
--Ludwigs2 (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I read Kaufmann. It reads as if he read much of QW, and only commented on the sections he found fault with, although he denies that. He also fails to note that other sections of QW criticize his theories as to the effectiveness of certain medical techniques, which an ethical researcher would do.
And you are wrong as to "self-published". It certainly includes "letters to the editor", even if edited for wording, and includes press releases republished even in reputable newsmagazines. The definition I would use, and I believe Wikipedia does use, is if the publisher does not exercise editorial discretion, it is "self-published".
Finally, "reliable" is a difficult word in this context. However Hufford references Kaufmann, but, even if he references it favorably, he's not in the same field. It supports the article being notable, but doesn't affect what we call "reliablility" one iota.
As for what I would like to see in the article: We can probably use Kaufmann as a reference in the article, but only as to his published (and possibly informed) opinion. It's criticism, but it being published in JSE is nearly irrelevant except in that we can verify it exists. WP:BLP doesn't seem to apply, so we can use weak sources.
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
That last paragraph seems reasonable to me, except for the last line. equating well-formed scientific opinion by a professional in the field to 'letters to the editor' or 'press releases' is a bit far-fetched. when your doctor writes you a prescription, do you refuse to take it because his opinion of your medical condition hasn't been peer-reviewed? part of being an expert is having the right to give informed opinions (and accepting the responsibility of having those opinions criticized). and do I need to point out that Kaufman (a biomedical researcher) is likely more qualified to make opinions here than Barrett (a psychiatrist)?
I still think you are over-extending WP policy, but I'm content so long as you're not reaching for complete exclusion. --Ludwigs2 17:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removing the Critics section

I don't think this was a good change because it embeds the criticism deep in the article. Titles are meant to help people find things quickly; some people may be looking for this section. Also, I'd like to change the Critics title to the more professional Criticism. This was something I wanted to be commented upon, since it was part of my "controversial" edit (see above). The commenters didn't mention it, but I'm guessing they found it fine -- but perhaps I simply didn't make it clear. Still, I'd like to hear more input. Also, DGG has said on BLP/N that the website review by Joel Kauffmann should be linked to as evidence of criticism, but nothing more. MastCell agreed with that compromise. That seems fine by me. ImpIn | (t - c) 00:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You wanted a sentence deleted. I did that as a compromise. The section was too short for its own section. It was the views of a tiny minority. See WP:WEIGHT. I merged the tiny section.
MastCell wrote: I don't think we should make an end-run around the discussions on the notability of this source.
Multiple Wikipedians have deleted the Kauffman attack piece from the article, including Avb, + ConfuciusOrnis, + Crohnie, + Fyslee, Orangemarlin, + QuackGuru, + Ronz, + Shot info + THF. There is no consensus for using this ref. The majority of editors rejected JSE as unreliable and or has WP:WEIGHT issues. I don't think we should continue an end-run around old discussions that were resolved a long time ago. QuackGuru 00:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I missed the Criticism/Critics change. I do think 'Critics' is a loaded term (because it emphasizes the individual critic rather than the act of criticism). If Criticism seems too strong a word, however, maybe you could reach for something more neutral, like 'Critical Assessments'?
that being said, I went back and read the article more closely, and I do think a reasoned criticism section is in order. I mean, the list of therapies that the article says Quackwatch lists as 'dubious or dangerous' is huge, and covers a range of therapies that can hardly be called 'fringe.' I mean, some of these therapies (accupuncture, kinesthesiology, and chiropracty, for a short list) are used in major hospitals, and others (chinese herbal medicine, and ayurvedic medicine in particular) have exceedingly long histories, with hundreds of millions of people who use them. A fair picture of QuackWatch ought to include a discussion of those areas where the site might have taken an exaggerated position or failed to make a proper discrimination. --Ludwigs2 (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
The section was too short for its own section. The criticism is from a tiny minority. See WP:WEIGHT. QuackGuru 01:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Time Magazine, the Village Voice, and the Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics (the last being a peer-reviewed scholarly journal) constitute a tiny minority? and incidentally, why are these assumedly credible authors stuck in a footnote to "supporters of alternative medicine, such as herbalists, homeopaths and other alternative medicine practitioners?"
Look, I'm not an editor on this article, so I don't want to intrude too much, but it's clear to me that the article cannot use QuackWatch's views on alternative medicine as substantive grounds for dismissing criticism - that's circular reasoning. I mean, what you've done here is place all reference to criticism of the site at the end of the "about the site" section and identified the critics as the very people QW is against. effectively you've said "QW says these people are Quacks, and those people are Quacks, and that group over there is all Quacks, and hey!, some of those Quacks complain about it." this is not an unbiased presentation.
I would like to suggest a compromise. if ImpIn can come up with one or two nice neutral paragraphs noting criticism of the site from decent sources (like the ones listed above), then let him put them in a Criticism section at the bottom of the article. add in rebuttal lines where you feel it's appropriate, but let it be there. seems only fair. --Ludwigs2 (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Um, those sources are fine for non-expert opinion, but as far as expert medical opinion is concerned they just are not that good. Alos, we never call any of the alleged "quacks" by such a term in this article. Fringe opinion sometimes needs to be relegated to the sidelines. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
lol - I never said you did say 'Quacks'; please note the word effectively. that was a useful hyperbole. it still stands that you've placed the critics of CW in a spot immediately following the place where you say that QW thinks they are disreputable. I can be more precise, if you like...
  • the article has a long list of therapies QW is especially critical of
  • next three lines: "people who perform, market, and advocate therapies it considers dubious, in many cases providing details of convictions for past marketing fraud. It also maintains lists of sources, individuals, and groups it considers questionable and non-recommendable"
  • eleven lines later "Quackwatch has been criticized by a number of supporters..." who are only identified by labels that are on the above list of dubious, fraudulent, questionable, and non-recommendable groups.
I'm willing to listen to a defense of this section as unbiased, of course.  :-)
With respect to medical/expert opinion: it's not Wikipedia's job to evaluate whether QW is correct or incorrect in their assertions. Credible opinions that are part of the public discourse about QW ought to have a place in the article, whether they are favorable to or critical of QW. In particular for this article, restricting critique to "medical professionals" could easily be seen as a bias, since QW (clearly) is a defender of conventional medical practice. The intent of WP:WEIGHT is to prevent an article from being overrun and/or mired down by minor positions that require major explanations to fit them in. that does not seem to be the case here, as the objectors and their objections are well-defined and should fit nicely into the structure.
"NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." right? so please let other opinions in. --Ludwigs2 (talk) 23:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
The viewpoints of a tiny minority is a WP:WEIGHT problem. QuackGuru 23:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
what metric are you using to establish that these viewpoints are the viewpoints of a 'tiny minority'? Time magazine, last I knew, was distributed worldwide, and getting an article in a peer-reviewed journal is no mean feat. or are you suggesting that the vast majority of those who use or practice alternative medicine (which is not a small number of people by any measure) would agree with QW that it's all quackery? the 'tiny minority' judgement is something you have to defend, not something you can use as though it were unambiguously true. --Ludwigs2 (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
The metric is twofold: roughly whether you are a proponent of a fringe medical claim or not and whether you are an expert in the field you are writing about or not. The "peer-reviewed" article is not actually peer-reviewed and you have to consider the author's severe lack of neutrality. The other two opinions are essentially gleaned from articles with editorializing by non-experts. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  1. your first criteria is extremely problematic. QuackWatch's entire purpose is to distinguish between reputable and disreputable (mainstream and fringe) practices. you run a decided risk of eliminating sources because QuackWatch says they are fringe and should be eliminated. that would turn this from an objective article into a QuackWatch mouthpiece - not what we want, right?
  2. the author of the article doesn't need to be neutral - we need to be neutral in handling the article. and it's a very reputable peer-reviewed journal; I don't see what your objection is.
  3. if the other options are gleaned from other articles (which is not necessarily problematic in itself) doesn't that imply that there is an even larger (as yet unaddressed) group of people writing on this subject? this is not helping your 'tiny minority' argument.
  4. non-experts is not the same thing as non-medical-experts. well-reasoned sources from outside the medical industry are certainly appropriate for an article of this type.
but we don't really need to deal with these issues here. I'm just going to go back to my original suggestion - let ImpIn put a Criticism section at the bottom of the article, and see how it pans out over a few weeks of editing. it's certainly not going to harm anything. can we at least agree on that, or are you going to refuse and revert if he does? --Ludwigs2 (talk) 23:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  1. QW does not determine who is fringe and who isn't. That's an editorial decision made by Wikipedia editors.
  2. The neutral way to handle an author who has fringe ideas like water fluoridation paranoia and cholesterol denial is to either characterize him for the fringe fanatic that he is or to simply let his non-peer reviewed website review stand as a citation for the statement that those criticized by QW are critical of QW.
  3. The larger group of people writing on this subject are already addressed in the article. Those are the ones who are reported as giving QW a favorable review.
  4. Journalists are not qualified to determine whether QW is in line with mainstream medicine.

Since there has been a consensus formed months ago that a criticism section is not needed here and I see no new arguments (please WP:RTFA) I will resist any attempt by the editor in question to insert such a section. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

fair enough. as I said, I am not an editor on this article, so I'll bow out now. however, I am firmly convinced that this article does not live up to Wikipedia standards regarding neutral point of view, and so I'm going to have to tag it as such. perhaps someone else can reason with you.--Ludwigs2 (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your support, Ludwigs2, and I hope you don't completely leave. Glancing at the archives, there seemed to be consensus to include a Criticism section with the Kauffman article. 2 years ago MastCell said that the Kauffman article is "obviously appropriate for inclusion" if phrased in a NPOV manner. MastCell and DGG have already said the Kauffman article should be included at BLP/N. However, I know that if I do add anything, I will be reverted -- I've learned that QuackGuru and ScienceApologist are not afraid to edit war. Should I put something up at AN/I? ImpIn | (t - c) 00:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
AN/I seems a bit extreme, particularly if you assume good-faith editing on their part (I know you might be struggling with that, but I happen to think that's true). maybe make a request for mediation? I don't know enough about the subject matter or history here to really make judgments about the worth of any particular article; I'm just concerned by the steadfast resistance to adding critical viewpoints, and the obvious efforts to downplay what criticism is there. don't get me wrong, I'm still open to the possibility that they have valid reasons for this. I'm just not satisfied with what's been said so far.
If I were you, I'd take a couple of days and write up an iron-clad criticism section; gather all the reputable sources you can find and include them. then post it here on the talk page so that people don't have to bother looking at diffs.--Ludwigs2 (talk) 01:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] disingenuous edit summary

According to Ludwigs2: removing a POV tag is against Wikipedia policy I find that hard to believe. Tags are removed every day. Please cite specifc policy where is states it is against policy. Thanks. QuackGuru 02:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me, I should have specified. the correct phrase should have been "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved," which is precisely what it says on the tag. The dispute is not resolved as of this point in time, therefore the tag remains.
I'm not trying to be difficult, here; I'm trying to be fair and balanced. if you're certain that you're correct, please convince me. at that point, the dispute will be resolved.
--Ludwigs2 (talk) 02:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I do not have to convince you of anything. Often, editors agree to disagree. I do not see any reason for the tag. QuackGuru 02:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
QuackGuru, what can I say... if you don't want to take any effort to resolve the dispute, the dispute will remain as is. I mean, this is kind of a no brainer. I'm convinced this article is biased, and I feel I have good reasons for saying so, and I'm willing to discuss them. until I'm convinced otherwise (or overruled by a higher authority), the tag remains. if you don't feel the need to convince me, that's fine; but if that's the case, please stop complaining about the POV tag.--Ludwigs2 (talk) 02:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
You have not convinced me that a tag is warranted. Please remove it. QuackGuru 02:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
lol - QuackGuru, I think I like you.  :-) unfortunately, I cannot in good conscience do that at this time. I'm sorry. would you like an explanation of my reasons? --Ludwigs2 (talk) 02:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I already read many of your comments and understand your reasons. However, the view of a tiny minority should be minor. QuackGuru 03:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I am not convinced by your assertion that the criticism in this case represents a 'tiny minority', nor am I satisfied with the representation of criticism as it is currently presented in this article. those two points in and of themselves are sufficient for an NPOV concern.--Ludwigs2 (talk) 03:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I remained unconvinced with your arguments. The criticism is this article is a tiny minority. Feel free to look at the chiropractic article. It has been over a year and I am unable to add a criticism section. QuackGuru 04:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
you are welcome to remain unconvinced by my arguments. that is the nature of a dispute. let's see what ImpIn comes up with - maybe he can accomplish what you've been unable to do.
in the meantime, I see no reason to continue babbling on like this. you've seen my reasons, you say you understand them: good! respond to them (particularly - for the moment - my objections to the placement and handling of the current criticisms). let's discuss something substantive, or else let's maintain a chummy silence until something substantive comes up. --Ludwigs2 (talk) 04:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I see no reason for continuing with this discussion at the moment. QuackGuru 04:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unbalanced

I just checked this article and see that material that was well sourced, which challenged the claims made in this website, has been removed. Added {{unbalanced}} tag. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Please provide your evidence that something was removed. QuackGuru 04:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This, for example

Donna Ladd, a journalist with The Village Voice, says Barrett relies mostly on negative research to criticize alternative medicine, rejecting most positive case studies as unreliable. She further writes that Barrett insists that most alternative therapies simply should be disregarded without further research. "A lot of things don't need to be tested [because] they simply don't make any sense," he says, pointing to homeopathy, chiropractic, and acupuncture, among a myriad of other things.[4]

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

That is about Barrett and not Quackwatch. It is unrelated content. QuackGuru 04:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Really? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, really. QuackGuru 05:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

There is more material about this site, at Ernst, Waltraud (2002). Plural medicine, tradition and modernity, 1800-2000. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-23122-1. . ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Books may not be so reliable per WP:SPS. QuackGuru 04:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry? Care to explain what you mean by that? Routledge an SPS? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
This controversial change was made after we explained the source is disqualified per WP:SPS. QuackGuru 05:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, now I'm really confused. the citation for the book clearly states that the publisher is Routledge Press (a well-respected academic publisher). How does this violate the rules about self-published sources? and please don't tell me again that the change was made after you decided it was disqualified; I want to know how you came to the conclusion that it should be disqualified.
--Ludwigs2 (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I am still awaiting for arguments to be presented that makes this book not a reliable source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
It is up to you to provide an argument on how it is reliable. No argument has been presented. The book is a bit dated. See WP:MEDRS. Also there is WP:WEIGHT concerns. QuackGuru 20:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Self-published sources

Policy shortcuts:
WP:SPS
WP:V#SELF

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.[5]

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.

Articles and posts on Wikipedia may not be used as sources.

I am awaiting for any argument to be presented that makes this book reliable per WP:SPS. At the moment, no argument has been presented. QuackGuru 20:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

QuackGuru, this is ridiculous.
  1. the book is published by Routledge Press, and is therefore - BY DEFINITION - not self-published. and it's an edited academic volume, for heaven's sake - how can you self-publish a single chapter?
  2. you are the one applying WP rules to try to exclude the reference, and therefore the burden is on you to show that the rule you are using applies. if you can't justify it, then you can't apply the rule.
I'm sorry, QG, but if you are not going to take this discussion seriously, then I have to assume you are simply trying to impede development of the page. with that in mind, I am going to restore ImpIn's previous changes, and (I think) make a few of my own. --Ludwigs2 (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I am well aware of WP:SPS, but the book I used is not self-published. I think that you may be confused about this, QuackGuru. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This thread is being discussed here. What is the actual content that is to be included from the Waltraud source? The SPS objection may be a red herring. If the Waltraud criticism is itself undocumented and untrue, then is that the kind of criticism we wish in this article? If untrue we would need to provide the facts that debunk it. Let's see it and discuss it. -- Fyslee / talk 05:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section

Jossi - don't want to get tangled up in cross-editing here.  :-) I think a separate criticism section would be appropriate for this article. for now, I will rewrite the critiques (which I was planning on doing anyway) and reinsert them in the 'about the site' section where they were. look it over (when I'm done), and tell me if you agree or not about separating them out. --Ludwigs2 (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see {{criticism section}} ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah! ok. --Ludwigs2 (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism sections can remain

Note that that the criticism template not a policy. And I tried to edit that Jimbo quote, since it is presented in a one-sided manner. See the full quote here. The positive and critical reception should be separated, at least with subtitles. Note that the template Jossi linked to actually underwent an AfD because it is controversial itself. ImpIn | (t - c) 03:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason that I see to segregate "pro" and "con" viewpoints, and it is a good practice to place competing viewpoints alongside each other for a better NPOV presentation of the subject. I know that there are two schools of thought about this issue, and that is why WP:CRITICISM never made it to a guideline. Given this, it is then is an issue of consensus of editors about which style to use. (BTW, I see no side manner presentation of Jimbo's quote, and if the template survived AfD it only means that it is a good one) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. I kind of flew off the handle; obviously I don't really like that template, in large part because much of the usefulness of Wikipedia comes from being able to quickly identify disagreements and controversies, whether its a website, book, or politician. Glancing over this page more carefully, I agree; the two sections don't need to be separated. The Reception section is good, and forces a reader to review both the positive and negative reception together. And I can see how lots of criticism can be bundled into better sections: "inaccuracy" sections for books, scandal sections for politicians, ect. ImpIn | (t - c) 04:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I was set to add a criticism section myself, but the way it reads now works for me too. and I've gotta say, it's a pleasure to watch an experienced editor work. thank you Jossi.  :-) --Ludwigs2 (talk) 04:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

  • Conflated all external viewpoints into a "Reception" section for better NPOV
  • Added a couple of new sources, sourced to reputable publications
  • Tightened the wording of the lead
  • Removed the {{unbalanced}} tag.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Massive changes

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quackwatch&diff=216508731&oldid=216338319

Recently, a spree of controversial edits has totally changed this article from top to bottom. All the controversial edits edits should be reverted. QuackGuru 01:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

None of my edits are "controversial". If you disagree, please explain why you assess them to be that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
yes, and please be specific about the issues involved. all of these changes seem appropriate to me, but I am willing to learn otherwise. --Ludwigs2 (talk) 01:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The see aslo section was removed. Sections have been shuffled together and text moved around. I must say, this is some of the weirdest editing I have seen in a long time. These changes are extreme. QuackGuru 01:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I did not delete that section in my edits. In any case, I have re-added that section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Why is there such a huge section. Information was carefully placed in its appropraited section. Now everything is in one section. QuackGuru 02:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The "Reception" section presents a variety of third-party opinions on the website. That is a good way to present material in an NPOV manner, rather that segregate "pro", "con", and neutral points of view in separate sections. See {{criticism section}}. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Everything is mixed up and hard to follow. This is ridiculous to have such a huge section. QuackGuru 02:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
It is not that "huge", I have seen articles with longer sections. Do you have any proposals for sub-sections that do not segregate POVs? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
It is huge to me and the way it was before was best. QuackGuru 03:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
So, we will have to agree to disagree, as I believe it is an improvement over the previous structure. Let's hear what other editors have to say, shall we? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
this structure seems fine to me; at least, I can't think of how it would be subdivided easily. I am tempted to take the second paragraph (The currently inactive Science Panel on Interactive Communication and Health...) and move it to the history section, since it seems more like a prominent event in QuackWatch's past than a 'reception'. that would shorten the last section and flesh out the history.
well, let me do it and see how it looks. feel free to revert if it strikes you as wrong... --Ludwigs2 (talk) 03:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
looking at the old version, it seems the only substantive structural change is that the 'recognition' and 'usefulness as a source' sections have been merged. the other sections remain, though there are shifts in content and section name changes. I don't think 'Massive Changes' is all that accurate... --Ludwigs2 (talk) 04:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
This controversial change added a BLP violation. QuackGuru 06:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
QG - the diff you linked has a lot of changes; can you be more specific about what and where this BLP violation is? I'm not quite sure what you'r pointing to. --Ludwigs2 (talk) 06:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
As an editor that actively monitors WP:BLP/N for such violations, I would want to know if there are any such violations in the article. Please pinpoint it so that I can address this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu -