Talk:Quackwatch: Difference between revisions

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

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)

Website Review

Quackwatch website reviewed in Running and Fitnews Sept/Oct 2007, a magazine of the American Running & Fitness Association. "Cutting through the haze of health marketing claims" http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NHF/is_5_25/ai_n21119961 Emilydcksn (talk) 05:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Looks like a useful RS. No author though? From what I can find, "Running and Fitnews" is the newsletter of the American Running Association. --Ronz (talk) 05:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Dispute

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

Here is an example of the dispute we are having. [1]Anthon01 (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I see this as a dispute that has been going on since late November, when an unsourced criticism was slightly changed [2] to something that could be at least partially supported with sources. Since that time, a number of editors have been working to find some way to support the original, or a similar, criticism. --Ronz (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Notice

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

Per WP: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.

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

Per WP:WEIGHT, to give "undue weight" to critics is a NPOV violation. This directly applies to the text.

WP:NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints. Alternative medicine promoters/critics are a tiny minority. Wikipedia does not promote WP:FRINGE editing. Quack Guru 18:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Where are you going with this? I'm asking as your wording "Alternative medicine promoters/critics are a tiny minority" seems to mean that Quackwatch's views aren't notable, unless I am misreading. Since NPOV, FRINGE et all are applied in a case by case basis and article by article basis, this means that criticism of Quackwatch, unless notable, gets kicked down to the bottom of the article if it's a Fringe/non-notable or minority take on the subject of the article, which is Quackwatch. Lawrence § t/e 18:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Quackwatch is manistream POV. The criticism is mainly from promoters of alternative medicine. The article will have a good spring cleaning. If you disagree, that's fine. Remember that this article is under probation. Disruptive editing (unduly promoting a minority viewpoint) will result in a ban or revert limitations or even a block. It's that simple. Quack Guru 19:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Er... I'm on the side of the good guys in this case; no need to warn me. Your wording just seemed a bit obtuse to me or wonky, as if it was saying that Quackwatch itself was a "fringe" view. For a moment I thought a fringe pusher was trying to pull a reverse psychology trick and apply some idea that Quackwatch was a fringe whackadoodle outfit. Lawrence § t/e 19:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is about Quackwatch, so the viewpoints expressed there are most certainly topics for discussion within the article. --Ronz (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Within limit, yes. But the viewpoints of a subject (Quackwatch) are not going to be treated as Fringe Views within their own article. It would be absurd. Responses/criticism/etc. would be evaluated as always on a case by case basis, with the notable ones getting appropriate coverage that does not dominate the Quackwatch information, and the FRINGE viewpoints in regards to Quackwatch will get relegated to very low priority, the same as we do with Fringe views on any and all topics. You got it exactly right. Lawrence § t/e 19:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The notice above is to inform all editors here. Per WP:WEIGHT, minority viewpoints will be limited. Agreed? Quack Guru 19:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Obviously. Non-notable criticism or FRINGE criticism of Quackwatch and it's aims will be relegated to a very low profile. Lawrence § t/e 19:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that this article which already grossly violates Wikipedia is not a soapbox for Propaganda, advocacy, recruitment; perhaps Self-promotion depending of view of offsite activities; Advertising. Also SOAP#Wikipedia_is_not_a_mirror_or_a_repository_of_links.2C_images.2C_or_media_files and SOAP#Wikipedia_is_not_censored. This article's one sided puffery and total lack of science based criticism is an insult and a deadly laugh in the face of *current* mainstream research and many current issues in biologically based medicine & health sciences. (see also my note below)--I'clast (talk) 14:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me like baseless criticism. --Ronz (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I don't recall you conceding any technical points when I cite WP:V science or following them up technically, much less with V RS sources. e.g [ I'm still waiting]

As for WP:SOAP, Advertising....acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. This article is still not written in an objective and unbiased style. Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. This article pretty well does all three, ignoring important balance and ignoring serious technical deficiencies and repeatedly noted biased manner. see below, this same edit.--I'clast (talk) 12:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but are you using the probation period to make significant changes to criticism section? Obviously this article has had two side battling over the criticism section for a long time. It seems like one side wants to remove it, the other wants to add it, in varying degrees. Using a probation period as a tool in this war seems rather slick. 71.191.42.242 (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be the case.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This article's (and related articles') proponents have long stifled legitimate V RS science based criticism of literally anti-scientific conclusions, actions and methodologies that are long a feature of the systematic bias at Quackwatch and its sister sites. One of the problems is that the bogus POV is being written in so deeply at WP, and other places, that many who should know better, don't realize how far off current research results they are, as well as much, much older prize winning research "forgotten" in the rush (natural marketing driven behavior) for newer, more (exclusively) marketable, more expensive products. So there is no real technical balance here, at all. The David Hufford summary of a paper in a major journal, remains grossly misstated (and disparaging), where "opinion paper in which he asserts that Quackwatch would be more effective if it relied more on research and less on personal beliefs.[70]" is about scientists/physicians broadly. For Quackwatch, Hufford has much more choice words " sources...to find further examples of systematic bias" and directly quotings Kauffman's conclusion "... obsolete data, technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo". Kauffman's science based criticisms become more clear for the unwashed public every month - for instance his criticism of the cholesterol in diet mentality and statin sales based only on the total LDL biomarker largely ignoring their side effect questions, NNT, long term mortality curves' "knees" and regression toward null even in the cherry picked trials, and the current research of the last 20+ years on actual cardiovascular risk factors. Kauffman's cholesterol criticism, previously derided here at QW-WP, receives more public support this past month, again^{Questioning the importance of LDL cholesterol: The ENHANCE fallout} (and again)^{Role of cholesterol in prevention and mortality benefit of statins debated in media} about trials that can't "...even count".--I'clast (talk) 14:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Please follow WP:TALK and take your conspiracy theories about editors and article proponents to a proper forum. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yawn, the more things change, the more they stay the same... Shot info (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say conspiracy, I just said plural QW proponents repeatedly ignore documented, serious science related problems with QW and gave one example (reminder) of scientific criticism of QW, like Kauffman's criticism on QW's obsolete fat, carbs, cholesterol, lipids advice, now coming home to roost where previous denigrations of Kauffman here at WP about JKM's "cholesterol criticism", are now shown to be highly challenged even on the cover pages of "mainstream" reading material[3].

Please focus on my points: (1) this article has so far evaded or effaced all reference to highly qualified scholarly and scientific criticism, where Quackwatch is WP:V cited for systematic and severe bias, (2) WP:V technical errors and (3) Kauffman's cholesterol discussion based on V RS sources, widely dismissed here previously with less current science views, is an attempt to technically illustrate the continuing problems of (QW) positional POV being erroneously touted here as "scientific" (vs normal scientific discussion, methodology and currently accepted research vs old, politicized marketing literature) and the lack of technical currency.

I'll add another example from another WP:V, RS source on QW bias and misrepresentation: Here's a UCSD professor of exp'l psych (previously chair & now 10 year GBM survivor of Glioblastoma multiforme - one of the fastest, deadilest cancers), discussing Quackwatch & Saul Green's unscientific treatment on p.191: Quackwatch['s]...presumptive evidence of misconduct...no details...Much of this "evidence" offers no foundation... and [NIH's Dr. Lichuan] Chen described many of Green's statements as "misrepresentations and misinterpretations"...--I'clast (talk) 12:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

PseudoTemplate at the bottom

I removed the link to Quackery from the 'pseudotemplate' at the bottom of the page and changed the name of the list to 'Related topics' to keep it NPOV. Hopefully that is a pretty self explanatory edit. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 04:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a better idea is to actually create a real template and see if it survives through an MfD. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The template is disputed. Forking the content to another page may be in direct violation of POVFORK. Demanding the community to create a traditional template in order for you to MFD it smacks point. Quack Guru 19:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You need to create an actual template before one can be disputed. I suggest you do so. Until then, this "See also" thing you created is being removed because it smacks of undue POV. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You are disputing the content and now you want me to POVFORK it. I will not violate POVFORK policy because you want me to. You have not gained broad consensus to remove it. Quack Guru 20:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the version edited by Dematt as it seems to have consensus in view of the edit summaries and the above discussion. Please add or remove articles from the section as warranted, or discuss here. Even if this were a template (and I would support its creation as one), MfD would not be the way to go; discussion on its talk page and collaborative fine-tuning would be the first thing to attempt. Avb 22:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration is the key. Instead of delete, just improve the edit. QuackGuru (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I like Dematt's improvement of it for sure. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoskepticism yet again

Pseudoskepticism does not belong linked in the article space per User:ScienceApologist#"Pseudoskepticism". Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Other than your own User Page writings, are you citing any actual real Wikipedia policy? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, Levine, that's an uncivil personal attack. You've been warned before. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah Levine, jeeze your a good disruptive editor. But FWIW, I don't mind it in there. False skepticism is rather apparent - it's just those who aren't skeptical, but tell everybody they are :-) --Shot info (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a neologism for one, though. Iteratively irrelevant, you see. Marcello Truzzi never read Quackwatch or commented on it. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No personal attack intended. It's just that ScienceApologist is trying to justify a reversion on content based on a policy which only exists on his User Page. Seem unjustified. What I would like is a real policy (or some consensus) to justify not including Pseudoskepticism to this "See Also" pseudo-template. (WP:NEO is pretty weak, especially for a "See also" section... besides, the term is over 20 years old!) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No one said it was policy: it's just an argument that gets made over and over again that has a standard response. If you have issues with the content of the response, let them be known. Stonewalling as you are doing without addressing the actual substance (just as you did over on Talk:Deadly nightshade) is not helpful. Pseudoskepticism is a neologism that enjoys almost no exposure. Therefore it qualifies as a neologism as would, say, using grue to describe the color of grass. That term is even older! ScienceApologist (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

"Pseudoskepticism is a neologism that enjoys almost no exposure." How do you know this? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Compare a Google search for pseudoskepticism with a Google search for bleen and grue. Similar number of hits, roughly similar notability. It's a quick way to check, you see. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Google search results are not a good result (at least that was an exact argument made when I pulled thousands of results of "Deadly nighshade" + "Homeopathy"). Anyhow, pseudoskepticism is notable enough to have its own article at Wikipedia. I just read it and found out that the usage of the term predates Truzzi by more than 100 years. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Google searches are good for weighing relative notability of terms. Their absolute numbers mean nothing, but comparisons are pretty good. You'll note that Grue and Bleen have their own article on Wikipedia too. Those terms have some antecedents before Nelson Goodman's famous use of them. In short, your arguments that this term is not neologistic are not convincing. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Two things: 1) Your argument that Pseudoskepticism IS neologistic is not convincing. 2) Your argument that WP:NEO should affect the content of a "See also" section (especially one so replete with links) is not convincing. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoskepticism is notable enough to have a Wikipedia entry. Has a reliable source called Quackwatch pseudoskeptical? —Whig (talk) 02:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That, in the end, is what this all comes down to. If we have at least that, then regardless of notability of the source, a See Also link is the minimum we should use. Now, since it's impossible to prove no such source exists, the burden is on those supporting inclusion to show such a source before we add this to the article. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 03:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:ALSO. Inclusion in "See also" is based on common sense. Otherwise we would have to delete pretty much all of this pseudo-template because we lack any sources to confirm that those other topics have anything to do with the subject of this article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Tit for tat rationale which is the hallmark of disruptive editing. Please provide a source that uses pseudoskepticism and quackwatch in conjuction. I see 175 webpages in my google search. If one of them is good enough to show a connection then I'll agree to its inclusion here. However, on going through the first 50 or so, I see no evidence of an obvious connection. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I could do that, or you can show me why that is necessary when WP:ALSO makes no mention of needing a source to show the connection. If that were the case, we'd probably have to delete over half of the links in the pseudo-template because we haven't seen any sources which make the connection. I would also appreciate that you WP:AGF in me and recognize that I am discussing this issue (your claims of WP:DE are wholly unjustified). -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you're stonewalling again. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Please define "stonewalling". P.S. I am not going to jump through the hoops you are giving me if I don't think that it is necessary. Please show me why a WP:RS is needed to include an entry in WP:ALSO. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You can find good dictionaries both on-line and in your local bookstore. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Please define what you mean by "stonewalling". But that is second to you answering what I have asked you above several times now: Why is a WP:RS needed to add something to the See also section when the policy says that it is a matter of common sense? (Oddly enough, the dictionary defines "stonewalling" as refusing to answer or cooperate.) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Shift left. When a link is contested, it would seem that common sense doesn't quite apply and a reliable source should be provided. And yes, refusing to cooperate applies here as does tenditious editing - now, please provide evidence per a reliable source relevant to attaching the link to this page or stop stonewalling. Vsmith (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• (EC) How about we refactor this conversation? SA: "pseudoskepticism" does not belong, as I explained in <this section> at my user page" (Note: not the way SA phrased it) then yadda yadda stonewalling (and note, Levine shouldn't ask SA to define "stonewalling", he should ask SA to specify what in this disputation he regards stonewalling; I think they are both exasperated, but maybe I'm projecting). SA is actually right about the content issue (IMO, more momentarily) but is not playing nice wrt to achieving consensus, although you guys ...we guys... argue about every inanity so much we could probably mimic each others' roles.
• Actually I think "pseudoscepticism" may be a meaningful term, e.g. Creationists' pretended scepticism to perceived flaws in conventional science ("all scientists know that the laws of thermodynamics prohibit complexity arising from random processes, so there are flaws in conventional biology that need to be addressed" [that sentence is false in multiple ways, btw]). Applying "pseudoscepticism" to SA and QW would not seem meaningful, if that's intended. We should agree that their scepticism is sincere, even if we don't like their rhetoric or excesses or all-inclusiveness. However, I agree with the significance of distinguishing "defending science" from "purporting to defend science" as has been mentioned elsewhere.Pete St.John (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't mind Pskepticism being included in the list. After all, the list is a veritible shopping list of links, so one extra is no big deal. Mind you, I find it fascinating the lengths Levine will argue to have one tangential link included, after arguing just as long and hard to have the list excluded. Some would call this something. Shot info (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there is excessive quibbling on both...rather, all three (at least) sides. Pete St.John (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I propose a new side, one that edits in fushia :-) Shot info (talk) 23:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Shotinfo. . . "I don't mind Pskepticism being included in the list".TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to have the link in being offered by anyone here, and there are good reasons for not having it mentioned above and in past discussions on this matter in Stephen Barrett. --Ronz (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoskepticism is an interesting link, that perhaps any strident claimant of the "one true skepticism" should consider their location on a ternary diagram of "skepticism", "scientific skepticism" and "pseudoskepticism". QW supporters (readers too) should reflect on this vertex especially since Truzzi seemed to include (all or most of ?) the the remaining board members at CSICOP (ahem). Many of pseudoskepticism's symptoms are food for thought considering different scholars and scientists' direct criticisms of Quackwatch: Kauffman scienticially for ... obsolete data, technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo'; Hufford for systematic bias; and Hemilä (MD + 2 PhD, Cochrane Collection)pp 23, 36, 76-77 for bias and misrepresentation. Like some at CSICOP, have said "if the shoe fits...". Offsite, a number of PhD types *even in the mainstream pharmaceutical business* clearly classify QW as prone to such lapses.--I'clast (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like WP:OR with a strong pov behind it. --Ronz (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Its quite clear that Truzzi was kicked out of the "club" so he invented a term to describe those still in the "club" who he didn't like. Of course it's bemusing to see who keeps following this - primarily those who cry "But I am a skeptic" without of course exhibiting any characteristics of skepticism. Shot info (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

When I encounter such people, I think of them as "True disbelievers" - they are those who deny the evidence just to hold onto their beliefs that something is not true. I find that it is usually their ego and pride which they are trying to protect so they will hardly ever admit they are wrong even in the face of powerful evidence. I guess that would also qualify as a definition of Pseudoskepticism. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There was no real consensus to remove the Pseudoskepticism in the first place. Basically any points accurately critical or reflecting common points of QW bias & error have been shouted down and mislaid amongst hyperaggressive edit warring "to protect" QW from any NPOV, WP:V science balance on biases & errors, such as those described linked in the Pseudoskepticism article. At its heart, Truzzi's points about the problem of (self)identifying and (self)controlling (elements of) pseudoskepticism are fundamental problems in (lack of) scientific methodology where strong claims (IMHO, as well as WP:V others, egregious & unsupportable) are being made here about "scientific skepticism", so appropriate balance is the pseudoskepticism Wikilink. Again, a number of credible sources, WP:RS and/or WP:V, have cited QW and/or its authors for a number of the elements of pseudoskepticism, perhaps *all* of the elements enumerated in the WP article.--I'clast (talk) 12:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"shouted down and mislaid amongst hyperaggressive edit warring "to protect" QW from any NPOV" Chill out, learn to follow WP:TALK. We don't need such inappropriate discussion here. --Ronz (talk) 06:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with including the pseudoskepticism wikilink. Pseudoskepticism is in the eye of the beholder, and I'm sure if readers click on the link they will be enlightened, regardless of existing or emerging POV, in deciding for themselves how it does (or doesn't) apply to QW or the modalities criticized by QW. As to OR, when discussing a single link in such a long list, editorial discretion is sufficient. Avb 15:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

What is the rationale for ...?

I'm still waiting for a reason to include it. --Ronz (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for reason not to include it. Please read WP:ALSO then consider the sheer amount of links in the pseudo-See-Also-template. Again, the better thing to do is to actually create a real template out of this so that these discussion can proceed on that talk page rather than here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

See WP:BRD and WP:CON. You've been given plenty of reasons for not having the information. Your turn to actually offer rationale as to why it should be added. --Ronz (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I have given plenty of rationale. Please read above. Meanwhile, it appears that more and more editors are in support of keeping it in. This is not a vote, but in terms of consensus it is notable that a large majority of editors have no issue with including it. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"I have given plenty of rationale." Please indicate where. --Ronz (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Above. Essentially, WP:ALSO makes no mention of WP:RS, the neologism rationale was weak, and if we are including a huge phony template loaded with related links any how, what's the big deal with add one more related link. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. [4] - makes pseudoskepticism all but apparent as far as a related link. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the relationship between your google books link and the discussion. Looks like a new section below has been started.

"what's the big deal with add one more related link" If that's the best argument for including it, then let's keep it out. --Ronz (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Your best argument for not including it seems to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The large majority of editors here see no problem with including it. That's the best argument per WP:ALSO. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I've asked you for rationale, and you've given "what's the big deal with add one more related link" as your best response. I suggest you read all of WP:AADD and see where your response fits. --Ronz (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand. I have cited the precise policy in question here - WP:ALSO. You on the other hand have provided no rationale whatsoever. So if not wP:IDONTLIKEIT, what's your rationale for not including this? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

So you're not retracting, "what's the big deal with add one more related link" as rationale? --Ronz (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ronz, are you going to provide an actual rationale? Or is the just another one of your arguments which shrink-to-nothing when asked for an explanation? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S., the "what's the big deal with add one more related link" rationale is not just mine. It came from AvB above who also doesn't see an issue with including it. What's notable there is that AvB and I hardly ever agree on anything. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking for rationale for including it, and not finding any. Enough said I guess. --Ronz (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Many have given you a rationale, but you refuse to accept it. You on the other hand have given no rationale to not include it. You make claims but you never do back them Ronz, my friend and there is where the problem lies. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Please follow CIVIL, TALK, CON, DR, etc. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 05:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion v1.1

This is a placeholder for whoever decides to give a third opinion. Full dispute request below. --Ronz (talk) 04:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

1. Talk:Quackwatch#What_is_the_rationale_for_not_including_it.3F Dispute over request for the rationale for the inclusion/exclusion of aninternal link starting with [5]. History includes issues discussed in User_talk:Levine2112#Quackwatch:_Please_reconsider_.282.29, after initial attempts [6] were refused. Discussions this time are outright refused [7], [8], [9]. Editors cannot even agree on what dispute is about [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. 02:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

An apparent consensus to include the link could be inferred from earlier discussions of this issue:

• Against: Science Apologist, Ronz
• Neutral: Infophile, Pete St. John
• For: Levine, Whig, ShotInfo, TheDoctorIsIn, I'clast, Avb

Is this accurate? — Athaenara ✉ 04:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: The emphasis on could is intentional. If neutrals change to oppose, there's not even a whiff of a consensus. — Athaenara ✉ 04:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

My view: Pseudoskepticism should be in the collapsible Related Topics section under Phraseology. Related Topics should be a separate section above External links. — Athaenara ✉ 05:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

At this point, I'm going to back up Ronz's demands for some justification for including it. We've gone over and over possible reasons against including it, but in the end, to put it in, we should have some reason beyond simply a lack of strong reasons against. Until I see some argument for inclusion, count me as an oppose. If I do see some reason, we can discuss its merits then. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 07:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I see no encyclopedic merit in including it anywhere else in the article, but "Phraseology" in "Related Topics" would be appropriate placement in that it would provide a link to a concept which is fully as pertinent as the other concepts linked there. — Athaenara ✉ 07:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

To expand on that a bit: the pseudoskepticism article specifically illuminates the difference between rejection and inquiry, which I see as useful in the encyclopedic sense. I don't know to what extent "skepticism" is used on the street, so to speak, to mean mere doubtfulness, but it very often is. The stress on inquiry, particularly scientific inquiry, is important. That said, I repeat: I think there's no point in linking it anywhere else in the Quackwatch article. — Athaenara ✉ 07:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Definite not include. This has a long hisory as an attack by editors who accuse Quackwatch and Barrett of being pseudoskeptical. That is their stated motivation. It's all rather ironic, when one considers that Carroll and other skeptics would consider those making the attacks to be pseudoskeptics, it's rather a slam dunk to reject this renewed attempt to include an editorial smear. See the Pseudoskepticism article for Carroll's quote that accurately describes some so-called skeptics here: "The only skepticism this group promotes is skepticism of critics and [their] criticisms of paranormal studies." Those who are criticizing Barrett and Quackwatch while calling themselves skeptics are usually pseudoskeptics. -- Fyslee / talk 09:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

By including Pseudoskepticism in the faux template "Related" table's "Phraseology" section, we are not saying that Quackwatch is "pseudoskeptical". We are merely saying that it is related to the term. After all, no one is using the very same fake template's Phraseology section to accuse Quackwatch of using the "straw man" defense? No one is using it to say that Quackwatch is "junk science" or "anti-science". Or that Quackwatch is a "fraud" of a website and is "intellectually dishonest" because it relies on the "wishful thinking" of an "anti-intellectual" "true-believing" "crank" "charlatan" who is guilty of "quackery" himself by his dependency on "confirmation bias" and "self-deception". Right? For that matter, we aren't using the faux template to call Quackwatch a "pejorative" "ad hominen". By your rationale, I would assume you would want to eliminate all of these from the phony template as well then. Right? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 09:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[ec] Levine2112, thanks for once again proving my point about your motivations. You have made such attacks on Quackwatch and Barrett before, and now you use repeated rhetorical questions ("No one is using...?") to repeat your accusations again. It's pretty clear why you would want to include pseudoskepticism in the list. If your motivations hadn't been so clearly stated so many times, I wouldn't be so much against inclusion. Carroll's comment certainly applies. Editorial motivations that lead to unsourced additions of subtle attacks are unwarranted and unwikipedian. I don't think Quackwatch or Barrett are perfect, and mistakes have been made, but to generally accuse them of pseudoskepticism just isn't right and no notable skeptics or skeptical organization agree with you on that one. They are universally skepical of some of the things you believe and defend here. It's easy to claim to be a skeptic, but to be included in what we generally refer to as scientific skeptics, your skepticism needs to be more focused. You don't have to agree with them, but don't at the same time claim to be part of them as a group. -- Fyslee / talk 17:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This seems like the classic WP:IDONTLIKEIT defense. If there is more trimming you want to do, please do so, so at least this rationale has some consistency. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be a misrepresentation, a misunderstanding of WP:AADD.

You, Levine2112, have asked on this page how you've interfered with consensus building. Your response above is how. --Ronz (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You know, Levine, your arguments here are in a surprising contrast to your arguments over at Talk:Pseudoscience#See_also_section. You were quite worried there about labeling Alternative medicine as being pseudoscience through inclusion, and yet here you have no such worries. To head off discussion of my change of position, you can see my arguments for inclusion in the linked section. Here, I haven't yet seen any remotely convincing arguments for inclusion (in fact I'm of the opinion that the section could stand a good deal of trimming, but that's another issue). --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Many reasons given by many editors above. Most notable is WP:ALSO which makes no restrictions for inclusion other than common sense. Based on what is already included in "Phraseology" it is common sense to include "pseudoskepticism". This is much different from the "Pseudoscience" See Also section as there we had users specifically trying use "See also" as an "Example" section. (And by the way, I voted for inclusion of "Alt med" there, so I feel that I am actually being rather consistent in my point-of-view here.) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, as anyone who follows the link can see, the argument on Pseudoscience came about after I cleaned out the section of all the examples (save ID, as a prominent example would serve well). And the only time you "voted for" Alt med to be there was at the end when you grudgingly acquiesced to its presence (alongside EBM in the same line). --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether Quackwatch is pseudoskeptical or its critics are pseudoskeptical, pseudoskepticism would be a related topic. —Whig (talk) 09:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 09:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with what Infophile states and ask for reasons for inclusion. --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I just gave one. It is a related topic. —Whig (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Continuing on

I've asked, and been harassed for asking. I'm asking again. What is the rationale for including it? Please reread WP:CON, WP:CIVIL, WP:TALK, WP:DR, WP:AGF, WP:AADD, and WP:BRD before responding if you think that the previous discussions and editing on this topic have been proper talk page behavior. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 05:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You asked for a third opinion. We got one. You disagree with it. Shall we move on or do you want to continue with WP:DR? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 08:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm continuing as anyone can plainly see. Please stop interfering with my efforts to do so. --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

How have I interfered and what are you continuing efforts? Perhaps an RFC is in order? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You're asking about your behavior now? I'll gladly answer: You've failed to follow WP:TALK, WP:CIVIL, WP:CON. You've edit-warred. You've rewritten my request for help. You've harassed multiple editors here. You've ignored editors objections to your edits. You've misrepresented discussions and the opinion of editors that you disagree with, going so far as to reverse topics of discussion to make them appear in your favor. --Ronz (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Ronz, I agree with Levine2112, you should give a particular reason if you object to the inclusion of this related topic. —Whig (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Please expand on your reasoning. How is it related and why is this relationship appropriate here given others objections? --Ronz (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This has all been discussed above. You are now stonewalling. I agree with Levine2112 that an RfC is now in order, unless you will give a particular reason for your objection. —Whig (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but it has not been discussed. I ask again: How is it related? Why is this relationship appropriate here given others objections?

I think it's also appropriate to ask a question made previously by Whig, "Has a reliable source called Quackwatch pseudoskeptical?" --Ronz (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a relevant question. We aren't calling Quackwatch pseudoskeptical. Per the opinion of the 3O you requested, pseudoskepticism should be added to related topics, even if this pertains to the critics of Quackwatch per Fyslee. —Whig (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"Not a relevant question." Your own questions aren't relevant?!? --Ronz (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Not out of context, after the placement has been resolved by a third opinion. No. —Whig (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"the placement has been resolved by a third opinion" It's not resolved. Is there something in the 3o discussion that makes you feel otherwise?

"Not out of context" Fair enough. I'm asking it in the current context. --Ronz (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

What is the rationale for including it?

I've asked, and been harassed for asking. I'm asking again. What is the rationale for including it? Please reread WP:CON, WP:CIVIL, WP:TALK, WP:DR, WP:AGF, WP:AADD, and WP:BRD before responding if you think that the previous discussions and editing on this topic have been proper talk page behavior. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 05:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"qw is for true believers, frauds, cranks and dishonest intellectuals. . . why not add pseudoskeptics to this list? Not too sure about "plagiarism" though." 06:32, 12 February 2008 TheDoctorIsIn Is anyone supporting this as rationale besides TheDoctorIsIn? --Ronz (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, Levine2112 did so above. -- Fyslee / talk 18:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"WP:ALSO which makes no restrictions for inclusion other than common sense." Isn't a rationale for it at all, but a rationale to dismiss the concerns of others. I agree with Vsmith, "When a link is contested, it would seem that common sense doesn't quite apply and a reliable source should be provided." --Ronz (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

There are several problems here. The interpretation of "skepticism" implicitly used here and QW does not correspond well with WP:NPOV, WP:V or the scientific processes of hypothesis testing & development with shifting burdens of proof as technical points are made & supported with fair give and take. Rather some QW articles have been demonsrated to freely disparage many cases of legitimate experimental health/medical science (i.e. not FDA drug phase III tested & approved) with vitriol, ad hominem, and cherry picked, slanted data not easily recognized by the public or even professionals. Source text based research shows the 8 example articles discussed by Hufford, Example 3: The anti-CAM literature, and Kauffman[15] with WP:V, RS references (many refs in Kauffman's book, along with MD & PhD reviewers), clearly match with the listed elements of WP's pseudoskepticism. For this reason, the article continues to seriously violate NPOV and shortchange current mainstream Scientific research results by heavily favoring publications and writers with varying degrees of direct contact with the advertisers, marketers and other economic competitors that promote profitable & familiar but scientifically obsolete & incorrect models and statements.

One should also consider the difference of "pseudoskepticism" vs "pseudoskeptic" or perhaps "pseudoskeptical". "Pseudoskepticism" can be an isolated act such as a temporary, individual or partial lapse; whereas a "pseudoskeptic" would be a person noted for substantial and ongoing "pseudoskepticism". I don't think that Quackwatch has to be "pseudoskeptical" to be examined, noted, or criticized, for acts (or tracts) with elements of pseudoskepticism in them. Rather "pseudoskepticism" could be more a basis for ongoing quality reviews of QWs argumentation much like QW proposes to examine others, where QW does openly admit and attempt to justify its bias. Informally, Quackwatch's *independent* critics (persons not previously criticized by QW et al) with some substance certainly have mentioned "pseudoskepticism", as well as QW's natural adversaries - those previously criticized or sued by QW's authors.

"Ronz criteria" additionally imposes extraordinary (unjustified) WP:Notability and WP:RS requirements on single word of a less scientifically notable site for a "See Also" item clearly related. Quackwatch gets precious little independent academic coverage, but that which there is, is not all reassuring (Kauffman & Hufford), QW material even mentioned as a negative for ...JAMAs April 1 issue...April fool's stunt in the WSJ. Most of QW's praises come from long time publishing associates or media & journals with large economic interests or pharma advertising. Academics seldom use the word "skeptic" or write on Quackwatch at all, however multiple QW articles, each with multiple examples with the traits of pseudoskepticism associated with Quackwatch and its authors are certainly described with WP:V & WP:RS sources, more of Kauffman's (and hence Hufford's) referenced *sources* in Malignant Medical Myths, reviewed chapter by chapter by published MDs & PhDs with current science notes.--I'clast (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

More original research from I'clast/TheNautilus. Please summarize your thoughts before you post.

"Ronz criteria" My criteria is to get the editors that want the information in the article to give their reasoning for inclusion. Please stop misrepresenting me and attacking me by suggesting otherwise. Please follow WP:TALK. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"More OR...", simple dismissal & unsubstantiated denial to relevant points, again. Some deficiencies in your proposed non-WP criteria were clarified, that is not a personal attack or mis-; the entities discussed are "Quackwatch and its authors".--I'clast (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Humorous. . . Ronz complains and complains that no reason has been given direcly after all lengthy explanation. Ronz asks for a 3rd opinion. . . gets one with a good reason. . . disagrees with it. . . complains that no reason has been. Then he complains that others are not following the TALK rules. Humorous.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Please follow WP:TALK or be ignored - the choice is yours. Please stop your edit-warring in the meantime. --Ronz (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

What is the rationale for its removal?

"I don't see any reason to have the link in being offered by anyone here, and there are good reasons for not having it mentioned above and in past discussions on this matter in Stephen Barrett. --Ronz (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)" --Ronz (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

See 3rd Opinion

The answer you seek was given by Athaenara above in her 3rd Opinion.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 04:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's just one person's opinion, and one that is very carefully qualified to indicate that consensus is not clear. See WP:CON. --Ronz (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

These conclusions could apply to the pseudotemplate itself

Alternatively, you could read it as saying that it's equally valid to get rid of most of that section. In fact, that's what I'd prefer. I really see no reason this particular article should have its own pseudotemplate with a ton of links. Just cut the whole thing and give it a normal See Also section, IMO. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 04:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Infophile on pseudotemplate. Massive linkfarming and promotion of one sided, less-than-rigorous "scientific views" are long running issues here.--I'clast (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Good points, but off topic. Take them to the appropriate section. --Ronz (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's an interrelated topic, I'd say. As the template exists, it'll just act as a link farm, and one of the primary reasons for including Pseudoskepticism is that others there have similar rationale for inclusion. So if we decide to get rid of the whole thing, we're really solving both problems at once. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. . . killing it.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 03:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps too bold just yet, but I favor Infophile's analysis and suggested removal. Any dissenters? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any dissenters (or at least none that have noticed my question here yet). I am going to remove the section for now and let's see if there is any dissent in action rather than in discussion. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think we really should put a traditional See Also section in its place. I'll get to work at setting something half-decent up. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Let's keep it limited to the most obvious such that "Pseudoskepticism" need not be broached again. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright, got something up. Let me know what you think, or just be bold. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks. Technically, links to articles already mentioned in the body of the article - such as NCAHF - could be removed per WP:ALSO. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, that's fine. Didn't notice it in skimming the article. On a side note, with ordering, Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Standard_appendices_and_descriptions says that there's no preferred ordering, so it's just down to whatever we think works best. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I was going by WP:MOS#Section_management which states:

The standard order for optional appendix sections at the end of an article is See also, Notes (or Footnotes), References, Further reading (or Bibliography), and External links; the order of Notes and References can be reversed. See also is an exception to the point above that wording comprises nouns and noun phrases.

I don't know what is preferred but we may as well follow the "standard". -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Eh, works for me. I've put in a note at the section I linked to clarify that there is indeed a recommended order. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Good thought. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you think enough time has been given to the many editors that work on this article before being so bold? Just my opinion but I think more time should be allowed to let others respond to this major change without input of other editors. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

QPW banned on Wikipedia ?

I noticed an editor said in their edit summary that the link and source quackpotwatch.org is "forbidden at Wikipedia." I did a search and found this site mentioned on several User talk pages regarding the Quackwatch page, but I couldn't find any mention of the site specifically being forbidden. Does this prohibition apply to any mention of this source on the Quackwatch main page or any page? Can someone direct me to this policy? Bryan Hopping ^T 18:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It's forbidden as an inaccurate, misleading, unreliable, hostile, and biased site. Remember, this is an encyclopedia. --Ronz (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you direct me to somewhere I can read about this policy? Bryan Hopping ^T 18:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The following are a few of the policies and guidelines that have been violated by past additions of the link in question: WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and WP:NOT. --Ronz (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes of course, but is there an arbitration or something that forbids quackpotwatch? I'm asking since this edit summary says Quackpotwatch.org is forbidden on Wikipedia. I'm sure there's a long history here, trying to familiarize myself with the history of this page, related disputes, etc. Bryan Hopping ^T 19:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Please remove the BLP violation link from this talk page. Thanks. Quack Guru 19:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Reading through WP:BLP, the issue seems to be "unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material." I haven't posted any contentious statements about any living person. I asked a question about this edit summary. Bryan Hopping ^T 19:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Search this article's archives for discussions about the link. It's also been discussed in the other Barrett-related articles. --Ronz (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there an easy way to search just this articles talk archives? Thanks in advance. Bryan Hopping ^T 19:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, no. Try these to start: Talk:Quackwatch/Archive 4 Talk:Quackwatch/Archive 6 Talk:Stephen Barrett/Archive 2 Talk:Stephen Barrett/Archive 3 Talk:Stephen Barrett/Archive 4 Talk:Stephen Barrett/Archive 7 --Ronz (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

That is sad, and frustrating. Thanks for directing me. I also found that doing a google search of wikipedia brings up pages references this topic, many of which are related to discussions of this article or Dr. Barrett. quackpotwatch wiki/google search This link to an AfD is also useful: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Quackpotwatch Bryan Hopping ^T 21:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Having simply taken a look at the named site, it contains a number of unsubstantiated allegations and involves at least one criminal prosecution which the author seems to feel was unjustified. It should therefore be treated at best as a primary source and it would be hazardous to link given the potential defamatory nature of the material. —Whig (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

See also WP:PROBLEMLINKS Avb 15:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Why does this article have its own navbox?

This looks like it might not be out of place as a general navbox, but why is there a navbox just for this one article? Is this a POV fork of an existing navbox? —Random832 19:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are referring to the pseudo-template at the bottom, there is a discussion of it a few threads up from here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

a few links

[16][17][18][19][20] QuackGuru (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Green criticism

Removed here for consideration:

National Institutes of Health's Dr. Lichuan Chen described many of [Quackwatch article author] Green's statements as "misrepresentations and misinterpretations"... as used in Green's articles on antineoplastons.

Saul Green is associated with Quackwatch, however he is not mentioned on the article page. The criticism reference above is taken from a book and appears to be criticism of Saul Green's 1992 paper as published in the Journal of the American Medical Association and not a direct criticism of Quackwatch. The ref given contains a link to Google book search.
Using a criticsm of Saul Green's work as a criticism of Quackwatch seems a bit iffy given that Green is not listed in the article as part of the organization. I say leave it out, but if it is to be included, then Green's association w/Quackwatch must be elsewhere in the article along with other members and their qualifications. Vsmith (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. The criticism specifically mentions "Quackwatch" by name. It is a criticism of a paper written for Quackwatch and published by Quackwatch. Our Wiki article states: The Quackwatch website contains many essays and researched viewpoints written for the non-specialist consumer by Barrett, other writers, and a board of advisors. Thus, criticism of the Quackwatch works of the "other writers" are open to be included in this article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph in the book which is the source for the tortured quote makes no mention of Quackwatch - the paragraph and Chen's remark is about Green's JAMA article. The Green-Quackwatch connection appears in an earlier paragraph. If we are going to crticize Green then he needs to be discussed elsewhere in the article as a writer/advisor with his qualifications. Vsmith (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand now. The Quackwatch article wasn't written by Saul green, but rather the Saul Green JAMA article was sourced in the Quackwatch article. The analysis attempts to discredit Sail Green's work and thus Quackwatch's article by association. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

does seem a bit tortuous (good word). Maybe something along the lines of "NIH <link> criticizes Green book <link> cited in QW article <link>" like that? But that said, there's plenty of real criticism of QW, on the grounds of excess and rhetoric. For example, in a nice parallel to how I might criticise SA for including accupuncture with homeopathy in the broad sweep of his broom, some criticise QW for harshness to some honest stuff that shouldn't be treated the same way as fraud or supersitition ("quackery"). It's perfectly rational to seek lower cost alternatives for pharmaceuticals, for example. I'm told that QW's hostility to "bioequivalents" is a bit harsh, for example, but to me it seemed their stand was a bit wishy-washy, and not so hostile. But indeed sourcing all these things is a big job and I appreciate those pursuing it. Pete St.John (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)