Talk:Quackwatch

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Multiple Articles, same info

Can the information relating to Stephen Barrett be included at Stephen Barrett or here rather than both? This is in particular to critisms that directly apply to Barrett rather than to Quackwatch. Shot info 02:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This point was somewhat addressed in the RfC on 1, 2 or 3 related articles. A decision to retain three articles is intrinsically a decision to have three stand-alone articles with somewhat varied detail focused on the specific article but substantial intrinsic overlap. Good thing electons aren't heavy.--I'clast 10:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance "RfC"? Also it isn't the electrons are the problem, but the "problem" of having three articles with potentially different information because editors forget, which is makes for rather sloppy work (IHMO). Shot info 07:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment, or here, a merge proposal in late September.

Still doesn't really answer my question, nor cover the repairs of of bad editorial work and not to mention potential for WP:POVFORK. I suppose the Stones state it though "Time, is on our side...yes it is" :-). I'll leave as is. Shot info 22:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

My edits on Criticisms

The people QW complain about obviously will not take kindly to it, right? In order to keep a NPOV, I can't just say that these are just flames, point out the logical fallacies or errors in each, etc. It already gave enough context for many of them to see what the criticism was and what the critic's tone is. I expanded a couple to match, and made sure that it was stated that each critic was responding to a subject exposed on QW. Summarizing the complaints at the top without judging it maintains NPOV. I'm worried that the quoted content is itself not NPOV, but by showing where it's coming from it portrays the issue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Długosz (talk • contribs) 23:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

Ref for Tim Bolen's Quackpotwatch ?

http://www.quackpotwatch.org/ says, "The "quackbuster" (his term for quackwatch) operation is a conspiracy." right at the top of the main page.

Someone deleted the clause summarizing Bolen's position claiming it's not supported by the references. But the link to that is earlier in the same sentence. If someone could clarify the reference, please lets discuss the best way to do this.

Another one on this page was more interesting, and brings up a question. Basically, A criticized B for endorsing C who criticized D for saying X. I added the X. Does that need a reference on an article on B? Does each link in the chain need its own reference?? I thought that a citation for C->D is sufficient. Also, see the main article on D for more info is implied by making D a link.

Suggestions?

—Długosz December 21, 2006

I think this points up the major problem with this page, which is that the "Criticism" section is way out of proportion, perhaps not surprisingly since the majority of involved editors on this page are anti-Quackwatch. There's way too much in the way of lengthy quotes from non-notable anti-Quackwatch types - notice that the "source" for nearly all of this criticism is typically the critic's personal website. I'd prefer to limit criticism to that which comes from reliable sources, or at the very least is not self-published. I mean, by the standards of this page, I could put up a website with a few initials after my name, claim Quackwatch is bogus, and be included as a "critic" and given a huge, disproportionate amount of airtime. There is legitimate criticism of Quackwatch worthy of inclusion, but it's hidden among all of these non-notable, self-published screeds. Further, there's absolutely no reason to go beyond "A criticized B [for C]" in your above schematic. Discussing Wilk vs. AMA is really inappropriate for an article on Quackwatch. This isn't a referendum on alternative medicine. It's a supposedly neutral, encyclopedic article about a Website. MastCell 19:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

When dealing with Bolen we run into a problem that has been addressed here at Wikipedia so severely as to get his article deleted (in spite of my objections) and his website considered so unreliable as to be unworthy of use in any situation here at Wikipedia. It simply fails all Wikipedia rules for websites used as sources or External links. The only exception allowed by the rules here is in an article about himself, if it existed. We have made exceptions in the cases where the link is to a court document not found elsewhere. The rest of his site is totally unsourced speculation and conspiracy theories stated as concrete fact, yet which he has admitted under deposition were "euphemism". -- Fyslee 19:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The criticism of this highly critical website is limited to less than half of this article. Proportionality is on a per article basis. Let's not forget that Quackwatch is highly critical, and backlash to their criticism can only be expected and is entirely notable and relevant to this article. We must represent all notable POV on this subject. I agree about Wilk. I quashed that whole section. It only seemed tangenetially relevant to this article. I agree that Bolen is not the best source, but his opinion of Quackwatch is highly notable and very public. So long as his "euphemisms" are pointed out as such and his statements are denoted as claims though, there shouldn't be much argument about leaving his criticisms here. Levine2112 19:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree we need to represent all notable POV's, and I'm not arguing that we should remove the section on "Criticism" of Quackwatch. The question is really how notable many of these critical sources are. It's appopriate to mention that there are numerous critics, with footnotes to the relevant self-published websites, but the inclusion of significant excerpts of criticism in the body of the article itself should have a higher standard - one which, presently, only Kauffman, Chowka, and Goldberg meet. MastCell 20:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I would add Cranton and Sahelian to taht list as well. They are both MDs. Cranton is a Harvard Medical grad, has served as Cheif of Staff at U.S. Public Health hospital, and served as the editor-in-chief in a number of medical journals. Sahleian, unlike Barrett, is a board certified physician, has appeared on NBC Today, NBC Nightly News, CBS This Morning, Dateline NBC, and CNN, quoted in Newsweek, Modern Maturity, Health, USA Today, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, and Le Monde, and has sold over a million books translated into a number of languages globally. These aren't small-timers and their criticism of Quackwatch should not be discounted. This leaves only Bolen, who - while I agree is not a great source - is notable for his highly public grievances with Quackwatch... he runs "QuackWatchWatch" after all. I certainly think that Bolen's statements should be qualified enough so that the reader knows that they are dealing with pure opinion. Levine2112 20:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that the issue isn't so much Cranton/Sahelian's MD degrees or board certification, or even how many shows have interviewed Sahelian. The issue is reliable sources, and both of their criticisms appear to be sourced to their own self-published websites. My feeling is that we should have some standards for which criticisms quoted at length in the body of the article. Right now, if I were to start a website listing my degrees and credentials and criticizing Quackwatch, I'd apparently meet the bar for inclusion in the body of the article - and that seems wrong. But these are my 2 cents; if no one else agrees, I can accept consensus. MastCell 21:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Using that reason, we could say that techically most of Quackwatch is self-published by Barrett and thus not usable. I think it is one thing if it is a personal site and another thing if it is a professional site. I would argue that Cranton's and Sahelian's (and even Barrett's) are of the latter kind. Levine2112 23:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I support Sahelian and Cranton as professionally, conventionally well qualified, with remarks that illuminate both the subject and the different perspectives from other, notable impacted groups that claim biologically based therapies. We should only replace them with material that improves the perspective or slot for similar space. Bolen is of course loudest, and presented in such short form, perhaps more of an image asset for QW, but he is notable.--I'clast 03:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Is the article about Barrett or Quackwatch?

1. Ray Sahelian B.Sc (nutrition), M.D. and Board certified in Family Medicine, is the author of health related books, including Natural Sex Boosters, an expert in nutrition and a proponent of supplements, [33] asks: "Why has Stephen Barrett, M.D. focused most of his attention on the nutritional industry and has hardly spent time pointing out the billions of dollars wasted each year by consumers on certain prescription and non-prescription pharmaceutical drugs?"
2. Peter Barry Chowka, journalist and a former adviser to the National Institutes of Health's Office of Alternative Medicine, has said that Barrett "seems to be putting down trying to be objective."
3. Timothy Patrick ( Tim ) Bolen is the webmaster of Quackpot Watch, a website that challenges Barrett's views on Alternative Medicine. Shot info 05:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Here are some answers: Articles about Barrett and Quackwatch are largely the same because essentially Quackwatch is a one-man operation, and that man is Barrett. Barrett focuses attention on fraudulent aspects of alternative medicine instead of problems in the pharmaceutical industry because lots of others (e.g., Marcia Angell, Sidney Wolfe) are focusing attention on the pharmaceutical industry, and no one else is willing to be publicly critical of fraud in the alternative medicine and "nutraceutical" industries. Barrett does not seem to the rest of the world to be "putting down being objective"-- just to those whose scams or unsupportable claims he punctures. Bolen is the paid mouthpiece of one of the worst frauds in the alt med business-- to most of us, his slanderous opinions aren't worth 2 cents and I expect he will change them tomorrow if someone employs him to attack someone else. Putting his opinions in this article is like putting a paid political attack ad into an article about a politician as if it were completely reliable and unbiased information. alteripse 05:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Barrett does not seem to the rest of the world to be "putting down being objective"-- just to those whose scams or unsupportable claims he punctures. Pure pov opinion, if not insulting. We've presented independent references that clearly show limitations to Barrett's objectivity as well as "factuality, fairness and scientific currency". "..doesn't seem to...world" indicates a great need to fill an information vacuum for such a less well-informed part of the world.--I'clast 07:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Ad hominem Criticism

Most of the criticism listed is just ad hominems, so do we really need five or six quotes saying basically the same thing? Also, is there any substantive criticism? That is, something that disagrees with some argument or fact put forward on the site and says *why* its wrong instead of just saying that they disagree? --Havermayer 16:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Kauffman is quite analytical, Goldberg offers a counterview and an observation; Sahelian questions QW/SB proportionality, bias & notes his perception of QW attitudinal bias; Cranton perceives QW bias toward the "existing medical monopoly" and directly challenges QW's accuracy toward his area; Chowka questions SB(QW) objectivity and give PBC's descriptive view. These views represent views of some substantially knowledgeable & credentialed participants in conventional science & medicine, as well as altmed, that speak for the concerns of many others that observe problems and disagree. That's neither ad hom nor "most".--I'clast 11:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

That's it though. All that the criticism in the article is that QW is biased. That is is still an ad hominem, since QW could be incredibly biased yet 100% correct (ie being biased isn't the same as being wrong). So its really just a red herring. You only really need a sentence or two to summarize the view that certain people think that the site is biased. The type of criticism that needs to be there is "Quackwatch makes claim X, claim X is wrong because reasons A, B, and C". In other words, substantive criticism that actually means something. --Havermayer 02:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a 100+ page proposal for the article. Kauffman (MIT, PhD & prof emeritus) spends 37 pages on just 8 QW articles doing exactly that. A partial discussion, discussing gross errors & bias on Vitamin C (& E) analyses for respiratory illness alone, an internationally recognized, conventional researcher ("authority") takes 143 pages for reviewing mainstream tests and bungled analyses under 6 grams per day orally (interesting doses are reported as ~ 30 grams - 300 grams/days, orally or IV). I don't recommend or suggest such an article length because almost no one will read it - you apparently haven't read Kauffman, the skeptic's 37 page paper.---I'clast 21:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Once we decide to make this article encyclopedic, then yes we should summarize it all into a sentence or two. --Ronz 17:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Havermayer, I agree, though I didn't express it as well as you just did. The problem is, how can you say something like that in the article and still be NPOV? My solution was to make it clear that every criticism listed was noted as being from someone who would naturally take exception to what was advanced by the site. I couldn't figure out how to work in that those arguments are various logical fallacies. Perhaps you can give a try at improving the paragraph introducing the criticisms? The only thing resembling a reasoned argument is in the previous section (and it has the very features he's complaining about, ironically). —Długosz 02:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you read & analyze the Kauffman paper and email him (he gives his email address and sounds like a skeptic that would give a brief answer or more if one doesn't waste his time.)--I'clast 21:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'clast, I was only referring to the criticism in the article. In the article, the ad hominem criticism are excessive. An ad hominem fallacy does not have to be "Steven Barret is an idiot!". Its simply whenever one criticizes the one making the claim in some way, while ignoring the claim itself. What I propose is that this is removed, and in its place, reference to specific counter claims (like you made reference to) are put in. Any criticism of those counter claims could then be made reference to as well. --Havermayer 19:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The primary weakness that I can see is with Bolen's treatment. Bolen is notable for his outspoken pervasiveness, volume, collation of (partisan) criticism, and political counterattack on QW/SB/NCAHF based on civil rights, NOT his being an independent technical or professional perspective as possibly might be assumed in a vacuum reading this article.

Professionally /technically qualified critics that may be said to be roughly representative of whole market segments of Barrett's targets or impacted population *need* summarization or indicative notes. Selected critics certainly have a place (e.g. Sahelian as a natural medicine version MD commenting) and, they or better, should have a voice in this article. Barrett has issued numerous attacks and challenges on whole professions and health market segments, these critics' paragraphs contain brief challenges, reflections on, and assessments of Barrett's validity from other perspectives. Limited references to independent rebuttals (non-QW/SB) & reviews of his critics as discrete, non interefering hyperlinks certainly are a thought. Otherwise, without very brief critics' indicative perspectives, this article just says, "Steve is Right"^{TM, and becomes uninformative & hagiographic. As for just using the lengthy references alone, forget it - even many erudite editors here show little sign of having, or inclination to, read them in part, much less at length.--I'clast 07:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)}

Of course something to consider is that Kauffman was able to draw on his position of PhD & Prof Emeritus (etc. etc.) and how he is held in high esteem (etc. etc.) to only publish his analysis in what really is a fringe journal held in relatively low regard (regardless of CSI's listing on their links) by the scientific community. Of course if Kauffman was perhaps held in higher regard, or rather his opinion was better considered, then his debunking of his detractors would be eagerly sought after. The fact that Kauffman was not able to feel that he could publish his report in the presence of his peers is damning. Shot info 10:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Kauffman's criticism clearly is "not suitable" for the well-rewarded journals of Madison Avenue. Yes, it's damning and we are damned. Such a shot at Kauffman misses, it's whether you can publish in the presence of the advertisers. In case you missed them, a few samples of why this is so: [1][2][3][4][5][6].--I'clast 22:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this is more a sample of bait and switch. Try answering the question(s) and discussion point(s). Shot info 23:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it's straight answer focused on the non peer problems of publication, also WP:AGF. You seem to be wholly ignorant of how money flows and corrupts the media and the medical industry in America. Also for topical treatment would JAMA, NEJM even want to carry a specific dissection of controversial retirees? Probably not. Science, Nature? No.--I'clast 23:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think you will find that I am more aware of this perception of corruption that what you are saying (and you even had the gall to through in a AGF as well *LOL*). But I am of the inclination that it isn't as bad as what the conspiracy theorists would like us all to believe. Of course, I don't live in the US at the moment, so I have the advantage of realising that the world isn't the US and conspiracy theories tend to break down when you involve more people than the entire US government :-). Occams Razor is a suitable starting point. I must admit though, that your particular conspiracy theory only as two "industries", media and medical. Come on, you can shove a few more in there :-) Shot info 00:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I would venture to say that a website called Quack Watch, which labels a slew of people as "Quacks" most of the time without explanation should expect the same sort of ad hominem treatment sent back their way. You reap what you sew, you know. Anyhow, that's why I think that the criticisms listed on this article are well within reason (and mostly justified). Saying that the site suffers from confirmation bias or limits it scope to alternative therapies is hardly as ad hominem as calling a person a quack. Levine2112 18:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

And I would venture to agree with you. However the article is about QW, and the creditability of the critics that editors of WP are adding to WP. Dredging up all sorts of information that resides in obscure journals and from dubious sources just smacks of desperation to find something...just something to agree with your POV (ie/ "You reap what you sow"). The fact is, when journal authors know that their paper is bound to be rejected by their peers, they seek out organisations that are less vigilante. The fact that Kauffman with his lettered credentials is desperate enough to have his paper published in a journal with a low threshold of review (and scientific acceptability) is enough to scream that it is not worth the paper it is written on. But "You reap what you sow". When you only sow in obscure journals and wikipedia it seems. Remember, people are defending Kauffman's opinion here in this talk page, I'm pointing out that even Kauffman is not confident in his own paper by publishing through the SSE. If he was held in the regard by his peers as editors of WP seem to regard him, then there are lots of other journals it could have been published though. I like the weasel words used to jusify the JSE though... Shot info 22:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree Shot, they seek...less vigilante[7] journals--I'clast 23:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You should be aware that just because the subject of the article does something, we as editors don't have to do the same Shot info 23:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

That is a strawman argument. We can't pretend to know what Kauffman's rationale was for choosing a journal for his paper's publication. I would think that the one that he chose (or which chose him, for all we know) is quite appropriate for the subject matter. Have you considered that his analysis might have been published else where as well? The truth is, we don't know. That you feel that the editor who included this did so as an act of despeartion is just your opinion. But know this: if you want to find criticism for Quackwatch, it isn't very hard to find. I am not defending Kauffman's research, just the right to have it displayed as a valid criticism of Quackwatch. Levine2112 22:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually it isn't a strawman, it is valid for the purposes of the discussions in this section of the talk page principally about Kauffman's publication (and it's validity to WP). If criticism isn't hard to find, then why is Kauffmans the most prominent in terms of the article? Putting dubiously sourced material is in itself dubious don't you think? Have you considered how scientific publications actually work? Normally republication in other journals is a no-no (happens, but organisations are quick to hang onto their claim to fame). So your comment there is a strawman in itself. Also my comment about editors sourcing dubious “information” is valid and a common source of angst throughout wikipedia. The fact that editor(s) need to provide such dubious sources, as opposed to you saying “it isn’t hard to find” gives the impression that these dubious sources are better for the point they are attempting to articulate. Which leads to other editors saying “why” (hence this topic in this talkpage, your blanket dismissal is odd...). And I think my POV of wanting to improve sources is a little bit more in the spirit of wikipedia that “you reap what you sow"... Shot info 22:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It is your POV that it is a "dubious" publication and you still have no idea why Kauffman chose (or if the journal chose) to publish his research there. Claiming that he had no other choice or that he couldn't get it published elsewhere is a strawman argument. I agree that we should add more sources of criticism from equal or better sources. That isn't what we are discussing here. And "you reap what you sow" was directed at the kind of criticism Quackwatch has gotten. In my POV (and other people's as well), Quackwatch is a very "dubious" source of information. You can't argue that they slap the "quack" label on people and organizations without explaining why and that their critical articles are wrought with confirmation bias. Bottomline, Kauffman provides a very valid criticism that meets WP:V and WP:RS. Levine2112 23:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is more correct to say that the SSE are a fringe organisation, after all this is what the general scientific community regards them as. So if this is POV, then it is POV. Personally I think it is NPOV, as it states what they are. And as I have repeatedly stated, QW deserves a criticism section. However you seem to insist that the criticism sections of QW (and Barrett-land in general) makes up a significant proportion of the article. This is the point I continuously articulate. Criticism is valid and pertinent, but not at the expense of the overall article. Dubious criticism, or criticism for the sake of criticism needs to be improved. The fact is, with criticism that are in the article it makes QW a better source that what your "reap what you sow" approach ends up with (ie/ QW seem to be winning the “I’ve been published in better journals” battle). Now Kauffman's article does NOT meet the overall spirit of WP:RS, WP wants , Wikipedia relies heavily upon the established literature created by scientists, scholars and researchers around the world and The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals. The fact that the SSE is regarded as "fringe" by the scientific community affects all of us in WP, because WP doesn't want to be fringe and articulates itself as such. The real bottom line is, let’s get better criticism. After all, it is everywhere out there... Shot info 23:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Kauffman's work and SSE, well identified, stand on their own merits, respectively. You are welcome to add better criticisms, of course.--I'clast 23:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I had an editing conflict, but I'clast, you took the words out of mouth. Thanks. And Shot, with all due respect, your argument above about Kauffman being resigned to publish in JSE despite his Phd, etc... remains a strawman. Will you concede that? Levine2112 23:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I had the same conflict and my PC trashed my response :-(

1. Levine, just because you think it's a strawman, doesn't make it so. Have explained why and I'm not interested in why you need me to aquiase to it?
2. Again I have pointed out why it isn't a RS. Now, what I suggest is that rather than leading the critism section, a intro for critism is made, and the overly long Kauffman article is added with the "other critism" section and the "other critism" lable is removed making it all critism. Of course, I can discuss this here with you both as I did above, or I can just make the changes as you both seem not interested in discussing...Shot info 00:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a strawman argument, but if you are not willing to concede that, so be it. I can move on. JSE meets WP:RS and WP:V and so does Joel Kauffman PhD. I really like the way the criticism section is put together now, but that being said, there is always room for improvement. If you find better criticism from sources which you deem to be more reliable please feel entirely welcome to add it and/or discuss it here with me. I am not at as stubborn as you are making me out to be above. Levine2112 00:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Sighh strawman for others reviewing this later to make up their own mind. I do think you are stubborn inasmuch as you are quick to slap a lable on something (strawman anybody) without actually responding to the pertinent question, which was (going back lots of words) "The fact that Kauffman was not able to feel that he could publish his report in the presence of his peers is damning" (ie/ damning of Kauffman's article). I'clast dismissed this outright (then launched into conspiracy theories which in my mind dissmissing him/her from any input) while you believe it is RS and V. V, I agree with RS, no. However I am not going to delete, but I intend to modify and remove the unnecessary weasel words and it's prominance in the critism section (ie/ why is Kauffman's so prominant????) Shot info 00:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

And right there is your strawman argument. You say: The fact that Kauffman was not able to feel that he could publish his report in the presence of his peers is damning" (ie/ damning of Kauffman's article). How do you know how Kauffman was feeling? You are making a version of Kauffman who felt he couldn't present his report to his peers and then attacking that version of Kauffman. That is precisely example of what a strawman argument is. For all we know, Kauffman regards JSE highly and was very happy indeed to be published there. Perhaps his sister is sleeping with someone at JSE and called in a favor. WE DON'T KNOW! So don't create a fictional reality which you can attack. Levine2112 02:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

There is one thing I do know, if you want scientific credibility, you publish in scientific credible journals. If you don't you end up with the questions I am pointing out. It isn't a strawman argument. The exact reasons of why Kauffman selected this journal are irrelevant, the fact is he did and hence the credibility of the paper is questioned. This isn’t a fictional reality, it's reality. Hence why WP:RS says Wikipedia relies heavily upon the established literature created by scientists, scholars and researchers around the world and The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals (which I have pointed out previously). Shot info 02:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You say JSE is not credible. That is your opinion. CSISOP thinks they are credible and even did Quackwatch before this damning research was put out by JSE. Furthermore, Quackwatch itself is even less credible than JSE and yet Quackwatch is cited all over Wikipedia. Levine2112 02:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

...why is Kauffman's [article] so prominant????) Shot info 00:18, 12 January 2007

Kauffman's analyses include the most detailed and highly referenced specific criticisms presented so far.--I'clast 00:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

And have you completely cross referenced it yourself. Or are you relying in good faith that the author is accurate? Shot info 00:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You are inviting my OR?!? Shot, you are free to add a reference footnote that meets WP:V, RS, BLP about Kauffman or his article.--I'clast 00:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Shot, until this very article, SSE was a recommended skeptic organization listed with Barrett's own CSICOP, as shown earlier here. This dialogue reminds me of a humorous movie that many saw:

Fletcher: Your honor, I object!

Judge:Why? Fletcher: Because it's devastating to my case!

Judge: Overruled. Fletcher: Good call! -I'clast 00:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Now you are really clutching at a straws. It is buried on the CSI's link page under a heading. So what? Since when does this make the SSE less of a fringe organisation to the general scientific community? Levine should have something to say about that... :-) Shot info 00:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I do have something to say. That CSICOP recommends JSE only adds to JSE credibility and hence WP:RS. Levine2112 02:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Or the CSI even... Because the CSI has a link to them, does this mean they are not a fringe organsiation? Shot info 02:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Now you're catching on. Levine2112 02:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should have a look at the link underneath then to the Journal of Scientific Exploitation [8] and let me know how credible it is since it has the same credibility status as you have ascribed to JSE :-) Shot info 04:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Your responses seem in denial as well as dismissive. Conspiracy theories? Nah, unfortunately common commercial consideration(s).--I'clast 00:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Pot, kettle, black. Shot info 00:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Shot, real scientific assessment examines the evidence and the logic, not the quality of the paper that it is printed on. Old brand names are often for expensive reassurance of the fearful, less discerning masses, that frequently are disappointed when the management changes...The subject here is not me or thee.--I'clast 01:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

What my problem is, when you have finished with the grandstanding, is that you and I (and everybody else) have no way of accurately assuming the content of any paper, unless we reduplicate it's results (or analysis in the case of Kauffman). We take it on good faith that the author(s) are being accurate. However when an author publishes a paper through less well recognized organisations, assuming good faith becomes harder. This is why I don't think that Kauffman's criticism’s should be given the prominence that it has (remember, I'm not interested in Kauffman at all, I'm interested in improving this QW article). I can assume bad faith about Kauffman, in fact I am forced to because I don't have the time to fully investigate his analysis, because he has not published his information in a truly reliable journal (of course, none are “truly” reliable but clearly some are “better” than others). Since he is very well credentialed, normally one can argue "Well he's a PhD etc. etc." but unfortunately we have at the same time "Barrett is an MD but..." etc. etc (ie/ does my PhD beat your MD??). So we only have the quality of where the information is sourced from. And SSE is circumspect (which is why I suspect the weasel words after JSE have been placed there). To reiterate (again), I'm not interested in removing the criticism but you have to give me my due, I have been campaigning long and hard to make the articles about the subject, not about people who the subject upset, and yes, critism is valid but it is not an article about the critism of the subject, it is about the subject. Shot info 01:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a skeptic's article in a skeptic journal about the skeptical shortcomings of other putative skeptics' works. You expect NEJM, Time or WSJ?? Kauffman's analyses are about QW's very essence, 8 of its dated, widely believed, sometimes not-so-accurate polemics.--I'clast 01:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Now who is being dismissive? Kauffman's analyses are published in an obscure, dubious journal. Hence without cross checking his analysis, it is nigh impossible to say that he is correct. It is minimally peer reviewed (if at all) and because of JSE's very obscurity chances are it will never be formally reviewed. So, is it accurate? Who knows? We certainly don't. Enough has been Talkpaged, will play with some sandboxing and make the changes. Shot info 01:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Not dismissive, word-by-word literal and descriptive--I'clast

Have you actually read Kauffman's paper?--I'clast 01:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I found it to be quite articulate, well referenced and quite easy to read. However it reads with the flavour of a "letter" to a journal rather than an actual journal "article" (IMHO due to a lack of over-the-top-jargon mainly). However my reading of the paper is largely irrelevant to the facts that I have pointed out above. Shot info 02:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"...well referenced..." Which lends itself nicely to WP:RS. Levine2112 02:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

And because the document is published in a fringe journal, without double checking all the references, we cannot be certain they are correct. Points I have made earlier. And something WP:RS states, which I also pointed out. Shot info 02:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You are calling it "fringe". JSE is entirely peer reviewed and passed WP:RS with flying colors. Levine2112 03:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that Shot is trying to argue that JSE, a skeptic's journal, needs to be a recognized medical journal, when I am quite sure that if QW, a skeptic site that has been publicly doubted as to some pseudoskeptical lapses, tried to get any of the 8 articles Kauffman reviewed published in a medical journal, the article would die a horrible death or cause another scandal.--I'clast 03:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Is JSE a skeptics journal? Prehaps it may have been. However to answer the other strawman (quick Levine) the article is about QW. Since Levine has problems with QW being cited, I am surprised that I'clast is not recommending that she improve the article(s). You two make a good tag team. Shot info 04:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you feel that you have been tagged as "it" too many times tonight? QW is frequently but erroneously cited as a reliable source of facts when, it is at best a source of sentiment. Sorry, that is what happens when authors allow their "science" articles to become "contaminated with incomplete data, obsolete data, technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo". One more correction. As I recently said before, I'm a "he". I think that Levine is a "he", also.--I'clast 04:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"The Society for Scientific Exploration, sponsor of the panel, is not a "mainstream" scientific organization. Instead, it is a group inclined toward belief in paranormal phenomena, albeit one with many scientists among its membership. This could have been easily determined by any reporter who would have taken the trouble to peruse their Web site (www.jse.com), or to interview them meaningfully. For the past eleven years, the Journal of Scientific Exploration been publishing articles suggesting that at least some paranormal claims are true, and have been verified scientifically. On the SSE Web site are found papers purporting to demonstrate that dowsing has been verified, that young chicks have psychokinetic powers, and that reincarnation is not only verified, but that past lives are often indicated by the presence of birthmarks. The Web site proclaims the journal's intention to publish supposedly scientific papers on "UFO and related phenomena, clairvoyance, precognition, telepathy, psychokinesis, out-of-body and near-death experiences, cryptozoology, evidence suggestive of reincarnation, alternative medical practices, astrological claims, ball lightning, crop circles, apparent chemical or biological transmutation (alchemy), etc." Despite the impressive jargon and in some cases the impressive academic degrees of the authors, these papers have been absolutely unconvincing to mainstream scientific journals and organizations, and, far from pointing the way to further research, they have been quite deliberately ignored." [9].

& apologies to Levine if she is a he (and/or vice-versa). Shot info 04:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again...

Please stick to the Kauffman paper, please, rather than the endless Kauffman=JSE attack. You are re-opening a can of worms that was addressed and agreed at much greater length September 20 - Oct 20. We gave Fyslee & co a certain amount of slack on the upper portion of the article and have tolerated de-emphasized parts of Kauffman's analyses to their favor. You have not touched that consensus, nor do I recommend that you start such a time sink. Shot, I suggest that you read through the notes & edits, first. It is not pleasant to rewrite discussions just because someone didn't read the priors. The Kauffman article was generally recognized by all as different in nature & scope - whether to even call it present it as criticism was a lengthy discussion. Change is not going to be that simple, or limited, the Criticism related area has been cut a lot already. You are re-opening the upper article, too, to the loss of time for many, in order to attack the most academically analytical paper *about* QW, period.--I'clast 07:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hang on, consensus definitely does not mean that new editors nor different ways of looking at things prevents the article from being altered. If I remember correct *you* altered the NCAHF incorporation status after "consensus" and that's with consensus that you participated in. I told you in the talk page what I was going to do and why. The fact is from the above, you failed to address any of my proposed alterations, but kept up with your "claim" that SSE was a notable skeptics organisation when the fact is, it's not. Kauffman may be a credible person, his article isn't and should be treated just like the other criticisms. Now, I'm going to put my changes back in until you can actually discuss them rather than an outright dismissal. Shot info 07:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, on NCAHF, I kept *adding* and accepting balancing edits on the disputed area until it seemed to hang together enough with other editors, except you. I approached the issue by detailed, quoted policy on notable and conversationally on the ordinary sense of the word. I could have dropped a 3rd "big" one, about an issue with public notoriety on you, but I felt it would only upset & alienate you more.--I'clast 09:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You remember I asked you whether you read Kauffman's article? It starts with a note about Barrett courting SSE members, as a skeptic body, & bragging about his services to SSE near the time of writing for this article. Doing so , Barrett implicitly acknowledges their claim as a skeptic organization. CSICOP continued to recognize them 4 years after JSE's publication of Watching the Watchdogs. As for JSE's format of different discussions, they have tried one approach that is different, less presumptively negative. You seem more interested in para- stuff, I am not interested in the para- stuff, at all. The (temporary) CSICOP deletion actions on SSE contemporaneously with this QW article's addition of Kauffman's analyses in September are almost hysterically risible for the disappearing, "nonpersons" routine, a "big recommendation" for continuing SB fans. Certainly gives one pause about QW claims "...we're not thin skinned..."-I'clast 08:11, 12 January 2007

The founder and manager of www.Quackwatch.com, Stephen Barrett, M. D., gave a talk at our local skeptics group early this year in which he explained how helpful he has been to victims of quacks, including recovering their money. He recommended his website for general medicalinformation. He has been a consultant for Consumers’ Union. He has been Co-chairman of the Alternative Treatments Review Board for CSICOP since 7/80, and has written for their magazine The Skeptical Inquirer.

The website is available in 4 languages other than English, and is said to have had, 300,000 visitors. At first glance it seems very complete and useful, with sections on Links to Other Web Sites, Consumer Strategy: Disease Management, Consumer Strategy: Tips for Provider Selection, Consumer Protection, Nonrecommended Sources of Health Advice, Questionable Products, Services, and Theories, Publications for Sale, About Quackwatch, and others. It does have a Search function. The Quackwatch Mission Statement on the website contains the following primary activities:

It starts with a note about Barrett courting SSE members, as a skeptic body, I suppose the highlighted section is the SSE? It can be read differently.

& bragging about his services to SSE near the time of writing for this article. Um, really?

Doing so , Barrett implicitly acknowledges their claim as a skeptic organization. Couple of long bows there...firstly, was the SSE the "skeptic organisation", secondly "bragging about his services". I think this says more about your opinion that Kauffman's, Barretts, SSE or QW.

CSICOP continued to recognize them 4 years after JSE's publication of Watching the Watchdogs. You actually mean, CSI continued to have a link to them just above a spoof site (Journal of Scientific Explotation anybody...). Yep, I too can read a lot into that.

You know, I'm beginning to wonder what vested interest in Kauffman that you have given that you have read a lot more into the above than most other people have. Shot info 03:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I did fairly extensive internet research in September & read his book in October. Amazing what you can find. "Bragging" may be my interpretation of various comments on related presentations and represent essential content & audience reaction for more than one original delivery.--I'clast 13:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, from what I read and quote and answered above, you have completely misintrepreted the written passages. So, since you raised the challenge of reviewing your data, it is obvious that your conclusions are incorrect. Hence why I have been discussing in this talkpage. Your continuous blanket dismissal of my suggestions smacks of vested interest, here's a quote for you If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. Shot info 07:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

No, Shot, I said that I earlier had had some extra information concerning the introduction. Your real beef on accuracy concerns familarity with the obscure CSICOP formats, which as I said before, I have a very low interest level in following the paranormal sites. I don't blanket dismiss you, but I am wary of the way you approach policy issues when quoted point blank, like now WP:RS, trying exclude material on a very restrictive reading of one section, when those preferences are immediately modified in the next section. You seem to have the greater difficulty with the mercilessly edited part. You have been nipping at my ankles over several places now (Arthur's, NCAHF talk), do you have a special interest here?.--I'clast 09:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

My real beef on accuracy concerns familarity with the obscure CSICOP formats??? Other editors use the defense that because SSE appears on the CSI link page = credibility defense. Hence I discussed this and lo, CSI don't endorse SSE. The response from other editors "it's not important...".

You do blanket dismiss me. You do it above. You allow other editors to say "It mets RS". I say "Well what about X". No answer. Then they claim again, "It mets RS". I still say "Well what about X". Then your answer "trying exclude material on a very restrictive reading of one section". Hmmm, blanket dismissal, not to mention an appeal to your authority.

I don't have a problem with people editing anything particularly my edits (you should know that :-), however I will defend my position and I do discuss what I do on talkpages. Unfortunately my latest efforts have met with a blanket dimissal from editors who should know better

BTW, I haven't been nipping at your heels, you and I seem to have crossed paths. If anything, it seems like you are rv my work, not the other way around (but that's just my viewpoint, it is probably only coincidence). I have no idea who you are, or what you do and frankly I am very disinterested however I do have a strong suspicion that your surname begins with "K". I do have an interest, not a special one, unlike yourself it appears where a vast majority of your posts are in Barrett land (unfortunately, with this latest discussion, so to are mine...how ironic :-). Now, if only you and Levine actually discussed my suggestions waaaaaaaaaaaaaay back at the start, instead of assuming whatever you both have assumed of me (like Levine with his persistance that I was engaging in strawmans) we would not be here!. Shot info 10:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I repeat myself[10], if you read the very next subsection in the WP:RS, Aspects of reliability section, it establishes the range of WP:RS[11]. Btw, there is no K in my name. MIT? Wrong coast.--I'clast 10:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure we edit text, carefully. You seem to just love to ignore things that may not reflect well on the SB / QW / NCAHF principals that the general public *is* likely to be interested in, no matter how well documented, previously noted, or notable whle indulgingthe extra coverage of separate QW/SB/NCAHF articles. I am not horse trading here, I'm editing. You are the dismissive one, (re)read Sept-Oct notes, other note[12][13].--I'clast 08:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

But consensus does mean that all editors at the time, from all perspectives of the debate, agreed (it was like a minor miracle at the time). One editor is not enough weight to change that consensus without reopening the debate. However, you should read the archives to consider all the points made previously. If you have new opinions to bring to the table then we will listen. But frame it against the old debate so we can save time. David D. (Talk) 08:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I see i am late to this party and I too have read up; all the above (Ad hominem Criticism). David D. (Talk) 08:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Amusingly, I suggested some changes based on the fact that SSE is a fringe organisation and Kauffman's work should be reduced to be equivalent to that of the other critisms. I did peruse the pertinent information, then posted my discussion points. So far what I see is I'clast and Levine not responding to the discussion points but instead engaging in their own strawmans (setting them up nicely then knocking them down). Then when I made the changes that I said that I proposed (which actually had no objections other than some mindless semantics from Levine wanting me to admit to his strawman and Iclast saying that SSE was fine, then irrelevant, then <insert whatever random thought>), they were reverted with a "we have consensus don't change". Of course I have pointed this out to Iclast before that he seems to act a little like the final arbitrator on discussions such as these.Shot info 01:27, 13 January 2007 cont'd

You are frequently overpersonalizing & selectively quoting, as below, especially on me, when you choose to ignore verbatim policy, quoted point blank.--I'clast 13:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Now this comment from Iclast "We gave Fyslee & co a certain amount of slack on the upper portion of the article and have tolerated de-emphasized parts of Kauffman's analyses to their favor" just makes me laugh. As who are this "we". Last time I looked Fyslee & co = represented the majority of editors, leaving "we" as really Iclast and Levine but Levine didn't make many edits, so "we" = Iclast.Shot info 01:27, 13 January 2007 cont'd

Yes, "we". If you had read the Sept-Oct archives as requested, you would see that NATTO, who introduced the Kauffman article to QW in the first place, was quite active as well as a number of conventional editors in the consensus. And Fyslee was let off easily on certain Intro statements at the very end, ~Oct 19.--I'clast 13:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

So going back to my edits, all I have done is make it equal to the other critisms and trim out the editorialising about the JSE. If editors are interested, I can go thru change by change (again) what I propose to do. You will find that it doesn't remove any links or information, what it does do is remove the editoralising about the JSE (regardless of Barrett, his opinion and Iclast's POV thereof, the article last time I looked was about QW, not JSE) & tighened up the text to make it similar to the other critial dot points. I can understand why Iclast wants to hang onto his "smoking gun", but we are here write a encyclopedia. Shot info 01:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

However, I am not working on the Great Soviet Encyclopedia with pasties.^{[14][15]--I'clast 14:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)}

Shot, I suggest with kindness that you check your civility and have the proverbial cup of tea... cool down time. Let's not turn this into personal attacks. I dropped the strawman argument point several posts ago. I think I have stayed on topic here and answered all of your questions and have provided lucid reasoning to keep the Kauffman criticism set apart. But for extra points there is this: Kauffman's criticism is very different in nature from the other criticisms listed on this article. Why? Because Kauffman's criticism is more of a critique based on serious analysis; whereas the other criticisms are just criticisms not necessarily based on any research. Therefore Kauffman's analysis and subsequent criticism is on a higher level than the others and thus it should be set apart and even highlighted. That is was published in JAMA, JSE or even High Times is irrelevant. Levine2112 01:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Levine, with even more respect, I didn't come into this latest debate and slap you with a label. The fact that I continue to bring it up and it causes grief to you is something that you should strongly consider prior to you thinking that it is an effective tactic in the future.

Now, I have pointed out the reasons why, it is this word, credibility. You (and Iclast I note) assume what Kauffman writes is correct. Is it? I have discussed this before, but allow me to reword it. IF Kauffman published his discussions in, well any reputable scientific journal (not just a medical journal as Iclast attempts to set up yet another strawman above) others can have reasonably assumed that it would have been adequately peer reviewed and cross checked etc. That fact that JSE does not have such stringent standards suggests that perhaps Kauffman's work is not correct. After all, where can we say that anything published in JSE is correct. I pointed you to a link at CSI where an article in CSI's journal blasts the JSE and SSE so the assertion that a link in their website equates to credibility is laughable. So until you and/or Iclast can assert the information in Kauffman's paper is better than (say) Bolen's the two are equal in validity and should be treated as such. Where information is published is totally relevant and the fact that you don't think so is unusual if you work in a professional aspect (I'm an engineer and review journals all the time from professional organisations such as IEE, IEEE etc), also WP:RS states (which I have also pointed out to you previously, this is probably the third time) Wikipedia relies heavily upon the established literature created by scientists, scholars and researchers around the world and The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals. So, got another strawman for me to tilt at? Shot info 02:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I would hoped that you would've drop the strawman point at this point and cease from being so confrontational. Please take a moment to calm down and reassess. Then read WP:NOT#IINFO. Kauffman's analysis remains WP:RS and WP:V. It is set apart from other criticisms because it is a detailed analysis and critique rather than just one guy's comment. Levine2112 02:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Shot, if absolute correctness were a prerequisite for publication, NEJM & JAMA would be much thinner than they are today, perhaps even 8 page newsletters. I could personally & recently quote, with witnesses, very conventional ~million$ pa MD specialist saying "rags" when I suggested one over the other. I could quote multiple examples of obvious, pharma POV laden articles of deliberately dangerous trials run to favor a new product that incite outrage amongst experienced, nationally (re)known specialists that state categorically such papers should never have been even considered much less published. Unfortunately such peer reviewed papers do not seem to be the exception.

Shot's pvt editorial policies ignore other parts of WP:RS. JSE is not a personal website. It is peer reviewed. Its directors include MD & PhD. The author has had a full academic career in scientific, health and drug related research with substantial credentials.--I'clast 14:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'clast, it is noted with interest that you accuse me of not reading the back log of discussion, then you quite obviously have not taken the time to read the reasons I have pointed out to you why, say the CSI and the scientific community regard the SSE as fringe. My quoting of WP:RS is valid, particular in reference to the overt prominence that you and Levine wish to have Kauffman's paper in this article's criticism section. I find it odd that certain editors say "it meets RS" but when I point out where it doesn't, it is called "pvt editorial policies". So either the editor claiming "it meets RS" is wrong, or they have their own "pvt editorial policies". We are not discussing the author's credentials (if you read my original post you will have seen that!) but why the papers credibility appearing in a fringe journal. You say it isn't fringe, but the rest-of-the-world disagrees. You say the CSI support them, I post a quote showing they don't. You say Barrett courted them, I posted the very quote which shows that you are wrong. How many times do you have to be wrong before you realise that you have to let go of this one? Shot info 07:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Your quoting of WP:RS is highly selective, not the whole policy. That is why I say "pvt editorial policies". Your point on CSI vis a vis JSE is taken in part. As for fringe journals, both CSI and JSE do seem to have their pecularities; JSE chose a format that allows address of fringe topics non-presumptively that seems to have invited attack from many quarters, including those that might be described as "crank sites" and pseudoskeptics. So be it, I am not a JSE subscriber or SSE member. In Wikipedia, we note things and/or describe them and move on.--I'clast 10:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, WP:AGF, I am not angry or need to take a chill pill or whatever you are attempting to (mis)read into my posts.

Still you disregard and do not answer that fact that Kauffman's paper really has the information content equal to Bolen's. It is apparent to all that the SSE is a fringe, dubious organization that probably have neglected to properly peer review Kauffman's work (why, go have a look at the link...). So really his paper is just an editorial. Just like Bolen's. So why is it better again? It isn't. I suggest that you re(and re and re) read WP:RS and why wikipedia doesn't want to use such information. I do find it notable that you and Iclast have changed tactics from defending the SSE to now saying it isn't important. Since it isn't important then why is Kauffman's better than Bolens?? Is it detailed analysis? So, have you checked it? Is is correct? Why is it no better than Bolen's?

BTW, getting back to my alterations, I removed the editorializing about the JSE (because that transparently shows the editor who added that needs to justify the JSE in some fashion...why??) and removed the redundant text and tightened it up. All justifiable tasks for an editor of wikipedia I note. No information was lost but the odd emphasis on one criticism published in a dubious journal was removed. Shot info 03:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Bolen is political, Kauffman is highly technical. Surely you understand the difference between an ordinary person & PhD faculty, or maybe that is part of the problem understanding the previous editors' consensus here. You are seeking to 'impose extraordinary duties on us. Stop. I can easily pick out glaring problems or errata de novo in Barrett's articles but not so on Kauffman. This reference is not a caprice.--I'clast 14:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I quite understand the previous consensus regardless of your continuing instance that I don't. There are no "duties" being imposed. I have shown the "whys" you have failed to read them while stating that I haven't read your reasons. I have shown why your reasons are bunk. The "pick out glaring problems or errata de novo in Barrett's articles but not so on Kauffman" is a strawman, it's your turn to go back and reread why. Shot info 07:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It helps make your points less ambiguous if you use diffs like this[16].--I'clast 10:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for thinking you needed to calm down. Your tone suggested so to me, but I certainly may have been mistaken and if so... again, I apologize. I dropped the defense of JSE because it was falling on deaf ears and found the back-and-forth pointless. I remain ardent that it passes WP:RS with flying colors. The editorializing of JSE is to help explain what JSE is. Just as KAuffman's editorializing helps explain who he is and where he is coming from. It isn't necessary but it is helpful to the casual reader. The emphasis remains on Kauffman's piece because it is an analysis based on research where the others are not. Levine2112 03:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. I may write sarcastically, but I have been editing Barrett-land for several months now, you should be familiar with that :-)

The defense of SSE is needed and pertinent. You remain ardent that Kauffman's article meets WP:RS. I argue that because it is published in the JSE it fails WP:RS. Remember Wikipedia relies heavily upon the established literature created by scientists, scholars and researchers around the world and The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals.

The emphasis remains on Kauffman's piece because it is an analysis based on research where the others are not. Kauffman's piece has no credibility due to the fact it is published in JSE. You cannot prove that it is "based on research". The very credibility of Kauffman's work is at question here. You are assuming it is "based on research". I am suggesting that with the lack of peer review at the SSE, this is a bad assumption to make and one that WP:RS tells us not to use.

In conclusion, in order for Kauffman's article to be "based on research", we must assume that the SSE is a credible organization that will force it's authors to engage in robust peer review system. It is obvious that the SSE do not, so Kauffman's paper cannot be credibly stated as "based on research". Remember, you want this to be helpful to the casual reader. The causal reader reading this article will believe that Kauffman's article is more robust than what it is and the JSE editoralising will encourage them to believe they are a credible organisation when many (including the CSI) do not agree. Shot info 04:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I read Kauffman's piece several times now. It seems to be entirely about research. Regardless if you think that the research is not credible is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the other criticisms are not about research and are merely commentary. Thus Kauffman's criticism is different and set apart. Levine2112 04:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

We don't have to assume anything about JSE for Kuaffman's article to be based on research. Your *only* discussion is the *quality* of that research, and it is far more complete & up to date than those QW articles.--I'clast 14:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'klast, time for you to demand a refund (assuming of course that you actually paid somebody, other than a mill...), if you don't understand what the word "credibility" means and how it applies to scientific publications, then I am no longer surprised that you are having major problems with understanding why it is important. Shot info 08:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Instant, zipless credibility is nice, but often it doesn't rest well with other facts, as now. Refund? No, I'm happy with my papers, so are most people.--I'clast 10:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Shot, the WP:RS interpretation as you are insisting, is about priority preference, not an absolute, discussed below.--I'clast 14:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I find your dismissal of where something is published puzzling. It goes to the heart of credibility and WP:RS. If Kauffman's work was self published (like what you have criticized QW over..) then we would be all over it. Kauffman's criticism is no different to Bolen's. It is not peer reviewed (or rather, under peer reviewed). The only difference between it and Bolen's, is that it looks more scientific. It has a lot more references which helps it appear more impressive. These references may, or may not exist. Without been exhaustive, we just don't know. This is why we have peer review. Without it, Kauffman can be wrong. Hence it does not deserve to mislead the casual reader. Shot info 04:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Remember: JSE is peer-reviewed. While it may not have as many eyes looking at it as say a JAMA (maybe it does, I don't know), it is peer-reviewed. Quackwatch is not peer-reviewed. The other criticisms of QW currently listed on this article are not peer-reviewed (I don't believe). Kauffman's criticism is based on peer-reviewed research and thus is set apart. Levine2112 04:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS does not have absolute requirements such you promote & seek to impose, rather WP strives to obtain the best references available. Of course WP:RS desires, and is happy, to have name brand references, WP:RS#Scholarship, but WP:RS clearly provides guidelines that allow for far lesser provences than JSE & its peer review system - see Non-scholarly sources. The extensive use of QW articles at Wikipedia is actually in far more need of updating & reviews for problems that slide in the name of some unwashed "majority", with some very clear examples ignored.

If you can't tell the difference between Bolen & Kauffman, I suggest a review or that you ask for your college tuition back.--I'clast 14:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I can tell the difference. But remember this casual reader dude that you and Levine keep appealing to, then forgetting? Well, he probably cannot tell the difference. Rather than making smart-arse comments, I would suggest that prehaps you shouldn't publish your articles in JSE :-). Shot info 07:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

We don't forget him, nor do we condescend to him. Although I will agree that JSE was not the best perch to publish from for credibility, JSE's background is well noted, Kauffman's article does meet 'WP:RS, based on the WHOLE policy.--I'clast 09:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Remember, the JSE can at it's editors discretion decide that it's articles don't need to be. And there is a strong smell that most of its papers aren't. To the casual reader, peer review = peer review. They don't realize the gulf of difference between claiming to being peer reviewed by say one person who probably isn't up to speed, versus the standard robust model used by other journals (why do you have this fixation with JAMA, there are plenty of others, almost every professional organization has at least one journal, if not more). Your belief of whether JSE is properly peer review is irrelevant, the general scientific community believes it isn't...CSI believes it is bunk. So whose belief should the casual reader believe, yours or the larger scientific community?. Now, QW peer review status, though important, is irrelevant for the purposes of our discussion of Kauffman's articles prominent status in the article. Shot info 04:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't argue your speculation. That gets into flying spaghetti monster land and it's just futile at that point. All we know is that JSE says it is peer reviewed and that Kauffman's analysis is well cited. At some point, you just have to assume some good faith. If not, hey, that's fine too. Bottomline, Kauffman's analysis stands apart from the rest of criticism in that it is published in a journal and it is cited and it does consist of a detailed analysis which is clearly spelled out. If you don't agree or believe with what he states or doubt his citations or think the journal is bunk, that's fine. Your opinion is duly noted, but also irrelevant. The point here is that Kauffman's criticism is of a different breed than the others and thus is kept distinguished from the rest. Levine2112 08:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

JSE certainly doesn't have as many pharmaceutical sponsors showering with it it with $. Your belief that you can abitrarily, argumentatively exclude the best available academic review seems highly prejudicial & conveniently asymmetric.--I'clast 14:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, science manages to go on and keep going on without your bizzare belief that dubious papers should be afforded equal (or greater) credibility than those that are not. This makes you asymmetric. Shot info 07:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing bizarre, Kauffman's article is the only coverage of its type on QW. I've mentioned ongoing problems with the standard medical journals, I've addressed QW notability in major journals' article space (not the supplements) and conflicts of interests. All editors except you seem to recognize this. You are simply inflating the pedigree issue, way beyond WP:RS, into an organ of self-admittedly corrupted journals using selected, preferred portions of WP:RS. As we repeatedly state, and as others have recognized, Kauffman's article and JSE simply have to stand on their own merits with the readers, where JSE's article reflects controversy. You are attempting to reconstruct WP policies according to your interests.--I'clast 09:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

...it shouldn't be "here we go again". New insight or knowledge should be considered. Nor should statements like this be made; "Regardless if you think that the research is not credible is irrelevant". Credibility should be a prime issue for a knowledge based content provider. It's not "futile" to look at that issue. If Kauffman's writings is "of a different breed" yet he is a different breed in the scientific community, then may I suggest that both facts be noted. That way an innocent reader can draw their own conclusions.--Scuro 12:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

That was what the discussion & Wikilink of JSE attempted to identify & address in Sept-October--I'clast 14:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

And now that a new editor has come onto the scene, we are to ignore them forever as things were decided in Sept-Oct. Shot info 07:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I am listening. I almost deleted this JSE part last night but decided not to act unilaterally. "... which provides a forum for scientific research on topics outside established disciplines of mainstream science".--I'clast 09:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

And I'm reinstating it. A journal which sounds as if it were a scientific journal, but isn't, needs a disclaimer. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Just for everyone's information, JSE is in fact peer reviewed... or at least they claim to be.

From the intro on their home page:

The Society for Scientific Exploration (SSE) exists to foster the serious and rational study of all questions that are amenable to scientific investigation, without restriction. The Society publishes a peer reviewed journal, the Journal of Scientific Exploration, holds annual scientific meetings in the USA and periodic meetings in Europe. It was founded in 1982 by fourteen scientists and scholars. The Society now has approximately 800 members in 45 countries worldwide.

Levine2112 00:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur that they say it's peer reviewed. I don't recall the exact reference, but I think they also published an article describing peer review as inappropriate. So — do they practice what they preach? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. I can only go by what I've read on their site and assume that they are being honest and that they are in fact a peer reviewed journal. Levine2112 20:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin: "I think they also published an article describing peer review as inappropriate." -- Hmmm. "Inappropriate"? Or questionable? It is certainly questionable. In fact there is no good evidence indicating its usefulness. I will post more on this shortly. -- Alan2012, aka 65.48.22.104 20:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

JSE, peer review, and Joel Kauffman

People seem to want to make a lot of hay out of JSE's status as a "peer reviewed" journal. User:Shot info made a request on my talkpage that I come here and address the issue.

JSE is a "discretionarily peer reviewed" journal inasmuch as JSE may provide proper review of some articles that are submitted. The reason is that SSE makes accomodation for fringe/pseudoscience in order to ensure "fairness". Oftentimes, if a reviewer has a problem with an article, the editor-in-chief will still publish the article as submitted but allow the reviewer to write comments for publication as well. This is a far less stringent arrangement than typical peer review. Most reviews of the sort that were offered by Kauffman are not peer reviewed because there is (ostensibly) no scientific data to address.

The article in question is written by Joel Kauffman, an organic chemist (not a medical doctor, human biologist, or nutritionist) who hawks his own version of nutrition that include such dubious ideas as cholesterol and saturated fat skepticism (he doesn't believe that they are nutriotionally harmful) and fluoridation skepticism. A libertarian/conservative, Kauffman distrusts governmental and organizational control and maintains anti-orthodox bias on such issues as global warming in what can only be described as a philosophical refusal to defer to "authorities". The man prides himself for existing on the fringe of these scientific concepts and (maverick-styles) attacks those who attack the ideas he loves so well. While obviously more qualified and a bit more scientific than others on the fringe (he dislikes, for example, Kevin Trudeau's pseudoscience) healthy grains of salt are needed when presenting such criticism especially as the lead-in to the criticism section. I would think that demoting his work would be more appropriate than keepeing it as major point.

--ScienceApologist 13:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree and would appreciate some discussion about this before such a vast revision. All of what you say about Kauffman above is whay makes him the perfect person to analyze Quackwatch. He certainly has the qualifications and credentials. Kauffman's piece is set apart from the other criticisms because it is more that just one guy's remarks about Quackwatch. Please read his review. It is a scientific paper with detailed analyses weighed upon extremely reliable sources. In a word, it is different" from the other bits of criticism and thus should be set apart and highlight. This is the kind of criticism we should encourage in an article. Levine2112 18:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Kauffman may or may not be "perfect" to evaluate QuackWatch. That's not really for us to decide. Neither is it relevant to evaluate his qualifications or credentials. Nobody is saying that Kauffman isn't a reliable source which is the only reason questioning credentials would be necessary. While you are entitled to your evaluative opinion as to what "sets his piece apart", that is not an editorially sound judgement. Kauffman's paper is not "scientific" because it's not written as a scientific paper: it's a website review. A "scientific" paper on a website would be one that looked at the website scientifically. This report by Kauffman is best described as a critical review from the perspective of primary sources. The criticism is not substantively different from other critics who cherry-pick research to justify their criticism of the mainstream. The kind of claim you are making here is akin to claims made by creationists that the Institute for Creation Research produces "scientific papers" while Answers in Genesis does not -- once you step away from the scientific community and scientific consensus and delve into the fringe, you are no longer bound by the rules of engagement in those institutions and scenarios. At Wikipedia, we should neither be encouraging nor discouraging any criticism. It is for us to describe not advocate. --ScienceApologist 18:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree that Kauffman is a reliable source. This is a different tune than what Shot_Info was singing though; so claiming that "Nobody is saying that Kauffman isn't a reliable source" isn't true. It is exactly what Shot_Info was saying. Kauffman's analysis is a review, but it is using primary sources and goes point-by-point and is a far different and more evaluative beast than any of the other criticisms. It should remain a breed apart. Again, we should be encouraging these types of evaluative criticisms rather than head toward ad hominem. Levine2112 19:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Your evaluation of whether Kauffman's "evaluation" is better than the others is unverifiable and therefore not an editorially reasonable suggestion. He is rightly demoted to all the rest. --ScienceApologist 23:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It is certainly more analytical, detailed and referenced, part of the editorial summarization process. It is WP:V because is published by an independent third party, a society, and it is even linkable. I see nothing about WP:V for placement. One other thing, not everything is "scientific", scholarly is another discussion.--I'clast 07:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This is objection does not deal substantively with my points above. The fact is that there is nothing which separates this criticism from any of the others except for the personal opinions of editors. That is an inappropriate way of making a distinction because your opinion is not verifiable. See? --ScienceApologist 16:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Point-By-Point Response to Emotional Outburst (unanswered as yet)

Response to: ScienceApologist 13:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist: "Joel Kauffman...hawks his own version of nutrition that include such dubious ideas as cholesterol and saturated fat skepticism (he doesn't believe that they are nutriotionally harmful) and fluoridation skepticism."

OK. Have you examined his arguments and documentation, and found them wanting? Please direct our attention to a careful deconstruction/rebuttal of his arguments and documentation, by you or anyone else, so we may have a rational basis for judgement (rather than just accepting your opinion).

Also, please explain why presenting, documenting and arguing for a point of view constitutes (justifies the pejorative) "hawking".

By the way, sat fat and cholesterol are not nutritionally harmful, per se, though it is commonly held that they are metabolically harmful.

ScienceApologist: "A libertarian/conservative,"

He might also be a member of the Rotary Club. The relevance?

ScienceApologist: "Kauffman distrusts governmental and organizational control"

Are you expecting Kauffman, and the rest of us, to TRUST governmental and organizational CONTROL, as a default position? Why? Please provide evidence and argument for your view (implicit but clear from what you wrote) that governments and large organizations should be trusted and that their control ought be accepted without question. Are there limits to the control that we ought to accept without question? If so, what are they?

ScienceApologist: "and maintains anti-orthodox bias on such issues as global warming in what can only be described as a philosophical refusal to defer to 'authorities'".

Please provide evidence and argument for your view that he "maintains anti-orthodox BIAS". That would be as opposed to maintaining an anti-orthodox point of view based on a rational (to the best of HIS ability and knowledge) assessment of the evidence. Why are you assuming bad faith or incompetence on his part? Please give us some REASON to agree with you, rather than simply hurling accusations.

All of science is (or at least WAS, and remains so, ideally) "a philosophical refusal to defer to [so-called] 'authorities'". That is integral to what science is supposed to be about. Modern science is (or at least WAS, and remains so, ideally) a child of the 18th century Enlightenment, which was a profoundly anti-authoritarian enterprise. And even before the Enlightenment, the fathers of modern science were adamant in their "philosophical REFUSAL TO DEFER to 'authorities'".

ScienceApologist: "The man prides himself for existing on the fringe of these scientific concepts and (maverick-styles) attacks those who attack the ideas he loves so well."

What evidence do we have that he "prides himself" on anything? Please present the evidence, or retract the statement.

ScienceApologist: "While obviously more qualified and a bit more scientific than others on the fringe (he dislikes, for example, Kevin Trudeau's pseudoscience) healthy grains of salt are needed when presenting such criticism especially as the lead-in to the criticism section."

Healthy grains of salt are needed when presenting, investigating or assessing ANYTHING. Show me someone who swallows first without adding healthy grains of salt, and I will show you a True Believer, a deluded person, an idiot, or perhaps even a religious fanatic.

-- Alan2012 03:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I find this kind of post to be totally out-of-line and off-topic. We are here to discuss article content, not to debate the finer points of how you think the world is, where you disagree with my postings on the talkpage, and what points you think you should EMPHASIZE by turning CAPS LOCK on. This is not USENET, it is Wikipedia. I'm not going to debate you, I'm only going to discuss what is appropriate encyclopedia content. If you want to join this discussion you are free to. --ScienceApologist 23:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist: "We are here to discuss article content, not to debate the finer points of how you think the world is, where you disagree with my postings on the talkpage, and what points you think you should EMPHASIZE by turning CAPS LOCK on. This is not USENET, it is Wikipedia. I'm not going to debate you..." blah blah.

Does this mean that you think that any idiot can come on here and start spewing unsubstantiated accusations, innuendos, grossly prejudicial remarks, and irrational nonsense -- as were evident in the text you originally wrote -- and not be accountable for them?

As for all caps: I use them lightly for emphasis, and I don't apologize for that.

If you have something to contribute to this conversation besides irritated refusals to take responsibility for your own words, I would love to hear it. Indeed, you have an obligation to present it.

This has nothing to do with "fine points" about my worldview; it has everything to do with your attempt to besmirch Kauffman -- "hawking", "bias", "refusal to defer to authorities" (as though that were undesirable!), etc., etc. It also has to do with your odd handle -- "ScienceApologist". The text to which I responded was about as unscientific and prejudicial as it gets. What is this "Science" that you "Apologize" for? I would like to hear more about it. It sounds much more like a religion than science.

-- Alan2012 03:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think any idiot can come on here and spew unsubstantiated accusations towards other users, yet I do find that this description may be self-applied. You might want to read-up on personal attacks before making an issue out of my "handle". Cheers. --ScienceApologist 06:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The question was: do you think any idiot can come on here and spew unsubstantiated accusations AT KAUFFMAN, such as you did. Why don't you answer the question? Cat got your tongue? -- Alan2012 17:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing I "spewed" was "unsubstantiated". Neither am I an "idiot". So I fail to see what bearing your question has on this conversation which is supposed to be about improving the article. --ScienceApologist 16:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Everything that you spewed was unsubstantiated. You have not substantiated, or even argued for, any of the assertions you made, above. I am prepared to believe that you are not an idiot. All you have to do is stop acting like one. -- Alan2012 16:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps not "unsubstantiated" since you have a POV source, rather similarly "contaminated with incomplete data, obsolete data, technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo", with an extra helping of nasty,[17][18] may apply.--I'clast 18:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad we are in agreement on the substantive issues. --ScienceApologist 09:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Not unsubstantiated? No, sorry, it was unsubstantiated. The post to which I responded -- "--ScienceApologist 13:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)", above -- did not provide any substantiation. It was pure emotional outburst -- typical of Science(?)Apologist. -- Alan2012 16:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Anti-QuackWatch POV-pushing

SA, now you are calling this anti-QuackWatch POV pushing? What? Huh? I am offended by your lack of good faith. Mentioning that Linus Pauling a 2-time Nobel Prize winner is POV pushing? How? Two-time Nobel Prize winner is almost always attached to Pauling's name as he is the only one to ever acheive this feat on his own. If anything, it tells the casual reader who Linus Pauling is and the notability of labelling someone like him a quack. There is no judgement there. No PPOV. Just the facts. Saying that QW is nor does it claim to be peer reviewed is also POV-pushing? Seems rather neutral and precisely factual. And please stop reorganizing the Kauffman analysis. A consensus was reached several months ago to orgainze it as such. Thus far, you haven't provided any reason to undo the hard work that it took to reach this consensus. Levine2112 20:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

What do Linus Paulding's Nobel prizes have to do with QuackWatch? The only reason people may have put it in here is because it serves as an Appeal to authority, a very unbecoming tactic. There are ways to present "just the facts" selectively to deride and push a POV. You don't like QuackWatch probably because it derides your chosen chiropractic cause. Sorry. That doesn't give you the green light to act with impunity. As I see it, you are aggressively asserting your right to promote whatever POV is available without addressing substatively the issues I outlined. Therefore, I find your actions to be POV-pushing. --ScienceApologist 23:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Then you aren't exercising good faith with me. The Nobel Prize qualative is there to show who Linus Pauling is and that Quackwatch is brave enough to even label someone that notable a quack. There is no appeal to authority. If anything it shows that Quackwatch treats everyone, even world reknowned scientists, on a level playing field. Kudos to them. It's topical. It's accurate. It's notable. There should be no problem with it. I'm sorry that you see it as POV-pushing... but that is your POV. Linus Pauling has nothing to do with chiropractic. Neither does Joel Kauffman. I don't see (nor do I appreciate) what you are insinuating. You have no grounds to do so and it is highly uncivil behavior and enitrely unWiki-like. The consensus agreement stands until you can provide good reason to change it. I am open to it; it's just that I haven't heard any good reasons yet. Levine2112 02:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Bravery? According to what source? Linus Paulding is well-known for being wrong about Vitamin C as a cure for the common cold (this fact is often included in introductory nutrition texts). It isn't brave to point out a well-known fact. There is no consensus indicated since you have found no reason to promote Kauffman's critique that isn't based on arbitraty and unverifiable posturing. Therefore, I await some sort of indication that you understand my points made above and that you care to address them substantively rather than engaging in your continued campaigns to disproportionately criticize this subject. --ScienceApologist 06:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

'Apologist, your POV is exceeded by the conventional "wisedom" ignorance. Pauling is, as yet, scientifically unchallenged (show me the data). In 1970, with "Vitamin C and the Common Cold", Pauling suggested a “loading dose” of 2-4 grams of Vitamin C at the first hint/thought of a cold (call it "nearsick"), followed by 1 gram every hour for 24 hours or until the symptoms ceased as a possible means to abort it. In the next edition (1976) he recommends 1-2 grams/hr as merit worthy, not a guarantee nor adequate for an established cold, the next stage, within a very short time. So, in 1970, LP is talking 20-30 grams in a day for "near sick", later 40-50 grams for "nearsick", dosed hourly. Have you seen any mainstream test like LP suggested in the last 1/3 of a century??? I am all ears. All the tests QW refers to are either 0.2 to 3 or 4 grams/day or only one dose/day, mostly consumed or eliminated in 2-6 hours, sicker is sooner.

Modern vitamin C advocates talk of 50, 100, perhaps even 150 grams/day divided & dosed at 0.1-2 hours for colds, maintained at bowel tolerance, after an initial loading of 2-8 grams every 15, 20, 30 minutes to bowel tolerance. Oral is always a potential crapshoot because there may not be efficient GI absorption (Klenner, 1940s/50s) or sufficient GI tolerance. Then experienced MD proponents might suggest it's IV time for a serious illness. So 'Apologist, got any relevant range recorded data of any kind (clinical, other observational, SBRCT, even personal) or is this just repeating more cargo cult "scientific" opinion and pseudoskepticism?

Many (Klenner, McCormick, Pauling, Stone, Szent-Györgyi, etc) have died while trying for decades to get the "mainstream" to start to do its job here.--I'clast 07:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Conventional "wisedom" ignorance? Is that supposed to mean something? To claim that Pauling is "scientifically unchallenged" is ridiculous. The rejection of his Vitamin C proposals by the mainstream is not only well-documented, it is uncontroversial. We are not here to argue over whether the mainstream is right or wrong (that's irrelevant), we are here to document. I have no problem with stating that Pauling was critiqued by QuackWatch, but this kind of iterative gaming of the system with respect to "alternative health" issues is uncalled for and more POV-pushing. Either an idea is mainstream or it is rejected, and Pauling's ideas are rejected by the mainstream. End of story. I'm not going to baited into a psuedoscientific battle over the "data" since Pauling's work is actually well-documented as criticized in major medical and biochemical journals. Take an introductory nutrition class and call me in the morning. Your anger towards the mainstream does not belong influencing Wikipedia articles. Take it elsewhere; we are not a soapbox. --ScienceApologist 16:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No game, just most current references. I said "data" instead of "reference" to give you the broadest opportunity possible to show what basis that you might have or surface something that we haven't seen. "Uncontroversial", "ridiculous" after what is quoted above, you show a complete lack of knowledge in the area including current conventional, authoritative publications. Sorry. Simple, anticompetitive 1950s AMA/ADA broadcast positions are going to butt hard into modern & referenced works here. Numerous colds tests of .2 - 3 g, usually once per day, when previous literature showed 40-100+g / day dosed frequently, hardly inspire as competent, honest, bias free science attempting to demonstrate or replicate results. Again, read mainstream's Hemila (2006) dissecting everything you've probably read on vitamin C and the common cold as largely "blunders" and bias. Sobering.--I'clast 01:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This is totally irrelevant to the purpose of Wikipedia:Talk pages. --ScienceApologist 09:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Then why did you bring it up, ScienceApologist? Your words here, and these were the FIRST reference to vitamin C and the common cold in this thread: "Linus Paulding is well-known for being wrong about Vitamin C as a cure for the common cold (this fact is often included in introductory nutrition texts)". -- Alan2012 15:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

No, not really. I am trying to explain to you why your information & positions are outdated and wrong based on current mainstream references as well as certain Nobel Prize winners' explanations that are consistent with current mainstream references and other historical references.--I'clast 10:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Your positions are noted, but they are irrelevant to article content and contravene the purpose of talkpages. You might think reading the link I posted before your comment. --ScienceApologist 10:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Then why did YOU bring it up, ScienceApologist? Your words here, and these were the FIRST reference to vitamin C and the common cold in this thread: "Linus Paulding is well-known for being wrong about Vitamin C as a cure for the common cold (this fact is often included in introductory nutrition texts)". -- Alan2012 15:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Another unfounded denial. I try to point you to referenced facts, authoritative discussions and conclusions, which you just flip off as "irrelevant" because of your unsupported views.--I'clast 11:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I have shown that your advocacy is irrelevant to actually the manner and kind of text that is used in the article. All you have established is that you disagree with the mainstream in your opinion. However, that doesn't help us serve as a guide for how this particular article should be written. --ScienceApologist 16:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

What IS the "mainstream"? Does a Cochrane systematic review count as "mainstream"? If it doesn't, then what does? -- Alan2012 15:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually you show a pronounced resistance to read or understand the most current technical references. You might read up on the signs and symptoms of pseudoskepticism. I grow tired of your constant, antagonistic baiting & belittlement with respect to me & others[19] as well as the scurrilous bilge on Pauling & Kauffman[20], "...the large chip on his shoulder, which is about the size of his gut.[21]--I'clast 18:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not one to jump through hoops just because you are itching to fight the mainstream consensus. If you want to go out and tilt at windmills, be my guest, but the place to do it is not Wikipedia. We are here to write an article. So far, my only concern here has been to clarify what the affilliations and prominence of the critics of Quackwatch are. I have no desire to debate you nor to argue over what I or you said on the talkpage unless it directly impacts the article's content. --ScienceApologist 09:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

If your "only concern here has been to clarify what the affilliations and prominence of the critics of Quackwatch are", then why do you keep making undocumented and false statements of all kinds that are irrelevant to the matter of this article about Quackwatch? Inquiring minds want to know! -- Alan2012 15:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Uncontroversial, mainstream opinion

ScienceApologist wrote: "The rejection of [Pauling's] Vitamin C proposals by the mainstream is not only well-documented, it is uncontroversial."

Many mainstreamers have indeed rejected Pauling's vitamin C proposals. And they generally remain out of touch with the current literature. See below -- a Cochrane meta-analysis (most stringent possible), no less.

So, the issue then is: should we blindly accept and regurgitate prejudicial, uninformed opinions, such as those of Sir ScienceApologist and other ill-informed mainstreamers? Or do we go with the facts as presented in the best, most current scientific literature available? Questions, questions. Together, we can come up with quality ANSWERS to those questions!

.............................................

Snippet: "The CONSISTENT AND STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT BENEFITS on duration and severity for those using regular vitamin C prophylaxis indicates that vitamin C plays some role in respiratory defence mechanisms"

.............................................

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004 Oct 18;(4):CD000980.

Update of: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;(2):CD000980.

Vitamin C for preventing and treating the common cold.Douglas RM, Hemila H, D'Souza R, Chalker EB, Treacy B.

National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University, 34 Nungara Place, Aranda, ACT, Australia, 2614.

BACKGROUND: The role of oral vitamin C (ascorbic acid) in the prevention and treatment of the common cold has been a subject of controversy for at least sixty years. Public interest in the topic continues to be high and vitamin C continues to be widely sold and used as a preventive and therapeutic agent for this common ailment. OBJECTIVES: To discover whether oral vitamin C in doses of 200 mg or more daily, reduces the incidence, duration or severity of the common cold when used either as continuous prophylaxis or after the onset of cold symptoms. SEARCH STRATEGY: This updated review added to earlier searches, a full search of the following electronic databases: the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2004); MEDLINE (January 1966 to June 2004); and EMBASE (1990 to June 2004). SELECTION CRITERIA: Papers were excluded if a dose less than 200 mg daily of vitamin C was used; if there was no placebo comparison; if methods of outcome assessment were inadequately described; and if the report did not record any of the three study outcomes (incidence, duration or severity) in sufficient detail to enter into the meta-analysis. Three criteria of study quality were assessed: Jadad scores, placebo distinguish-ability, and allocation concealment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. 'Incidence' of colds during prophylaxis was assessed as the proportion of participants experiencing one or more colds during the study period. 'Duration' was the mean days of illness of cold episodes and 'severity' of these episodes was assessed by days confined indoors, off work or school. or by symptom severity scores. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-nine trial comparisons involving 11,077 study participants contributed to the meta-analysis on the relative risk (RR) of developing a cold while taking prophylaxis. The pooled RR was 0.96 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.00). A subgroup of six trials that involved a total of 642 marathon runners, skiers, and soldiers on sub-arctic exercises reported a pooled RR of 0.50 (95%CI 0.38 to 0.66).Thirty comparisons that involved 9,676 respiratory episodes contributed to the meta-analysis on common cold duration during prophylaxis . A consistent benefit was observed, representing a reduction in cold duration of 8% (95% CI 3% to 13%) for adult participants and 13.5% (95% CI 5% to 21%) for child participants.Fifteen trial comparisons that involved 7,045 respiratory episodes contributed to the meta-analysis of severity of episodes experienced while on prophylaxis. The pooled results revealed a difference favouring those on vitamin C when days confined to home and off work or school were taken as a measure of severity (p = 0.02), and when restricting to studies which used symptom severity scores (p = 0.16), and for the both measures of severity combined (p = 0.004).Seven trial comparisons that involved 3,294 respiratory episodes contributed to the meta-analysis of cold duration during therapy with vitamin C that was initiated after the onset of cold symptoms, and no significant difference from placebo was seen.Four trial comparisons that involved 2,753 respiratory episodes, contributed to the meta-analysis of cold severity during therapy and no significant difference from placebo was seen.In laboratory studies, differing methods of artificial transmission of virus to vitamin C or placebo treated volunteers in residential experiments gave different results. Volunteers infected by nasal installation showed small or no benefit from vitamin C, whereas a group who were infected more naturally, reported less severe symptom severity scores (p = 0.04). REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: The failure of vitamin C supplementation to reduce the incidence of colds in the normal population indicates that routine mega-dose prophylaxis is not rationally justified for community use. But evidence shows that it could be justified in persons exposed to brief periods of severe physical exercise and/or cold environments. Also, the consistent and statistically significant small benefits on duration and severity for those using regular vitamin C prophylaxis indicates that vitamin C plays some role in respiratory defence mechanisms. The trials in which vitamin C was introduced at the onset of colds as therapy did not show any benefit in doses up to 4 grams daily, but one large trial reported equivocal benefit from an 8 gram therapeutic dose at onset of symptoms.

PMID: 15495002

-- Alan2012 17:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

PS: Note, by the way, that the Cochran meta-analysis above included all studies that used more than 200 mgs per day. Dozens of papers were included that used sub-gram doses (200-999 mgs/day); i.e. dozens of papers used trivial/piddling/likely-to-fail doses. And STILL the meta-analysis showed consistent and statistically significant benefits on duration and severity! The poor laddies. Try as they might, they just can't make this one go away. They're on the wrong side of both history AND the data. -- Alan2012 18:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

PSS: ScienceApologist: "I'm not going to be baited into a psuedoscientific battle over the 'data'". Right. You're not going to be lured into a rational discussion that addresses the actual science. Heavens NO! Rather, you're going to stick ENTIRELY to unsubstantiated accusations, innuendos, prejudices, irrational assertions, etc. -- just as you have so far. -- Alan2012 18:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoah... let's take a step back. It might be worth reviewing both what Wikipedia is not, as well as the part of the neutral point of view policy which states that "Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in." In other words, let's work on which sources are reliable (according to Wikipedia standards) and how to present them. Let's not engage in a debate about the relative quality of evidence for high-dose vitamin C. This isn't aimed at Alan2012 or ScienceApologist in particular - just a suggestion for staying productive. There are plenty of other outlets to debate and critique the science behind vitamin C - but this isn't one of them. Also, to all involved, let's step back and try to be civil about our disagreements. MastCell 19:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Well done, MastCell. A good illustration of why these tangents that the anti-quackwatch folks love to go on are not appropriate for this page. --ScienceApologist 09:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well done, Science(?)Apologist! A good illustration of how you NEVER respond with facts or take responsibility for what you yourself have stated. The tangent -- "The rejection of [Pauling's] vitamin C proposals..." -- was, of course, all yours. -- Alan2012 15:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the Kauffman summary & reverts have gone well past mere contention.--I'clast 11:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

That's nice. However, your opinion on what the status of the discussion is in terms of advocacy does not help us decide what is appropriate for inclusion in the article. Remember, we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, not argue over what goes past "mere contention". --ScienceApologist 16:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Assume that JSE is not peer reviewed

The entire discussion about the “fringe” status of JSE is beside the point. Assume that the Kaufmann article had been published in a non peer reviewed publication devoted to long deep articles written by journalists. For example Washington Monthly (look at [[22]] ) If so, the article had been an obvious reference in Wikipedia. The alleged “fringe” status of the Kaufmann article does not affect its relevance. It is well written and the critiques here have not managed to bring forward any substantial flaws, unreasonable or extreme claims, or deception in the article. Only ad hominem attacks on Kaufmann by the Wikipedia editor who claims to be a “Science Apologist”. MaxPont 16:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the peer-review status of JSE is moot. The "fringe" status of the "article" is not really of any concern to the article content except that JSE is notable as a journal that publishes fringe science. No one is trying to "bring forward substantial flaws" with Kauffman's criticism of QuackWatch. We are simply trying to characterize his criticism in relation to other criticisms and in relation to his particular style and mode of advocacy. Don't get it twisted: trying to claim that Kauffman is somehow "the best" of all the criticisms is the non-NPOV idealization that is being disputed here. --ScienceApologist 16:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It is the most notably detailed. This and your "irrelevant" are gratuitiously tendentious, if not ad hominem.--I'clast 18:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Really? Can you point to any evidence that it is the most "notably detailed"? Or is this just your opinion again masquerading as fact? --ScienceApologist 09:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

NCAHF / Quackwatch Operations

Happiest of Holidays All.

After coming back to Wikipedia a few weeks ago, I've received a lot of additional information about the joint operation of NCAHF and Quackwatch. I believe there was an appeal earlier to join these two articles, and I fully support it. It is impossible to tell where one operation ends and the other begins. Barrett rules ... as NCAHF head of 'internet operations' as well as Chairman of QW. (User:Fyslee (real name removed)) runs their (his own private!!- Fyslee) Webring Operation of 90 blogs and websites each promoting the other. Fyslee (real name removed) appears to be stationed as a professional healthfraud 'editor' here on Wikipedia. I've seen him pounce on and revert valid edits within seconds of their appearance. I see he just quit his longtime job as "Assistant Listmaster" of the Healthfraud List. He has repeatedly claimed that NCAHF was a legal California Corporation and for months removed the links proving this was false. His performance on Wikipedia resembles a Barrett puppet, in my opinion.

QW/NCAHF claims to send over 11,000 subscribers their newsletter ... JOINTLY. Barrett runs the Healthfraud List with an iron hand and promotes both QW/NCAHF and their Webring. Barrett signs with adverts to both QW and NCAHF and in fact, their sites cross promote and reference each other. It is rare that he is not wearing both these hats for his published opinions. For these reasons, I vote that the two articles be combined.

I recently visited several articles on Wikipedia and one would believe that it was QuackWatch / Wikipedia Branch. Single articles are filled with Quackwatch POV ... while others were fought off by Fyslee (real name removed) and others.

Regarding the lack of legal corporate status in evidence ... the fact that hours and hours were wasted as people defending Barrett used every distraction and propaganda trick in the books is pure bullying. It is not a game for a non profit to prove their legal status. It could have been done in a heartbeat. The silliest game of all was for them to ask us to prove the negative that they were not incorporated in the other 49 states. I call that Quack Logic.

One of Barrett's own published definitions of what he opines is quackery"... quackery could be broadly defined as anything involving over promotion in the field of health." With 90 blogs and websites and thousands of articles circulated promoting QW/NCAHF, from someone with no current medical license and who has been called, by the Appelate Court of California, "biased and unworthy of credibility," speaks volumes as to his projection. Last count, there were over 417,000 pages promoting Barrett on a google search. Over promotion?

Further, I wish to readdress the fact of his failure to protect his patients by passing the Psychiatric Exams in several decades of "practice." This fact was only brought to light in the deposition of Barrett's losing SLAPP suit to Dr. Koren recently. Up until then, he had proclaimed himself an 'expert' in things by simple wiggling his nose or some other decider. For years, he was asked why he had never been board certified, and refused to admit that he had FAILED his boards in the 60's. This is relevant and a valid criticism of Barrett. He was licensed in the 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's ... many of them spent questioning and attacking the credentials of others. His are more than questionable. No board certification means LESS patient protection, LESS questions to his license. I believe around 85% of medical licensees protected their patients with board certification by the 90's ... why not Stephen Barrett?

After perusing Wikipedia ... it seems to me that rules are made up by those promoting Barrett about criticsm about him ... but censored regarding him.

Thank you. Ilena 18:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor a forum for you to expand your grievances/feud with Stephen Barrett. Cross-posting rants like the above is disruptive. You've received innumerable suggestions and warnings, ranging from friendly to exasperated, and have apparently chosen to ignore them. At some point, the community's patience will be exhausted. Please consider contributing constructively. MastCell 20:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Correct. It is not a soapbox for Barrett to pick and choose what he wants to advertise about himself. For someone who goes after the licenses of board certified licensed doctors when he is non licensed and failed his boards and refused to retake them for several decades, and for someone who operates "credential watch" ... Wikipedia should definitely not allow his questionable operations to be soapboxed here. Ilena 17:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

And we have policies and guidelines to prevent Barrett from doing so. Your theories and accusations of Barrett's doings do not make you immune from those same policies and guidelines. Take your soapbox elsewhere. --Ronz 17:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I propose this section be immediately moved to the archive as being off topic and disruptive. --Ronz 17:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm new to the scene. For others who don't know what the feud is about (or that there was one), I'll share what I found: http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/bolen.html She "republished" messages from Bolen; that is, copied his writings (that Barrett was claiming was libel) to newsgroups. —Długosz 03:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Intrinsically Ad Hominem Nature of "QuackWatch"

One thing that no one seems to have noticed, or pointed out, about "QuackWatch" is the inherently ad hominem nature of it; the ad hominem is built right into the name! The self-appointed "Quack-Watchers" are in the business of watching "quacks". Anyone they "watch" is by definition, and immediately, a "quack" (while they are the noble "watchers", selflessly looking out for the public interest). Said "quack" is tried, found guilty, and sentenced to the general perception of marginality, scientific unsoundness, worthlessness, "dubiousness", or worse (outright fraud, etc.), right out of the box -- before the casual reader has even finished reading a sentence, and before the serious reader has had a chance to evaluate the evidence (if there is any).

There is something incredibly, outrageously slimy about this. The obvious intention -- discernable from the name itself -- is to smear, to throw mud, to villify.

This is ENTIRELY APART from the matter of whether or not some of the subjects of the "watching" might deserve, after careful presentation and analysis of evidence, to be smeared or even villified.

Repeat: The point above is ENTIRELY APART from the matter of whether or not some of the subjects of the "watching" might deserve, after careful presentation and analysis of evidence, to be smeared or even villified. Indeed, some of them probably DO deserve such treatment, and if so, should be so treated IN DUE COURSE. But the very name of the operation cuts short that course; the subjects are not given their due. They are certainly never given any chance to speak for themselves, defend themselves or respond to the criticisms and charges presented. They are from the getgo simply "quacks" -- charlatans, shysters, hucksters, con-men -- being sanctimoniously "watched" (denounced) by the self-appointed "watchers" who are themselves, in a piece, judge, jury and executioner.

A summary of this point should be included in the article. To fail to include it would be a glaring omission of what is without question a significant aspect of the whole matter.

-- Alan2012, aka: 65.48.22.104 16:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Actually, "intrinsically ad hominem nature" is charitable. It might better be called an intrinsically fascistic [or anti-democratic] nature. -- Alan2012

Opening sentence

The article begins:

Quackwatch is the primary website of Quackwatch, Inc., and is part of a network of websites dealing with related subjects. Its stated purpose is to "combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct," and its primary focus is on what it defines as quackery-related information that it claims is difficult or impossible to get elsewhere.

I think we need to rethink this. First, is this article should be about the organization, not the website, which only exists to communicate the organization's material. Given this, I suggest that the network of sites does not belong in the lede. Given this, I am going to rewrite the opening sentence as follows:

Quackwatch Quackwatch, Inc. is an organization dedicated to "combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct," with its primary focus on what it characterizes as quackery-related information.

Bucketsofg 17:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Levine2112 17:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.quackpotwatch.org/

I followed the link to Bolen's site at http://www.quackpotwatch.org and found "The "quackbuster" operation is a conspiracy. It is a propaganda enterprise, one part crackpot, two parts evil". This kind of attack-site should not be linked. I am removing it. If you disagree, form a consensus here about how to include it before re-introducing it. Bucketsofg 17:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

A consensus was already reached to include Bolen's critique and website here at the time of the AfD for the Quackpotwatch article. Basically, it was agreed that Bolen's site wasn't notable enough to have its own article on Wikipedia, but he should be mentioned on the Barrett/Quackwatch articles for being their most notable loudest critic. ;-) Levine2112 17:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• I read through the discussion above and I see no consensus on this point. And even if there were one, linking to a site that calls Barrett "evil" cannot but fail WP:RS or WP:NPOV. (By the way, you should not be using popups to revert anything except vandalism.) Bucketsofg 17:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It was determined that his site was so bad that it not only didn't deserve an article here, but that any link to his site anywhere at Wikipedia violated Wikipedia's rules for inclusion of sites as resources, references, and external links (except when used as documentation in their own articles - which article was deleted!). In spite of this, an external link to Bolen's site has been given a free ride (even by myself). This means that I (whom Bolen criticizes) am in violation of Wikipedia policies by allowing it! An ironic situation, but a compromise to keep the peace. -- Fyslee 11:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

reliable sources

I removed "Watching the Quackwatcher - Syd Baumel" from critical links. If you follow the link, you'll find what is described as a letter-to-the-editor that had been sent to salon.com but never published. There is no way that this meets WP:RS and so has been removed. There may be other sites that belong in this section, so I've left the section header there. Bucketsofg 17:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's find the other sites before deleting this one. Wiki's rules for external links are not as rigid as sources. I agree though, there should be a better example we can include here of a critical website about Quackwatch. Perhaps Chiro.org's "Watching the Quackwatchers" section? Levine2112 17:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No, since there is no way that this link can survive any test of notability, it will have to go eventually. Let's leave the section and delete the link. You might try the chiro.org. Bucketsofg 17:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Lead

I've trimmed out some of the material from the lede: much of what was here should be left for the body paragraphs below. I think we need to have a quick "history of the organization" section next. I'm ambivalent about the "criticisms" sentence in the lede (which I've removed), but am willing to hear why people think it belongs. Bucketsofg 17:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Lead should contain an overview of the rest of the article. Levine2112 17:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes and no. What the lede should do is give the most notable facts: the article in a nutshell, so to speak. While there will inevitably be a criticism section, is that criticism one of the handful of most notable things about this organization? Let's leave it for now, but can we find a way to make it less gratuitous? Bucketsofg 18:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The Lead should be a summary of 'all significant subjects in the article. If an item deserves its own heading, then it should certainly be included in the lead. It should be able to stand alone in such a manner that no one who then reads the article will be startled by totally new information not hinted at in the lead. -- Fyslee 11:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism and Quackwatch go hand and hand. It is gratuitous to call the site "award-winning" and that it is "dedicated" in the lead as well then. The site is controversial. It stirs up controversy seemingly on purpose. That they have critics is notable and should be including in the lead. Levine2112 20:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Complete agreement with Levine2112. The controversy and criticism of QW should be visible in the Lead section to keep NPOV. MaxPont 15:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• But if you look below, Levine and I more or less agreed that the better approach is to exclude the 'award-winning' here. I think its important to keep in mind that the point of the lede is to give to the reader the most important fact--what the organization is and what its goals are. Now, the article is inevitably going to say that some people say quackwatch is a good thing and that others say it is a bad thing. But that doesn't necessarily belong in the lede, and even if we decide it belongs the specific sentence that was there is so clunky that it looks like a pov-push. Bucketsofg 16:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• We don't need to decide this now. I had taken "dedicated" as neutral (as in "their purpose is") rather than positive ("devoted", "committed"), but if it sounds off we can change it. As for balance between 'award-winning' and 'criticism', perhaps both should go. Bucketsofg 21:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there a better word for "aiming"? Something "low brow" about using that word in taht context. (i.e. "I'm aiming to go get me a squirrel for supper.") :-) Levine2112 21:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, it's not terribly elegant, is it. "committed to"? "endeavoring to"? "striving for"? Bucketsofg 21:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

"Endeavoring" is the most applicable, I would think, of these three choices. Pretty neutral. Levine2112 21:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• The problem with 'endeavor' or 'try', etc., in these kinds of contexts is that they sometimes create the impression that they're unsuccessful ('he tries to be nice' often means he's not nice). Does 'that aims' help? Bucketsofg 21:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. Levine2112 22:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

"Endeavor" is POV weasel wording from those who would imply lack of success. This is editorial POV inclusion. An NPOV way to do it would be to include their own claim, and make it obvious that it is their own statement. -- Fyslee 11:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

"which contains …"

The end of the lede "which contains articles and other types of information related to consumer advice and strategies" is so vague to be useless. Can we make it more specific? Bucketsofg 21:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a decent summary of what is to come in the rest of the article. But if you have suggestions to improve, I would mind trying them out at all. Oh, is there a reason you spell it "lede"? I am unfamiliar with this spelling. I am used to "lead". Levine2112 22:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Appeal to Authority

It does need to be noted that the use of "Nobel Prize winner" against Pauling is an anomaly when you compare the other uses of Pauling's name in WP. Hence in the context of the use in this article is clearly an appeal to authority and not warranted. It also needs to be stated that in the very article appeal to authority this point is stated unambiguously. Shot info 02:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Google("Nobel Prize" winner pauling wikipedia)~12,400. Quite the anomaly.--I'clast 03:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Search through WP, yes, quite the anomaly. Shot info 05:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed. --ScienceApologist 09:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Shot, here's WP's own fervent QW admirer, Fyslee, [hosting a] quote on his Quackfiles site, too: "...Linus Pauling, the double Nobel Prize winner". In case that is doubt I am seeing in your last post, here are other articles where Wikipedians think Pauling and his Nobel Prizes are relavent:

[23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37][38],[39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55]. Happy?--I'clast 10:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant. What Fyslee says elsewhere is irrelevant. How many times Linus Pauling's Nobel Prize is listed in Wikipedia is irrelevant. What is relevant is the question as to what Pauling's Nobel Prize has to do with this website. --ScienceApologist 10:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Pretty simple. QW's criticism has few bounds on with respect to track record or scientific accuracy. Continuing to publicly criticize if not gleefully attack a Nobelist like LP is interesting, perhaps grandstanding, when the bare facts don't support the text and have become more clearly so in mainstream references during the past few years. It is a notable demonstration of QW's "services".--I'clast 11:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Your evaluation of what the boundaries are on QW's criticism is irrelevant to the article. We cannot verify that such is your opinion and so reporting on it is impossible. There is also not a lick of verifiable evidence that anything that QW has done is a "gleeful attack", and as for "public criticism", well, that's done by all interested parties in this subject it seems. "Bare facts" is a simple point of contention, not an obvious position except that the mainstream verifiably supports the QuackWatch position on every alternative medicine critique it offers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ScienceApologist (talk • contribs) 16:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

"...(you can sense his glee and relish when he points out these negative outcomes), and rarely mentions the benefits they provide."^{Quackwatch review} --I'clast 18:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Since when did Ray Sahelian's opinion of what "you" can "sense" become a reliable or irrefutable editoriaization? Looks like his opinion to me. So using this as a basis for writing the article is a pretty clear violation of WP:NPOV. --ScienceApologist 09:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Just discovered my name was brought up above. Has the poster of the link even read it (I wrote nothing there)? What's up? Please explain on my talk page. -- Fyslee 11:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

fixed "quoting" to "hosted a quote"--I'clast 12:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I haven't been following this discussion, but of course am familiar with the subject. Linus Pauling was an exceptional person with great talents. No one is disputing that, or that he deservedly won two Nobel prizes. Fantastic! That's also what makes his later course record so sad. When a person goes so totally outside of their own area of speciality as to make serious scientific and ethical errors, and uses their previous fame as a justification, it ends tragically. Not only did he make serious errors by making extravagant claims, he even vindictively ruined the career of his collaborator, when he pointed out Pauling's errors of scientific impropriety. Sad. -- Fyslee 12:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

We would not agree on several things here. The sparse human trial data give LP support for cancer nearer his original interest (50g IV C cancer) as well as finally acknowledging the lack of any IV use in the Mayo trials (and its importance). Although still incomplete, finally some minimal acknowledgement. Although I might agree that the Art affair was unfortunate. The specific animal model selection problem seems why Pauling was so piqued was when Art went ballistic over his results (poor models with alarmisim at a bad time, still repeated at QW despite contrary human experience; also note some very eccentric rat cancer tests of the 70s with spontaneous cancer.) I see Art waited until right up to LP's death to publish his rat paper. Perhaps to skirt LP's well known acuity of vision in criticism?--I'clast 13:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

All this is irrelevant. Pauling's Nobel Prize has no bearing on Quackwatch's critique of him! --ScienceApologist 16:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Some consider QW to be grandstanding and self advertising because of the double Nobel, at the expense of a famous author no longer able to reply, QW using "incomplete data, obsolete data, technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo".--I'clast 19:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

"Some" won't cut it here. Either you find attribution for the idea or it doesn't belong in the article. --ScienceApologist 09:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Editorializing

"Quackwatch does not provide any evidence to support these claims." & "Most of these awards date from the late 1990s and earlier" are editorializing. Shot info 02:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Concur. Removing. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The statement "Most of these awards date from the late 1990s and earlier" refers to the awards mentioned in the article. That is a fact and not editoralizing and should be kept. MaxPont 21:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a synthesis, so it's WP:OR rather than editorialziing. It still shouldn't be kept. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a preposterous interpretation of WP:OR. Of course it is possible to synthesize a set of small "fact primitives" such as years into a summary. MaxPont 11:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a synthesis of our selected awards, rather than of facts, making it doubly a synthesis. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

"OUR" ? Are you representing Quackwatch ? MaxPont 17:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

No one represents anyone on Wikipedia. We are all Wikipedians. --ScienceApologist 17:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Let Arthur Rubin answer for himself MaxPont 18:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

SA speaks for me in this instance. If most of the awards mentioned in the article date from the late 1990s, it may reflect "our" (Wikipedia's) selection of awards, so it's a synthesis and a self-reference. Let the list speak for itself. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch has received numerous awards, honors, favorable mentions, etc., throughout the years since it's creation. We (the editors here) have only chosen a few to mention that we could find V RS for to document the provided descriptions. Many others exist, and if anyone wants to do some detective work and find V RS documentation, and use that to describe the award in this article, be my guest. Just a few of them are needed. There is no absolute limit to how many or how they are described, but there is no need to create a referenced description for dozens of awards....;-) We just need a few to establish the subject of that heading, which is "notability." -- Fyslee 10:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Kauffman's Glorified Book Review

"I completely agree that Kauffman is a reliable source. This is a different tune than what Shot_Info was singing though; so claiming that "Nobody is saying that Kauffman isn't a reliable source" isn't true", now Levine, you are wrong and are displaying that you haven't taken any of the discussion points on board (strawman anybody). You will find that it isn't that Kauffman isn't a reliable source....it's the source where he published his book (website) review. BTW, 100% of the journals and publications I subscribe to do not do any peer review on their book and website reviews. So again, here we are, the JSE is a dubious journal, and Kauffman's article (which is being held up as "better quality", for whatever “quality” equates to…) is probably not reviewed in any meaningful sense. Points raised and continually ignored. So far all other editors not part of this rapidly fading consensus are all arguing that the Kauffman review is equal to other criticism, because it is peer reviewed (evidence?) and the JSE has credibility (and the CSI endorses etc. etc.). All "facts" overturned and yet, Kauffman's book review still appears in it's glorified position. Shot info 02:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It is criticism, so it can be opinion too. In this case, highly specific, highly referenced from peer reviewed literature analyses by an author with "conventional" scientific & career credentials. His analyses are much different in nature than the more general quotes that follow.--I'clast 03:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no debate about it's place in the criticism area (regardless of Levine's mischaracterization of my position). But with the WP's editor's hat on, the format of the criticism section is unusual and ugly with a peculiar prominence given to one review. Criticism is criticism, his review (let's call it what it is) is no different to that presented by other critics (ie/ Sahelian & Cranton). Having it in the Criticism section is valid (without commenting on the review's quality, reliability, creditability or peer reviewed status per se) but it's prominence is odd within the article, and such a use is strange in similar articles in WP. If editors wish to have such a predominate place to Kauffman's review, then it is recommended that an article about Kauffman is created. Shot info 05:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Kaufmann is a reliable critic of Quackwatch, but what he states is just as reliable as the other critics listed. Featuring him is a clear violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight. --ScienceApologist 09:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The other critics, often considered economically conflicted where Kauffman is more independent (prof emeritus), did not attach long lists of peer reviewed references & carefully dissect individual QW papers. I consider your position a blind POV or POV pushing if you want to get down to it.--I'clast 10:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Such criteria for "independence of critics" is not a Wikipedia policy nor guideline. It is made up. If you want to use it to govern article content, you're going to have to get consensus for such a position. --ScienceApologist 10:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

We already did a more massive consensus before you and Shot_info came blasting in, augumentatively ignoring hard facts, misapplying policies and denying/ignoring current mainstream references, making accusations. As for "hating" QW, no I think QW would restore a lot of its credibility if would clean up the the outdated, unscientific POV, a pretty massive undertaking at this point. I have followed QW somewhat since the first Readers Digest article decades ago but later came to realize how badly such partisanship had damaged its medical related content. I still read the QW biographies to get the most negative view on different figures and then research for additional details. I only got here because of the Kauffman debacle when NATTO added it in late September, otherwise having ignored the QW promotional series before.--I'clast 11:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yawn. I'm not interested in your opinions. You believe that Wikipedia should and shouldn't do certain things but haven't bothered to read the relevant policy and guidelines on these subjects. I encourage you to do so, because you'll find your advocacy very much displaced here. --ScienceApologist 11:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You pretty aggressively deny everything.--I'clast 11:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me, then, affirm, that you have been editting in contravention of WP:NPOV and WP:V in ways already outlined above. --ScienceApologist 16:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid Kaufmann is a possibly WP:RS, I can agree with neither SA nor I'clast completely. I agree that SA's additions of affiliations of QW critics (including Kaufmann) with fringe science concepts are relevant, but I believe that Kaufmann's article should be given some preference to the other critics' articles, as it claims to be a website review. I'll see what I can do. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Why should a "claimed" website review receive preference? What other Wikipedia article uses such a rationale as a justification? --ScienceApologist 09:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

"[ScienceApologist] and Shot_info came blasting in, augumentatively ignoring hard facts, misapplying policies and denying/ignoring current mainstream references, making accusations"... "You pretty aggressively deny everything". Check. Except, I'clast, you're being quite charitable and reserved. You're a much better man than me. -- Alan2012 15:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

This slow PC is having troubles with the length of the talk page. Any objections if there is some archiving done? Shot info 05:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Question about Linus Pauling

It has been stated above:

• "The Nobel Prize qualative is there to show who Linus Pauling is and that Quackwatch is brave enough to even label someone that notable a quack."

Where has Quackwatch labeled him "a quack"?

Quackwatch criticizes many people and practices equal opportunity skepticism, as is evidenced by the fact than many MDs, scientists and other authorized "main stream" professionals get criticized for questionable or dubious actions, ideas, or practices that do not always fall under the definition of "quackery" maintained by Quackwatch. Criticism is not the same as labelling someone a "quack". Where is this done about LP? -- Fyslee 14:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There are several problems here. (1) Implicit association for the targets of his criticism, where for years, QW / Barrett have presented themselves as “experts” on “quackery” in healthcare, (2) implicit labeling of articles under the QW heading, (3) implied in the "The Dark Side...", showing such supposed intransigence in the face of "At least 16 well-designed, double-blind studies have shown that supplementation with vitamin C does not prevent colds" implies it despite Hemilia's papers over the last 12 years on errors in historical "mainstream" (meta-)analyses, and despite being methodologically deficient on vitamin C (vs 1-2 grams/hour when pre-/near sick), more when sick, (4) possible confusion of SB hats with the NCAHF's q-list, (5) it's hard to keep up with (or document) blinking light (on - there, off - not there), slipstreamed changes to websites such as occurred with SB's CSICOP, (6) others mention it, although whether quoted or was implied is hard to tell in passing.--I'clast 18:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This response didn't answer Fyslee's main question which was "Where has Quackwatch labeled him a quack?" If you want to debate, try a USENET group. Wikipedia isn't the place to do it. Please read WP:NOT. --ScienceApologist 09:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch has labelled (in its very name) as quacks EVERYONE to whom it directs such attention -- "The DARK SIDE...", etc. (Woo woo! Shades of the evil Emperor in StarWars!). See comments above on the intrinsically ad hominem and possibly fascistic nature of "Quackwatch". -- Alan2012 16:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

"Fringe science"

Thanks for planting an editorial seed, Arthur. "Fringe" on these sounds so 1980s technology, different, controversial or another word would seem more NPOV.

"LDL Cholesterol" alone, as so popularly advertised and tied to $25+ billion/yr for statins alone (more than all the supplements together), is iffy science. No significant long term mortality benefits at 7-8 yrs, heart attacks mostly replaced by cancer, violent deaths and perhaps CHF despite massive dropouts, indicating tolerance problems. Based on mortality correlations, the current mainstream medical thinking appears to be channeling toward inflammation[56] and insulin levels[57] as better predictors, never mind iron, HDL_{2, apolipoprotein B, Lp(a), homocysteine, and another hundred risk factors. Kauffman recognizes & discusses this. Statins appear to reduce inflammation too but a pretty expensive way with big side effects and little/no real provable mortality benefits long term. This ties to his position on statins and NIDDM.}

Pro certain "saturated fats" are controversial as trans fats were 15-20 years ago, but look up lauric acid and n-butyrate. For the diabetes/syndrome X crowd that Kauffman addresses (Myth #2, Low carbohydrate diets are unsafe and ineffective for losing weight), this is a less controversial area where low carb is more modern, choosing amongst fats and protein is a current diet & science discussion.

"fluoride" Only under 12 is the small benefit, evidence based part; EPA is worried about heavy metal components in waste fluorosilicates applied to water; and apparently most of continental Western Europe is also "fringe". hmmm

Since his views are discussed in Malignant Medical Myths at length, these positions are probably best noted there, and less poisonous in format.--I'clast 21:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to the changes you've made to my changes so far today. Others can sepak for themselves. (I'm forced to admit uncertanty about which science is correct, although I can find no-one who recommends non-fluordated toothpaste unless the water supply is highly fluordated.). I'm just trying to provide background which suggests that Barrett/QW may have attacked Kaufmann's work before Kaufmann reviewed the web site. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'clast has a weird bias that goes roughly like this: Anything that is supported by an industry that has a substantial economic footprint must be corrupt and bad science. It's a very populist sentiment, but it is neither reliable nor is it based in anything more than neoluddism. I encourage you to research this stuff more, Arthur. It is very clear who has the chip on their shoulder and who lacks the verifiable research. Your inclination to point out the conflicts of interest every critic of this website has is very admirable. --ScienceApologist 09:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Science(?)Apologist, have you ever cited any verifiable research -- or any published research at all -- anywhere, ever, in your whole life? For that matter, have you ever read a single scientific paper? Do you know what "Medline" is? Just curious. -- Alan2012 15:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

'Apologist, I don't appreciate the constant heckling, baiting and attacks. Elsewhere, I have noted loud, credible, notable mainstream sources about corrupt and bad science affecting medicine & pharmaceuticals. I am not a populist, neoluddite, an ID creationist nor a technophobic pseudoskeptic who can't even read recent papers when linked, so don't keep treating me as such. In my discussions, I have link-quoted a lot more mainstream, WP:V than certain editors that keep reverting valid material, with wild attacks & assertions. Frankly, the Criticism section is about just that, criticism, and if enough moon howling werwolves showed up, that might be notable too. Unfortunately for you, Kauffman actually references more recent literature than you are implicitly familiar with, analytically questioning & plowing a lot of marketing fluff under by valid analysis techniques in the sense of Science rather than medical marketing hype trailing by decades. I've already demonstrated that a number current researchers dom't really believe the LDL cholesterol hypothesis as still promoted as a be-all, end-all to sell $25b+ pa of statins, questionable for long term mortality improvement, especially if the dropouts were accounted. Also your "science" statements seem tainted by previous highly prejudicial personal attacks about Kauffman. Those are incredible, the "chip...larger than...gut".--I'clast 15:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Judge me on the issues please, not your own interpretation of my motivations. Or, if you can't find it in your heart to do that, take it to dispute resolution. --ScienceApologist 17:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Judge you on the issues? We did that already. You have virtually nothing of substance to offer to this talk page. That was evident very early on, actually, though I'clast was much more patient than me, taking until now (above) to make observations about what is clearly your character. You owe him a debt for his notable forebearance. -- Alan2012 19:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Science(?)Apologist, have you ever read or cited any published research -- anywhere, ever, in your whole life? Have you ever read a single scientific paper? Do you know what "Medline" is? Have you ever used a medical or science library? Do you know what the Enlightenment was? Do you know that "refusal to defer to authority" is integral to what science is about? Have you ever read anything about the philosophy and history of science? Have you ever taken a class in school, touching on science in any way (above, say, 8th grade level)? -- Alan2012 20:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, that last paragraph is not constructive, and it would be worth striking it out (with <s> and </s>). The same is true of ScienceApologist's most recent comment about I'clast. It would simplify things to agree that we're not here to decide whether Kaufmann is "right" or "wrong", nor to repeat or expand the arguments for or against him - although I know we all have opinions on the matter. All we need to do is present his criticism neutrally and accurately. Kaufmann is a Ph.D. with a decent amount of peer-reviewed publications. He subscribes to a number of ideas outside the medical mainstream. He wrote a website review of Quackwatch. It was published in a journal which is peer-reviewed, but which clearly has an editorial agenda which JSE spells out. His website review cites a large amount of published medical literature, which Kaufmann interprets rightly or wrongly, depending on your point of view. His criticism seems more relevant than purely ad hominem anti-Barrett stuff. The question is how to synthesize those statements in a way we can all agree is neutral. MastCell 21:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well put. Civility needs to be maintained, regardless of POV regarding Kaufmann. -- Fyslee 22:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. I think what works well is describing his website review as being of 8 article that he claims to "examine minutely" and then include his evaluation of those articles. That seems to be the most neutral presentation of the material possible. --ScienceApologist 13:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

No more and no less, in an NPOV manner. -- Fyslee 13:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

For Arthur. I am not aware of any indication that Barrett/QW previously attacked JK. The 2002 WTWQ paper opens with JK listening to Barrett's presentation to a skeptics group. It looks to me like JK's paper was a surprise to the Barrett camp when this posted, here at QW, in September after being a sleeper for four years.

On fluorides, from Chemical & Engineering News, hardly a chemophobic anti-industrial publisher, an overview article and a recent book review. The C&EN article, still controversial with ADA/AMA/F- waste sources and popular elsewhere, did cause a stir then. Kauffman's fluoride article in "Malignant Medical Myths" (2006) greatly expands and updates C&EN's coverage and parallels his 2002 discussion in WTWQ.--I'clast 21:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to suggest that Barrett/Quackwatch may have attacked Kaufmann's conclusions, (on, say, cholesterol), without necessarily attacking him by name. Checking the details would be interesting, but probably not publishable here. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You are right. It would be interesting, but it would create an WP:OR violation in article space. We can hypothesize what prompted Kauffman to review Quackwatch, but we can't present synthesized speculation. Levine2112 22:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Mainstream critique missing

Kauffman appears to be the closest that Quackwatch-haters have to a mainstream critique (ironically oublished in the fringe science journal JSE). Since this is as good as it gets, I submit that we summarize the critics of quackwatch as all being fringe (at least in terms of the scientific community). What do others think? --ScienceApologist 09:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You edits are perhaps too bold. Please discuss in full here first. I found your edits to be misleading and devisive. This seems like a total whitewash. Levine2112 09:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edits are perhaps not exacting enough. Your reverts do not acknowledge that there are documented problems with the articles and changes to the article need to be made to accomodate WP:FRINGE, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV#Undue weight. --ScienceApologist 09:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE -- irrelevant. WP:OR -- irrelevant. -- Alan2012 15:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

'Apologist, you have been quoted latest science in a number of times without any technically coherent response from you; you might also to lay off the "fringe science", perhaps you might get more sympathy about the "fringes of medicine" (trailing decades). Quoting Kauffman is not OR. The undue weight allegation is specious, the size of the Kauffman subsection is in part due to its notes and disclaimers for "conventional sensitivities" & recognition as well as the ability to make some of his bare points understandable.--I'clast 15:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm having real difficulty discerning any sort of reasonable argument here beyond "I like this" and "I don't like this". When you are ready to discuss about substantive article-writing issues, please do so. Otherwise, I suggest trying dispute resolution. --ScienceApologist 17:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

What you are are having difficulty with is discerning "science" vs your personal belief, trying to misapply rules to a notable, reasoned source, when you can't find a comparable "mainstream" source. In fact if you look closely, mainstream sources note QW's bias but then quickly avert their eyes on things medical and do not follow the thread into scientific review. A number of personal "mainstream" views on QW, etc quickly default into something like "Yeah, we know it's prejudical, but they're burning heretics - kill 'em all, God will recognize his own".

Your edits clearly show that you are having difficulty differentiating what Kauffman's paper actually says and what you want to proselytize. For example, these edits[58][59][60] & especially [61]. Kauffman repeatedly says "examined", "examined minutely", "examined closely" and yet you dismiss him (delete his actual, emphatic word, "examine", reused herein) whereas you claim JK's paper makes a quote,[62] what he described as "factuality, fairness and scientific currency", when in fact your quoted part is my summarization of what he did. You don't read/understand material, not too closely when you do read, and then you wing it & make up quotes. No credibility there.--I'clast 01:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What Kauffman thinks or says he has done is not a verifiable presentation of what Kauffman has actually done. If you want to summarize Kauffman, you're going to have to do it neutrally, not with flowery and overly supportive language. --ScienceApologist 12:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"...examines...factuality, fairness and scientific currency", flowery? Also "claims", given the detailed referenced demonstration and reasoned argumentation does not sound like NPOV summary either. "presents his examination" is more NPOV than "claims he examined" but still adds the bloat too. If you have suggestions for better summary phrases than "factuality, fairness and scientific currency..." and "contesting popular beliefs...", I'm looking. Your "scientific consensus" has a lot of less advertised caveats and accuracy issues too.--I'clast 21:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure is when that isn't a direct quote. What makes something "factual", "fair", or of "scientific currency"? Does Kauffman determine this? "Presents his examination" is probably okay wording, but it depends on exactly how its presented. I have no better suggestions than "factuality, fairness, and scientific currency" other than perhaps "aligned with his views on alternative medicine subjects". --ScienceApologist 03:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

He gives numerous examples that collapse to these three points e.g. for scientific currency on the bottom of the 2nd pg of the pdf, he discusses the scientific obsolescence of the dietary theory of cholesterol. Addressing factuality, 3rd page "The recommendation for high-carbohydrate diets has not basis in fact". His points while not the currently advertised medical (sales) theories, *are* right in there on various modern scientific envelopes, such as I averred earlier on LDL cholesterol. The "alternative medicine" label at WP is problematic for many reasons. (1) Do you associate modern CVD (heart) biomarkers that have *much* better correlation than LDL but are not officially blessed as an "alternative medicine" lumped in with homeopathy or crystal power? That is what you imply on JK. (2) JK's article often doesn't advocate a system, he notes strong inconsistencies, and criticizes QW's lack of objective science & reporting which I include in the "factuality ,fairness,sci currency" phrase, e.g. homeopathy. (3) The Wiki "alternative medicine" article is an excrable, triply condensed piece of POV pie that may make QW look like new age hippies and is not a very suitable reference to the Kauffman article. (4) ultimately Kauffman's article is: (a) about deprecated & emergent science, (b) somewhat the current views & practice of medicine - a field adrift in a sea of influence$, practices and conflicting-claims; and (c) their relation with the even more dated, partisan views of QW.--I'clast 12:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Civility, people

I'm going to step out of my editor-role for a second and put on my admin-hat in order to remind you all about civility and the assumption of good faith: please remember to talk about the specific ideas at issue and content of edits and refrain from attributing motivations to one another. It's always easier to see infringements of these principles when you are at the receiving end--so remember, too, to turn the other cheek. People of strongly differing views who somehow find a way to work with one another can often create amazingly good articles. Bucketsofg 17:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, User:Bucketsofg, and I thank you for the reminder. It would be wonderful if we could start off dealing substantively with article content instead of delving into personal attacks. I acknowledge that I can come across as abrasive and dismissive especially towards people who disagree with mainstream science, but I want everyone to know that my ideals for articles which touch on pseudoscientific subjects are delineated by WP:SCI, WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV#Undue weight, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Pseudoscience. If we can start from these guiding principles I'm sure a good article will rise phoenix-like out of the disputes. --ScienceApologist 17:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree too. Yes, it would be wonderful to deal substantively with article content, without having to deal with uncontrolled prejudicial spouting (see section above: "5.3 Point-By-Point Response to Emotional Outburst"), and consistent refusal to take responsibility for one's own words, and consistent irrationality and (seemingly) calculated ignorance in general (see several sections, above; follow repartee). I, too, come off abrasive and dismissive towards people who will not read or think, and who persistently behave in an entirely emotion-driven fashion while claiming to be science- or evidence-oriented. -- Alan2012 20:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You're not "coming off as abrasive", you're being abrasive by describing those you disagree with as "people who will not read or think". Please comment on the content of the article, not on ScienceApologist or other contributors. The above post is basically a collection of personal attacks; regardless of whether you were "baited", they're not constructive. Wikipedia's not about who's "right" or "wrong" about a scientific question - there are plenty of other venues for that sort of thing. If you haven't already, it's worth looking at the policies that ScienceApologist cited above - they guide us when dealing with controversial or non-mainstream scientific topics. What changes, specifically, would you like to see in this article? If you can propose text to add or delete here for discussion, that often avoids a personal back-and-forth. MastCell 21:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Mastcell, thanks for your comments. If you (or anyone) want to forestall this kind of thing, then please respond early and supportively to e.g. the post above, "5.3 Point-By-Point Response to Emotional Outburst". In that initial post, I called ScienceApologist ("SA") onto the carpet for a succession of quite wildly irrational, prejudicial and/or ignorant comments. At that point I assumed good faith, intelligence and competence, and I made NO personal attack on SA; I responded very strictly and rationally to his precise words. I believe in giving everyone the benefit of the doubt, and I expected him to respond and set the record straight. But he did not respond; i.e. he failed to take responsibility for his own words. ((By the way: the "emotional outburst" in the title was added long AFTER the original event, in response to an editor who titled it something different -- "off topic" or the like. In other words, I did not characterize what SA said as "an emotional outburst" in the original response. At that point I did not want to provoke emotional reaction, and as I say I assumed intelligence, rationality, etc. -- assumptions which later proved ill-advised.)) THAT is when I started becoming, by degrees, abrasive -- and justifiably so. SA is the type who needs to be abraded (see threads above) in order to maintain a decent standard on Wikipedia, or anywhere. My question to SA is a question to all: "Can any idiot come in here and start spewing any kind of nonsense, and be tolerated, and continue to be taken seriously?" If you want to be the policeman here, Mastcell, (and that is fine), then you're going to have to step in EARLY and comment -- not about this late evolution of things, but about the early things (see 5.3) that RESULTED in this evolution (or devolution, if you will). For my own part, I am being the "policeman" that you, apparently, do not wish to be, by questioning SA's qualifications, knowledge, and ability to read and think (each of which is doubtful). So far he has shown no evidence of having any relevant knowledge or qualification to edit this article, or perhaps even any article. He is all bluster, prejudice and ignorance -- the precise opposite of the identity that he attempts to project ("Science"apologist). And indeed I am not the only one to have noticed this; see lengthy exchanges with I'clast and others, above. (Note the EXTREME patience and tolerance of I'clast -- which is, frankly, a waste of I'clast's valuable time. It should not be necessary for obviously intelligent and qualified people to go to such lengths to accomodate fools.) As for what changes in the article that I would like to see: I cannot say, specifically, but I can say generally that any changes suggested by SA should be dismissed without further ado, for reasons that are abundantly clear to any intelligent reader of the above exchanges. I do not think that changes suggested by I'clast et alia should be accepted uncritically. It would be great to have an intelligent and informed pro-quackwatch party on this talk page, following the issues carefully; perhaps this fellow Fyslee qualifies (I have not seen enough from him to say, as yet). Certainly SA does NOT qualify -- same as I do not qualify, though for much different reasons. -- Alan2012 17:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

PS - Speaking of the necessity for "intelligent and qualified people to accomodate fools", here's another example, now unfolding on this page: that of "GigiButterfly", who just popped up (or should I say fluttered in) (section below: "DoctorIsIn") and has commenced making edits without pausing for a moment to inquire of anyone or converse. He/she makes comments such as "You edits was wrong" [sic!]. (Reminiscent of "Is you is, or is you ain't, my baby?") He/she also says "You have also ruined my reputation" -- following a scant 2-3 short comments in exchange! So, the question is, how long must this idiot be tolerated? Where is the line drawn, if anywhere? Where are you, Mastcell, in this? If you want to be a good police-person, then you are obliged ACT and act early in such a case -- not simply lay back until the thing explodes and people start yelling insults. You are obliged to abrade where abrasion is due, in a controlled, impartial manner, before things spin out of control. (That is, IF you want to be a police-person. If you don't -- which is fine, of course -- then don't. But that also means don't butt-in when the fire that you failed to douse, early, begins to rage.) In the case of SA, the line seems not to have been drawn anywhere; i.e. we are just to go on and on and ON, tolerating an unqualified and irresponsible nincompoop, and responding patiently to his drivel. Surely you do not wish to see Wikipedia turned into such a mockery, not to mention an incredible black hole for the time and energy of qualified editors. -- Alan2012 17:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

OK - I realize you're relatively new to Wikipedia and are still getting the hang of things, so I'll try to be constructive. First off, there really are no "Wikipedia police". We try to function by developing consensus wherever possible. In extreme cases, where someone is being disruptive, the community will end up sanctioning them, but ideally that's a last resort. My job, and yours, is to be as civil as possible and avoid personal attacks - not to "police" others, be intentionally abrasive toward them, etc. It may be worth looking at how experienced editors who share your viewpoint (e.g. User:Levine2112) approach the situation. The best approach, in a nutshell, is to comment on content, not on contributors. The more specific you can be about text in the article you like or dislike, and why, the more constructive this will be. It may be worth looking at the talk page guidelines as well - although we haven't always succeeded here, this is supposed to be a forum for discussing how to improve the article, not debate the fine points of mainstream vs. alternative medicine. If you disagree with another editor, explain why as calmly as possible, again focusing on the article content. Regardless of what provocation you feel has occurred, calling people names or focusing your post on the perceived intellectual shortcomings of another editor is going to be frowned upon. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with your comments on ScienceApologist - I'm asking you not to make them, and to focus on the article and how you'd like to see it changed or improved. Also, in line with being nice to newcomers, please stop with GigiButterfly. Calling a new editor an "idiot" and making fun of their grammar is not acceptable, and you'll find that approach will cause problems in the long run. Again, I'm not a "police-person", I have no more "power" or authority here than you or anyone else, but I've been here a while and I'm offering the above as constructive advice on how things work here. MastCell 19:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well said Mastcell. There is a good reason for WP:NPA. We never get anything accomplished when they start to fly. David D. (Talk) 19:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Mastcell:

• My use of the word "police-person" was not intended to be pejorative, much less to reflect paranoia about "wiki police" (i.e. roving bands of fascistic censors, or whatever). Actually, I think police and even censors can be very good -- that is, if they're good at it. You assumed the role of police-person or censor by stepping in to the conversation at critical moments and telling others how to conduct themselves. It is fine with me if you want to be the police; I only ask that you endeavor to be GOOD at it. See my posts above for what I mean by that (EARLY/pre-emptive intervention, etc.).
• I was as specific as I could be about how to improve the article, and gave my reasons why. The suggestions of some individuals on this page are worth a great deal more than others, and indeed some suggestions/comments should be dismissed outright. Also, I just posted a new section about peer review (see below: Peer Review as Article of Faith), with obvious implications for specific edits of the page.
• My apologies to Gigibutterfly. I should have said that she was behaving LIKE an idiot, not that she WAS one (which of course I cannot know). That said, however, I still think that the serious contributors to this talk page deserve a lot better. And again, if you want to assume the role of police-person (which is fine), then you need to jump in early and douse the fire before it rages out of control. Step right in and tell Gigi to cut out the premature edits, without any convo with the sitting editorial group and discussion of the proposed changes. My awkward, late-stage police functionality is greatly inferior to your elegant, even-handed, early-stage functionality, the only catch being that you actually have to DO IT.

-- Alan2012 22:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't "want" to be the police; I just want to help you be a little more constructive and a little less ad hominem in your comments. Others are, I believe, addressing similar issues with GigiButterfly below. I agree that the suggestions of some are worth more than those of others, and that some should be dismissed outright. But that will be obvious from the content of the posts. It's unnecessary, and unconstructive, to badmouth the contributor. If a person posts nonsense or personal attacks, they'll eventually find themselves ignored or marginalized. And this is an article about Quackwatch. If you disagree with the concept of peer review, then the best place to discuss that is at peer review. MastCell 23:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Question about Burton Goldberg

He claims to be a "doctor", but what kind? -- Fyslee 14:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I just found this document which claims he's got an honorary PhD. It also lists Gary Null with his dubious PhD.... The same list of "dr"s there is also used to sell the quack device on the website. Quite the list for investigation....;-) -- Fyslee 14:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

More resources

Here are a few more resources which I have found that may help with the editing of this and related article...

• American Society of Consultant Pharmacists
• Biobran Info
• MedScape
• JVSR

Levine2112 20:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Weasel Words

ScienceApologist, please read up on Avoiding Weasel Words and watch out for WP:3RR violations. Levine2112 04:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Levine, please read up on WP:NPOV. You are presenting a very biased view of Kauffman's research by removing any mention of the fact that he only cites work that is favorable to his conclusions in that article. -ScienceApologist 05:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Funny, I think Quackwatch is guilty of the same thing... it's called confirmation bias and Stephen Barrett and company do it all of the time. But unless you can find a source saying that Kauffman is guilty of this, then you can't put it in the article. It is a clear WP:OR violation. TheDoctorIsIn 05:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Total edit conflict! You took the words out of my mouth, good Doctor. Thanks. Levine2112 05:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course. ScienceApologist... you may want to take care and not start these edit wars. I think you are in violation of 3RR now on this matter. TheDoctorIsIn 05:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's what the anti-QW crowd is missing:

• Kauffman only cites literature that supports his side. This can be verified just by reading the review.
• Kauffman does not only cite peer-reviewed literature. He makes mention of an article list in Polish that includes articles which are not peer reviewed and he makes mention of articles in other capacities that are not peer reviewed.
• Kauffman explicitly excludes critical articles on the subjects, in fact if you look at the websites he critiques, he'll often ignore the resources provided by QW and just provide an alternate list without dealing with the fact that there are (at least ostensibly) two sets of lists of literature.

Therefore the text that reports Kauffman citing his work using peer-reviewed literature is misleading. He gets the results he explicitly sets out to find. I'm not saying that this is a good nor a bad thing, simply that it is verifiable from the very article cited. So either find a rewording for the phrase or delete it, take your pick.

And stop harassing editors by claiming that they are me. I'm not GigiButterfly and she is not me. I've never met nor heard about such a user until this morning when I woke up to this nonsense.

--ScienceApologist 13:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sentence was reworded last night, check my last edit. GB's edits appear to have caused some confusion at a critical moment, I agree you are significantly different.--I'clast 14:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The wording was better. I took the quote directly from his disclaimer so there is no confusion as to exactly what he said. --ScienceApologist 14:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the way it is stated right now. Is it still a problem with somebody? --Dematt 17:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

DoctorIsIn

The edits made by the DoctorIsIn was wrong so I reverted it. Discuss before you continue your edit war with other editors. GigiButterfly 05:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Read above.I did discuss, unlike you. Why do you feel my edit was wrong ScienceApologist GigiButterfly? TheDoctorIsIn 05:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I will monitor this user and see if it is indeed a sockpuppet. Thanks for suggestion, Science Apologist. **wink, wink** I suggest you look into it. Sock Puppetry is a serious offense on Wikipedia. TheDoctorIsIn 05:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you an Admin, TheDoctorIsIn? Otherwise you can't "monitor" anyone. Read more about it here. Levine2112

Okay, then I will look into reporting it. TheDoctorIsIn 06:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop making false accusations. This is a personal attack against me. I am thinking about reporting you. You edits was wrong. When someone disagrees with you, you should not muddy their reputation. GigiButterfly 06:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Not muddying. If you are not ScienceApologist, I guess I would eat my foot. But I'm quite sure, considering your edit history is tiny (you haven't editted in a long, long time) and then you just show up out of nowhere and take ScienceApologist's side. Talk about dubious! TheDoctorIsIn 06:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This is your second personal attack against me. Pleas stop harrasing me. GigiButterfly 06:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you deny that you are ScienceApologist? I'll stop this edit war, but I will pursue this accusation. You fit the descriptions on WP:SOCK perfectly. TheDoctorIsIn 06:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop this. I mostly read articles. I was not interested in editing. I read this talk page and followed what was happening. I just reverted your edit because you were wrong. Now you have proven it you were wrong by your behavior. You have also ruined my reputation. GigiButterfly 06:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I will ask that DoctorIsIn to stop any accusations that Gigibutterfly is SA's sockpuppet, despite the erroneous, POV, ill-timed and/or provocative looking edit. I will also ask that GigiButterfly calm down and refrain from any accusations, negative stmts or *any* move on DoctorIsIn. Things are pretty tense right now.--I'clast 06:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I second that. Cup of tea, everyone. Cup of tea. Levine2112 06:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thirded (is that a word?) David D. (Talk) 19:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Kaufmann revisited

We don't need to cite that he's best known for those theories contrary to conventional medical consensus, only that he is known for them. I'm sure we can find some reviews of his book to provide that background. Also, it may constitute WP:Undue weight for us to include sourced material implying his credibility (e.g., Ph.D, professor emeritus) on him without including material which would make one tend to doubt credibility; at least not without re-adding the implication that JSE publishes non-conventional material. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a criticism of Quackwatch; not of Kauffmann. Leaving his qualifications off is out of the question. This shows his notability and it is respectful of someone who as earned these titles. We need to provide citations for all statements not generally known. You can't cherry pick what he is known for in an attempt to disparrage him (as you are eluding to above). If we are going to state what he is known for, it should be for what he is "best known for"... and it should be cited.

JSE is a link and the reader, if he/she wishes, can click and learn more about the peer-reviewed publication. Levine2112 19:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You can't "cherry pick" his titles in order to undisparrage him, either. For example, he probably had a BS somewhere. Should we include that, as well? As for JSE, careful study of the web site shows that they (JSE) redefine "peer-reviewed" to mean something different than what scientists mean. No, WP:Undue weight clearly applies if there is any implication that this is a scientific review. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This is what the actual disclaimer that we reference on the bottom of the article states. I'm not sure we have represented him well. When I first read this stuff, I thought he was just another disgruntled alt methods guy. Am I wrong?:

• 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.

How verifiable is all this? --Dematt 20:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I would assume that this is all correct. He has since been named Professor Emeritus at his university. Clearly, we are dealing with a very well-qualified scientist here with Kauffmann. Implying anything else without a reference is NPOV and OR. Levine2112 20:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

What is the reason not to present him this way, regardless of whether the JSE journal is less than Nature or Cell? Obviously nobody is perfect. There is nothing wrong with just presenting him the way he is. Have we got similar sources that rebut his review? Or maybe a Quackwatch response? --Dematt 20:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing in that statement even attempts to imply he didn't "cherry-pick" the peer-reviewed studies. The butterfly may be correct, although her statement certainly would need a WP:RS. I still think that his current beliefs in alternative medicine or disbelief in conventional medicine are relevant to the citation, or we do need the phrase about JSE. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

User:I'clast's latest revision is much improved. I think that's adequate, with or without the implied bias of "selectively". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Arthur that his current beliefs are important, do we have a reliable source for them? I think that a statement such as "selected sources" is weaseling and probably degrades the entire article as argumentative. --Dematt 21:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's not forget that according to the section intro that Kauffmann - as a critic of Quackwatch - is also a "suspected" alternative medicine proponent. What else needs to be said? Levine2112 21:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

(to Dematt) Excerpts from his book might serve to indicate his views. We'd have to trust the person selecting the excerpts to be honest, I suppose. (to Levine2112) If he isn't an alternative medicine proponent, that would be notable. In fact, all I see is that he's a conventional medicine opponent. That may be close enough. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

How do we know that he is a conventional medical opponent? And what does that mean? Does he oppose all conventional medicine? Or just some? Without a citation, we cannot be sure and the statement is a synthesis of information and thus a WP:OR violation. Provide a citation which explicitly states the scope of his views on conventional medicine or else it must be deleted. Levine2112 21:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Arthur, I know you've probably already gone over this, but I haven't been following too long. Has there been a reference that states that he is pro or anti anything. The only reference I see is that he had something to do with phamaceuticals and performed anticancer drug research - sounds pretty promedicine there. Did he have some kind of epiphany and change his colors, because that could be important as well. --Dematt 22:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review as Article of Faith

Much has been made, on this page and elsewhere, of the (presumed) importance of editorial peer review and the use of peer-reviewed sources. There are multiple problems with peer review, however. Most notably there is a lack of scientific evidence favoring it as a method to ensure (or even to increase the probability of) manuscript quality, veracity, reliability, or anything else.

Before proceeding I would like to say that I appreciate Wikipedia's sincere desire to provide quality, authoritative information, as reflected on Wiki's "Reliable Sources" guidelines page. This effort is certainly admirable. However, it seems that the author of the "Reliable Sources" page (along with the contributors on THIS discussion page, and many other pages on Wiki) is poorly informed on the matter of peer review, and on what the recent scientific literature has to say about it

According to a recent (2006) Cochrane systematic review -- surely the "gold standard" of evaluation of the biomedical literature, if anything is -- there exists an "absence of evidence" for the effectiveness of peer review in assuring manuscript quality. "We could not identify any methodologically convincing studies assessing the core effects of peer review", say the Cochrane reviewers.[1] Likewise, an earlier (2002) systematic review published in the JAMA concluded that "Editorial peer review, although widely used, is largely untested and its effects are uncertain".[2]

Most striking (and amusing), perhaps, is the suggestion by Linkov et al in a recent (2006) item in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine that the belief in peer review is faith-based, rather than science-based: "we scientists have almost complete faith in the journal process as right and unassailable. We thus take a `faith based' approach to research communications... Questioning peer review is like questioning the Bible, Quran or Torah."[3]

Even before the Cochrane review was published, doubts about peer review had mounted.[4]

I submit that if there is a lack of evidentiary basis for the value, in measurable terms, of peer review (as there is), then the invocation of it as some sort of Holy Grail of scientific reliability or veracity is wholly inappropriate, and indeed misleading. Those who bandy it about in such a way should be corrected, and referred to the relevant literature for study and self-education. All approving mentions of peer review, or mentions of it that suggest that it is essential or even important, on this (Wikipedia) Talk page or anywhere, should be disregarded as reflective of ignorance of the best and most-careful biomedical thinking and research currently available on this subject.

Further, quoting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words: "Weasel words give the force of authority to a statement without letting the reader decide if the source of the opinion is reliable." Examples include:

• "Research has shown..."
• Mainstream, serious, ...) (scholars, scientists, researchers, experts, scientific community...) ..."
• etc.

I submit hereby that criticism of a publication based on its lack of peer review status itself constitutes weasel-wording -- giving "the force of authority to a statement without letting the reader decide if the source of the opinion is reliable" (and assuming that the source IS reliable BECAUSE it is peer reviewed -- an assumption that is clearly unwarranted).

Anyone who disagrees with the foregoing is encouraged to present compelling contrary documentation, comparable to what I presented; e.g. a contrasting Cochrane systematic review, or some other careful review of the literature on the subject.

Regarding the items cited: you are invited -- nay, urged -- to read the full texts and decide for yourself. The full texts of some of them are restricted access (must have subscription to the journal). I have the full texts, and if you want to see them, please write privately to aelewis AT provide DOT net, and specify which you would like. I'll send them to you. When writing to me, to get my attention please put WIKIPEDIA REQUEST (just like that, ALL CAPS) in the subject line.

As a side note I was surprised to learn that the key papers (Cochrane, JAMA) are NOT cited or mentioned, as far as I can tell, on the Wiki "Peer Review" page. This seems to me a serious oversight which I hope will soon be corrected by that page's editorial group.

Sincerely, -- Alan2012 20:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

PS: I will cross-post this item on the Wiki Talk pages for "Reliable Sources", "Peer Review" and "Avoid weasel words":

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Peer_review
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Avoid_weasel_words

...................................

References

1. http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/mr000016.html -- Cochrane Systematic Review: Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies

2. http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/287/21/2784 -- JAMA Vol. 287 No. 21, June 5, 2002, Effects of Editorial Peer Review: A Systematic Review

3. http://www.jrsm.org/cgi/content/full/99/12/596 -- J R Soc Med 2006;99:596-598, Scientific Journals are `faith based': is there science behind Peer review? Faina Linkov et al

4. http://www.infotoday.com/it/apr03/peek.shtml -- Information Today, Vol. 20 No. 4 - April 2003, Could Peer Review Be Wrong?

...................................

SNIPPETS from Linkov et al, www.jrsm.org article:

[...snip...]

Jefferson recently presented an outstanding review of peer review and could find only 19 studies on peer review that were scientifically sound.... As Jefferson has pointed out, there are almost no data suggesting that the existing peer review systems work and none to suggest that they are better than any other system.

[...snip...]

Why hasn't peer review, IMRaD, the editorial decision process and the overall journal process evolved into a new form of research communication? We would argue that the reason is that this has been due to the almost non-existent use of the scientific method to question and test the publication process itself.... [journals] are `faith based': we believe in them, we dare not question them.

[...snip...]

Isn't it strange that three features that are inherent to research communication have not been looked at scientifically? There are several possible reasons for this. The most likely is that we scientists have almost complete faith in the journal process as right and unassailable. We thus take a `faith based' approach to research communications. Faith is defined as a firm belief in something for which there is no proof. Many of us might view questioning of the journal process as an attack on science itself. Clearly, the scientific journal process is not a part of the scientific method. We are taught early in our training about the importance of learning to write articles (e.g. IMRaD), the power of peer review and a belief in the editorial system. We do not question the process, despite the fact that the essence of science is questioning. Questioning peer review is like questioning the Bible, Quran or Torah. One role of science is to help separate science from dogma, which we should now do with journals, and avoid a faith based approach.

[...snip...]

It is the scientific method that is central to science, not the scientific journal. The scientific method should be central to other research communication processes, but it is not and has not been used to continuously improve how we communicate research. Because of this, we are forced into a conundrum -- we cannot change the process if the process if based upon faith, not data.

Alan could you just summarise your point? I assume you are not saying that equal weight should be given to manuscripts without peer review? David D. (Talk) 21:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess this is the money statement: "I submit that if there is a lack of evidentiary basis for the value, in measurable terms, of peer review (as there is), then the invocation of it as some sort of Holy Grail of scientific reliability or veracity is wholly inappropriate, and indeed misleading.... All approving mentions of peer review, or mentions of it that suggest that it is essential or even important, on this (Wikipedia) Talk page or anywhere, should be disregarded as reflective of ignorance of the best and most-careful biomedical thinking and research currently available on this subject."

That's as succinctly as I can put it, David. I am not saying that equal weight should be given to all manuscripts, but I AM saying that peer review cannot -- in accord with what is clear from the best scientific literature on the subject (see above) -- be a rational basis for weighting. We'll have to rely on other indicators. Sorry about that, but that's what the best scientific literature on the subject tells us. And we DO want to be scientific here, don't we? ;-) -- Alan2012 22:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

PS - Implicit in the foregoing is that the Cochrane database of systematic reviews (which I called "the Holy Grail" of biomedical criticism, IF THERE IS ONE), and the JAMA, are reliable sources. There are several reasons for thinking that they ARE reliable sources, at least with respect to this issue. The main one is that both sources have a great deal of intellectual and emotional investment (not to mention financial and professional/status investment) in scientific publication, the journal system, and the value of peer review. In other words, for THEM to state, bluntly, that there is no good and clear evidence favoring peer review, is quite remarkable. That is, unlike some publication of scientific renegades, miffed at having their article submissions rebuffed by the major journals, taking a similar position in an editorial. Obviously, the former is of much greater value and significance than the latter. (Or at least I think that much is obvious; disagree with me if you will, but please spare no detail in explaining why!) Again, these comments are with respect to this particular issue, and not necessarily any other. A contrasting example would be the Cochrane meta-analysis of the ascorbic/common-cold issue (cited above, somewhere): given that the "scientific" community (actually faith-based, as pointed out above) has so very much intellectual and emotional investment in "proving" vitamin C to have no value, and Pauling to be an old quack, the pressures on the reviewers to come up with a negative evaluation was surely very great. And yet they were forced to admit -- albeit with some rather ridiculous opinionated remarks sandwiched in between -- that vitamin C does have value. This is an illustration of the same point, in reverse: for THEM to admit that vitamin C has value is quite remarkable. That would be as opposed to the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine (JOM) editorializing about the value of vitamin C. You will note that I did not just say that the Cochrane database is generally better or more reliable than the JOM (or vice versa). They are different animals with different purposes and are governed by different paradigms or vMEMEs (google: spiral dynamics, vMEMEs). For some things, Cochrane is better; for other things, JOM. Everything must be evaluated on its merits and with a full understanding of the context, particularly the emotional/intellectual/financial/professional (and Darwinian status-hierarchy) biasses of the players. -- Alan2012 22:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Your argument against the concept of peer-review is out of place here. You could take it to the talk page at Wikipedia:Reliable Sources, or Wikipedia:Verifiability if you want to change policy. Until it changes, peer-reviewed literature will continue to be the gold standard on scientific articles here. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - meaning it's supposed to summarize the state of current knowledge, not be on the leading edge of a movement to drop the idea of peer-review. If that idea gains currency in the scientific community, then Wikipedia will adapt - not vice versa. Of course the New England Journal makes mistakes - look at some of their recent retractions. You're free to value sources however you like, but here there are policies and guidelines on how to handle sources. MastCell 23:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe it to be in place here because of the frequency of the invocation of "peer review" as an unquestioned measure or determinant of value -- which groups of literature meta-analysts have shown to have no scientific basis. (Please see the cited literature.) This is not a "leading edge movement". If you will but read the items I posted, you will see that the "trailing edge" (the belief in peer review) never had a clear evidentiary basis. It is a belief only, not supported by the science; it is faith-based. The problem is not with these most recent papers (and there have been others, BTW); the problem is with the faith-based belief in peer review. Or as Twain put it, the problem is "what we know for sure that just ain't so". The fact that lots of people, including Wiki guideline-writers, have been out of touch with the science on this issue, is unfortunate but not relevant to our discussion right here, right now. Further, this is not about "dropping peer review". It is simply about according it the place, in our deliberations about the quality and reliability of information sources, that the science available on it currently justifies. Sorry about that. If you have literature or documentation that compels another conclusion, favoring peer review as a quality filter, please present it. -- Alan2012 23:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

If you believe peer review is outdated, irrelevant, or simply not evidence-based, then there are thousands of forums to advance that argument. Wikipedia is not one of them. You could go to the peer review page and see what they have on "Shortcomings of peer review" or some such, but even if you could convince me or everyone on Wikipedia that peer review was overrated or meaningless, it wouldn't change anything. This is the wrong venue for what you appear to be trying to accomplish with this thread. MastCell 23:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but in this matter I have no "argument" to advance, and my opinion is irrelevant. There is no argument, nothing to "argue" for. The conclusions of the Cochrane and JAMA meta-analyses of scores of studies speak for themselves, and I am not aware that anyone has seriously contested them. If you cannot accept these, then what in God's name CAN (or DO) you accept? Are you saying that popular myths or prevailing prejudices trump clear-cut scientific analyses? And as for the matter that "it wouldn't change anything" -- why, that's preposterous. Or monstrous. I mean, if it did NOT change anything around here, that would make a complete mockery of Wikipedia as a source of credible, reliable information. Wikipedia -- stubbornly resistant to scientific evidence, favoring instead man-on-the-street polling? Ridiculous! Or monstrous. -- Alan2012 23:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not being clear. The vast majority of the scientific community regard peer review as essential and valuable. Until the scientific community changes their opinion of it, Wikipedia's opinion is unlikely to change. This is off-topic and I'm going to let the thread die (from my end) at this point. MastCell 00:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

And maybe I am not being clear. Maybe the vast majority is correct in their belief in peer review. That is not the point. The point is that there is, according to careful meta-analysts of the literature, no scientific evidence to justify that view. Clear enough? NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. The vast majority may also believe in the tooth fairy. The vast majority believed that Pluto was a planet, up until a few months ago. You're saying that Wiki's policy is based on polling and popularity contests rather than scientific evidence? Quite outrageous and extremely embarrassing (for WP), if true. And by the way, where is the evidence that the "vast majority" regard peer review as essential and valuable? I don't (much) doubt it, but let's hang our righteous certainty on a wee bit of evidence, shall we? -- Alan2012 00:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again, if anyone has any literature or documentation that invalidates the meta-analyses presented, and compels another conclusion justifying the (presumably) prevailing belief in peer review, they are urged to step forward and present it. -- Alan2012 00:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

"Quotes"

Thees are "quotes" made by Kauffman in the correct order: Kauffman stated in a disclaimer that "any recommendations... are based on studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. I am not an M. D. and cannot engage in the practice of medicine."

Do not tamper with the quotes. GigiButterfly 21:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Certainly agree with that. As long as we are only quoting what is relevant here (we can paraphrase for brevity too). Levine2112 21:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

GB, Are you saying we should quote the entire disclaimer? --Dematt 21:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I just removed this addition by GB:

Kauffman cites literature to support his conclusions.[63]

What does that mean? The citation provided doesn't state this, as far as I can tell.

Constructively, GB, may I recommend reading WP:OR and WP:RS. If you truly are new to the editing scene, then the learning the policies here will help you out tremendously.Levine2112 22:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I just realized that GB is a newbie! Welcome GB, if you have any questions about any of my edits, you can also reach me on my talk page! :) --Dematt 22:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

GB's latest machination of this point stated: "Kauffman cited references to support his literature." I am not sure what "his literature" refers to. Additionally, GB provided Kauffman's review as the source of this statement. As the review doesn't state (to my knowledge) that Kauffman cites references to support his literature, then that statement is GB's assessment of Kauffman's review. GB's assessment = Original Research. Hence, a WP:OR violation. Levine2112 22:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

GB and Levine both warned for WP:3RR. (I think GB has 5 and Levine 3 in the past hour(!).) Let's keep this under control, please. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

But as you can plainly see, I am correct that her assessment of Kauffman's review creates an obvious WP:OR violation. I am trying extremely hard here to explain this to GigiButterfly (I wouldn't bite the newbie, you know). But I invite you, Arthur (or anyone else here), to step up, revert her edit and do a better job explaining WP:OR to her than I have done. If she is in violation of WP:3RR as you suggest, perhaps we should report her? Levine2112 23:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but I'clast asked me not to edit during this cooling off period, so I will respect that. Maybe he will "step up" and make the edit? TheDoctorIsIn 23:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

That's great. But can anyone explain to me what GB means with: "Kauffman cited references to support his literature"? Gigi? I'clast? TheDoctorIsIn? Dematt? How about Kauffmann? Are you out there? ;-) Levine2112 23:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this vandalism under our noses

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quackwatch&diff=102779963&oldid=102774375 — Preceding unsigned comment added by GigiButterfly (talk • contribs)

It isn't vandalism. Please review Wikipedia policy which I'clast has afforded you. Then read his reasoning for deleting the passage. Next step, is to discuss his reasoning here (not to start edit wars). Make sense? Levine2112 23:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

"Superfluous quote material"

Kauffman's own caveat was reverted despite it coming immediately after his discussion of "peer review" sources. What is superfluous about him pointing out that his review cannot be construed as medical advice while those who write for QW are actually licensed physicians? --ScienceApologist 00:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Frankly I thought it was a no-brainer[64]. For one, as *very* common "boiler plate" language, it is not especially notable. It's absence may be even more notable, say for previously licensed physicians whose assertions really might be confused with "medical advice". We should so spam every health and medical related article that *isn't* "medical advice" where the is no serious allegation of [| UPM] (which would also concern WP:BLP) that has a standard disclaimer?--I'clast 00:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You hit the nail on the head there, I'clast. At least Kauffman puts in that bolierplate language (I have noted that he does this on other research papers as well). What about this statement: "Kauffman cited references to support his literature"? I still would appreciate an explanation of what this is trying to mean and where this is cited. Otherwise, we should delete it. Levine2112 00:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Kauffman cites many references to support his literature.

The disclaimer is notable. You do not want people to read the diclaimer. Suppression of information is going on here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GigiButteryfly (talk • contribs)

GigiButterfly, please respect WP:AGF. As far as the statement goes, wouldn't "Kauffman cites many references in support of his findings" make more sense. That, at least, is obvious. What you are implying is an opinion you formed in your assessment which is a clear WP:OR violation.

The disclaimer is fine, but it isn't really the meat of this article and I question the disclaimers' notability. Levine2112 01:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

The criticism section is way way too long. Unless someone can explain to me the reason for the length then it is undo weight to that section. We need to be responsible editors. I think the section should be shortened. The criticism section is about half the article. This is wrong. This is undo weight. We should only keep the notable criticism and remove the remainder. GigiButterfly 01:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

There are no criticism ceilings or floors on Wikipedia. Certainly, we can weigh proportionality and percentages of article space used by criticism, but there are articles out there with a higher ratio of criticism-to-praise than this one. (I'd conservatively esitmate that only a quarter is criticism now). Don't forget that Quackwatch itself is a very critical site (which often publishes its own criticisms right on their site). Criticism here is to be expected and is completely warranted. The amount we have now is pretty, but if you want to cut down might I suggest you cut out inanities such as: "Kauffman cited references to support his literature". Levine2112 01:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your Totally Disputed tag as it is unwarranted. There is already a POV tag at the top of the article. Your edits are becoming disruptive. I suggest that you take a cooling down period and read up on Wikipedia policy. As a newbie, it will be most helpful. Thank you. Levine2112 01:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)