Jump to content

Talk:Quackwatch/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

References

Moving reflist to top

Why not place the reflist at the top of the page instead? Just as accessible. WLU (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Interesting idea. Since this is a talk page, the usual rules don't apply and the main idea is to make them easily accessible. What do others think? -- Fyslee / talk 15:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Would this be a matter for Wikipedia Talk:Talk page guidelines (not that anyone reads those pages)? I have no objections to moving the reflist to the top. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't object either. A better idea might be if talk pages were modified to keep the reflist at the bottom. Who would we talk to about that. Anthon01 (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Support from three contributors, no real disadvantage, significant advantage of being able to add sections without extra steps? Who would you need to talk to? I'll be bold if no-one else want to risk the possible smack-down :) The only real disadvantage would be archiving, but anyone doing archiving would know enough to leave the section there. WLU (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I meant who would we need to talk to regarding a software change the identifies the reflist and puts it automatically on the bottom of the page. It could be duplicated on the archives page. Anthon01 (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
No idea, sounds like you'd have to talk to the wikimedia software developers and I doubt it'd be a priority - not often you see a talk page with {{Reflist}} at the bottom. Until then, any objections to me moving it to the top? WLU (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
None at all. I too have thought it should be a built in function on talk pages. What is often forgotten by people who wonder why there is a references section on some talk pages, is the real purpose of talk pages - to discuss and develop article content, especially if controversial. The best way is to make a working trial run, refs and all. That way the text and refs are checked out and any mistakes are caught on the talk page before they end up in the article. It actually works quite well. -- Fyslee / talk 02:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The logical place for it is on the bottom. But because of the problems with new sections, I have 'no objection to moving it for now. Anthon01 (talk) 12:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
DONE Anthon01 (talk) 12:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

critics

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

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

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

BLP violations, unrelated content, and controversial changes

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

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

WP:BLP

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

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

Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material WP:GRAPEVINE

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

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

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

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

–Jimmy Wales

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

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

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

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

the lead

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

missing sentence

previous version

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

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

current version

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

recommendations

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

Second opinion on QuackGuru's most recent edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Third opinion

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

Journal of Scientific Exploration

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

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

JSE is unreliable (BLP violation)

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

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

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

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

JSE is run by academics with PhDs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

so...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removing the Critics section

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

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

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

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

disingenuous edit summary

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

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

Unbalanced

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

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

This, for example

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

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

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

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

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

Self-published sources

Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criticism section

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

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

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

Criticism sections can remain

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

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

Recent edits

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

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


Massive changes

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

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

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

I reverted SA's changes. We need to take sections one by one. Assuming good faith will move us on very quickly because there are plenty of us here who are experienced and know what NPOV means. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't start with the lede as that is the most difficult part of an article to write. What about the section "History"? Are people happy that the section is well written, well sourced and balanced? I propose changing "150+" to "many", since we give detailed numbers in the next sentence, and 150+ is poor style anyway. I also propose taking the final sentence of the section into the "Responses" or "Reception" section later. OK? Itsmejudith (talk)
I agree with Itsmejudith here. We need to take great care with making sweeping edits on an article with such a controversial history. The version I revert from was totally devoid of any of the well-sourced criticism which the subject has received. It appears to me that there is some POV pushing going on here in the form of whitewashing. This article has been pretty stable for a while now. I am sending a plea of cooperativeness out to all the editors here. Please, let's talk it out together. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The current version is best

QG is right. The version he outlines is best. We can move from there, but we had a LONGSTANDING consensus for that version. There are obvious agendas at work here from Levine2112 who should excuse himself from editing. Itsmejudith, PLEASE read the archived discussions before making more comments. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I am unclear why you think I should excuse myself from editing and uncomfortable with you stating that I have an "obvious agenda". Please refrain from such personal attacks. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
You've been exposed before. You should be aware that consensus was reached on this article months ago. Do you deny it? ScienceApologist (talk) 02:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  1. Exposed before? What are you talking about? Exposed for what? Please WP:AGF.
  2. WP:CCC Consensus can change.
  3. The consensual version which was achieved months ago is not the version you keep reverting to. The consensual version did in fact include criticism. The version you are edit warring to revert to has been completely whitewashed of any criticism. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I see no indication that anyone announced changed consensus. The "criticism" section is to be avoided, as we all agreed. The current version is best. The alternative is awful. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Do you agree that the version you keep reverting to is not the months-old stable version? -- Levine2112 discuss 02:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Are you a robot? Do you have noodles? Are you under water? Does anyone like swampmonsters? These and other questions asked are irrelevant. Have a nice day. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
No. Yes. No. I think so. Okay, I've answered yours, now please answer my rather pertinent question: Do you agree that the version you keep reverting to is not the months-old stable version? (I will take avoidance of this question as a "Yes, but I am too proud of a person to admit when I am wrong." ;-) -- Levine2112 discuss 02:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, myself, Levine2112, itsjudith, Ludwigs2, and some others all agreed that the page was unbalanced. We worked to change it and did so. Now, you can continue to discuss, but waiting till the issue has died down to begin edit-warring is not an acceptable way to approach this. II | (t - c) 03:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, the same could be said of the previous edits ie/ waiting till the issue has died down to begin edit-warring. Of course all this has happened before - I guess it's time for those editors who participated in those discussions to return. Time for the rise of the ... Son of Barrett! Shot info (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. There's no way we're wiping off all criticisms in one swoop. Citing The Consultant Pharmacist after awards and honors is misleading, by the way, since it is not a laudatory review. Bring up things that you want taken out one by one and we'll discuss. Putting up a RfC to get outside input may be the best way to start. II | (t - c) 05:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the piece of trivia about Barrett when Barrett is linked and it's really not suitable for the Organisation and/or the lede of an article. Besides, the, overuse, of commas, tortures grammar. Shot info (talk) 06:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Twelve archives for an article about an individual's website. And is the article closer to consensus? Closer to GA/FA? This is not my first arrival on this page, BTW. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I've just skimmed through all 12 archives and an unpleasant experience it was. I saw old controversies that have been abandoned or shelved, e.g. the status of Linus Pauling. I saw arguments running round in circles and people exhorting each other to be civil and assume good faith. I saw that I first intervened on 14th December last year in response to an RfC, and endorsing a position that SA held at the time. I think I was the only uninvolved editor to respond to that RfC. What else do I need to do now SA before you will discuss the pretty uncontroversial proposals I made yesterday? Itsmejudith (talk) 13:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Responded below. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions

  • Changing "150+" to "many", since we give detailed numbers in the next sentence, and 150+ is poor style anyway.

Poor style, perhaps, but "many" is bad form too. Why not say, "more than 150"?

  • The final sentence of the section into the "Responses" or "Reception" section later.

Enumerating the specialists? Doesn't make sense to me.

ScienceApologist (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. On the first point, I would prefer "many" to "more than 150" because if you say "more than 150" and then follow it with the numbers in individual specialisms then the reader is tempted to start adding and comparing the results. That seriously interferes with readability. Either just "more than 150" or give the numbers in each specialism. Not both. Please can you see that this is not a POV issue but a question of good writing. On the second point, I'm sorry it didn't make sense to you. I am proposing that we move the final sentence in this section into the "Responses" section. It seems to belong better there. To remind you: a "Responses" section is more conducive to NPOV than a "Criticisms" section. Responses can be positive, negative or mixed. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I see why my second proposal didn't make sense. Because someone has already deleted or moved the sentence I was referring to. Sorry, but I am trying to discuss points one by one in the middle of a revert war and it is bound to get confusing. I'm afraid I have another point to raise in regard to the sentences about the advisers. Let us choose a reference date. We have "now", then we have "as of 2003", then we have a reference to a site last accessed in 2007. Further, is it OK to use Barrett as the source for the number of advisers? Should we not find an independent source for such a statement or omit it? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think WP:AVOID MAKING THE READER WANT TO DO ARITHMETIC is a valid reason to not want to include two enumerations. Sorry. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, read WP:ASOF ScienceApologist (talk) 15:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that there is any reason to think that Barrett is lying about the number of advisors he has. If you think that's the case, please ask at WP:RSN. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but it is a valid reason, as someone will tell us if we ever get this page to FA review. (Reasons why we shouldn't aim for that?) I agree that there is no reason Barrett should be lying about his advisers. But why has the page not been updated for five years? How many of these advisers have since retired? The trouble is, SA, that the closer people look at your arguments the less convincing they become. I think I will take this to RSN. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Point to the policy where it says that it is a valid reason. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I fully support RSN at this point. I also still see no valid reason why editors keep trying to remove any and all criticism. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Maybe because you're trying to impose it? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The policy that says that it is not a good idea to say "150+" in one sentence and then to itemise the amounts making up the 150 or so in the next sentence is just the generally good idea to write clearly. I thought you wanted an article on Quackwatch, SA. I thought you wanted one that people would read, understand, refer to, appreciate .... You do seem to devote a lot of time to sabotaging your own efforts and alienating all potential supporters and allies. "Seem to" being the operative phrase. I'm sure you are editing in good faith and I don't want to discourage you. WP works in mysterious and unfathomable ways. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Time for article protection again?

Same story. (Mostly) same editors. Please stop. --Ronz (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have restored to the last version by Fyslee. The article at that revision was neutral and well structured. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. The version after Fyslee's last edits was certainly the most neutral and well structured. I am sad that the article had to get protected again. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Discussion of ScienceApologist's use of the minor tag and Twinkle in his reversion moved to his Talk page. II | (t - c) 01:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
How does this improve the article? Shot info (talk) 01:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

the lede

The comment about Barrett and the reference to him is not required in the lede. Recommend to the protecting admin that the reference to the status of the founder of Quackwatch is removed. Shot info (talk) 01:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

What specifically is the issue with the text as you see it? What are your recommended changes? -- Levine2112 discuss 02:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
We can take out the "psychiatrist" bit, and the operated Quackwatch. But Stephen Barrett needs to noted front and center, as he has built this website from the ground up and written something like 90% of the content. II | (t - c) 02:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks II, no problems with Barrett staying in their (not arguing for that) but the removal of the trivia about the founder (per previous discussions and changes) is what was asked for. Shot info (talk) 02:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Compromise

I would like nothing more than to take this page off my watchlist and let it be. I think that it is fair right now, but what do other people think needs to be cut to bring us to a happy medium? I think as it stands a reader will see a balanced presentation at the Reception section. The reader will first see a string of high praise from credible organizations. Then a fairly neutral review from Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa, who has constructive criticism i.e. recruit more authors, organize the site better, and perhaps undergo peer review. The National Review comments on the style negatively, but praises the content. A reader should note that further criticisms come not from medical professionals,. Joel Best is a sociologist; it would be good to introduce him as such. Similarly, Kauffman is a chemistry professor, and it is noted that his review is published in the "controversial Journal of Scientific Exploration", although he has published some medical papers, and has an interest in medicine, similar to the way that Barrett has an interest outside of psychiatry (Pubmed link, homepage). In summary, I think we should trust the readers to make up their own minds based on the evidence presented. I'd be open to framing these criticisms better to help the readers' understand, but the laudatory reviews by JAMA, which lead the section, seem to balance the criticisms nicely. Still, like I said, if we need to cut something to stop the bickering, let's talk about what to cut. II | (t - c) 23:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be a request to ignore WP:NPOV completely. --Ronz (talk) 23:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Ronz, on what are you basing that assertion? me, I agree with II that this article now reads in a reasonably unbiased and fair manner. if there are particular reasons why you think that's not the case, do tell, because I can't for the life of me see anything approaching an NPOV violation. --Ludwigs2 23:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
NPOV is not achieved by cherry-picking information to create what some people think is "balance." Read NPOV and the talk archives. This, like the other Barrett-related articles, is an extreme case of editors trying to work around NPOV and WP:CON. --Ronz (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Misrepresentation side-topic

I agree with Ronz here. Editors have attempted to remove any and all criticism against consensus, trying to work around NPOV. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Please learn to follow TALK. Stop misrepresenting me. If you're unable to come up with civil and ethical responses to the comments here, then find something else to do with your time. --Ronz (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe I am misrepresenting you. I think we are in agreement here. Please explain. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
WP:DNFTT --Ronz (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the good advice. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome. Now please stop follow it rather than making an explempary case of what it means to be a troll. Now please follow it rather than making an exemplary case of grossly violating meta:What is a troll?.
If anyone is interested in starting an RfC/U for Levine2112, I'm always willing to join in. His comments here demonstrate disruption, harassment, and misrepresentation. --Ronz (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Again, please follow WP:TALK. Calling me a troll, disruptive, etc. is a violation of WP:CIVIL and something which Elonka formally cautioned you against doing. As she suggests, please refactor anything where you have referred to me as a troll (anywhere), or said anything else at an article talkpage that might be construed as a personal attack on me. I would appreciate it if you did more than just strike it out. Please reword or remove such accusations entirely from article talk space. Thank you and please consider my sincere WP:TRUCE offer. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Clarifying, to avoid any misunderstanding and to prevent further misrepresentation of my viewpoint. We have disputes about what information should be presented and how it should be presented. The current compromise has been made mostly out of utter frustration that some editors are unable to follow WP:CON and WP:NPOV, but there appears to be little or nothing that can be done to correct these problems. --Ronz (talk) 19:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Clarifying further to stop misrepresentation: I'm concerned with the selection and presentation of information here. Please stop suggesting that I'm referring to any one type of information or any "side" of this argument. --Ronz (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't see what the issue is here. I agree with you. Just as you claim that NPOV is not achieved by cherry-picking information, I in turn see that as applicable to the removal of any and all criticism. We are making the same point here. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Follow TALK please and stop disrupting this page with misrepresentations and your rationalizations for such behavior. --Ronz (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand your hostility here. I am agreeing with you. Perhaps you need to reread what I wrote before you uncivilly try and delete it from this page again. I suggest that you too follow WP:TALK and learn why such actions are not permitted. But let's move past that and just be glad that we are in agreement on this point. I know I'm glad. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
WP:DNFTT --Ronz (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again for the good advice. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Again, you're welcome. You've said in the past that you enjoy behaving in a manner that clearly violates meta:What is a troll?. Such behavior is not welcome nor appropriate. Please stop. --Ronz (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Further clarification to avoid misrepresenation: I never said this was only a problem by a group with the same viewpoint. Levine's hostility here is most likely because he believes he is one of the editors I'm describing. Further discussion on the topic of Levine's misbehavior with the Barrett-related articles and other articles should be in ArbComm or RFC/U. --Ronz (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

End of misrepresentation side-topic

Couple of points II. First of all, a sociologist with interest in medicine is a lot different than a psychiatrist who not only has an interest in medicine, but is, in fact, licensed to practice medicine. Every psychiatrist I know had to do an internship in a hospital, learn to prescribe medications, and the such. So Barrett is a medical doctor. A sociologist is not. Balance here is not a 1+1=2, but in fact it is about Quackwatch. A criticism section is mandatory, IMHO, but the list of published articles that support Quackwatch (not directly, but indirectly in debunking the quack medicine) far outweighs criticism of the style that Barrett might use. I agree with Ronz, your compromise will damage the NPOV of the article. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Err, what? Please read carefully. My compromise was not a suggested compromise. I quote the last sentence of my paragraph: "Like I said, if we need to cut something to stop the bickering, let's talk about what to cut." That was my take on the article as it stands -- go read the Reception section. I quote: I suggested that Joel Best be introduced as "Sociologist Joel Best". Readers are not idiots. They can identify that Joel Best may not know what he's talking about when it comes to medicine, although in fact he's talking about social ideologies. Here is the place to voice your complaint with what stands, and discuss what should be taken out or revised. Also, the chemistry professor is the one with the interest in medicine.
It seems people are reading very quickly. I understand, I'm guilty of it as well, but try to slow down before slamming someone with accusations. II 00:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I have no objection to the "Sociologist Joel Best" tweak. Otherwise any bickering should just stop. No changes are necessary for that to happen. -- Fyslee / talk 06:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I actually would be fine with taking out the Joel Best reference. Grouping junkscience.com and quackwatch.org is highly questionable -- Quackwatch is generally supported by mainstream medicine whereas Stephen Milloy openly flouts mainstream science. Since nobody seems to be in the mood to raise any objections, by the way, hopefully we won't be seeing more edit-warring/whitewashing. II 22:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Reminder

As a reminder here, this article and its talkpage fall within the scope of the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy case, and as such, uninvolved administrators have wide latitude in imposing discretionary sanctions here. I am concerned by the recent incivility I have been seeing on the talkpage, so please take this as clear notice, that any editors who engage in further incivility, risk sanctions ranging from a page or topic-ban, up to and including having their account access blocked. If there are any questions, let me know, --Elonka 05:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Ronz (talk · contribs) has been banned from editing all Homeopathy-related articles and talkpages, for one week.[7] If he violates this ban, please let me or any other uninvolved administrator know, thanks. --Elonka 18:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Exchange with Ronz

If you go through the article talk archives, you'll see that there really is no consensus. I don't think calling it a truce is even accurate, more an uneasy ceasefire. The only solution I see reducing the references to only the very highest quality ones, and trimming the article back to what's supported by those references. --Ronz (talk) 03:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. These types of comments should really on the Quackwatch page. No offense, but why are you posting it on my talk page? II 03:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have given you some better context. Basically, I was just continuing to address your comments on Talk:Quackwatch. Given that editors misrepresent what I say there and there's nothing I can do about it short of an RfC/U, I thought it best to bring it up here. I believe I've mentioned it multiple times on most if not all of the Barrett-related articles. --Ronz (talk) 05:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad you articulated your position, at least. I think you've exaggerated the misrepresentation significantly, drawing it into an unnecessary dramatic episode. I'll admit that he misrepresented your views, but that was only because your comment was so terse, and ScienceApologist's move was so obviously a violation of NPOV.
Here's what I really want to stay: Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa's review needs to stay balanced. He mainly presents constructive criticism. The National Review's criticism of the style needs to stay. Kauffman needs to stay, as he is a scientist, and presents scientifically critical review. Dr. Colgan needs to stay, because he is an expert on nutritional science, and has been unfairly targeted by Quackwatch. II 03:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I actually have some leeway here. I think the best way to decide on Kauffman is probably a RfC, as he is the most questionable, but also the most substantive, source. Thoughts are welcome, as always. II | (t - c) 04:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The review in the Consultant Pharmacist is relevant and needs to stay. The text here needs to reflect the balance in the review. I would prefer it to be referred to as a review in that magazine rather than one by the author. This is because it was one of a series of reviews commissioned by the publication. There is nothing to say that it is an individual opinion. The magazine is more notable than the author. The author is himself a pharmacist, which is entirely to be expected and does not need particular emphasis. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, ImperfectlyInformed is so sure that his hatred for Stephen Barret should be codified in his cherry-picked quotes and out-of-context summarizing, I'm not sure that he should be allowed on this page any more. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

SA, the above comment is a personal attack, please consider refactoring, thanks. --Elonka 00:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Probably should be refactored in the light of what II actually has said about Stephen Barret [8] Shot info (talk) 01:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Heavy-handed rhetoric and cherry-picked criticisms

A few issues with the version I just reverted away from:

  1. There were a lot of criticisms that were invented out of whole-cloth from nitpicking readings of articles that were generally positive. This is unacceptable pandering to critics of QW.
  2. The inclusion of a site review from JSE is not really reliable from a WP:REDFLAG perspective. Consider the source and all that.
  3. The legnthy descriptions of who said what made for an article that read more like a blog-screed than one that's in any way encyclopedic.

Keep it this way.

ScienceApologist (talk) 13:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

removed sources

I've reverted to re-add sources that were removed. the removed sources were highly qualified, verifiable and reliable (routledge press being an obvious example) and no reason was given for removing them. can you explain why those sources were removed? --Ludwigs2 15:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

What is going on? The material is well sourced and the structure of the article was discussed at length. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
My I remind editors that this page is under ArbCom probation? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I've notified User:Elonka, an uninvolved admin, and have asked for full protection again. I really cannot see the reason for the neutral heading "Responses" to be removed. The incivil tone taken towards editors who are quite willing to discuss is also unnecessary. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Amen! -- Levine2112 discuss 16:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
It's a bit of a stretch to call an admin who has page banned SA in the past "uninvolved", while she hasn't participated at this article, it sure looks like you're trying to bring in someone sympathetic. I'd recommend putting up something on the admin notice board instead of contacting an individual admin. --Minderbinder (talk) 17:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Bemusingly, there seems to be an avoidance to realise that Ludwigs is engaging in editwarring here - "temporary revert" WTF? And of course lets see what "uninvolved" actually involves... Shot info (talk) 22:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

ClockC I protected the page for one week to prevent any future edit warring. Let's use this time to come up with a consensus regarding the dispute. I have not taken up any positions on the subject, however, as I have interacted with SA in the past, I shall not pursue any blocks for violation of the ArbCom restrictions this time. Please keep this in mind, and let's keep this civil and on-topic. seicer | talk | contribs 23:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

In response to the above questions, just because an admin bans or blocks an editor, does not make them "involved". See WP:UNINVOLVED for more details, and feel free to ask if you would like more information. --Elonka 00:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say you were involved. I said that if someone truly wants to bring in a truly uninvolved and impartial editor, it's better to post on the admin notice board than to seek out an admin who recently punished one of the people editing the article. It doesn't help when six editors revert an article and the only one you warn is the one you have previously taken action against. --Minderbinder (talk) 15:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

I notice that some of my previous talk page comments have been removed, and do not appear in the archives. They were from June, 2008 and so are too new for the latest archive. Does anyone know what has happened to them? - DigitalC (talk) 02:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Were they removed from your list of contributions too?Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Apparently my recollection is hazy, and I didn't post the comments here, but rather over at WP:RS/N in regards to comments here. I also changed the description of the latest archive, since it DOES include posts from June. DigitalC (talk) 04:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

relevancy and WEIGHT

There is too much information on Stephen Barrett in the lead. This article is about Quackwatch and not Barrett.

Nutritionist Dr. Colgan criticized Barrett in a review of his book The Vitamin Pushers, which is sold on the website. He claimed that Barrett's book hardly discusses supplements but is rather "filled with derisive statements about individuals and organizations in the health care and natural foods industry" and lumps scientists with obvious charlatans indiscriminately.[77]

The above information is about Stephen Barrett and not Quackwatch. The opinion of one person has been given too much WEIGHT anyhow. QuackGuru 18:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Quackguru - as far as I can see, there is only one reference to Barrett in the lead (with a link to his own biography on QW). I'm not sure how we can reduce that without removing him entirely, and since he is the central figure in the QW organization I don't think it's right to remove him entirely. maybe we can rework it a little to minimize his prominence - e.g. take him out of the first line, and put him back in in the second line like this: "Founded by Stephen Barrett[1] in 1996, Quackwatch has operated a website, Quackwatch.org..." would that be better?
also, I'm not certain that removing the Colgan quote on these grounds works. the opinions stated in a written source (including webpages) are often equated with the author of that source. it would be one thing if QW were operated by an independent source with some guarantee of neutrality (such as a university or research institution, or a government agency), but since its a private non-profit, I don't think you can effectively separate the views of QW from the views of Barrett. --Ludwigs2 16:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the guru is arguing against a version that described Barrett as "a retired psychiatrist" on first mention. Personally I think that is an unproblematic addition, short, neutral and factual, giving just the smallest bit of context to help the reader. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
interesting - actually, I saw that as a very neutral addition. even if some might criticize SB because he's not a practicing medical researcher, it's in his favor to know that he's is not just some dude who decided to make a website. I could go either way with that. --Ludwigs2 18:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
The lead should be a summary of the article. Adding additional information about Barrett to the lead is a lead violation. QuackGuru 18:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
The Dr. Colgan bit is about Barrett and not Quackwatch. I don't see any reason why we should add that information to this article. QuackGuru 18:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
a violation of what, precisely? Quackwatch wouldn't exist (or continue to exist) without Barret, and Barrett's view is the primary view of quackwatch. I think removing him would be improper.
to your other point, though, I'll go read through the Colgan article and see what it says. no sense having this argument on opinion when we can turn to the source. --Ludwigs2 18:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
It's a violation of LEAD to put additional information about Barrett. The lead should be a summary of the body of the article.
There is no sense in having one person's opinion (Colgan) being add to Quackwatch when it's about Barrett. The ref is a bit old. See WP:MEDRS. The ref may be a BLP violation or an unreliable source too. QuackGuru 18:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
QG - as we keep saying, Barrett is closely tied to Quackwatch, and thus is an important part of any article about qw. if you'd like to make an argument that SB has no or minimal relationship to QW as a whole, please do, but otherwise I can't see that he can be excluded. --Ludwigs2 19:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
This article is about Quackwatch and not Barrett. The lead should summarize the article and not go into too much detail on a specific point. QuackGuru 19:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
So I mischaracterised Quackguru's point. The "retired psychiatrist" description is not the main issue here (Quackguru, do you have any problem with "retired psychiatrist"?). It is the Colgan review of the book. I tend to agree that a review of the book is not for this page, but if you are going to the text Ludwig, can you see whether the review does touch on the Quackwatch website? Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
yes, I'm retrieving it now... --Ludwigs2 20:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
The lead already discusses Barrett but we do not have a section covering Barrett on this article. Adding retired psychiatrist is way too much detail. QuackGuru 20:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "covering" Barrett. As far as I'm concerned we need to mention him early on, probably in the lead sentence. Readers can click on the link if they want to find out about the founder as opposed to the website. I would not like to see any duplication of material between the two articles. I am bemused as to why you should think the minimal description "retired psychiatrist" is "way too much detail". Can you neutrally describe this gentleman's standing in less than two words? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
(undent) well, all I can say is that the article text for the Colgan review is not readily available, either on the townsend site or on the web. I could dig into more thoroughly academic sources, but from google scholar it seems to only have been cited twice in other works. just on that basis, I say we should leave this article out, on undue weight grounds. any disagreement (or does someone have a copy of the article they can provide for further investigation)? --Ludwigs2 20:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
In the lead there is information about Stephen Barrett. Excessive details is unnecessary. Adding a description about Barrett to the lead is not a summary of the article and thus a lead violation. QuackGuru 20:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure that it isn't a lead violation. And to me it sounds neutral, but obviously not to you. Please, do suggest an alternative phrase if you have one in mind. I shall try and find some comparator articles on websites that have notable webmasters. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
There is a link to the Barrett article in the lead. That is more than enough. QuackGuru 20:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, QG - if I understand what you're saying, there is a passage later in the article (in the Recognition section) that mentions Barrett is a psychiatrist. is that what you're objecting to? it's part of a quote, but if you think it's necessary we could probably ellipse it out. that being said, though, I'm a little concerned about the History section which states identifies him as 'Stephen Barrett, M.D.' it ought to specify that he's a psychiatrist there, to distinguish him from other sorts of medical doctors (particularly given the nature of quackwatch, which spans multiple medical fields...). I don't think we need to say 'retired' though. would you have any objection to that? or maybe you can think of a better way to approach it? --Ludwigs2 23:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I am a little suprised why editors want to add duplication to this short article. Obsessing over the word psychiatrist is not something productive. In the Recognition section it mentions Barrett is a psychiatrist. It is duplication to add the word psychiatrist again to another section. QuackGuru 00:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I've already said a couple times when Shot info raised the point that I don't mind taking out the "a retired psychiatrist" bit. At this point I don't really care about Colgan or Kauffman; although I think both belong, I have better things to do then continue to argue it. The "selective negative citing" of The Consultant Pharmacist and the National Review just presents their balanced outlook, and it needs to stay. II | (t - c) 00:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the Kaufman should stay as well, though I can't see any reason to keep the Colgan. the Kaufman article is well-written and scientific, and the claim that JSE is not a reliable source is weak at best. --Ludwigs2 18:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
(edit) plus, I can't even find the 'retired psychologist' bit in the article anymore. did that get excised at some point? QG - it would be really helpful here if you started telling us what you want rather than what you don't want because I'm having a really hard time seeing what you are objecting to. --Ludwigs2 18:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the Kaufman bit should stay off this article for reasons I explained before. In the Recognition section it mentions Barrett is a psychiatrist. Anymore than that is duplication. QuackGuru 19:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


JSE article

Elonka wrote in part: If there was a battle about a large section, perhaps try adding a much smaller section, and ensure that it is carefully sourced.
The information in the article has already been divided into different sections. There is currently no large section in the article.
I already explained the JSE ref has no consensus and the view of a tiny minority is a WEIGHT violation.
I don't think condensing the current information in the article is appropriate. The 'David Hufford' bit is currently mentioned in the article. QuackGuru 19:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Can you please link to the consensus about the JSE ref? Thanks, Elonka 20:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I consider Elonka an involved editor based on the above comment and previous comment about the JSE ref. I cannot link to consensus for the JSE ref because I don't see any consensus to include the ref. QuackGuru 20:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
since there's no consensus, then I suppose we can re-open the JSE issue here. what reasons do you have for excluding the reference? it seems to be a reasonably reliable source. --Ludwigs2 20:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I strongly recommend starting a thread at the reliable sources noticeboard about the source, to get outside opinions. A thread at WP:FTN might also be a good idea. If someone starts such a thread, please link to it here, thanks. --Elonka 20:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Elonka continues to be an involved editor based on the above comment and other comments. After many previous discussions there is still no consensus and I strongly recommend we should not continue a discussion on this again. QuackGuru 00:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
How is that involving yourself into the article? It's common knowledge to take it to RSN or FTN if something like this comes up for other, varied opinions that are beyond the scope of this article. Nothing wrong with that, and I am strongly encouraging it. seicer | talk | contribs 02:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I brought both Colgan and JSE up at the BLP/N here. The only uninvolved editors to comment, MastCell and DGG, said that the references didn't really have BLP problems, and were basically appropriate so long as it was made clear where they were coming from. Thus, I added "Professor Kauffman, writing in the controversial Journal of Scientific Exploration..." As far as Colgan, The Vitamin Pushers is written by Barrett and sold on the Quackwatch website.[9] Likely the best way to resolve this is to do a RFC. II | (t - c) 01:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The Pillars of Wikipedia

Elonka and other uninvolved admins, the above "enforcement" is arbitary and in not in accordance with the ArbCom restrictions nor following Wikipedia policy. Until WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT are part of the picture, you will find that you are going to have major problems with enforcing these restrictions no matter how much you think you are in the right. The point of the edit restrictions is to de-escalate the WP:DRAMA but instead these restrictions are just going to see many calls over at AN/I - another RfC - and another ArbCom ruling. Moar Dramaz yez? Shot info (talk) 03:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the article has already been having major problems and "Dramaz", so if the restrictions don't work, it'll be status quo, eh?  :) But seriously, it's worth a try. These restrictions have been tried elsewhere, such as at Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah#Conditions for editing, and had considerable success in breaking the cycle of edit-warring. At that article, reverts have stopped, the page has not been protected since the conditions were put in place, and no one had to be blocked, either! So please, at least be willing to give the conditions a try for a while? If it doesn't work, it doesn't work, but then again, it might work, so couldn't hurt, eh? Worst that happens is that the article gets messy for awhile, but that's easy enough to clean up, right? --Elonka 15:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
On that page, reverts have stopped, the page is now unprotected, etc, all of which are good things. My one question is, have productive edits resumed, or has the page languished? (Asking because I don't know.) Antelan 15:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
In my view, yes, there is a lot of productive editing going on. There are still disagreements, especially about the wording of the lead, so there is also an open Medcab case where things are being discussed. --Elonka 15:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Great. Here's to hoping that it works here, too. Antelan 17:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

re-adding sources

ok, I've reworked some unimpeachable sources back into the article (three authors, all published at major academic presses). as I mentioned before, I don't like the 'usefulness' section, because this forces me to rewrite the sources as saying that Quackwatch is less-than-useful, but I suppose those are the cards I've been dealt. if anyone objects to these sources, please comment here; I'm happy to discuss reasonable changes. --Ludwigs2 20:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you OK with the idea of a "Responses" section, Ludswigs? I'm wondering whether an RfC would be appropriate. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I prefer having a 'responses'--Ludwigs2 20:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC) section on purely stylistic grounds. that allows a more or less non-committed presentation of various viewpoints. a 'usefulness' section is already polarized, and forces editors to add 'thinks it is useful', 'thinks it is not useful' types of clarifiers. that's all. if you think an RfC would help, we could do that, but it seems like such a minor issue...
But not quite as minor as "retired psychiatrist" to describe someone whose article says he is just that. :-0 Itsmejudith (talk) 20:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Renaming the section 'responses' is vague and strange. QuackGuru 20:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
'vague and strange'??? how so? besides which, neither vague nor strange is a policy issue, whereas 'biased' is - I mean, if 'Usefulness as a source' is not biased, then neither is 'Uselessness as a source', right?  ;-) --Ludwigs2 19:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Reception section

What happened to the well sourced, balanced and NPOV section that was called "Reception"? [10] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Reception is a vague title and a lot of that information was not NPOV. Having a huge section is very silly and makes it difficult to read. QuackGuru 01:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
"Reception" as a section is widely used, and "i don't like it", or it is "silly" is not an argument. As for the sources, which one was not NPOV? I am restoring that section and look forward to specific concerns to be raised. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
A "Reception" section that does not segregates pro and con viewpoints, and that rather presents all significant opinions on this site is the best way to reach NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
In terms of restoring sections, please be sure to acquaint yourself with the new #Conditions for editing on the article, especially that it is now under 0RR (no revert) restrictions. --Elonka 03:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I missed that, thanks. But note that I simply restored the "Reception" section. Is that a revert? Or is it that this is a status quo page that one cannot edit? Please clarify. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
It's borderline, leaning towards revert. On the one hand, the information wasn't put in with a simple use of the "undo" or "rollback" buttons. However, the information re-added was clearly a word for word restoral of a section from a few days ago, and when it was re-added, it removed some {{check}} tags, but without adequately addressing the concerns. Since the conditions are fairly new, we can write it off as "the editor didn't know", but if such a thing happened again, then it would be regarded as a violation of restrictions. In the future, a better way to handle it would be to move more slowly, adding a few sentences at a time, and trying to find a compromise version, without just doing a copy/paste restoral. --Elonka 04:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just reverted Jossi's massive revert. Making such a revert as he did as an involved editor and saying I missed that and immediately going on wikibreak just won't work.
For Elonka to say it's borderline because "undue" or "rollback" weren't used is absurd. I didn't use those buttons so therefore I didn't revert by that reasoning. If this editing restriction imposed by Elonka is to work, it must be applied to all involved editors and not waffle and allow an involved admin (Jossi) to violate the terms. Vsmith (talk) 12:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Jossi had made no edits to the article since the restrictions were put in place, and it was reasonable to assume that Jossi did not know about the restrictions. ArbCom was clear that editors need to be informed: "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines." Jossi has now been informed about it, both here and at his user talkpage, and has not made any reverts since he has been notified. If any editors had concerns about his edit, they could have gone in and changed the text, and then the editing continues from there. --Elonka 14:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Seems I've heard something about ignorance of the law is no excuse... But I'm not saying Jossi should be sanctioned - just backing up the restrictions to level the playing field. Now that Jossi is fully aware of the restrictions then she can proceed along with the other editors to improve the article. Vsmith (talk) 15:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

lead violation

The lead was better before. Now there is too much WEIGHT being given to criticism. QuackGuru 19:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

can you specify, please? the changes are minor (see this diff) - the addition of the sources, and some slight rewording. --Ludwigs2 19:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

verification tags

the Ernst and Best references in the 'Usefullness' section have gotten verification tags, but I'm not certain what needs to be verified here. the books have ISBN numbers, and so exist... I'm happy to provide; I just need to know what's desired. --Ludwigs2 19:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I recommend using the "quote" option in the citation template, to provide a brief quote from the book which verifies the information in the Wikipedia article. --Elonka 19:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
ok. --Ludwigs2 19:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

consultant pharmacist review

can someone post a link to the consultant pharmacist review article, for verification purposes? the online link (as far as I can tell) requires registration as a pharmacist, and the journal is not sufficiently prominent to make it into my University's database so I can't access it that way. I'd like to read it and see what it actually says.  :-) --Ludwigs2 20:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Question for the Admins

If we are following WP:WEIGHT to improve WP:NPOV what can editors do to flag a fully sourced edit? There is no procedure in the "rules" and in fact the rules state quite clearly that all sourced edits cannot be deleted regardless (specifically point 10) and there is no way to flag such an issue. Please advise how editors are to follow WEIGHT and NPOV in improving the article to reflect encyclopedic content is to be followed, not just for this article but for the articles that will slowly be gathered under the "broadly interpreted" interpretation? Shot info (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this was talked about above a bit, but if you feel there are problems with weight or NPOV in a section of the article, try rewriting bits to address your concerns or add additional information (with sources) to balance out the section. You can also condense areas you feel are too WEIGHTy, as long as the (reliable) sources are kept intact. Shell babelfish 23:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. If the concern is about the types of sources, then use a {{vc}} tag to point out that a source may not be reliable. If the sources are reliable, but you feel that there is too much information from those particular sources, per WP:WEIGHT, then go ahead and condense the section. Leave the sources alone, but the actual article text can definitely be winnowed down, or moved around. Be sure to use a clear edit summary such as "condensing section" or something. If your concern is that the article text may not be accurately reflecting what is in the source, either use a {{check}} tag, or just edit the text directly to be in better alignment with the source. If your concern is that the text is not properly sourced, then use a {{fact}} tag, and then if no source is provided in a reasonable amount of time, the info can be deleted. --Elonka 23:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec) NPOV (and hence weight) are issues of the entire article, yet also affected by the choices of single words. (E.g. "admits", "claims", "proclaims", "notes" and "states" are closely enough related to in some usages be synonyms yet in other usages can produce different points of view for the sentence, section, or even article.) Managing the weight and neutral point of view is not feasible for uninvolved admins, it will only be achieved when the editors coming to this article with different points of view engage in discussion and compromise. The restrictions encourage adding material showing a different point of view, reorganizing, rewording, and condensing in a balanced fashion. If condensing a topical section because of undue weight for that sub-topic, condense the perspective of all points of view on that sub-topic. But the real goal is compromise, and the mechanism to get editors there is preventing reuse of old versions of the text, allowing only new versions. More could be said here, and Shell's points reiterate the guidance already given, so should be seen as more significant than what I've just said. GRBerry 23:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
So, let me get this correct - If there is something sourced, regardless of NPOV and WEIGHT, it stays the article? After all, we just had some information, sourced information, about the person who started QW (namely Barrett) removed - deleted even [11]. So should this stay in - because according to the rules above, and comments from 3 admins - it should stay in? What should we do in this regard? Note that I'm using the particular edit as an example. Personally I think the edit is correct however 3 admins and the rules above state quite clearly that the edit was incorrect. So again, what should we do in this regard? Note, please don't resort to asking editors to use common sense (or similar appeals), you admins need to tell us how to edit under the rules you have set. Shot info (talk) 00:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually that edit is an excellent example of what we're talking about here. An editor saw information they felt was too detailed or inappropriate for the lead, so they removed it and condensed the lead without removing the source. You can do the same thing with other sections you think are too detailed; condense the wording, prune and trim as necessary and leave the left-over bit with its original source (and feel free to add other appropriate sources of course).
It looks like what you're really trying to ask is "Can I remove all information from a particular source?"; the answer is most likely no. Try balancing it with information from other sources or pruning it to an appropriate weight, but please don't yank out all the text and the source wholesale. Shell babelfish 00:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Nope. All three admins said that the textual content of the article can be changed - what should not be taken out are the (reliable) sources. (If there is a true consensus - i.e. active agreement by all concerned, even (reliable) sources can come out, at least in my opinon - but active agreement can't be inferred from a lack of objection.) In that example edit, no sources were removed. It would, if someone thinks that material is important, be appropriate for them to restore the information elsewhere in the article in a different context - maybe the History section near the bit about advisors. Then editors could think about how it works there, if the new context is more or less prominent, et. cetera. GRBerry 00:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec to Shell)My question is my question, not your paraphrase. I am merely attempting to work out how to edit under the rules in question. What you and the other admins have indicated is that there is only one rule you are interested in enforcing and that's No reverts (ie/ use of the undo tool etc. although in saying that, enforcement of even this rule is dependent on exactly who the editor/admin is making the <koff> "edit"). Otherwise normal editing applies. So thanks.
BTW can you add yourself to the Uninvolved Admin list above please? Shot info (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
To GRB - then I suggest you rewrite the rules or remove some of the restrictions to make what you have just stated clear for editors (and see my reply to Shell as it appears that you are all starting to back down from the harsh line in the sand once encountering normal editing practises). Shot info (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not changing the rules, they remain as posted. My parenthetical comment was to point out that I'm not about to be an idiot and enforce the rules blindly against an edit implementing the active agreement of all involved editors. I'm quite capable of assuming that the other uninvolved admins wouldn't be idiots either. (Also, can you use the edit section links when editing instead of editing the entire page? It makes it easier both to know what the post is about and to find and read your post.) GRBerry 01:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
"Implementing the active agreement of all involved editors"? That's a change to the rules right there. According to the rules, anybody can add in minor pointless controversial but sourced information, that you will have to be an idiot to leave in, yet the rules state and 3 admins agree, would have to stay in. So what is it? FWIW, the example I provided is a violation of the rules above, but it's nice to see that admins are allowed to twist the rules slightly to let rationality intrude. It would be better if the rules actually were written this rather than relying on the largess of admin "interpretation" however. Shot info (talk) 01:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that we may be getting hung up over semantics. There is a difference between "sources" and "sourced information". A "source" is a reference. It means the citation that is between the <ref></ref> tags. Stuff outside of the tags is "sourced information", for which the citation is the actual source. The conditions for editing say that the sources cannot be removed. However, the sourced information can be removed/improved/condensed/changed. So, for example, if someone were to add, "The sky is blue and rainbows have lots of colors" and sourced it to Newsweek magazine, then Newsweek is the source, and "The sky" sentence is the sourced information. If someone felt that it violated NPOV, then they could potentially condense the sentence, such as to say simply, "The sky is blue.(Newsweek)" Then if someone really wanted the "rainbows" language back in, they could either reword the sentence, perhaps as, "According to Newsweek magazine, their reviewer Zaphod Beeblebrox said, 'The sky is blue and rainbows have lots of colors.'" Or maybe they could add the "rainbows" phrase and add another source: "The sky is blue, and rainbows have lots of colors.(TIME)(Newsweek)". Or maybe they could move the whole thing down into the "Meteorology" section which already covered the sky, and just move the TIME reference down into that section, and completely delete the "sky is blue" sentence, with an edit summary of "condensing duplicated information". The point is, that once in, the Newsweek reference would be permanent, though it could be moved around to different places in the article. But the information sourced from the magazine could be reworked in many different ways. --Elonka 03:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Now we are getting somewhere. Harkening back to my original question and using the above example. What happens if "The sky is blue" is in an article about grass? Or the colour blue? Or blue-bottles? Or Quackwatch? Obviously if the point is minor (per WEIGHT) and largely irrelevant, or not applicable, it should be deleted. BUT where in the rules above does it say we can do this? GB infers it is allowed (ie/ admins are not idiots) but rules are rules and you have all stated that you are in the role of enforcement of said rules. Personally I think the only rule that is needed is 0RR and the ability of admins to block obvious wikilawyering/stonewalling. Unfortunately at the moment, the current set of rules locks out WEIGHT and NPOV. Not to mention that admins are letting thru reverts when they are coupled with a minimum of one other edit. Shot info (talk) 04:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I think this is too much worry. :) If you have a particular concern about the article, go ahead and edit it. Even if you do something that violates the conditions, you won't be insta-banned (see above, about "admins aren't idiots"). There will still be a good faith effort to work with you and explain how to do it better. If you check User talk:Ludwigs2#Nudge, you'll see that I've been in close communication with him as he was making his own edits. Ditto with User talk:Jossi#Quackwatch: he made an edit that was technically a violation of the conditions, but he was reminded on his talkpage, and that's all. So, if you see something that you want to change in the article, go ahead, and we'll let you know if you're getting it right. Or if you're still worried, describe what it is that you'd like to change, and we'll go from there? --Elonka 04:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree it's too much worry, but it's seems you've looked at my worry(ies) lately :-) No, my concerns are that enforcement is largely restrictive, but if admins are going to judge edits on their actual merits, then I know I that all of us (most of us??) have little to worry about. All thanks for your time and answering the said questions. And as a final minor aside, I believe Jossi is a male [12]?? :-) Thanks once again. Shot info (talk) 04:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Conditions for editing

Discussion

(partial archive)

I have started the above section for administrative notes, to keep track of who's who, and also so that everyone knows where they stand in terms of ArbCom restrictions. If the section grows too large, we can move it to a subpage. Any other uninvolved admins who are interested in this dispute, are welcome to update the above lists, though of course you should avoid changing another admin's restrictions, unless you check with them first. If a change to restrictions is made, please note it in the #Admin log section above, thanks, Elonka 18:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree to unprotect the page based upon the conditions above, as long as there is consensus among the varied editors at this article to agree to abide by the principles. seicer | talk | contribs 18:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
According to which policy are these restrictions enforceable? QuackGuru 18:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy#Discretionary sanctions, which says, "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to homeopathy, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. --Elonka 19:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd agree to these conditions happily, but I'd like to see a bit more about deletions. it there's a possible loophole where an editor could delete just about anything that isn't immediately and directly attached to a source, and leave other editors with no recourse for re-adding it (since that would be seen as a revert). can that be clarified? --Ludwigs2 19:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
The eighth bullet above says "If you see something that's added that is unsourced, but it's plausible, don't just remove it. Instead, add a [citation needed] tag to it. Then, if no source is provided in a reasonable amount of time, the statement can be removed." A reasonable amount of time is clearly multiple days, because reliable sources are not necessarily online and editors are not required to edit Wikipedia on any particular schedule. Expand: And if (hopefully not) an editor who added something gets blocked temporarily, a reasonable amount of time should begin after their block ends.
The ninth bullet says that newly added material that is unsourced can (but does not have to - and other alternatives are clearly preferred) be removed. If it is then readded with a source, that would not be a revert, that would be a new version addressing the concern that led to removal. GRBerry 19:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
ok. --Ludwigs2 19:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, per the conditions, any new information that is added, must be associated with a reliable source. As for existing information, any editor could condense an existing paragraph, which of course might involve removing some information. If another editor disagreed with part or all of the removal, they would have several options: They might then re-add some portion of the information, rewording it to try and find a compromise version. Or they could re-add the information and "weight it down" with another source. Or, perhaps they could add a quote to a source, to show that the added information is accurately reflecting what is in the source. There are lots of options, with the key element being that both editors could continue working on the article, both working in good faith to try and find a compromise version. Sometimes this may take awhile, but as long as no reverts are involved, and every single edit is a bit different from previous edits, this is a method that can successfully produce a consensus or compromise version. Meaning that eventually with all the back and forths and tweaks, the article gets to a version that nobody really wants to change anymore, and, "voila!" that means that consensus has been achieved. See also Wikipedia:Consensus and WP:BRD, which aren't exactly this same method, but do describe some similar techniques, that focus on changing the work of previous editors, rather than simply reverting. --Elonka 19:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I have a question about no consensus. If an editor adds something to the article discussed on talk but there is clearly no consensus is that bannable? For example, there is no consensus for the JSE bit. See Talk:Quackwatch#JSE has no consensus. Is it bannable if an editor reverts back to a previous version when the article is unprotected? Is it bannable if an editor adds old information without gaining consensus first that was previously reverted prior to the article being protected? There is discussion in various threads to add some old information back but I do not see any consensus yet. QuackGuru 19:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
If they do it by reversion to a prior version, that would be reverting. If they add it using new wording, treat it as a new edit. (Since protection is always 100% guaranteed to be on m:The Wrong Version, we aren't going to especially privilege the version protected on.) No we aren't going to use the rules about reversion and editing to enforce getting a consensus on talk first. We are going to use them to manage reactions to others edits. Keep trying new versions until something sticks - that will be consensus. Use the talk page to suggest and seek compromises - but keep trying new things instead of the same old, same old. GRBerry 19:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
well, since we're getting specific... there's an ongoing talk page discussion about the presence of Barrett in the lead (you can read the debate above). it's sourced by the fact that the QW page says he is the founder and maintains the page, but if quackguru simply removes the phrase (as is his stated intention), I'm not sure if I'd be allowed to edit it back in - the sourcing is an odd sort of sourcing, after all. --Ludwigs2 20:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Administrators will still be monitoring the situation for unusual patterns. In the case of the lead, I'd like to see both editors genuinely try to find a compromise wording. But if it turns into a stalemate, other options are available. For example, at Muhammad al-Durrah, when it was identified that certain editors were obsessing just with the lead, to the exclusion of any other work, we had the option of banning certain editors from editing the lead section of the article. Basically, the administrators are going to take a dim view of any editor saying, "My way or the highway" for any part of the article. But editors that show a genuine desire to try and find compromise, will be encouraged and empowered to continue editing. --Elonka 22:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
actually, I think my question will turn out to be an unfounded worry - the discussion on the topic seems to be smooth. my apologies. --Ludwigs2 23:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that the 0RR (zero revert) rule is unusable as it will lead to additional controversy and give disruptive editors a loaded gun to trash the text. ("No you are not allowed to revert my edits")MaxPont (talk) 07:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
That already happens to a large extent, with edit summaries that have pretty much stated, "Your views are not in alignment with mine, therefore you are disallowed from editing." Or per "consensus" or for a variety of other reasons. Unusable? Maybe. But it's enforceable. seicer | talk | contribs 15:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I request a ban of Ludwigs2 for making this revert. At least some of the information is a revert. The informatiuon was previously added to the article[13] but it was reverted. QuackGuru 20:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed the edit of Ludwigs2, but it does not appear to be a revert. It is substantially different from the diff that QuackGuru supplied. I have no opinion on the reliability of the sources that Ludwigs2 used. QuackGuru, at this point I recommend that you edit the article to address your concerns. Aside from saying "the information was previously in the article", what exactly are your concerns about the information that Ludwigs2 added? Do you feel that the sources are unreliable or misrepresented? If so, add {{vc}} or {{vs}} tags. Or do you feel that the information violates neutrality in some way? If so, feel free to edit the article (without reverting or removing sources) to try and change the new text to something that you find acceptable. Thanks, --Elonka 20:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Joel Best, asserts that sites such a quackwatch.com and junkscience.com vary on their underlying ideologies, and their critiques should be examined critically rather than being accepted a face value.[74][14]

Waltraud Ernst stated that Barret's Quackwatch generate a number of problems that merit further investigation, such as the dismissal of the mental and cognitive elements, as well as the complex role psycho-cultural and spiritual forces that play a role in the healing process.[75][15]

The above is part of the previous version that was reverted.

The below is part the readded information that was a revert.

Joel Best asserts that sites such a quackwatch.com and junkscience.com vary on their underlying ideologies, and their critiques should be examined critically rather than being accepted a face value.[75] Further, Waltraud Ernst suggests that that the views presented in Barret's Quackwatch are subject to a number of problems that merit further investigation, such as its dismissal of the mental and cognitive elements, or the complex role that psycho-cultural and spiritual forces play in the healing process.[76][16]

I see a clear violation of the conditions of editing by Ludwigs2. QuackGuru 21:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

QuackGuru, the determination of whether or not a violation has occurred, is to be made by the uninvolved administrators on this page, not by the involved editors. Though of course any editor is free to bring up edits of concern. Getting back to Ludwigs2's edit, I still see no violation. There is substantially less information added, and there was also an attempt at rewording. It is not a revert. And again, QuackGuru, if you have a problem with what was added, you are welcome to change it. Your options here are to edit the article, to drop this complaint about Ludwigs2, or to go work on something else. --Elonka 21:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Joel Best, asserts that sites such a quackwatch.com and junkscience.com vary on their underlying ideologies, and their critiques should be examined critically rather than being accepted a face value.[74][17]

The above is part of the previous version that was reverted. The below is part the readded information that was a revert.

Joel Best asserts that sites such a quackwatch.com and junkscience.com vary on their underlying ideologies, and their critiques should be examined critically rather than being accepted a face value.[75][18]

Both are identical sentences and a revert. This is a clear violation of the conditions of editing and is bannable. QuackGuru 00:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Just because a single sentence has the same wording, does not make it a revert. The rest of the edit was substantially different. --Elonka 04:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I consider Elonka to be an involved editor. I would like uninvolved admins to specifically comment on the reverts by three different editors.
Ludwigs2 made a revert.[19] Jossi made a revert.[20][21] And ImperfectlyInformed made a revert.[22]
Restoring a single sentence is a revert in every shape and form. The rest of the edit by Ludwigs2 was restoring some similar content and some different content. QuackGuru 07:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Jossi restored the Reception section and the Lead section to a previous version. ImperfectlyInformed made a revert too.[23] The retired psychiatrist bit was previously removed and then restored and then removed. QuackGuru 07:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I will agree with you that Jossi's edit was a revert, but he was also unaware of the conditions for editing. He has since been informed. The other edits were not reverts, they were legitimate changes to the text. If you disagree with them, edit the article to put the information back, in a different way than it was presented before. For example, if you believe that "retired psychiatrist" should be in the lead, locate another source that refers to him in that way, and then re-add the information, with the new source. --Elonka 14:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Re-adding the information, with a new source would be a revert. I will not do that. An uninvolved admin could ban me or block me. I will proceed with caution. If I believe that "retired psychiatrist" should be in the article I should discuss it first. Readding it would be going against consensus. Editors disagree with adding that information. QuackGuru 17:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Adding something with an entirely new source, is not a revert, since the source was never in the article (or at least in that section) to begin with. --Elonka 17:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Re-adding the information using the same text is a revert despite having a new source. QuackGuru 17:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
False. It is quite common, and indeed actively encouraged, for material to be removed solely because it is unsourced. A restoration with a source is different than the prior version even if 100% of the rest of the article is the same. Sourced text is very different from unsourced text. The goal here is also to get people to actively work on the article. Go do that. GRBerry 18:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Re-adding the information using the same text is a revert despite having a different source. I never said the text is unsourced. QuackGuru 19:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • For the record, I object to these conditions and how they've been imposed, and refuse to be held to Elonka's interpretation of the policies and guidelines listed. This comes after trying to discuss these matters with Elonka, but resolving very little. --Ronz (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • This list sucks. I'd like to see some other article where a "hit list" of editors is kept. In fact, if this were done on a user page, it would be prima facie evidence for that user being uncivil. I don't even know why my name is on the list, since the only thing I do is revert vandalism or POV editing. But I don't care if I'm on it or not, I strongly object to its existence as a de facto attack list against good faith editors. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree that the list of editors above shows like a bad faith list, I think it should be removed, who else agrees? (no comment about the rules as I think I have made myself clear on that, which is that 3RR should be used and enforced instead of new rules like this. --CrohnieGalTalk 11:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom restrictions

Re: #Editors under ArbCom restrictions

Comment (feel free to move to appropriate location). These editors are not under ArbCom restriction at all. Please show the diff that states that they are. They are restricted by an admin, not ArbCom. Shot info (talk) 03:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom has empowered administrators to enforce ArbCom restrictions. When bans are placed, they are logged at the bottom of the appropriate page, such as Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy. Diffs are often there, though if you'd like more, let me know and I'll dig them up. --Elon

ka 15:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

According to the ArbCom above, only one editor was restricted by Arbcom, namely Dana Ullman. If you cannot see the difference between ArbCom restricting somebody, and an admin restricting somebody, well, that explains a lot with the current situation. Although, I will note that now the restrictions are in place, the bevy of civil pov pushers have pretty much stopped their little campaign of purging QW from Wikipedia and allowed actual editors to do this strange thing called editing. Shot info (talk) 07:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Three editors have made reverts but there is no enforcement of the conditions of editing. ArbCom restricting somebody, and an admin restricting somebody is different. Are admins allowed to make up new restrictions and then not enforce them? Is this article being used as an experiment? QuackGuru 07:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Elonka wrote in part: Diffs are often there, though if you'd like more, let me know and I'll dig them up.
I would like specific evidence that these new rules are appropriate. QuackGuru 17:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy#Discretionary sanctions: "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to homeopathy, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project." This has been appealed (at least in my case) at WP:AN, WP:ANI, and ArbCom, and been upheld in all situations, whether I was dealing with Hungarian-Slovakian issues, Israeli-Palestinian, or Homeopathy (the Atropa Belladonna article). --Elonka 17:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I did not ask about sanctions. I am asking about creating new rules for this article. According to which specific policy and specific text these new rules are appropriate. QuackGuru 17:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Read that italics text more carefully. "Restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors" - that is what has been imposed, and it is imposed on editors who edit this article. If you don't edit this article, you aren't an affected editor. If you do edit this article, the restrictions apply. The restrictions are article specific (but this set has been imposed on at least one other article). This is not unusual. GRBerry 18:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I read the italics text very carefully. It is about sanctions and not about imposing new rules for an article. QuackGuru 19:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Those rules are sanctions on the editors of this article. You have three choices here - 1) you can edit in accordance with them, 2) you can go edit elsewhere, 3) you can violate them and deal with the consequences. GRBerry 22:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for guidance

I would like to restore passages removed prior to the page protection - primarily some well-sourced criticism that was in the original references section - and rename that section to 'Reception.' I don't think this will count as a revert (since those passages were removed prior to the restrictions being placed), but I'd prefer not to be unduly bold. would that be acceptable under the current policy? I specifically want to restore the 2.5 paragraphs starting with 'David Hufford' and ending with the reference to Joel Kaufmann. --Ludwigs2 18:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Restoring the passages removed prior to page protection will count as a revert. The JSE ref has no consensus. Renaming the section to 'Reception' was reverted before and no good reason has been given for reverting to an odd title that does not match the information in that section. Lumping all the info into one section was reverted. Each section of information should have its own section and have a relevant title. QuackGuru 19:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I would recommend proceeding slowly. Try to identify the reasons that the information was removed in the past, and be sensitive to them. If there was a battle about a large section, perhaps try adding a much smaller section, and ensure that it is carefully sourced. Then wait a day or two, and see what the response is. If no one objects, gradually add other (sourced) information. For anyone who does object to the added information, try to articulate exactly what your concerns are. Are the sources bad? Tag them. Is the information not accurately reflecting what is in the sources? Rewrite the text so it does. Is it too much information? Rewrite it to condense it to something more succinct, and put in your edit summary something clear such as "condensing section, to give viewpoints appropriate weight". Then if someone else disagrees with that, they could perhaps add a bit more, with another source to prove that the view is significant, and so forth. --Elonka 19:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Status

Moved from "admin log" section

For the record, I removed my name because I hadn't edited the article in over a year - to be honest, I'd argue that a misleading list saying someone has been editing the article when they haven't is more disruptive than correcting that list. The second is in reference to my adding Elonka to the list of recent editors since she has in fact recently edited the article [24]. And I'd like to caution Elonka about being heavyhanded with inappropriate ban warnings and urge her to decide whether she's going to be an admin or an editor on this article and stick with one or the other. In addition, could one of the admins move my name from under "Editors under ArbCom restrictions" since I'm in fact NOT under any ArbCom restrictions and never have been? If you want to put me back under editors that's fine. I'd do it myself but I'd rather not get an undeserved ban from Elonka. --Minderbinder (talk) 17:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Your name was initially added to the "involved editors" list, because you had been recently participating at the talkpage, and because you were heavily involved with editing this article in the past. When you removed your name from the list, I told you that I would allow that, if you were to completely avoid the article. However, you resumed participation, so your name went back on the list. Then you retaliated by adding the name of an uninvolved administrator (me) to the "involved editors" list, even though all I've done was to add a tag to the article. That does not count as "involvement". See WP:UNINVOLVED. I then further reminded you at your talkpage about the Homeopathy case, which moved your name up into the "notified editors" section. This does not mean that you are banned, it just means that you have been formally notified. As long as there are no disruptive actions in the future, it probably won't be an issue. --Elonka 17:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Over and above the general notification by publication here, you have indeed been notified about this set of restrictions and are under them. The place where you are currently listed is accurate. It would be more productive of you to work on the article than to wikilawyer. GRBerry 18:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
In the past I edited the article TWO times, both reverts, one to a major revert made by an IP edit with no explanation. Seriously, that's "heavily involved"? Two reverts?
I dispute that adding Elonka's name is "retaliation", please AGF. Now that I have made a minor edit to the article, I have no objection to my name being listed there - I just thought the point of that list was to make it visible who has edited the article recently, meaning that including Elonka makes perfect sense. To be honest, I'm not even really sure what her objection is to being listed, since as she herself wrote, it's just a list of people who made an edit, not a list of people who were disruptive.
And I'm still not sure what you mean by saying I'm "under" the restrictions, beyond the fact that all editors are under those restrictions, including admins. Sure, I've been notified of them, but I'm not sure what the point of that was since I hadn't even come close to violating any of them.
Just look at the edits I made today [25][26][27]. One tag (which Elonka says "does not count as "involvement" ") and some housekeeping. Do either of you disagree with the tag, looking at what the source actually says? Can someone show me where the source says that? Are any of these edits disruptive in any way? Does anyone object to the other fixes I made today?
Trust me, I wish this discussion was long over. But if false accusations are made about me, I'm going to respond to them. Heck, if you want to talk about "wikilawyering", then why does something intended to help fix the article even have lists of editors? I hate to say it but it gives the impression of something you can say you tried to do when you get to mediation or arbitration. Can we just give the pointless warnings and Lists a rest and get back to making an encyclopedia? --Minderbinder (talk) 18:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ Skepdic article on positive pseudo-skeptics
  2. ^ Robert Todd Carroll "Internet Bunk: Skeptical Investigations." Skeptic's Dictionary
  3. ^ Cross A (2004). The Flexibility of Scientific Rhetoric: A Case Study of UFO Researchers. Qualitative Sociology. Volume 27, Number 1 / March, 2004
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Ladd was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ "Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested ..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Quackwatch/Archive_8&oldid=1151045697"