Talk:Quackwatch/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Talk archives for Quackwatch (current talk page)
<< 1 < Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 > 5 >>

Contents

Quackbusters ?

The term quackbusters is frequently used by critics with regards to Dr. Barrett ( who does not like the term ) and other editors, mainly those involved with QW, and is also used , at least by some, of these editors who are actively involved in anti-quackery activities. My question to editors is: Can that term be used as NPOV in WP ? If yes , can it be used in this article specifically in that context ?. If no, why ? Thanks for your input NATTO 23:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC) ( N/B.: A search for quackbusters in WP gives a redirect to this article )
A short discussion about the origin of the term, and its use can be found here, with a link to further information.
I see no problem with using the term in a neutral way, as long as one doesn't use it falsely about Barrett, as Burton Goldberg does. Barrett never uses the term to describe himself. The term is very loaded, since anyone who opposes quackbusters automatically places themselves on the side of those who promote quackery, whether that is their intention or not. -- Fyslee 19:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
So Quackbuster is a term used by both sides and, based on your account, it has originated with those to whom the name is presently applied to. In that context, whether Barrett does not like to be called a quackbuster is simply his personal point of view, however the term quackbuster is applicable to him as he is the owner of QW and he is actively involved in activities that are typical of quackbusters, including those who actively use the name. As for your statement:... "anyone who opposes quackbusters automatically places themselves on the side of those who promote quackery, whether that is their intention or not. " This statement is in itself a clear POV implying that the quackbusters and their definition of quackery is correct. It should be noted that Barret, on QW, has come up with his own definition of quackery that is so broad that it can include a wide range of modalities or topics. “ Barrett defines quackery as "anything involving overpromotion in the field of health," [1]. Once they had decided on a definition that suited their purpose, the next logical step was to call the modalities that did not fit their definition of 'quackery – as per Barrett and co' thus they came up with almost everything that is alternative medicine.... which suddenly, according to them, became quackery... Presto !! NATTO 03:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
You are reading too much into it. I don't know whether he "like[s] to be called a quackbuster," or not, and haven't written anything about that. I believe it was Arthur Rubin that introduced that idea on the Barrett talk page. I should correct him on that.
Barrett never did like the term because it can suggest militancy, and he felt that the use of comic characters might be seen as trivializing a serious problem. People die because of quackery. Well, the comic character "Quacky" was a big success as an NCAHF logo, being printed on t-shirts, stickers, etc. in several different versions.
The objection here is to claiming falsely, as Burton Goldberg does, that Barrett claims to be a quackbuster ("self-proclaimed quackbuster"), when Barrett actually doesn't like the term. That he "is" a quackbuster is another matter. He is against quackery, unlike anti-quackbusters, who are obviously anti-anti-quackery efforts, and who promote and defend it.
As to Barrett's definition of quackery, it is the best one around because it doesn't name any single thing, modality, or profession as quackery, but focuses on the way that anything can be quackery, if falsely promoted. Quacks "quack" loudly, and that's what the Dutch word has always implied. The focus is removed from the object, and placed on the deception involved in the way it is misused and promoted. That allows him to call many MDs and their manner of practicing quackery, and Quackwatch has a long listed of MDs and other authorized medical personnel who are dubious characters, who misuse their positions to promote dubious practices.
A definition that focused on things (which is a common and primitive method of defining quackery) would end up creating confusion, because the same thing can be sensible in one situation, and used as quackery in another. His definition gets around that problem. Obviously some things end up on lists because they are disproven and always misused, or nearly always so.
His definition also avoids implying that someone who believes in or promotes a dubious method is necessarily a bad person or criminal. No, most people who do so are often sincere and should not be treated as bad people, but that doesn't mean their practice or method should get a free ride. People are still being deceived and even dying. Sincerity isn't enough. It is the use and promotion that is the problem.
It should be noted that definitions of quackery should not be limited to the promotional aspects. Barrett certainly includes other factors as well, as can be determined by reading his writings and websites.
Any use of the term here should be NPOV, IOW as it was originally intended, and not as a pejorative term to denigrate anti-quackery efforts. Quackbusters are against quackery, and those who oppose them are, whether they intend to do so or not, supporting the work of quacks. -- Fyslee 05:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • No, I think that you are part of those trying to make quackery a lot more that what it is .Quackery is a derogatory term that is defined as the "medical practice and advice based on observation and experience in ignorance of scientific findings.The dishonesty of a charlatan." [2]
Barrett's definition,as "anything involving overpromotion in the field of health,", is one that he made up to suit his purpose. It is his definition rather than the commonly accepted definition. Real quackery is to be condemned, however the question is should we accept Barrett's 'broad' definition as correct ? NATTO 07:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

(for his uncritical advocacy of ineffective or misleadingly marketed treatments).

The above phrase in Mission and scope : It is not referenced. Who has decided that the treatments are ineffective or misleadingly marketed  ? Does not appears NPOV in that form... NATTO 03:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is exactly what they describe. And there needs to be a major excision of the endlessly repetitive complaints by the quacks. Either you summarize and condense them or I will. alteripse 03:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Alteripse Hold your horses here. First I am not the only editor on this page and I would like to point out that we previously arrived at an agreement on the issue of the review below which subsequently unilaterally breached by some of the editors. Second the heavy handed approach is not what Wikipedia is all about. We are supposed to discuss the issues. Regarding the phrase "for his uncritical advocacy of ineffective or misleadingly marketed treatments" that is clearly your POV since you put it there. However it is not referenced so as it stand it is not in accordance with WP:NPOV. So let's take a deep breath and cool down a bit.NATTO 03:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

synopsis of criticisms

This section is ridiculously out of proportion. Let's park the quotes here and summarize them. alteripse 03:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

A review article entitled "Watching the Watchdogs at Quackwatch" by Joel M. Kauffman, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of the Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry at University of the Sciences in Philadelphia, [3] was published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration (JSE). [4] Kauffman is also the author of Malignant Medical Myths: Why Medical Treatment Causes 200,000 Deaths in the USA each Year and How to Protect Yourself. [5] His article in JSE examined eight Quackwatch articles for factuality, fairness and scientific currency; Kauffman found the articles to be "contaminated with incomplete data, obsolete data, technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo" and cited the peer-reviewed literature in support of his conclusions. Kauffman wrote that:

"Hostility to all alternatives was expected and observed from the website, but not repetition of groundless dogma from mainstream medicine...It remains a mystery how they [Quackwatch] and I have interpreted the same body of medical science and reached such divergent conclusions.....It is very probable that many...vistors to the website have been misled by the trappings of scientific objectivity...At least 3 of the activities in the Mission Statement...have been shown to be flawed as actually executed...Medical practitioners such as Robert Atkins, Elmer Cranton and Stanislaw Burzynski, whom I demonstrated are not quacks, were attacked with the energy one would hope to be focused on real quacks. The use of this website is not recommended. It could be deleterious to your health. "

If you have read Kauffman's article you must recognize that it displays every single flaw he imputes to quackwatch: he misrepresents legitimate scientific and medical controversies (e.g., about cholesterol), attacks Barrett for positions that he does not argue in detail and are peripheral to the purpose and scope of the website, uncritically accepts and argues only the quack sides of controversies, and the article is dripping with innuendo and unsupported villification, which is exactly what he criticizes Quackwatch for. He claims to have established that Atkins, Cranton, and Burzynski "are not quacks" but in fact did no such thing, while Barrett mainly claimed that their treatments were unproven. I have no objection to listing him and referencing his article as part of a list of critics, but his article is too weak to deserve to be referred to in this article as some sort of objective scientific review. If there had been any substance in his criticisms, you know it would have been published in a real medical journal. Mainstream medical journals such as NEJM and Lancet attack medical practices and institutions every month, but the attacks are intelligent, usually accurate, and have been peer-reviewed. His is amateurish and superficial and he clearly had made up his mind ahead of time exactly what he was planning to find. Publication in the JSE just screams that he wanted to avoid any sort of examination of his own article for "factuality, fairness and scientific currency". Let's leave the paragraphs parked here and move on to the others, and summarize them in a more concise and less repetitive criticism section. alteripse 03:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's leave it in the article until something is decided. Levine2112 03:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, the paragraph is misleading. alteripse 03:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I agree with Levine on this. Unilateral bulk deletions are not the way to constructively edit an article just because one editor does not agree with an item in the article. We have already discussed this review on the talk page before and we can again. NATTO 03:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, Kauffman does a better job of analyzing Quackwatch than the majority of Quackwatch's analyses of anything. Kauffman's report is filled with scientific references instead of opinions. He points out that QW seems to ignore evidence which is contrary to their "side". Above all, remember, this is an article about Quackwatch, not about Kauffman. His critque is one of the most valuable and insightful in this section and it would be a shame to lose it. I'd much prefer to lose another rather than this one. Levine2112 03:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Kauffmans article is crap and you are both trying to turn this article into a hatchet job. alteripse 03:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again with the cheap accusations :-( .Whatever the point of view of individual editors on Kauffman and the review, he is credible, he is independant and the source is a published journal. The point of view of QW is clearly represented in this article and so should the point of view of those who differ. That is what WP is all about. We work at finding the best way to do it NPOV. As far as the text listing everything in the review, it is incorrect. The text about the Forbes review DOES LIST EVERYTHING. NATTO 03:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Alteripse, this is not about your opinion or mine. This is about encyclopedic information regarding Quackwatch. Fact is, Kauffman's article passes the test and is therefore admissable here. Please don't start an edit war over this. Let's hear discussion from others. Levine2112 04:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Good idea. Lets cool down and think objectively :-) NATTO 04:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, welcome, alteripse, to what is one of the more contentious pages on Wikipedia (as evidenced by the fact that one can hardly get a word in edgewise on the talk page between edit conflicts). About the Kauffman article... it's been a major bone of contention. I personally agree with you that the article demonstrates most of the flaws it imputes to Quackwatch; I think you phrased that very well. That said, there are some staunchly anti-QW editors here, and the more anti-QW editors attach great importance to Kauffman's review. We've gone back and forth about labeling it "independent", a "review article", "peer-reviewed", etc. In the end, my feeling is that it goes back to the part of WP:NPOV which states "To avoid endless edit wars, we can agree to present each of the significant views fairly and not assert any one of them as correct.... Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia; they are not re-enacted." To my mind, that means we should characterize Kauffman's article appropriately, as a "website review", not "independent", not "peer-reviewed"... but we shouldn't get into the business of assessing the robustness, "rightness", or "wrongness" of Kauffman's article (outside of the talk page). With a link to the article, as long as we avoid misleading characterizations, the reader can click and judge for themselves. MastCell 04:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree in part with User:MastCell whose comments I appreciate. There are editors on both side of the fence, so there is not point in painting one side over the other. The goal is to follow WP policy as objectively as possible and User:MastCell is making a good point :-) NATTO 05:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


Kauffman diet skeptic

Here is something I received from a scientist and expert on the subject of the first criticism Kauffman makes regarding low fat diets. Kauffman is a cholesterol skeptic, and thus is at odds with the rest of the medical and dietetic world:

I would respond to Kauffman by simply stating that there is an overwhelming consensus among reputable health professionals and scientific organizations that a diet low in fat and cholesterol is associated with a reduced risk for coronary heart disease. This is supported by dozens of clinical and epidemiological studies published in leading scientific journals, and clearly stated by the:

American Heart Association:

The National Institutes of Health: The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (USDA and DHHS):

    End quote. Kauffman is indeed fringe, in the minority, and thus not considered credible by the mainstream. -- Fyslee 20:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

    I'd agree with you that Kauffman's arguments are fringe science and would be considered unfounded or misleading by most experts in the respective fields. That said, I think the inclusion of Kauffman's criticism is appropriate for this article, and we should try to steer clear of giving our own evaluations of his correctness in the article, either pro or con (however well-founded we may believe them to be). MastCell 21:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    I am not disputing the inclusion of mention of Kauffman's criticism, but the issue of undue weight is very "heavy" here, especially considering that it is actually assumed (and worded as if) that what he says it true. It all smacks of desperation. -- Fyslee 21:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    Kauffman's credibility should not be a concern here... especially based on his stance on cholesterol. How should that matter? Bottomline, Kauffman provides a detailed analysis of Quackwatch and sees how QW's use of research matches up to his. That you consider his viewpoints on QW fringe is immaterial and POV. Remember, this isn't about editor's POVs; but rather topical information from notable sources. Levine2112 21:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

    I think we're all pretty much on the same page here as to what is important for the article. The issue of how much weight to attach to Kauffman's article has been fought out ad nauseum, but it's actually pretty reasonable as it stands now in the article. MastCell 21:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

    Fyslee, pls don't even go there - more personal, dismissive, inflamatory POV on Kauffman. JK's paper primarily attacks high carb, low fat diets e.g. "...of cholesterol-lowering diet trials" - barely taking a swipe at cholesterol in one trial. The US diet, cholesterol, fat & coronary risk factor business is so varied, changing & politicized, I get a headache to even contemplate the specifics & cognitive dissonances of the ensuing "science" discussion. eg figures of merit accounting with absolute vs relative risk factors; or the isotope studies that show more body fat from carbs rather than ingested fat; of course the specific fat debates, trans- vs PUFA vs oleic vs other mono-unsats vs (coconut & butter) MCTs vs fish oils; ditto antioxidants molecule by molecule; niacin vs statin on an even basis, proper dosing, side-effects, good compliance, 10 yr mortality etc - "oh, those are just biomarkers"; male iron issues; homocysteine; metabolic syndrome X, glycemic index; magnesium, pharma's chromium adjuvant experiments & contemplated marketing... much less the published, cynical political economy of specific disease organizations or mainstream medical doctors openly criticizing, in mainstream journals, the latest pharmaphilic (statin) guidelines (I would love to see some of the letters they didn't print, might actually be worth the subscription).
    I, too, happen to have personal correspondence (May) from a nationally known, conventional cholesterol expert. His incidental aside, "...the [medical] profession rapidly becoming the most underappreciated in our society" on congratulations about something else, doesn't make me think mainstream medicine is clear sailing in the main science channel or in the court of public opinion. How about we avoid the bruising by-play & replay on Kauffman. My fingers ache to even think about it. I support MastCell's statements, let's steer clear here, it's done.--I'clast 21:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

    External Links

    I see there's been some back and forth about external links to Quackpotwatch and Quackwatch Watch, etc. In perusing WP:EL, it seems such links could be justified under the following: "On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link." Note that the policy mandates that we inform the reader of the site's point of view. On the other hand, under "Links to be Avoided", we find the following: "Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research." Hmm... however, I think the sites can be included as the WP guideline suggests the first criterion should outweigh the second. Besides, the sites make clear that they exist as a platform for vituperation against the person of Stephen Barrett, so the reader can make their own judgements. MastCell 23:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

    I agree. That second point... "contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research" may be hard to justify with any site with a viewpoint... including Quackwatch. Certainly there are those that would argue that its opinion are factually inaccurate and constitute original research, which is quite often unverified. Levine2112 16:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    That is an opinion about Quackwatch that is common among proponents of alternative medicine. They have a vested personal - and often economic - interest in casting aspersions on the viewpoints found on Quackwatch and other scientific and modern medicine oriented sources. They do so without providing specific examples of inaccuracies that are backed up by solid scientific research, that is also backed up by major third party sources outside of alternative medicine. They only find anecdotal support from within their own ranks. As such those opinions are just that - opinions from the fringes of what Bolen terms "cutting edge" medicine. Well, if you're on the cutting edge, you're on the wrong side of the knife's edge.....;-) IOW, they are acting without solid proof for the accuracy of their beliefs:
    • "The brightest flashes in the world of thought are incomplete until they have been proven to have their counterparts in the world of fact." - John Tyndall (1820-1893), physicist
    • "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." - William Kingdon Clifford
    -- Fyslee 19:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


    I agree with User:MastCell on this.NATTO 23:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


    Quackpot Watch unsuited as an External Link

    I believe Quackpot Watch, which Bolen describes as the archive for his email newsletter, is considered unsuited as an External Link according to the following source:

    The following phrase would allow an External Link to Bolen's archive of his factually inaccurate and libelous mailings to be placed on an article about himself:

    • "if the subject of an article has an official website, then it should be linked to even if it contains factually inaccurate material."

    The most important accusations he makes against Barrett, NCAHF, and Quackwatch, are by his own admission under forced deposition, "euphemism." He has no proof at all.

    The article about Quackpot Watch, which I contributed to in a large way since I know about Bolen and his writings probably better than any other editor here (except Barrett himself), was deemed to violate Wikipedia policies and to not be notable enough to keep here. It was deleted after an AfD. I was very much in doubt about this AfD, since I didn't understand those rules very well at the time, and I felt that the article expressed the essence of Bolen's viewpoints accurately, especially since he was quoted extensively, accurately, and fairly. After reading the other votes and the policies to which they referred, I finally acquiesced and voted this way:

    • Delete. Fails WP:WEB miserably. Main content of website is conspiracy theories and libelous statements. No documentation. Admits under deposition his vicious lies are just "euphemism." No evidence of reliability or credibility. Nothing but opinions prefaced with "I believe" and "I think." -- Fyslee 19:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

    -- Fyslee 19:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

    This site is about QW so links relevant to it are certainly allowed, especially when some editors place link to QW in so many articles in WP and that QW reliability and accuracy is far from being unchallenged. NATTO 23:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

    Quackpot Watch an unreliable source

    I also believe Quackpot Watch is an unreliable source according to the following sources:

    Quackpot Watch fails.
    Quackpot Watch fails.
    Quackpot Watch is allowed in this situation, with the named caveats.
    Quackpot Watch fails, except as noted above (if about Bolen himself, in an article about him).

    It is important to note that I have not removed any of the links to it where it is used as the only available source for certain legal documents. If better sources are found, we should certainly replace the links.

    -- Fyslee 19:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

    I agree that QuackpotWatch fails WP:RS and should not be used as a source for supposedly factual information. However, whether it should be included as an external link is a different question, one which is open to debate. I believe it is appropriate for inclusion (as a representative of the anti-QW viewpoint), so long as it is properly labeled as such. Although QuackpotWatch does meet some of the "Links Normally to Be Avoided" criteria, it also meets the "Criteria for Inclusion" as representing a significant point of view, which can override the "links to be avoided" criteria. Hence my feeling it's appropriate as an WP:EL, but not as a WP:RS. MastCell 19:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    I think for context that Quackpotwatch might be an appropriate link. An example of this type of conundrum can be seen at Quixtar. If done in moderation it seems to be acceptable. In other words we need to pick the best of the critics, it is not wikipedias role to document critic or pro sites exhaustively and, in my view, a large number of either is unacceptable. David D. (Talk) 19:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    I have provided some Wikipedia sources above that apply. Which phrases or sentences are you using to back up your viewpoint? If you are basing it on other sources, please provide them. Wikipedia is big, so we may not be listing all the appropriate guidelines or policies that apply. The best way to do all this is by following policies and guidelines as closely as possible. We all have our opinions about what to do, but we need to bend them to the policies. This is all a learning experience for me, and I'm interested in learning more. Please enlighten me.
    We also need to remember WP:BLP, which applies to mention of all living persons, both in articles, talk pages, and user space. -- Fyslee 20:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    Also, let's not forget that the WP article for Quackpot Watch was merged into Quackwatch. It would be show of bad faith to that agreement to expunge an external link to Quackpot Watch from this article. Levine2112 19:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    I don't really know what happened back then, but I don't think it was ever really "merged," but was just mentioned, and not as a source. If used as a source, it must not violate the rules above. -- Fyslee 20:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    An external link does not imply it is a source for the article. This is more about balance rather than sources. I think there is no doubt that such a web page does not pass the WP:RS standards. But, if presented as one critical of quackwatch, then it is appropriate. Especially if Quackpotwatch redirects to this page. David D. (Talk) 20:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    As does Tim Bolen. This was the agreement reached when those articles were merged. Levine2112 20:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    In that case Tim Bolen should also be bolded in the text. This is normal proceedure. I just noticed that the bolding of Quackpot watch got reverted. i can look for examples but it is quite typical for redirects to be bolded in the article. One example i came across today was the glucose page has dextrose bolded in the intro. If we really go with precedent then Bolen and his website Quackpot watch should be mentioned as a critic in the intro. There are countless examples of this in wikipedia. David D. (Talk) 20:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    David, it looks like you made that bold. It wasn't there ever before as far as I can recall. Can you show me a redirect that gets bolded, unless it is a synonym for the title of the article, like your "dextrose" example? That would be acceptable as approved practice. Otherwise bolding is frowned on as an expression of POV. I know that wikilinking an article to itself results in bolding, and I have just performed an experiment to see what wikilinking the redirects does. It doesn't seem to bold them, and since circular references aren't allowed, I'll remove them. They were never bolded originally anyway, and that wouldn't be standard practice. It would be a POV edit. So, please show me some examples. If it's not standard practice, then please remove the bolding. -- Fyslee 22:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    I think that it is very gracious of you to point this out, David D. I will reinstate. Err... actually let's wait to hear how others feel. No sense getting in an edit war with Fyslee. Levine2112 21:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • David D. raised a relevant point which I am in agreement with.NATTO 23:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    Here is the AfD page for QuackpotWatch. It was a very close vote (12 - 10 - 1), and the admin in charge - MangoJuice - made note that Quackpot Watch should be covered in Quackwatch article (which it already was at the time). Fyslee, I'm surprised you don't remember this. Your arguments for deletion are covered on the AfD and then some. Levine2112 20:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

    This was the version with the coverage of Quackpot Watch that was agreed upon. There was no external link or quoting of Bolen, in fact he wasn't even named. The site is so bad that it hardly was allowed to be mentioned at all, and certainly not sourced, since that would directly violate policies here. When the article was the deleted, it should have ceased to exist anywhere at Wikipedia. I can see that the dead wikilink was then removed, since circular references aren't allowed. That applies now as well. As far as mentioning Bolen in the lead, that is not necessary, but mention in the article is perfectly appropriate, as far as I'm concerned. He just can't be used as a source or linked to. The lead does mention that Quackwatch is controversial, which is quite correct and proper to mention in the lead. -- Fyslee 21:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

    The use of text from Quackpot Watch in any article at Wikipedia is still a use as a secondary source from a self-published source, and from a single person at that, who is paid to smear the opposition.
    The phrase "other self-published" covers self-published email newsletters, so this use is a violation of Wikipedia policy. By linking directly to Bolen's site, we are linking directly to libelous material which he admits is not true. Even Bolen's bio page contains two specific, direct, and blatant falsehoods, which he has admitted are not true. He repeatedly states them in nearly all of his email newsletters, stating them as fact, but under deposition he had to admit they were "euphemism" for what he himself believed, and he couldn't provide any proof at all for them.
    These rules also apply to the Ilena Rosenthal website, which I will delete. It is also covered by the source above. -- Fyslee 21:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

    Fyslee's Edit war

    Fyslee is deleting links to Bolen's and Rosenthal's site despite everyone else's ongoing discussions here. Please be reasonable Fyslee and let's discuss this like adults. Levine2112 22:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

    The edit summary is based on Wikipedia sources:
    • Bolen and Rosenthal sites violate WP:RS, WP:EL, and WP:BLP; use specific links to court documents in the article.
    Use those sources to justify your reverts. I am still allowing specific links to specific pages to specific court documents - when no better source exists. Otherwise they are one (wo)man hate sites that violate policies in every imaginable way. You've got to do better than depending on such junk as sources. This is really scraping the bottom of the outhouse. I'm sure you can do better. Don't you have enough criticims already, without stooping so low as to include sites that violate policy? There's got to be some bottom limit. -- Fyslee 22:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    Their criticisms, despite what you want to characterize them as, are relevant here. They are topical and germane to Quackwatch, NCAHF and Stephen Barrett. I am not stooping or scraping. I am merely making sure that you don't delete relevant and resourceful links.
    Remember how you added links all over Wikipedia to Quackwatch? They are links that "spew hate" about the subject too. Mr. Kettle meet Mr. Pot. Levine2112 22:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    Maybe Fyslee does not like the Rosenthal site because her opinion and information provided is relevant to the problems with QW ?....NATTO

    4RR violation for Fyslee

    Fyslee has just committed a 3RR violation with this edit. Levine2112 22:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

    This is your edit war. You are on 4RR. I just made 3RR after that. I'm using Wiki policies. Please use them too, not what you consider "relevant" or "germane." Those are just differences of opinion, and don't top policy. There are already plenty of better critical sites that don't violate Wiki policies already in use. Mention of the names of the others who do violate should be enough, although that list could be endless, but links to their Wiki policy violating sites isn't allowed. -- Fyslee 22:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    Fyslee, please show me the DIFFs that illustrate my 4RR.
    Yours are as follows:
    Levine2112 23:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    Fyslee, would you consider some other link format, balance (add a 2nd link?), identification or positioning to be more palatable on these two disputed links? I think that they are notable to QW if highly partisan (after all, can't *you* trust the reader if T & H are so obviously raving lunatics? You should, after all, smile over the thought of self immolation). Since QW wants to be a spamhyperlinked lightening rod, its supporters should not complain about the sound of thunder. I think the IR case brings up more valid issues for reflective consideration about QW. There are several promotional aspects here on QW that I have let slide in favor completeness rather than harp. SundayXmas is coming.--I'clast 23:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    I'clast, you are a poet and a purveyor of fairness. Thank you for your calm rationality. Levine2112 23:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    Clearly Fyslee is acting unilaterally in pursuit of his POV here. I have reverted his edits. NATTO
    Thank you for the consideration, NATTO. Just to be completely forthcoming, I want you all to know that I posted Fyslee's 4RR violation on the Administrators Noticeboard/3RR. Levine2112 23:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    I'm taking a break, and I expect that you will come up with better arguments than "relevant," "germane," "trust," "POV," etc.. Let's see some Wikipedia policies that permit you to violate the ones I've already mentioned. Right now those two sites are violating policy. Show me just how they aren't doing so. Try reading them with some other eyes first.
    To the best of my counting, Levine2112 made a 4RR revert and then I made my 3RR afterwards. Delete and revert are not the same thing. IOW, my first delete doesn't count. There are also two different links involved and more than one website. I'm only counting the one link I deleted the most, on one website, and did the same for Levine2112. Good night. -- Fyslee 23:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    Fyslee you clearly started this by deleting links that had been in the article for a long time. The links to these critics of QW are relevant in this article. Search to quackpotwatch are redirected to this article. Remember also that Barrett lost his lawsuit against Rosenthal, whatever your opinion of the verdict may be. NATTO 23:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    I assume good faith that you know how to count to 4. Please show me the DIFFs of my "violation" as I have done for you.
    In the meantime, "relevancy" is entirely what this is about. You can point to a policy (one which you yourself have edited to support your point two days ago which got reverted by another editor). The bottomline, Quackpotwatch and The Humantic Foundation provide relevant insight on the topic at hand. You can call them personal websites or self-published, but then again couldn't the same be said of Quackwatch? Levine2112 23:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    Just look at that editor's edit summary for why he reverted me. My edit was unnecessary because self-published email newsletters are already covered. They are not allowed. -- Fyslee 23:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    You POV objection here is immensely apparent and has been noted. Regardless, the links provide relevant and unique insight on the topics at hand. No one else agrees with you thus far. Even those who are "on your side". What is left to say? Levine2112 00:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

    My first delete is not a revert and does not count. The one reverting that delete is the first count. You need to find your first revert before the first one of mine you have listed. Those links should never have been included according to Wikipedia policy. We discussed it, and I acted boldly. No one has yet used Wikipedia policies to justify any reverts. I have done it all along. "Relevance" does not trump WP:RS, nor do lawsuits. There are plenty of other critical links left to deal with "relevance."

    Use Wikipedia policies to deal with this. The links are in violation as clearly explained. Now explain just as clearly (without using personal POV and just using Wikipedia policy with precise quotes and links), how the present interpretation is in error. No one has yet done that. -- Fyslee 23:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

    • " I'm taking a break.... Good night. -- Fyslee 23:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC) " ???? NATTO 23:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

    Let's take a step back. Are we arguing over whether QuackpotWatch and QuackwatchWatchWatch (?) should be included under "External Links"? They do meet the criteria of WP:EL. I fully agree they are not WP:RS, but External Links are not required to be RS; the RS policy applies to sources of citations for facts in the text of the article. I don't think Bolen's and Rosenthal's sites are going to sway any undecideds - they read like the vindictive, aggrieved rants of people whom Barrett has spotlighted - but criticism of QW does exist, and it's appropriate to provide a small number of external links to critical sites. Can't we all just get along on this? MastCell 00:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

    As I said earlier, I agree with User:MastCell and other editors on this. The readers can make up their own mind. From what I have read on this talk page today, the vast majority of editors are getting along on this. :-) NATTO 00:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    More importantly, editors from different spectrums of opinion are agreeing on this point. David D. (Talk) 02:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    Precisely. I'm going to have that cup of tea now. Thanks all. :-) Levine2112 02:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

    Result: Both User:Fyslee and User:Levine2112 were blocked for 12 hours by Jaranda wat's sup 03:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC).

    (Copied from WP:AN/3RR.) Now, can we get back to editing politely? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    I have responded to Levine2112's complaint here. It appears that I was mistaken in my count of his reverts. He was at 3RR, and not at 4RR, just as I was. I am awaiting responses on the issues I have raised above, and the issues raised in my response. In the mean time I apologize to Levine2112 for counting incorrectly, and to all of you for this debacle. It was the first time I've ever experienced this kind of thing. -- Fyslee 21:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    I appreciate it. Levine2112 00:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

    Block from editing an article

    When an editor is blocked from editing a particular article, when does the block start ?NATTO 22:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

    about bedtime ;> --I'clast 23:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    It goes into effect when the admin actually does it, not from the time the user is warned. There is then a specified time limit for the block. The block which Levine2112 and I just experienced was for 12 hours, and applied to all of Wikipedia, except our own user and talk pages, if I recall correctly. Attempts anywhere else were met with a big notice and only source could be viewed, but no editing done. A weird experience! -- Fyslee 09:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    I saw 4 reverts from each, I later saw Frylee apologize. Editors aren't blocked from editing a particular article though unless it's by WP:ARBCOM. They should avoid the article for 24 hours as soon as you reach 3 reverts though. Jaranda wat's sup 00:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jaranda" NATTO 09:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

    Proliferation of external links

    OK... whoah... wait a minute. Let's review WP:EL. "The number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other." Suddenly we've got a whole legion of anti-QW links, which is a violation of WP:EL. Let's pick one or two that are most agreeable to the anti-QW editors, and trim the rest. See my above comments - one or two anti-QW links are OK, but turning the External Links section into a clearinghouse for criticism of QW is inappropriate and a policy violation. I won't delete any right now; I'd rather leave it to the anti-QW folks to choose - but let's trim them down to a reasonable size. MastCell 02:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

    This article has been been trashed by a couple of editors who are apparently determined to provide a bizarrely distorted and dishonest account of this subject to the reader. No negative link is too stupid or too trivial or too dishonest to reject. No con man, thief, killer, or fraud artist is too dishonest to defend. There is no crackpot theory too dishonest or too stupid to deserve equal time. All of their efforts are devoted to attacking one of the few people brave enough and honest enough to stand against that stuff publicly. Their contributions are a contemptible demonstration of Gresham's law of encyclopedic information. Pigs will fly before either of them will subtract one of those quotations. alteripse 03:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

    Or else, maybe the "reverse form" of Gresham's law is operating here. In an open marketplace, good commodities drive out the "bad" or the short weight, fiat driven ones. Looks like there might be some demand for QW to at least quit clipping the intellectual coin of the realm. ;> --I'clast 07:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    MastCell, If you have a look at the added links, I have also added pro QW links as well ( in Other Links _ could be renamed pro QW ? )so it is not one sided. I added the links to the Chiro websites as QW is highly critical of chiropractic so I thought it was only fair for them to be included. You are welcomed to add more relevant links if you wish. Lets not jump to premature conclusions please . :-)NATTO 04:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    You're right, I had reviewed the first 4 and made an assumption about the last 2, which are in fact supportive of QW's objectives. MastCell 05:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks MastCell. You see we can get along pretty well :-) NATTO 09:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../q/u/a/Talk%7EQuackwatch_Archive_2_929a.html"