Talk:Quackwatch/Archive 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 12

| Archive 13 →

[edit] Website Review

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

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

[edit] Dispute

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

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

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

[edit] Notice

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

Per WP:WEIGHT,

We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

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

Per WP:WEIGHT, to give "undue weight" to critics is a NPOV violation. This directly applies to the text. WP:NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints. Alternative medicine promoters/critics are a tiny minority. Wikipedia does not promote WP:FRINGE editing. Quack Guru 18:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] PseudoTemplate at the bottom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Pseudoskepticism yet again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(EC) How about we refactor this conversation? SA: "pseudoskepticism" does not belong, as I explained in <this section> at my user page" (Note: not the way SA phrased it) then yadda yadda stonewalling (and note, Levine shouldn't ask SA to define "stonewalling", he should ask SA to specify what in this disputation he regards stonewalling; I think they are both exasperated, but maybe I'm projecting). SA is actually right about the content issue (IMO, more momentarily) but is not playing nice wrt to achieving consensus, although you guys ...we guys... argue about every inanity so much we could probably mimic each others' roles.

Actually I think "pseudoscepticism" may be a meaningful term, e.g. Creationists' pretended scepticism to perceived flaws in conventional science ("all scientists know that the laws of thermodynamics prohibit complexity arising from random processes, so there are flaws in conventional biology that need to be addressed" [that sentence is false in multiple ways, btw]). Applying "pseudoscepticism" to SA and QW would not seem meaningful, if that's intended. We should agree that their scepticism is sincere, even if we don't like their rhetoric or excesses or all-inclusiveness. However, I agree with the significance of distinguishing "defending science" from "purporting to defend science" as has been mentioned elsewhere. Pete St.John (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] What is the rationale for ...?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't see the relationship between your google books link and the discussion. Looks like a new section below has been started. :::::: "what's the big deal with add one more related link" If that's the best argument for including it, then let's keep it out. --Ronz (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Third Opinion v1.1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Continuing on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] What is the rationale for including it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] What is the rationale for its removal?

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

[edit] See 3rd Opinion

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

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

[edit] These conclusions could apply to the pseudotemplate itself

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eh, that's a subjective measurement, really. Personally, I think other editors have had sufficient time to comment (especially when you consider the other times this issue has come up without a satisfactory reason given for keeping it). --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been keeping up here all that much lately but if memory serves me correctly; shouldn't WP:Consensus for this kind of change be the appropriate way to handle this instead of deciding on just four editors? This article is very fragile and this kind of bold move might cause the balance to fail again when things seemed to have calm a little. Also, I thought I saw responses about this earlier on in this talk page, maybe I'm wrong, but I am leaving the computer right now. This is just my opinion, --CrohnieGal^Talk 23:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, this could be seen to reduce conflict on this article rather than to create it (look at the original issue in this section of the talk page for one). As for looking for consensus, well, there's also WP:Bold, which can be applicable when discussion has met with silence from one side of the issue. In any case, perhaps the discussion on this should have taken place in a somewhat more visible section. We have that now, at least. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 00:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

There was a long discussion now just 11 days ago with many editors involved. WP:BOLD seems more like don't like the out come of the results 11 days ago so I'll make a quick comment and in a day I will change it to what I wanted."I don't like it" This isn't supposed to be the way things are done here. WP:Consensus means something and going back to the origins you will see that a lot were for the inclusion of this material. Even some of the editors here tried to add to the template after it was agreed to keep. I don't see any reasons for the deletions, just a quick comment for others to comment and then action taken to delete. Deleting the whole section to stop conflicts is not a reason for deletion as was stated [16] when an attempt to delete this article was tried and failed. --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I did a quick skim through this page and the archives and I can't see anything that matches what you seem to be talking about. Mind providing me a link to this discussion? --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I say keep. There is no reason for it not to be in the article and a consensus 11 days ago had editors agreeing to keep it. [17], [18], [19] (this has been attempted to be added by quite a few.) [20] (This states a current talk says to leave it out.) [21] Here the template is removed stating per talk which to me is barely a handful of editors who decided WP:BOLD over ruled WP:Consensus from talk 11 days ago, also as I have said, not allowing active editors enough time to weigh in on the issues. [22] Here it is reinserted by an editor I personally do not know and have not seen work QW in the past, just recently. [23] removed again with reasoning I have to admit I don't understand. [24] Who made the decision for this edit? I don't see much conversation on the talk page other than a couple of editors who agreed with each other that it was acceptable to delete. I did my best to try to explain why I think this should stay in. Please allow others to give input for their reasoning and policies. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 23:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] QPW banned on Wikipedia ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Why does this article have its own navbox?

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

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

[edit] a few links

[25] [26] [27] [28] [29] QuackGuru (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Green criticism

Removed here for consideration:

National Institutes of Health's Dr. Lichuan Chen described many of [Quackwatch article author] Green's statements as "misrepresentations and misinterpretations"... as used in Green's articles on antineoplastons.^[1]

Saul Green is associated with Quackwatch, however he is not mentioned on the article page. The criticism reference above is taken from a book and appears to be criticism of Saul Green's 1992 paper as published in the Journal of the American Medical Association and not a direct criticism of Quackwatch. The ref given contains a link to Google book search.

Using a criticsm of Saul Green's work as a criticism of Quackwatch seems a bit iffy given that Green is not listed in the article as part of the organization. I say leave it out, but if it is to be included, then Green's association w/Quackwatch must be elsewhere in the article along with other members and their qualifications. Vsmith (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

[edit] consensus or no consensus

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quackwatch&diff=next&oldid=190690467

I did not see any broad consensus to remove the template. QuackGuru (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Please review "These conclusions could apply to the pseudotemplate itself" section above and then consider that there is no consensus to keep the template. It has only led us to edit warring, endless arguments and lots of grief. Time to let this one die and let's move on to more agreeable ideas. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I realize there is no consensus to remove it and there are editors who appreciate it. I say keep it. QuackGuru (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's leave it out for now and see who shows up to support including it again. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I say leave it in for now and gain consensus first before removing. QuackGuru (talk) 23:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There is plenty of support for the template anyhow. [30][31] QuackGuru (talk) 23:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I left a message above for over a day asking for any dissenters and no one came by. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone came by and explained to everyone about consensus.[32][33] QuackGuru (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No. Crohnie came by and asked some questions and gave her opinion. To which, Infophile responded. Please consider Infophile's response. Then consider how much grief this pseudo-template has caused. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

"No. Crohnie came by and asked some questions and gave her opinion." I would like to know why you think Infophile's comments to me are more important then the comments I made. It sounds like my comments do not add anything to the conversations here. --CrohnieGal^Talk 23:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The content was there for five months. I don't think anyone should be surprised that a wait of over a day might not be enough to create a new consensus. --Ronz (talk) 00:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I gave my opinion on its inclusion (affirmative) ten days ago. I gave my opinion on including pseudoskepticism (affirmative) after that. Consensus is ephemeral, true, but ignoring another editor's opinion and arguments after ten days? Now that would help make stonewalling an art form if allowed. As to "Technically, links to articles already mentioned in the body of the article - such as NCAHF - could be removed per WP:ALSO" --> true, unless there is a consensus to include. Avb 00:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I checked up on this page, and the only argument I see you making for it is that it seems to have consensus. At this point, appealing to that argument for your support is little more than begging the question, though. But anyways, do you have any other reasons for its inclusion? --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 00:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

When trying to change consensus, please follow WP:CON and WP:TALK. So far, editors have tried to change consensus by having a quick discussion. Time for a more in-depth discussion. Let's try to focus on the content, not the editors. --Ronz (talk) 00:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Your arguments are? --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 00:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

As we wait for Ronz (or anyone else) to give their specific reasons why they support inclusion, I would like to note that the statement "The content was there for five months" is not entirely factual. I wnet back to some random dates in January 08, December 07, and November 07 and I don't see the pseudo-template there. What was there was an alt med template. Definitely looking forward to some specific policy explanations/justifications from Ronz. Not just a litany of policies, but citations from each and any that justify his rationale. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

One of the most important aspects of consensus-building and talk page behavior is to not focus on other editors, but on the content under dispute. --Ronz (talk) 01:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

So, maybe you could provide us with some such arguments? It seems all you've been doing so far is talking about how we should behave. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 03:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

"It seems all you've been doing so far is talking about how we should behave." Yep. Until we can all follow WP:TALK and WP:CON, we're wasting our time. --Ronz (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now you're just stonewalling. Do you have any intention of actually giving arguments for your side and engaging in an actual discussion, or are you simply going to repeat that refrain? --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Please follow WP:TALK and WP:CON. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Infophile (cool pun btw), try rephrasing the question to be clear, concise, specific, and self-contained. Then if some juvenile stonewaller merely repeats his refrain, as he always does, the stonewalling would be conspicuous. Pete St.John (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Eh, couldn't hurt. First, I'll reiterate the arguments I've given above for removal of the pseudotemplate. In reference to Athaenara's comment, "I see no encyclopedic merit in including it anywhere else in the article, but "Phraseology" in "Related Topics" would be appropriate placement in that it would provide a link to a concept which is fully as pertinent as the other concepts linked there," I said:

I'clast followed up:

Agree with Infophile on pseudotemplate. Massive linkfarming and promotion of one sided, less-than-rigorous "scientific views" are long running issues here.

The fact that it acts as a linkfarm is my biggest beef with it. The links that might be relevant to a reader are drowned out by the irrelevant. Do we really need a link to Pejorative, four different flavors of Homeopathy, Global warming controversy, etc.? Compare to the more traditional section I had in a short-lived version: [34]. Five links to subjects which are obviously related but not linked previously. Much more useful to the reader.

So, those are my arguments for removal of the pseudotemplate. To those who believe it should be left in, why do you think so? --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I am new to this, but it sure looks like an extreme example of a linkfarm to me. Very busy and hard to read. Surely 5 or 10 links at most are relevant. To include ALL those seems a bit much to me.--Filll (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

"Linkfarm" usually refers to external links (see WP:NOT#LINK) For example: Che_Guevara#See_also and Medicine#External_links are not considered linkfarms, while Che_Guevara#Videography and List_of_banks_of_the_United_States_of_America#Michigan are linkfarms. --Ronz (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that point 2 at WP:NOT#LINK explicitly deals with internal links. External links aren't the only problems. Also, there's a big difference between having a ton of links from a general topic such as Medicine and from a more specific topic such as Quackwatch. One would likely expect an article like Medicine to have many links to different parts of it, while they wouldn't expect to see such a link repository off in a corner article. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Infophile has summed up the main tenets for removing the pseudo-template. That being said, I will go back to suggestion I made about a month ago about creating an actual {{Template:Skepticism}}. Actually there already is one here, but it is in poor shape. I had made this suggestion because then we would have all of the advantages of having an actual navigational template:

reduction of clutter in that area of the article before "References" and "External links",
compactness of the template compared to a standard list or table, in the case of many links, ::::* if the most immediately related links are kept under "See also", the reader has a better idea of scope,
less directly related links are out of the way or in some cases hidden by default,
ease of maintenance in updating the template as articles get created or deleted.

Further - and seemingly most important here - the disputes about template content would not be disruptive to the talk pages of the articles on which this template would appear, but rather the template content disputes would be focused at Template_talk:Skepticism. Another bonus is that the the template would be much more general with regards to the topic of Skepticism; meaning it would generally be more useful of a navigational tool to the average user.

To read more about Navigational templates, go here: WP:NAV. One main tenet to understand from WP:NAV is the criteria for inclusion:

The goal is not to cram as many related articles as possible into one space. Ask yourself, does this help the reader in reading up on related topics? Take any two articles in the template. Would a reader really want to go from A to B? The goal is not to cram as many related articles as possible into one space. Ask yourself, does this help the reader in reading up on related topics? Take any two articles in the template. Would a reader really want to go from A to B?

Bear that in mind if someone decides to proceed with creating such a template. One can already see why "pseudoskepticism" would fit nicely into such a template.

In closing, if Ronz and others still feel that the inclusion of the pseudo-template is still justified at this article, I would really hope that they can be as explicit in their position by citing Wikipedia policy and laying out their rationale as Infophile, myself and others have done. Otherwise, can we all agree now to remove it? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

If an actual template is created, that's fine with me (and of course pseudoskepticism would be appropriate in that case). In fact, it probably shouldn't be nearly as extensive as this pseudotemplate, but that's another discussion. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 04:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have a template I presume it should be inserted in all articles mentioned. I can hardly see that this template would be tolerated on most of the other articles. This template is - kind of - a context for this article. Not for 90% of the other articles. Why not use the established practice of a See Also section. I would prefer to have it removed. MaxPont (talk) 13:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I am still waiting for Ronz and/or others to justify inclusion of the current pseudo-template by explicitly stating their position by citing Wikipedia policy. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a see also list. While I'm not particularly fond of see also lists, there is no reason that they shouldn't include this list style over any other styles. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not a See Also list. Per WP:ALSO: Links are presented in a bulleted list and should be listed in alphabetical order. This pseudotemplate is not that. What this pseudotemplate it attempting to be is a navigational template. If that is what it is going to be, fine. But it should be created as real nav template such the one here. My suggestion is to take Template:Skepticism and shape it into something useful which could be used across multiple articles. However,as the pseudotemplate stands now, it is single-article serving, appears to me to be a link farm, and it loses all of the benefit of being an actual navigational template. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

But it is not a linkfarm, in any sense that it is a list that should be trimmed down or removed per any policy or guidelines mentioned so far. --Ronz (talk) 03:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. But it certainly isn't a See also section nor is it a real navigational template. So what is it? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You're Wikilawyering now. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I am? I am asking a question. If the pseudotemplate is not a See Also section and not a real navigational template, then what is it (and what is it doing on this article)? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 05:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Linkfarm?

Yes there is. As I mentioned before, it leads to linkfarming. The end result is that the more useful links get drowned out by the less useful ones. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

To clarify even more, linkfarms are lists containing external links, or entire articles consisting of nothing but links. Neither applies in this case. --Ronz (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Not true. The relevant portion of policy covers both internal and external linkfarms. In either case, that has no bearing on the arguments against this pseudotemplate. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no section of WP:NOT#LINK that I see as relevant to See also sections, or other lists of internal links within an article. "2. Mere collections of internal links" does not apply, nor do I see how any of the others apply. --Ronz (talk) 23:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You're the one who brought that section up, saying it applied to collections of external links as linkfarms. I just pointed out that it applied to internal link collections just as much. Anyways, you still haven't addressed any of the actual reasons given against the pseudotemplate or supplied any reasons for it. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like we are agreed that it's not a linkfarm, right? --Ronz (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope. I still say it's a linkfarm. I've seen nothing stating that a linkfarm must be external links. Can we at least agree that this is irrelevant, though? --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a linkfarm according to WP:NOT#LINK. There are many examples of other articles having similarly large lists of internal links. You're saying it's irrelevant? I feel like I've wasted my time here. --Ronz (talk) 00:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least we can agree this is a waste of time. Whether you call a dog's tail a leg or not, it won't help it walk. Similarly, whether you call this a linkfarm or not, it doesn't change whether it's good for the article. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 00:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"it doesn't change whether it's good for the article" I thought you said it was irrelevant. If it's irrelevant, then it's no argument for or against the inclusion of the information. If it's not irrelevant, then strikout your past statements to indicate you've changed your mind, or otherwise do something that makes your viewpoint clear. --Ronz (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

What you call it is irrelevant, and I'm done with discussing this. I'll go on calling it a linkfarm. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 00:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"it's no argument for or against the inclusion of the information" --Ronz (talk) 00:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone is entitled to say this is a linkfarm (although I don't agree it is). Regardless, what editors are calling it is not an argument either way. Showing it is a linkfarm would be an argument against using it. But even if someone would actually do the latter, the argument still would not trump consensus. If we reach a consensus to include the disputed links, in they go. My opinion remains that this is an editorial decision not based on sources as there is no policy or guideline requiring or prohibiting its use. If editors find it unbalanced (i.e. giving mainstream science more than its fair majority share of article space) they should try to reach a consensus to add more ~~fringe~~ links, not to remove all the links. Avb 01:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You're completely missing the point. I've repeated myself enough times already, so I won't do so again. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 01:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe I am, as I have just spent a lot of time reading what you said. I would appreciate it if you would take the time to try and catch my drift instead of a knee-jerk reaction within 2 minutes. Hint: I was not responding to you, as should be clear from my indentation. This was mainly my contribution to the discussion entitled "consensus or no consensus" - and I was repeating myself because other users feel that opinions and comments made earlier will evaporate within 14 days or so. Avb 01:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not it is a true Link Farm seems to be temporarily (and perhaps permanently) irrelevant. What is currently relevant is that this pseudotemplate isn't a See also section nor is it a real navigational template. So the question is: What is it? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Redundant among other things. The ad section links, About the site, often duplicate the External Links section links, for that double helping toward QW pov and (t)rite thinking linkspam.--I'clast (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] One last time...

I'll repeat my argument against this pseudotemplate one last time: It lends itself to getting more and more cluttered with links (witness Avb's suggestion to add more links to it to fix it). This drowns out any links that are more likely to be useful to the reader. A See Also section is useful when it provides a few articles that would definitely be useful. When it gets this long, people stop reading through it. Compare to the version I tried to place in a few days ago: [35]. Doesn't that look like it would be much more useful to a reader?

Alright. That's my primary argument against the pseudotemplate. I have so far heard no arguments for it, and it all just seems to be "I like it!" If I don't receive any better arguments, I'll assume that's all it really is. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with this sentiment. However, I think that there may be a place for the template in question to be created at Wikipedia and included at many different articles. Might I suggest Template:Quackery? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Levine suggested Template:Skepticism a while back, which might be more general-purpose. It already exists, but not in any usable shape (the fact that it is used nevertheless is... unfortunate). Now, would people agree to the idea of having a traditional See Also section in this article and then also including a navigational template? --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It is time to remove it and replace the pseudo-template with a traditional See Also section per WP:ALSO. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Policy for templates?

If I understand the discussion right, this is not a normal WP template but something else - "pseudotemplate". If so, I believe that the readers would confuse this with a normal WP template. Please show me the relevant WP allowing a pseudotemplate to replace the See Also section?

(Ps. If this is a template it should be inserted in all articles mentioned.) MaxPont (talk) 08:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You can turn this question around. Please show me the relevant WP forbidding a pseudotemplate to replace the See Also section. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, look at WP:ALSO and read the line "Links are presented in a bulleted list and should be listed in alphabetical order." Considering all the confrontation around this article I think the best way is for editors to adhere closely to WP and guidelines. MaxPont (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:IAR anybody? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I take that as a consession that you don't have support from Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines for including it. MaxPont (talk) 09:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather not ignore the rules here. That is a cop-out. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 05:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

OMG! Is this subject still being debated here? No wonder I've stayed away from it for awhile.... That template really has nothing to do with QW or its POV, and doesn't do much for the subject, which is QW. Get rid of it. -- Fyslee / talk 06:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:IAR is for when ignoring the rules would make the encyclopedia better. I've argued that this isn't the case here. Since it isn't clear-cut, it isn't really a good time to be applying it. To Fyslee: Part of the reason this is still going on is that the article was protected due to edit-warring over it. To everyone else: Judging by the outcome of all the discussion, I plan to remove it as soon as the protection expires. If you don't want this to happen, then please explain why so we can discuss your reasoning. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 00:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it is better to ask ScienceApologist to remove the template. This article needs to be edited in a more collaborative spirit. MaxPont (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a magnanimous offer. I suggest that you notify him on his talk page and let him know of this offer. If nothing happens within a day's time, then anyone can delete it. I'll support such a move. The template is an unusual inclusion on such a page about a specific website and organization, not about a concept that would make such a template relevant. As such it's not directly relevant. We already have a short listing of subjects in the article that are directly relevant and necessary to give context to the mission of QW. We simply don't need this template. -- Fyslee / talk 15:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That day has come and passed. I am going to remove it just once. If reverted, I expect a clear explanation here because it seems that we have a clear consensus to remove it. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] real template

As requested, I will add a real template. QuackGuru (talk) 02:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary. -- Fyslee / talk 03:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)