Talk:Quackwatch/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 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.
← Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 →

Contents

Saherian Quote and References

Noticed some serious problems with Dr. Saherian’s quotes and references in the Criticism section:

"Ray Sahelian, MD, an advocate of nutritional medicine, accused Quackwatch of failing to point out 'scams or inaccurate promotion and marketing practices by the pharmaceutical industry', even while praising Barrett for having done 'good research on many of the people involved in the alternative health industry, and has pointed out several instances of inaccuracies and scams.'[34][35][36]"

3 references are cited in support of the critical statement made about Quackwatch/Barrett, when it appears that only one is relevant; i.e. #36 which contains the material quoted in the article. Reference #35 is a link to the homepage of the site that contains #36 and is therefore redundant and should be deleted. Reference #34 refers to an offline book by Saherian that may or may not contain criticism of Quackwatch; it seems that this reference should also be deleted.

The sentence containing the quotes from Sahelian is grammatically awkward and could incorrectly be read to mean that Saherian pointed out inaccuracies and scams on the Quackwatch website (which he did not). An easy solution would be to substitute “even while praising Barrett for having done“, with “and praised that Barrett has done…” However, for several other reasons, it should instead be deleted altogether.

  • Inclusion of Saherian’s article seems to violate WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:BLP and WP:RS. The article looks like a personal attack page. Saherian's website (#35, a blatant e-commerce site that does not seem to meet WP:RS) does not appear to contain any reviews of other websites or individuals. The article does not contain any references and appears to be just shallow, unsubstantiated opinion with a bit of mudslinging.
  • Saherian’s article includes a personal attack on Barrett based on an alleged email from an unnamed individual; i.e. "I couldn't agree with you more regarding the ignorance and pretentiousness of Stephen Barrett". Clearly not encyclopedic-quality content.
  • One of Saherian’s criticisms was that he thought Barrett was rude to him in an email but that is neither relevant nor encyclopedic, nor does it directly pertain to Quackwatch.

There appears to be sufficient reason to warrant removal of the Saherian quote. Rhode Island Red 23:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the quote probably doesn't belong here, but unfortunately I expect that you'll find it very difficult to remove. --Philosophus T 00:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Notability?

This article's topic is notable? J. D. Redding 17:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a Notability section in this article which supports why it is notable. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Seems fishy to me ... but that is IMO ... seems non-notable. As to the "notablility" section, "Best of the Web" and a few journalist mention it? Hmm, very fishy ... is this a "pet site" of some editors? J. D. Redding 18:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Recently, there has been questions surronding using information from this site as a reliable source (There are countless references linking to Quackwatch throughout Wikipedia). Many editors and admins don't think it qualifies as a reliable source as the site is heavily partisan, doesn't have any formal peer review process and can be construed as deceptive (presenting opinions as facts). I haven't heard much argument about its notability, however. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, notability (in Wikipedia terms) is usually substantiated by multiple references to the subject in independent, reliable secondary sources, and we seem to have that here. Certainly this is a controversial topic, but its notability seems established according to Wikipedia's guidelines. MastCell Talk 20:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. We have attributable and reliable sources covering the subject. I don't think notability is a questions. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
So one "best of the web" mention and a few journalist mentions qualifies as notable? J. D. Redding 22:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Notability criteria for websites is listed at WP:WEB. Please read it, it answers your questions. And yes, quackwatch appears to pass easily. --Minderbinder 22:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
There is also Forbes, US News and NY Times - to name a few - mentioning Quackwatch. Definitely notable enough to warrant this article. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Kinda shaky JIMO ... seems a pet site. BUT with only a "best of the web" mention and a few journalist mentions it does seem to qualify. Alot of things could qualify over that low bar, though ... anyways, thanks for the info ... J. D. Redding
No problem. Lots of things do quality as notable per Wikipedia. Ever notice how many articles are here! ;-) -- Levine2112 discuss 23:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Intro

I've reverted MaxPont's edit of the introduction.

Original:

Quackwatch Inc. is an American non-profit organization that aims to "combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct," with its primary focus on what it characterizes as quackery.[1] Since 1996, it has operated a website, Quackwatch.org, which contains articles and other types of information criticizing many forms of alternative medicine.[2]


MaxPont's proposal

Quackwatch Inc. is an American non-profit organization most well-known for operating the web site Quackwatch.org, which contains articles and othertypes of information criticizing many forms of alternative medicine.[1] Quackwath Inc. started the web site in 1996 with a mission to "combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct," with its primary focus on what it characterizes as quackery.[2]

I'm not sure that we need to emphasize the notability like this, but maybe this is a good time to look at WP:LEAD and get some ideas on if and how it should be expanded or changed. --Ronz 16:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Given the conversation just above, I think I prefer MaxPont's rewrite (which basically just transposes the two sentences and gets the notability of Quackwatch brought to the forefront. But please explore WP:LEAD and offer other suggestions. However, this to me, seems like an easy and innocuous fix which will help avoid more discussions such as the one above. -- Levine2112 discuss 16:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
From WP:LEAD, I think we probably want to add a bit more about the criticism. At the same time "information criticizing many forms" seems a bit pov. Maybe ""information investigating many forms". --Ronz 17:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Now that seems POV and not accurate. Quackwatch only lists "investigations" which are critical (and largely one-sided); hence they criticize. "Criticize" accurately and succinctly describes what Quackwatch does - and criticizing alternative medicine (and such) is exactly for what Quackwatch has become notable. BTW, Forbes magazine describes waht Quackwatch does as "attacking". -- Levine2112 discuss 17:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Sounds pov to me, especially for the introduction. Have any secondary, non-partisan, reliable sources to back your claims? Now that I look closer at the article, I think we should look at the descriptions in About the site as well("but are mainly critical descriptions of treatments" "especially critical of those").
Looking at the intro vs the rest of the article, I don't see anything tying the introduction to either the Criticism or Notability sections. --Ronz 17:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
It may sound POV to you, but it is actually quite accurate. "Investigates" is not accurate and has a phony gloss to it. If QW investigated, then surely not all of their investigations would be negative. But as all of their articles are of the "attacking" variety, "Criticize" is the correct term to describe what QW does. "Exposes" is the word which QW uses to self-describe, but that is certainly POV. However, it does tell us that they seek to expose; and their methodology is criticism. I think MaxPont's suggested rewrite is better at linking the lead to the notability section. Per your suggestion, we could also add something to tie it to the criticism section (i.e. "a controversial website", "in turn, it garners its own criticism", et cetera). -- Levine2112 discuss 17:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand the position of Ronz at all. The word "critical" is a neutral description of Quackwatch that is so obvious that I took it for granted that it would be uncontroversial. (But fine, let's be productive and discuss this word for the next twelve weeks.) I also don't understand the idea that good faith edits and rewrites related to language and style should be done on the Talk-pages instead of in the normal Wikipedia form of a series of edit rewrites in the article text itself. This topic is not significant enough to be discussed on the Talk-pages (where the endless space encourage verbosity). I will restore my edit and further "debate" should be confined to the edit comments. MaxPont 07:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Max, there is a reason for this methodology here. This is one of the most contentious articles in all of the health, medical and alternative medicine subjects at Wikipedia, and that has to do with it's notability and influence. It is not without reason that Quackwatch has lots of enemies. It is the "canary in the mine," and lots of people would love to kill that canary. The lead has a long history, where every single word is weighed on the balances and the slightest changes start long edit wars, and we don't want to go there again. Therefore any changes, even the slightest, need to be discussed first. A stable version is to be preferred. -- Fyslee/talk 09:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Quackpotwatch redirects

I've deleted the following redirects:

  • Quackpotwatch
  • Tim Bolen
  • Quackpotwatch.org
  • Quackpot Watch
  • Quackpot watch

All of which redirected to this page. Since this article does not mention Quackpotwatch (not an encyclopedic source), the redirects are inappropriate. They were initially redirects to the now-deleted Quackpotwatch article, so fall under speedy deletion criteria (R1, redirect to non-existent page). I've preserved all of the associated talk pages, though, since they contain potentially relevant discussion. If anyone strongly disagrees with this action or rationale, just let me know, and I'll be happy to undelete them and send them to redirects for discussion for a more formal evaluation. MastCell Talk 18:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Pseudoskepticism

Seems off topic and a criticism to me. I'd like to hear why ConfuciusOrnis removed it. --Ronz 03:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Because it's not directly applicable, and struck me as a sidelong POV swipe. It's also linked to from both pseudoscience and scientific scepticism. ornis 08:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
pathological skepticism, still linked to the WP article, would probably be a slightly less critical form, carrying more an "over doing it" flavor, instead of "fake" skepticism. Quackwatch and its principal authors have been mentioned with (published) various elements of Truzzi's criteria by notable scientists with substantial scientific careers. Has as much standing here as with the other PS listed.--I'clast 09:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Pathological scepticism is the same article. Which principles are mentioned and by whom? And as far as I understand it pathological/psuedo scepticism is more than "overdoing it", it's rather more the rejection out of hand, ideas that run counter to firmly held convictions, without considering the evidence. The sort of thinking that leads to things like this, this, these or these. Oh and sorry, but I'm not sure what you mean by that last sentence.ornis 10:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I was being nice, making allowances for editorial differences on how much "of out of hand". " PS"
These are similar to criticisms that have been made in one form or another about QW or its authors over the last 30-40 years, perhaps starting with Pauling (with Victor Herbert) and others rather conveniently detailed in Kauffman's paper. Pauling complained about several repeated failures on replication and hypothesis testing, although widely ridiculed for almost two decades, the recent NIH and NAS papers are saying, oohhh *those* f- u-s - obviously innocent oversights. QW still publishes its Pauling-vitamin C papers as if nothing was noticed about such failures of replication or gross failure to test the more general hypotheses, failures such as in adminstration route, chemistry, dose range, controls, analysis, etc.
  • The tendency to deny, rather than doubt - yes, common perspective of altmed
  • Double standards in the application of criticism - yes
  • The making of judgments without full inquiry - yes (inquiry results not used, if found anyway)
  • Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate - yes, some clear "oversights"
  • Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks - yes, many complaints
  • Pejorative labeling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.' -
from QW search line: promoter - "Found 115 matches in 63 files"; "Looking for pseudoscience in ntire archive - Found 120 matches in 49 files"; "Looking for pseudoscientists in entire archive - Found 16 matches in 4 files"; "pathological science" - 1; and so on.--I'clast 11:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
This just comes across to me as OR and criticism. --Ronz 17:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
It is not only "OR and criticism," it is very specific and direct editorializing OR and criticism. Not only that, it is (as stated above by ornis) a "POV swipe", and a very direct one at that, made by those editors who keep reinstating it. This is no surprise nor any secret since their POV and intent is pretty obvious (in spite of claims to the contrary). Any criticism (and serious - non-ad hominem - criticism certainly should be included!) should be from V & RS outside of Wikipedia and independent of its editors. Therefore the "See also" link is a form of internal editorial linkspam that should be removed immediately. -- Fyslee/talk 17:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The See Also section should provide CONTEXT for the reader [1] [2] and link to other articles that are related. The connection between the See Also link and the article does not have to be very high. WP states that a See Also link ideally should NOT have been linked to in the article itself. A clear norm pointing towards weak connections. IMO the Pseudoskepticism article belongs to the same cluster of articles as QW, SB, PS, and NCAH. Just look at how the same group of editors works on these articles. Articles form clusters of interrelated topics and the readers should be given the opportunity to explore them. The See Also link is not an endorsement, just a pointer to related topics. MaxPont 13:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The "See also" links should provide context that is self-evident from the article, not from the opinions of unfriendly editors. There are two groups of editors (and some others) who edit those articles, each approaching from widely different POV. Those editors (the enemies of Quackwatch) who see scientific skepticism as an exercise carried on by pseudoskeptics, will quite naturally label those interested in supporting scientific skepticism as pseudoskeptics. Oddly enough, they don't see the irony in the fact that they are at odds with skeptic organizations and scientific skeptics on nearly every subject (and the related articles here). Thus they glibly claim to be scientific skeptics, when in fact they are just skeptical of the activities of scientific skeptics. They are thus a group of editors who on nearly every point fail to support the good that skeptics of quackery and health fraud actually do, and they defend the subjects that scientific skeptics attack as being unscientific, quackery, and often direct fraud. Yes indeed, there are two groups of editors at work, and their positions are self-evident in their defense or attacks on certain subjects and articles here. That being as it is, we still need to write articles here from an NPOV angle and keep our own views out of the articles, and in this case by not interjecting personal POV that is not obvious from the article into the "See also" links. -- Fyslee/talk 18:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from general argumentation with only weak connection to the topic of the talk page. MaxPont 10:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. It is a well-known problem that is best dealt with here, unless someone wants to take it to RFC/U or ArbComm. --Ronz 21:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I support Fyslee's editor behavior analysis regarding "the enemies of Quackwatch". I need to point out, however, that one does not need to be a "friend of Quackwatch" in order to edit on the other side of the debate. The editors representing the enemies of Quackwatch (who themselves are also acting exactly like its enemies) represent a tiny minority they view as as mainstream (as demonstrated by their - no doubt genuine - conviction that Quackwatch is pseudoskeptical). The other group of editors consists of (1) neutral editors who recognize that a tiny minority POV is getting undue weight, and (2) editors who are friends of Quackwatch who have no reason in the world to even consider violating our rules - they only have to insist that the article be written from the NPOV. The antis are using every trick in the book to continue their fight on Wikipedia, marginalizing Barrett et al. in order to make it appear that they themselves represent mainstream (scientific and societal) - exactly like Barrett's real-world opponents.
There's another thing I need to point out. Current anti-edits to the article are quite disruptive. There's a difference between wearing out all other editors on the talk page (which I personally also consider quite disruptive) and hard policy violations in the article itself in the face of strong opposition with very good policy and common sense based arguments. Please stop. See WP:DE and WP:DR. Avb 11:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I think there are several points here. First there is a big difference between a "pseudoskeptic" and "pseudoskepticism", one as a chronic condition and the other as perhaps an occupational hazard or a transient condition like a cold, a flu or a bad day or particular case. For fairness, social and legal reasons, calling an individual a psudoskeptic is probably a bad idea. and that we best describe the individual case or behavior. That groups or individuals within a group, especially for persistent critics, may experience episodes of pseudoskepticism may be only human and expected. Truzzi demonstrated this with the group he co-founded, CSICOP, and a year later broke with.
Many of QW's critics have long been saying the essentially same thing as Truzzi since Pauling locked horns with V Herbert (1969). Truzzi's coinage of "pseudoskepticism" merely crystalyzes many of those individuals' descriptions into a recognizable, tractable and more concretely defined concept. Rather than assuming Pseudoskepticism in a See Also link is automatically the equivalent of being called a pseudoskeptic in the sense of a chronic or permanent state pejoratively, I think it is more productive to realize that many skeptics, of many stripes, generally may be all too subject to episodes of pseudoskepticism (commented by Sagan too) and consider the advice as a internal selfcheck or asseessment of new sources.--I'clast 12:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Fyslee your edit summary[3] reverting pseudoskepticism has no merit to me, the See also link Pseudoskepticism is not editorial, and has no WP:RS V requirement, merely relevance or context. This concern seriously pertains to *long runing* discussions about QW and on least some of its authors' statements at different points, for almost 40 years. My "POV" is a strong SPOV trying to achieve NPOV and insisting on claimed "mainstream" material meeting WP:V on the science ends, too (here at QW, sometimes a difficult task). The WP pseudoskepticism article allows a reader to better consider both sides' arguments and their basic nature in this superhot subject.
Victor Herbert, of QW fame, was sure and (over)confident of his answers. So confident he did not need to look for data or even at the data. When confronted with the data, Herbert still knew better[4] (Pauling writes of this in his books too). Apparently Herbert felt his insights better than Pauling's four quoted double blind studies in 1969 and then through the next 20-30, his doubts cured only in 2002 (died). This is one of many reasons, discussions abound related to pseudoscepticism (by description if not yet always by name, especially back then, Truzzi's work was new and more obscure) about the nature of some attacks by QW authors, since Linus Pauling's arrival on the scene (1968-9).--I'clast 10:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Matthew Ramsey

Anyone want to discuss? Do we have any sources to help us determine the weight of this? --Ronz 05:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Clearly V RS, looks like one of the few uninvolved publications by an academic whose context is examining altmed developments. It is NPOV, "militant" just says that QW really does its thing. Even QW related books literally talk about "attacking", militant seems to agree.--I'clast 05:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Matthew Ramsey is assistant professor in history at a first tier university. A quick look at his home page and CV [5] gives the impression of a serious academic who keeps a neutral distance to his research area. I read the entire article and still can't guess if he has a pro or con bias regarding alt medicine. As I see it, Ramseys comment about Quackwatch is a plain description without any POV pushing or value judgements. The article is published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal. IMO this an exemplary reliable secondary source. MaxPont 09:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Long time read, first time editor. Can't imagine a good reason to leave such information out. Good source. Good info. - KET @ 74.62.149.66 21:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I reverted because there is clearly no consensus and there are heavyweight problems. There is too much weight being given to a tiny minority of critics. Agreed?  QuackGuru  talk 21:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I reject the notion that this concerns a small minority of critics. I am not sure about the rules of consensus here, but it would seem counterproductive that one editor who disagrees with the insertion of material can keep it out simply by protesting. The source has much notoriety and makes a fair critical analysis of the subject. I agree that it should be in criticism. The source is double referenced and I am not sure how to fix that problem yet. KET @ 74.62.149.66 22:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Will suggest that you review the "source" and let us know it's weight in the context of WP:WEIGHT. The source doesn't really agree with your statement above. I haven't deleted it yet, but I agree with QG however lets have some WP:CONSENSUS especially given that various editors haven't reviewed the source at all. Shot info 23:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Interesting source. Especially given that it's about the alt-med situation in France, where chiropractic is illegal when practised by non-MDs, and given that France is in the EU where COST B4 (demanding that the effectivity of e.g. homeopathy/manipulative treatments/fythotherapy/acu-puncture need to be proven) has, so far, prevented much of alt-med from receiving official EU recognition. However, while alt-med pugnacity is central to this article, QW militancy only merits a footnote. But to me the bottom line here is the question of weight. The lead of the article says that QW "combats". What's so special about "militant"? Why use up so much space in order to introduce a single word, going to extreme quote-mining lengths, introducing a fairly obscure historian to educate our readers about the societal character of Quackwatch? Could it be that "militant" has inherently POV connotations when used out of context? And how do we know Ramsey's opinion as a historian squares with the main POV (scientists/doctors/etc)? Wouldn't we need e.g. a well-known proponent of this POV for that? Avb 13:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
No: Forbes used the word ”attack” in their review of QW. Ramsey the words “very militant”. I don’t see any POV pushing at all in these assessments. They are neutral factual descriptions. <unsourced opinion removed WP:BLP (diff)> It ought not to be any controversy at all around the fact that QW/SB has a tough agenda. Words such as attack, militant and, controversial are the obvious and correct labels to use. That is not criticism but but should be in the ABOUT THE WEB SITE section. MaxPont 11:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
In the Foreword of Vitamin Pushers, coauthors Barrett & Herbert are literally congratulated on their "attack", all *before* page 1.--I'clast 22:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)

This answers only one of my questions. I don't think I find this answer convincing but at least you've answered the question. Here are the remaining questions again:

  1. What's so special about "militant"?
  2. Why use up so much space in order to introduce a single word, going to extreme quote-mining lengths, introducing a fairly obscure historian to educate our readers about the societal character of Quackwatch?
  3. How do we know Ramsey's opinion as a historian squares with the main POV (scientists/doctors/etc)? Wouldn't we need e.g. a well-known proponent of this POV for that?

You are essentially arguing that any source will do because what's being said is true and you have the right to insert anything that is true anywhere in the encyclopedia. That is not a valid argument. We are discussing weight. Please answer my questions. Please show how this has sufficient weight. Please also let us know where we can find those "40 libel suits" and other sources for the stuff I've removed from your post above. Avb 12:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

PS I think you are repeatedly reinserting disputed content against the current consensus. Please read WP:DE. Avb 12:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason for this "reference fishing" is that editors from the pro-Barrett camp refuse to write a correct NPOV article with neutral true accurate descriptive assessments using words such as "militant", "attacking", "controversial" etc. MaxPont 12:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for admitting to your purposeful NPOV violations in order to promote your personal biases against other editors! Please note that editors can be banned for repeatedly making such violations. Please stop. --Ronz 15:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
That is a misunderstanding. I am trying to push the article closer towards NPOV. Unfortunately both camps are deep down in the trenches and every edit that would even hint at moving the article in an unwanted direction is vigourously opposed by the other faction. If we could reach consensus about a text with an encyclopedic narrative that states the true fact that QW is a web site strongly arguing against all forms of Alt Med, surrounded by a lot of controvery when atttacking, it would not be necessary to source the context of every word such as "militant" and "attacking". MaxPont 17:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I can only remember six libel suits counting the BvR case, which is actually an outgrowth of the BvClark case, so we're only talking about five libel suits ALL growing from ONE source - Bolen's very targeted and specific defamation campaign which he started after he was hired by Hulda Clark's son, and (IIRC) before Barrett had even written anything about Clark. I keep hearing talk of 40 cases of various kinds, but that figure is only coming from his enemies (who are renowned for clearly exercising bad faith by not even wishing to understand him or doing good fact checking when they criticize him), and I've never seen documentation for the charge. -- Fyslee/talk 17:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This might be another libel "event" with Barrett [6]. (Click for the book review written by Barrett himself.) I believe that Barrett has sued more critiques who settled out of court which means that no records exist about the settlements. If he really said "around 40" under oath, I am inclined to believe him. MaxPont 18:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
By golly you're right. Forgot about Lisa. We've still got a long ways to go to get 40 libel suits. Who said what "under oath"? -- Fyslee/talk 23:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
This paragraph, 'Matthew Ramsey, a historian at Vanderbilt 's Center for Medicine, Health, and Society, in a footnote, described Quackwatch as "very militant" with respect to the anti-alternative medicine movement that developed in tandem with the alternative medicine renaissance in the US.[18]', is under notability. First it's not notable and it should be put in the criticism section if it has to be in the article at all. It really reads poorly the way it's written in. Read the section for yourselves. It sounds like a 6th toe that really doesn't belong and has nothing to say. --CrohnieGalTalk 12:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The sentence read ok, verging on long, until someone else had to deprecate it with the extra qualifier phrase, making it too long. There is a continuing element of "I don't like it" here about facts and descriptions in the upper sections of the article that don't add direct flattery.
Crohnie, the reference is not criticism it is NPOV description by an academic, it could have been praise in context of other words or sentences, a la some of the QW related books - even sort of a "gives 'em what they deserve good and hard" kind of statement. The Notability section title is not hard and fast, it can different. QW is notable for its militancy and characteristic pugnacity, no one should doubt that - even in QW's early public articles, e.g. Readers Digest 30+ years ago, action was being militated and encouraged in strong terms, largely on the chiropractors, in their face and in the courts, whatever the merits of either side's positions.--I'clast
Try reading a bit more carefully:
  • "Yet alternative medicine flourished there in different forms, and the very disadvantages under which it laboured contributed to its characteristic pugnacity and may even have enhanced its public appeal."
In this quote, the word "pugnacity" is applied to alternative medicine, not to QW. Even if it were it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. -- Fyslee/talk 10:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry but it reads as a criticism not as being notable. --CrohnieGalTalk 22:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Here is one example of a prominent Quackwatch author (Victor Herbert) in action, a prime specimen of QW's scientific outlook and methods[7]. This is no shrinking violet. Do you feel "militant" and "pugnacious" might be insultingly understated? (QW's) Victor Herbert's pugnacity gave lifelong impetus and purpose for a double Nobel prizewinner's remaining 25 years on earth1969-1994 (the Nobel prize winner's criticism of Victor Herbert & VH's position continues to win international authoritative understanding & recognition as of 2006[8][9]). This an evidence based answer.--I'clast 09:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Try reading a bit more carefully:
  • "Yet alternative medicine flourished there in different forms, and the very disadvantages under which it laboured contributed to its characteristic pugnacity and may even have enhanced its public appeal."
In this quote, the word "pugnacity" is applied to alternative medicine, not to QW. Even if it were it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.
BTW, that last ref is far from impressive, especially when one actually reads it and the "Editor's notes". Wishful thinking for a future proof is OR and should not be included in articles here. -- Fyslee/talk 10:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok. I haven't traced out what all happened here yet[10], but I withdraw the word & phrase from the Ramsey sentence.
It is not OR or a future proof about whether the QW authors missed the dose-frequency ranges in their allegations. Pauling et al complained long and hard about the gross test defects, was studiously ignored until 2001-2006, and has now been acknowledged on the point(s) for both cancer and respiratory illness. The future proof is only about efficacy, which has nothing to with long cited failures of Pauling's adversaries, including QW's Herbert, to even note the (hypotheses, modern) test ranges, old data and formulations correctly.--I'clast 10:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I told you the sentence was written in a way that makes it difficult to understand. Ramsey refers to alternative medicine's pugnacity in the first couple pages of his article. Let's just withdraw the Ramsey sentence. Cool Hand Luke 15:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I have to say I agree with Cool Hand Luke. Lets remove the Ramsey stuff. It's not needed and it's a blurb.--CrohnieGalTalk 19:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

We're discussing a footnote in a 37 page article, correct? I think the proper weight for such information is to leave it out. --Ronz 17:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed articles are peer-reviewed - including the footnotes. The author obviously has deep knowledge of the relationship between alternative medicine and conventional medicine. He is writing within his area of competence even in the footnote. I can't see any valid arguments for excluding the source from the QW article. MaxPont 18:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Please review the previous discussion and address relevant open issues like NPOV, especially WEIGHT. Otherwise, your comments may appear to be disruption and point-making. --Ronz 19:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no weight issue here whatsoever. This is an exemplary independent reliable source and Ramsey is not at all involved in the pro/con controversy around QW/alt med. This is not a minority opinion but a neutral description. It should be obviuos to anyone. Please restore your revert unless you can come up with arguments why WP:Weight is applicable here. MaxPont 19:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
WEIGHT applies to all information in all articles, so it's always an issue. As you are the one that wants to include the material, it is your responsibility to address WEIGHT. You have not. It remains out until you do AND make a case that other editors actually find valid. --Ronz 19:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The Ramsey article has a lot of academic analysis about institutional sources, perceptions and academic treatment of (alternative) medicine, focusing on France with explanations *and comparisons* for an American and English speaking audience. This guy and the center have a sizable academic medical-institutional backing for historical-social analysis and comparison of different factors in medicine. The short note is excellent for a neutral academic view from the social sciences summarizing an aspect of QW without a having the normal baggage of multiple positions that tends to create separate camps - no dog in the usual race here. It's weight derives from a number of factors other than long length of the specific item. F=ma was a brief result, are you proposing it has no weight...?--I'clast 20:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I still agree with Cool Hand Luke and the others. For goodness sake it's a footnote, the article itself is long and unless I missed it, it doesn't say a thing about Barrett or QW except in this footnote which is just a blurb. Delete it already please. --CrohnieGalTalk 22:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
As per your request I deleted the footnote. There is too much weight being given to a footnote.  Mr.Guru  talk  23:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I've also replied again to Ornis[11]. So how do you propose to address the issue? QW *is* militant, Any editor who reads their related stuff long term should understand and agree, "pro-QW" or not. This is as V RS as it gets, QW is not that (independently) academically notable outside pharma sponsored publications (including many popular media), to continue dismissing all references that do not openly favor QW.--I'clast 09:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
If F=ma was only listed in a single source, and only as a footnote, then yes I'd argue that it should not be included per WEIGHT. --Ronz 19:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Ramsey: "...very militant..." point is two words supported in part by 30+ pages on comparative analyses on social, academia and legal environments about alternative medicine US and France. The quotes' strength is that it is an indirect object of the paper and neutral position.
QW itself: Assisting or generating consumer-protection lawsuits, Attacking misleading advertising on the Internet - sounds kind of militant;
Pro: Supporters acknowledge Quackwatchers attack, invovlement, , from Quackwatch's site, 'The Vitamin Pushers:, Foreword by Gabe Mirkin, MD: The people who wrote this book are involved. Dr. Herbert has attacked ...more forcefully than any other person in America. He has testified before legislators and in ...Dr. Barrett has investigated and written about quackery in more and different fields than any other living American. more... Chapt 21, How Much Can the Law Protect You?, 437; Appendix D: One Hundred Companies That Have Marketed Illegally, 493. - sounds kind of militant;
Contra: A critical version of militantThe Quackbusters, Vitality magazine, May 2002 :
...Quackwatch’s ... Herbert specializes in vitriolic smear campaigns...Quackwatch’s ...influence is formidable. The formula of their attacks ...depends on persistent repetition. ...Quackwatch also delights in using the medial regulatory systems to go after doctors who have strayed from the One True Barrett Path. Sounds kind of militant.
...and of course the battles with the chiropractors. "very militant" is appropriate. Multiple NPOV sources for a single phrase (vs similar descriptions by everyone) for a topic (QW) not that independently, sociologically notable to academia is ridiculously burdensome. Enough, this aspect is distinctive to those familiar with QW and should be discernable in objective description. WP:V RS is more than met here.--I'clast 10:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Without taking sides in this debate, I'll just explain why I reverted. This addition (and apparently some similar additions before it) have introduced a duplication of the introductory sentence to the Forbes quote. Otherwise (again without taking any position on the appropriateness of the Ramsey quote) this edit warring by constantly adding the quote is inappropriate edit warring. Leave it here until there is consensus. The article and edit summaries aren't the place to do this. -- Fyslee/talk 09:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again -- without taking any position on the appropriateness of the Ramsey quote -- I have removed it. Inclusion of controversial material (and it is being debated) requires consensus. Keep it here until consensus is achieved. Stop the edit warring. -- Fyslee/talk 11:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Ramsey's "very militant" is two words in a footnote in support of a 30 page paper. There is no evidence it is supported by the paper. That being said, if it could be added without distortion or having the comment longer than the material, it would seem appropriate. I haven't seen an acceptable phrasing yet, though. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems that we *not* getting a very high signal-to-noise ratio on the collaboration required to succeed. The paper provides some comparative context, not direct address. Such sudden modesty. It seems like the obvious is being denied outright, the QW principals involved *have been* pretty fiesty over the years, "very militant" - admired by some, opposed by others. This article simply does not capture the essential aspect of QW's aggressive, militant nature that is one of its truly notable aspects for over 30 years, if not a Quackwatch hallmark.
This is my previous attempt at short and sweet, so I would appreciate would more detailed discussion, a counterproposal or example. Perhaps starting here, "Matthew Ramsey, a historian at Vanderbilt 's Center for Medicine, Health, and Society, mentions Quackwatch as "very militant".--I'clast 19:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've re-added MR in a place where it seems to have adequate, but not undue, weight. Others may disagree. (I took it out once because it damaged the context of the Forbes quote, and seemed questionable there.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I haven't expressed my opinion on the content of this matter or its appropriateness before now. I support this inclusion. -- Fyslee/talk 20:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Request to restore Arthur Rubin's addition as described here. -- Fyslee/talk 20:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC) {{editprotected}}

The article is protected for the very reason of that addition. There is clearly a content dispute.  Mr.Guru  talk  20:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually no... it is protected because it was added, deleted, added, deleted... your deletion is as much a part of this as Arthur's addition QuackGuru. Personally, as the admin who protected the article, I'm not going to make any additions/deletions of content... particularly the part that was the subject of the edit war. Given the rather long thread here I'd almost suggest that you request a 3rd opinion or outside request for comment because it appears to me that the conversation thus far has not yielded a consensus. that is just a suggestion though.--Isotope23 talk 20:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that that is the precise reason. Right now you (QuackGuru) are about the only one objecting to this new wording and its addition in a new location. Things have changed. -- Fyslee/talk 20:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Nothing had changed. Its the same information just written slightly differently.  Mr.Guru  talk  20:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, IMHO, there was never anything wrong with the information in the first place. It was the underhanded way it was usually presented that was problematic. Now a wording was proposed and accepted and Arthur Rubin added it, and I back him up. -- Fyslee/talk 20:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see clear consensus for the change, so I am disabling the editprotected for now. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Pending questions

Maxpont:

  1. What's so special about "militant"?
  2. Why use up so much space in order to introduce a single word, going to extreme quote-mining lengths, introducing a fairly obscure historian to educate our readers about the societal character of Quackwatch?
  3. How do we know Ramsey's opinion on Quackwatch represents the main POV (scientists/doctors/etc)? Or if it doesn't, which POV does it represent? Wouldn't we need e.g. a well-known proponent of this POV for that?
  4. Please show how the Ramsey quote has sufficient weight.
  5. Please also let us know where we can find those "40 libel suits"

Avb 00:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

  1. It is only special because it is notable criticism.
  2. It's more than a single word. It is who has presented that word.
  3. How do we know it doesn't? How do we know Barrett's criticsms of many many subjects represents the majority? Point is, we aren't saying it is a majority viewpoint or a minority viewpoint; this is just one well-qualified and notable critic's opinion.
  4. He is a historian at the Center for Medicine, Health, and Society at Vanderbilt University.
  5. Are we to perform OR and find each of the 40 cases? What does that have to do with this anyhow? -- Levine2112 discuss 02:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
But you're forgetting WP:WEIGHT. Sorry to have to say it yet again. --Ronz 03:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I repeat: He is a historian at the Center for Medicine, Health, and Society at Vanderbilt University. -- Levine2112 discuss 05:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd still like to see a response from Maxpont. "40 cases", for example, was asserted here on the talk page as an unattributed fact by Maxpont, without reliable sources - a NOR/BLP violation, and I removed it as such. OR is permitted on talk pages by the way. It should be clear under the circumstances that I'm asking for reliable sources. My entire history on the Barrett talk page can be summarized as insisting on reliable secondary sources and reliable primary sources first discussed in reliable secondary sources. (And, of course, explaining why we need them and showing how the community handles these things in order to keep Wikipedia neutral—i.e. written from the NPOV.)
I had not understood that Ramsey is a "notable critic". I thought he had been presented here as a neutral observer. I quite enjoyed reading the article. Anyway, I see we have a dispute here regarding the meaning of undue weight. Avb 09:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. That is a sourced assessment of QW. I would be fine with other similar words (aggressive, controversial etc.) in an encyclopedic narrative.
  2. He is not obscure in any way. His non-involvement in the pro/con QW controversy is a plus.
  3. Most doctors and scientists probably don't even have an opinion about a QW. Not many people have bothered to take the time to make assessments of QW.
  4. It is self-evident.
  5. The issue of exactly how many libel suits SB/QW has been involved in are beside the point here. It was only a supporting argument to show that SB/QW really mean business in their quest against alt medicine. MaxPont 16:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, MaxPont. Avb 11:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Threshold comment from a semi-outsider: I don't know what to think of this sentence, but (1) it seems strange to include a brief comment from a footnote—even health historians must drop enough footnotes that they can't all be notable, and (2) putting that aside, I don't think the sentence should include the last preposition with reference to alternative "pugnacity". This tries to summarize the article in a clumsy way, and it just makes the sentence difficult to understand. Cool Hand Luke 06:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Fully independent, academic views of QW related sites are weighty & rare commodities indeed.--I'clast 11:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone in the world previously identified this footnote as "weighty"? Seems to me that it's just the only scholarly reference we've found. Seeing as his paper isn't even about the "anti-quackery" movement in the US, there's no reason to assume it's weighty. This patient's sidebar in JAMA suggests Quackwatch as a reliable site. There are many other potential articles to dig through. Cool Hand Luke 14:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Many of your "many other" references seem to be articles from the QW web site. MaxPont 16:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
If you're too tired to wade through the QW web site hits, you can filter them out using this. There are still many, many articles that cite it. Cool Hand Luke 20:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I've looked some of them. Dr Barrett apparently was serving on the JAMA editorial staff at the time the sidebar was published, and the material substantially matches QW material, so its independence is dubious. The part that needs to stressed is the independent part - articles from the "mainstream" or "allopathic" medical journals have to deal with an inherent competitive business/institutions/POV factor, a bias that no matter how hard one tries, simply is. This does not even delve into the history of the 20th century politics (and some scandals) between AMA and other healthcare groups (e.g. chiropractors and naturopaths for example) or the massive, pervasive advertising (and influence) in all media or the medical schools.
Two independent groups over the last 2-3 decades have tried with varying degrees of access and success to independently evaluate or interact with modern medicine: the social scientists (sociologists, here historian) and (mostly bio-/chem-) technologists outside the pharmaco-medical industry itself with varying degrees of resistance, backlash and success. This academic article from a social sciences perspective is an important reference because of that independence.--I'clast 21:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
You're saying that all mainstream medical journal's are biased in favor of the pharmaco-medical industry? I find that doubtful. Even if we grant it's true, it doesn't mean that a supposed outsider's views automatically merits inclusion. If anything, highlighting the views of a non-mainstream doctor because he's non-mainstream sounds like a WP:WEIGHT problem. Cool Hand Luke 23:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, there are a lot of complaints even from the journals' elite and editors, e.g. former editors-in-chiefs at NEJM, JAMA, BMJ have written scandalous exposes' on pharma influence, as well as have a number of recognized scientists. Also one has to differentiate mainstream science (the process) from mainstream medicine (the institution and corpus), this is precisely where the resistance & backlash get worst and a lot of people & professionals get confused between the two or make kneejerk errors, especially when one has transitioned and the other hasn't.
It the immediate case of Vandy's social science assessment, that sentence says *nothing* about whether QW is right, wrong, good/bad, it just addresses their presentation style & attitude, which the social scientists probably have more expertise and neutrality to speak from. So WEIGHT favors neutral social scientists & academics outside the industry in more neutral journals, and requires no medical expertise.--I'clast 03:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it's strange to color medical journals and medical researchers as uniformly biased. There are in fact criticisms of drug company therapies in these sources. And you still seem to be saying that being outside of the mainstream is somehow an asset for WEIGHT. I've seen conspiracy theorists make this sort of argument elsewhere, and its simply backwards.
That said, you're right that it's just a statement of their presentation, and we can certainly include non-expert commentary about that. My main objection is that it's such a trivial portion of the article. Quackwatch has plenty of in-depth criticisms, so we should just cite one of those. I get the impression that you're fighting for this marginal passing reference just because it can be presented as neutral. POV presentation goals don't allow us to pluck a footnote from an unrelated article. Cool Hand Luke 06:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I did not say uniformily, but rather "pervasive", a caution - unfortunately frequent in articles on areas that are supposed to address some non-conventional medical areas in the mainstream journals (and sometimes acknowledged). The comment on "conspiracy theories" seems to dismiss common corporate marketing related practices that do influence people, institutions and journals as well as documented conventional science & historical retrospectives in a number of areas. In altmed areas, it is extremely important to consider WP:V failures on reference articles, often using more current or authoritative conventional sources that WP:V correctly address the proper test regime (dose, frequency, specific chemistry etc), in WP:V testing nominally WP:RS articles that are in fact erroneous or obsolete. This gets into what I wil call "WP SPOV-NPOV" that is necessary to even make technical sense of some of the altmed articles and it has been the basis of serious collaboration with a number of the MDs & PhDs elsewhere.
That said, the Vandy material is independent & neutral, and is an important balancing NPOV view on a facet of QW that does correlate well with other material (the Forbes site review, QW site itself, QW-related books). Thank you for sharing your thoughts.---I'clast
There are indeed many Google Scholar links to actual Quackwatch articles and to scholarly articles that cite and/or recommend Quackwatch as a source. You will not find that to be the case with Barrett's or Quackwatch's usual detractors. That fact is quite telling. This is a well-known phenomena here at Wikipedia - how to find and use V & RS that are critical of mainstream science in articles here. They hardly ever exist.
It's often a problem because those that are critical often come from lesser educated or less recognized and authoritative sources, and things like attack sites totally fail inclusion for any purpose. So here we are with Barrett's and Quackwatch's critics desperately trying to find something and having to settle for crumbs from the bottom of the barrel and short mention in a footnote. Very telling indeed. -- Fyslee/talk 20:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps 30 years of great "chilling effects" on speech pre-BvR as well as the general media'$ pharma POV. The QW crowd did an incredible job popularizing their message, bypassing normal (critical) technical reviews (amazing how non-noted these articles are in the main and medical indexes). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by I'clast (talk • contribs).
Let's just stick to editing an encyclopedia shall we, but on an aside, see below... Shot info 11:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
The version I deleted was just wrong. I think all you can say is that, in a footnote, MR says that QW is very millitant. He did not say "vigorous anti-alternative medicine movement" in the footnote. Making the assumption that the footnote applies to that clause of the sentence it's attached to is OR. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)