Talk:Selmedica

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Reason for Article

I think truth be told, a place like wikipedia is a perfect place to set a precedent for documenting articles for information purposes on the major credit card, and internet fraud scams that exist. When a scam involves exploiting individuals and their health problems, I think that crosses the line, and the public should be informed as fairly as possible about these scams, before they make a decision to try these products. I think it is well known, that we live in a marketing world today and it is time to start informing the public as much as possible about these such scams, for the goodness of all. Thatopshotta (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

for an article like this, every sentence of accusation must be documented by a reliable published source. I rewording the invective. It does not help make the case. Facts do; documented facts from reliable reporters. BBB is usable. so are newspapers. so are FDA reports, though only for what they say. Postings on website are not. Customer reviews on websites or ebay or amazon are not. I recognize the undoubted righteousness of the case, but we cannot do things this way.

I have revised the language so it looks like an encyclopedia article. I have temporarily retained ripoffreport, pending a discussion at WP:RS. But I note that the value of scattered incident reports is very low. I do not think they are usable, unless you can show that they are representative, and vouched for by responsible authorities.

If you want this article to stay, it must be reasonable. I have added a number of "fact" tags, and there must be specific references for them in published sources or the statements must be removed or reworded. I will help you make as a good an article as possible on this. Good, by our cold-blooded, neutral, and therefore encyclopedic standards.DGG (talk) 04:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I am looking for more sources as an ongoing process. The note from about.com, I had hesitatedly added, as about.com is generally a true source of info. Moreso, the Medical Review Board: including an array of Doctors and specialists review the article before it is posted. I think this is very credible, so I kept it on. If there is a bigger picture I am not seeing then I apologize, and it should come done. Thatopshotta (talk) 07:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding this edit

Regarding this edit, the source provided makes no mention of Selmedica. seicer | talk | contribs 20:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

agreed. I think that was there to provide further reference on the characteristics of internet health fraud practices. And was about the vast majority of the characteristics to describe Selmedica, as that is what they do.Thatopshotta (talk) 10:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)