Jump to content

Talk:Quackwatch/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Comment

I would appreciate if other involved editors can address User:ScienceApologist's concerns, as it seems that he does not have much of an appreciation for moving forward based on my arguments and writing. I will leave this as is, and come back to this discussion on Friday. Hope that by then you, that know him better, would have helped him to come to an agreement about the wording used for this material. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I've NPOV concerns, mostly WEIGHT as well. I'm not sure how to resolve them though. The problem has to do with our selection of specific quotes from these sources in order to demonstrate criticism of Quackwatch. The Hufford piece is especially problematic as it appears to be part of a two-part discussion/debate, where we're totally ignoring the context of the opposing side and the likelihood that the discussants may have taken their positions specifically to be entertaining and controversial. --Ronz 00:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
So fix it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, I'm not sure how. On one hand, we want to balance the article. On the other, we don't want to give more prominence to an opinion or other information beyond what it's due. NPOV says we need independent, reliable sources to solve these problems, so one solution is to leave out anything where we don't have a reliable independent source. However, there's a compromise that I've seen used before - putting some of the information in a note rather than in the body of the article. --Ronz 01:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Jossi has done a tremendous job revamping this text into something which completely satisfies WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS. It is beginning to seem evident that particular editors will not accept any criticism of Quackwatch, always deriding is at unreliable but never offering specific suggestions to amend the text. Jossi has been incredibly fair and has demonstrated the utmost patience and care. I would suggest that we all thank him and move forward with implementing his edits just as he has stated above. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as Hufford, I think it's sufficient to note, in the footnote, that his paper is a counterpoint to another paper which took a different view of alt-med. Donna Ladd's Village Voice piece is also reputable enough to include. I think it's obvious that the piece is conveying Ladd's view of the situation rather than pronouncing the Ultimate Truth; but the Voice has a significant editorial oversight process and is not institutionally prejudiced against mainstream medicine so far as I can see (their coverage of the AIDS denialist movement was excellent). This is notable coverage of Quackwatch in a reliable source. MastCell Talk 19:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Recommend banning I'clast from posting on this page

I recommend that I'clast be banned from posting on this page as he is clearly acting as a troll. ScienceApologist 16:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. I'clast has shown tremendous tact and offered very reasonable suggestions. I don't view his contributions as disruption in the least. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I suppose maybe everyone else has already heard I'clast's argument above, but it was informative for me. I'd prefer that he stay. I also think jossi may be on to a solution and would like to see it worked out to everyone's approval. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 19:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, now that we've heard from the chiropractors Levine-Dematt consortium, anyone else care to comment on the fact that I'clast doesn't seem to understand how to not use this talkpage as a soapbox? ScienceApologist 19:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I've always found Dematt to be an entirely reasonable and constructive editor; I don't think Levine is a chiropractor (correct me if I'm wrong); and in any case I don't think that dismissing Dematt's comment on the basis of his profession is helpful here. MastCell Talk 19:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Correct. I am not a chiropractor. Nor do I work for a chiropractor. Nor do I make any money in the health care industry - alternative or conventional. I really resent ScienceApologist's accusation mainly because his intent was to suggest that a person cannot be neutral because of their profession. I have found Dematt to be extraordinarily neutral and is adept at writing for the so-called enemy. I suggest that ScienceApologist take this brand of personal attacks elsewhere. And if he cannot, then perhaps he should be the one that is banned from posting on this page. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify: I'm not personally attacking anybody. I'm simply pointing out that Levine and Dematt often appear "joined at the hip" in many of these alternative medicine/pseudoscience discussions. In any case, I don't find either Levine or Dematt to be particularly problematic editors, nor am I asking them to stop posting at these pages. I do, however, think that their POV often clouds their talkpage assessments. How anyone can look at what I'clast is doing here and say that he is showing "tremendous tact" seems fairly outrageous to me, but then, I'm not one who is known to have a very high tolerance for trolling of this sort. YMMV. ScienceApologist 20:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, that's not what you were saying here [1]. Maybe if everyone edited NPOV, I could agree with them, too. Thanks for the kudos guys. Apology accepted SA.---- Dēmatt (chat) 21:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I am not trolling. This article has provided very unbalanced, pro-QW coverage as if QW were far more accurate than it is and that all its subjects or adversaries are irrational, stupid, or criminal, while including very legitimate V RS science disputes that in fact have very biased historical treatment but are so deprecated that public communication has been derailed with significant forms & amounts of knowably V RS misleading (mis)information. Many people, even including MDs, think QW is a reliable scientific source, when QW authors make it quite clear it does not intend to be - the QW authors even openly acknowledge that they do not try to achieve scientific balance as well as numerous V RS specific problems such as Kauffman and Pauling (on the Moertel fiasco against Pauling, which QW embraced, and NIH acknowledged Pauling's basis of protest, 2005-6) have already published. The site also makes clear they are running an (dis)information war, as well as the public record of their articles coupled with the analyses and statements provided by legitimate scientists, scholars and physicians like Profs Hufford, Kauffman, Hemila on severe bias, multiple errors and innuendo.
This QW balancing criticism situation has become not merely a one way situation, but one of utter denial and excusitis on thin pretext of V RS NPOV and a very nebulous supposed mainstream, here at WP, that seems very unaware aware of mainstream science & medicine's own current research findings.
I am trying to give some V RS concrete scientific dimension to the controversy and checkered track record associated with the site. Most subjects attacked by QW have too little public record to form a knowledgeable, independent judgment on the V RS reliability of QW's assertions and balance. The Pauling-vitamin C story actually has enough V RS public, historical detail available to highlight some common errors long being made here. Errors that should never have been years ago to any unbiased, competent, thorough science review, but now have authoritative backing on important scientific & historical points *experimentally* by V RS mainstream authorities. Balance the science & sourcing and we can all go home.--I'clast 16:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
PS. Jossi's edit provides a framework to start but the Kauffman reference as part of Hufford's position is an important balancing element to me where the reader should have access to consider the breadth of the reliability and bias issues.--I'clast 16:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Where SA views I'clast's current behavior as trolling, I'd say that both I'clast and Levine2112 are on their best of behavior. Avb 18:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Edits

I have incorporated the text as discussed above, with the hope that it reflects the result of the debate about the "criticism" material.

Other edits include:

  • Merging of material from Barret's article related to the use of Quackwatch as a source
  • Merging the criticism section to the appropriate section
  • NPOVing the lead by adding a mention to the criticism, as per WP:LEAD
  • Minor edits for spelling and grammar

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks pretty decent to me (I've done some minor cleanup). MastCell Talk 16:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow, really well done. This article is better now that ever before. Thanks all. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we have made some good progress, and we should all congratulate ourselves for doing so. Let's wait a couple more days for whatever tweaks may be needed and then submit to Wikipedia:Peer review for some feedback, with the intention to improve this further and submit to GA review. If we can achieve GA status for this article, it will be a demonstration that Wikipedia works when we bring our best to the table and put the project ahead of our personal opinions. Thank you all for your patience and efforts so far. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I have avoided this page for some time now because it was going no where fast. I just wanted to say the article shows a lot of good hard work toward improving. It looks good, esp. since the first time I read this article. Congratulations everyone, you have done some good hard work. --CrohnieGalTalk 19:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow.. Great work! And it looks like we might have a consensus, too. I don't see anything I would change. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 03:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


Versioning

I think that jossi's wording here conveys the same message in a less editorializing fashion: [2]. (See below.) Antelan talk 03:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe so. The "editorializing" is in the original, and maybe that fact isn't conveyed by the current use of quotation marks. Whatever. What isn't coming across very well is that the endorsement was real, and that the seeming retraction wasn't real, but a politically correct reaction to on-the-spot criticism. Of course the endorsement wasn't any kind of legally binding endorsement. His later repetition of the endorsement revealed his real opinion. It only takes a single word to make it seem as if he didn't really mean what he originally said when he endorsed Quackwatch, which wouldn't be true. Readers mustn't get that impression. -- Fyslee / talk 05:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about my wording there ('editorializing') - that was not thoughtful (or accurate, in this case) on my part. I misread the diffs. I'm concerned with other parts of that paragraph, but not the parts that you were working on. Antelan talk 06:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I am not going to go to war on a couple of words. Our efforts would be better placed in letting the article stabilize for a while and ask for a peer review. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree, but an entire sentence is being lifted directly from a source article without being quoted. This sentence contains the "The government doesn't endorse Web sites" quotation, so quoting the entire sentence would be bulky. I am making a change that I think addresses this, but will not object if reverted. Antelan talk 06:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
The way you have edited it, it reads as praise and thus seems out of place in context of its position in the article. -- Levine2112 discuss 07:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
How have my edits changed the meaning of the sentence? That wasn't my intent. Antelan talk 07:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
By removing the idea that he "backed away" from his endorsement and stating that people should question Quackwatch as much as the sites Quackwatch questions. I don't no if that is necessarily a criticism either, but at least it shows that he (or the government he represents) considers that Quackwatch shouldn't be placed up on a pedestal over any other sites. I think we best stay close to the source rather than taking a chance editorializing with such nuanced meanings which we can only speculate about. Sound reasonable. -- Levine2112 discuss 07:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Well that advice is always good and doesn't necessarily mean a change of his opinion, which he actually repeated. The "backed away" was editorializing by the author of the article, who was obviously antagonistic. She was the critic, not Eng. -- Fyslee / talk 07:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think I see it as editorializing on the author's part. Nor do I view the author as obviously antagonistic. I think we have to take the source on its value and not try to extrapolate/interpret some version of reality - a violation of WP:NOR. -- Levine2112 discuss 07:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Very good wording, which conveys exactly what happened without misleading readers. It was praise, but the attacks of people there who objected got him to waffle, but he still expressed his real intentions while being politically correct. There was never any question that he meant to recommend Quackwatch as a good source. -- Fyslee / talk 07:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
So why include it at all here as criticism? The article space would be better served with including real criticism such as that provided by Prof. Kauffman. -- Levine2112 discuss 07:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
It isn't included as a criticism. The criticism section is gone now. It was originally included as a recommendation anyway. Then critics here (yourself included) got fixated on Eng's waffling because of the actions of likeminded people at the meeting, and tried to turn it into something they could use as a criticism here. The fact is that there is (still) no question that he did recommend Quackwatch as a good source, and that he meant it.
The whole section is now a blending of praise and criticism, so there is no problem. It actually makes for a good ending, since it contains both praise and a seeming "retraction" (which it wasn't). This is basically what the mainstream position is - it supports and recommends Quackwatch as a resource for exposing the follies of the fringe. That is the reality of things, and weight must be given to the mainstream position. The fringe should not be allowed to dominate with their usually illegitimate complaints, even though they are documented here, as is proper. -- Fyslee / talk 07:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
We are reading the same text (the full text of the article) and we are both getting different meanings. I know what you think it means and I know what I think it means. Clearly it is nuanced. Rather than cherry-picking text to try to suggest a belief of the interviewees intent, let's just quote the reliable source which we are citing here in full. Chiefly, what is actually written in the article rather than place on our own biases on shaping it into what we want it to mean. -- Levine2112 discuss 07:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, I actually have a problem with wholesale quoting. It seems to me that the author of that article is twisting Eng's statements to make them look more damning than they actually are. If we quote the relevant portion of the article, we will be quoting a twisting of Eng's words. Quoting the article itself is just fine, as is including its argument, but I would tread very carefully when quoting a contorted quote when doing so is unnecessary. Finally, adding the article's author's POV should come in addition to Eng's, not in lieu of it. Antelan talk 07:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
"Twisting his words" is just an opinion. The author may be doing just the opposite and reporting Eng's true intent. I don't think we should be second-guessing a source if we intend to use that source. We should stay true to the source or run the risk of violation WP:OR. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
The final word goes to Chalka, who damns by faint praise. It seems reasonably balanced to me, but it's late so I'll sleep on this. Antelan talk 07:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Overcontextualization of a National Review Article

The National Review article on fluoridation comments that QW is sensationalist but not wrong. By providing such a long quote it seems to lead the reader to an assumption that NR had much more to say on the subject thant that. As I point out above, the NR article is simply stating that QW has a penchant for over-exaggeration: a characterization of the prose rather than the content. I believe that this diff: [3] makes this distinction more clear and removes some of the irrelevant metaquotations which only serve to highlight their point rather than make any new analysis. ScienceApologist 22:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you just removed the context that makes their point. The reason they believe that QW is "not for the seriously minded people", is because of what they said : "the anti-fluoridationists' basic technique is the 'big lie'. Made infamous by Hitler, the 'big lie' is simple to use, yet surprisingly effective." Removing the context for their criticism will leave the reader wondering. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
But if they wonder, let them just click on the reference which actually states this in full! I just think that metaquotes are particularly poor editorial choices and since the statement is still being made I don't think that the evidence (as NR sees it) needs to be included directly but is fine to footnote relegation. ScienceApologist 23:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Removing the context kills the point of the criticism. I am in favor of adding it back in. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I too think the context is essential to understanding their point, but....I think their POV is achieved by a cheap shot - taking an isolated part of a quote and making it sound sensationalistic.
Here's the whole quote. In its context it makes perfect sense:

The antifluoridationists' ("antis") basic technique is the big lie. Made infamous by Hitler, it is simple to use, yet surprisingly effective. It consists of claiming that fluoridation causes cancer, heart and kidney disease, and other serious ailments that people fear. The fact that there is no supporting evidence for such claims does not matter. The trick is to keep repeating them -- because if something is said often enough, people tend to think there must be some truth to it.

A variation of the big lie is the laundry list. List enough "evils," and even if proponents can reply to some of them, they will never be able to cover the entire list. This technique is most effective in debates, letters to the editor, and television news reports. Another variation is the simple statement that fluoridation doesn't work. Although recent studies show less difference than there used to be in decay rates between fluoridated and nonfluoridated communities, the benefit is still substantial. In fact, the Public Health Service estimates that every dollar spent for community fluoridation saves about fifty dollars in dental bills. [4]

Now does it make sense? Yes indeed. The three authors couldn't have chosen a better comparison than the infamous big lie and related quotes from the Nazis. The antifluoridationists do use this technique, and the antifluoridationists (and antivaccinationists) also use it. (I have experience with both groups and seen the antivaccinationists offer their own children to death and get congratulated for being firm to their "principles"!) The National Review has taken the the quote out of context - choosing a short mention of Hitler - and made a caricature out of it to find some fault, even while commending the article. It's a cheap shot that is more worthy of the National Enquirer. Before reading the whole context, I too thought the original was derisive, but it isn't. It's a precise use of a historically notable example. No derision. Just a precise description. -- Fyslee / talk 07:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Lots of people lie. Comparing anyone to Hitler is derisive. This is what the critique is about. Meaning, people who compare others to Der Fuhrer in order to push their agenda should not be taken seriously. Quackwatch's comparison is what is sensationalistic, not the critique of them making that comparison. So wither we add the context back in, or we add a word such as "derisive" to describe why the criticism was made. -- Levine2112 discuss 07:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
It was a comparison of the method and words made famous by Hitler and his propaganda minister - repeat a lie enough and people will believe it. It might be possible to find another example that matches, but that is the one most familiar to people, and in the context of the fluoridation debates it can't be avoided, since the anti-fluoridationists constantly refer to the Nazis claimed use of fluoride. To really understand this it takes some understanding of the back and forth of these debates between the two factions in the fluoridation debates. It was the most logical comparison, considering the methods used and the anti-fluoridationists own arguments which constantly refer to Hitler. The three authors have just used their argument against them, but have fortunately refrained from comparing the persons to the Nazis, and only applied the argument to a description of their method of propagandizing their anti-fluoridation sentiments. -- Fyslee / talk 07:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Given the light-hearted tone of this NR article, I find the criticism a little ironic, and I question the weight we're assigning it. That said, I agree that the context is the criticism. If we're going to include this criticism, we should lend it the extra 20 words it needs to describe the context. Cool Hand Luke 07:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict

While making extensive revisions (formatting refs, reading the two sourced articles, and finding wikilinks), I ran into an edit conflict with Levine2112 and later discovered that the edit (now superceded by my own edit) had been the following:

Well, anyone reading the original source in context (shown above) will see that that is simply not true. The focus is on the tactic used by the anti-fluoridationists, and does not compare them with Hitler. It compares their "basic technique" with the big lie. That's all. The current version should be pretty accurate without any unwarranted slurs:

  • In regard to the debate over water fluoridation, an anti-fluoridation article in the National Review quotes a "generally informative and persuasive" Quackwatch article,[1] but criticizes its reference to Hitler's "big lie" as "perhaps not the best way to win an argument, especially with serious-minded people."[2]

-- Fyslee / talk 17:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That works for me. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Good. I fully agree with you that the context needs to be included (in the ref) to make their point understandable. Even though I don't agree with their point and think it's a cheap shot, it is a criticism we can use here. There are good refs, sources, and wikilinks for any readers who want to investigate the matter. -- Fyslee / talk 17:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
"discovered he had tried to slant the text into a direct slur against the three authors" - I resent this, Fyslee. I was not trying to slant or slur. I was merely spelling it out. By comparing the anti-fluors' technique to Hitler's technique, Quackwatch is comparing the anti-fluors to Hitler. If anyone was taking a cheap shot here, it is Quackwatch for making such a comparison. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
My apologies. I have reworded it so as to avoid offensive wording. -- Fyslee / talk 01:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it reads better also. I had trouble getting past the Hitler comment that I left the article. --CrohnieGalTalk 22:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Weston Price

Almost halfway down this page is an interesting rebuttal to Barrett's Quackwatch essay on Weston Price and holistic dentistry. I don't know if there is anything usable in here for our article, so please take a look and let's discuss. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not see a reason not to include a short sentence about it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
This seems to say that Barrett's Quackwatch article on Weston Price is filled with contradictions, false statements and moralistic overtones. That's what I get out of it anyhow. How should we word this? -- Levine2112 discuss 03:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Ask one of the editors on your opposing POV to to do it... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
There is an article in Wikipedia about his foundation in case someone didn't know. It can be found here; [5]. I am still trying to finish reading the story at the above link so I can't comment or help, at least not yet. --CrohnieGalTalk 13:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Well if anyone wants to take a first stab out at it... go for it. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Question about Citation in Introduction

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

How does the citation (Medical Sharks) at the end of this line support this statement? [6] -- Anthon01 (talk) 12:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to. I am sure that there are better sources out there (if the criticism which follows isn't support enough). -- Levine2112 discuss 18:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that cite alone isn't enough, but there are abundant refs in the article to justify the statement. The lead doesn't really have to have refs if it is done properly, since everything in the lead must be based on article content, and that content must be backed up by references. If there aren't any refs in the article to back up the statement, then it should be easy to find them, but I think we have them already. The statement needs to be there because it is a significant part of mentioning that Quackwatch is criticized, and that it is! -- Fyslee / talk 06:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Sure but the link is inaccurate. The link needs to be replaced or removed. --Anthon01 (talk) 10:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The "Peer Review" or lack thereof cite

Unresolved
 – --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The actual reference doesn't support the text in the article, or rather it does support it for a single article in QW, by a critic of the actual author of the article in QW. I recommend that a better cite be found or the text in the article removed. Shot info (talk) 22:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that the title of the article - When You Can’t Critique CBP In The Peer-Reviewed Literature, You Can Always Send Your Article To Quack Watch - certainly makes the assertion that all of Quackwatch is not peer reviewed, not just the one article commented upon. That being said, I am certain we can find others sources for this statement. Funny, I could have sworn that Quackwatch used to state that it wasn't peer-reviewed. What bothers bothers me now is that I can't find anything on Quackwatch which discusses it's fact-checking or publication process. Without this, it does make Quackwatch a less reliable source in the eyes of Wikipedia according to WP:RS. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the title of reference is irrelevant, because it isn't what the reference is about. If you read the reference, you too would see this. Shot info (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the title is relevant of this article. It certainly implies that Quackwatch is not peer-reviewed. Read my comment above again and realize what I mean. On a side note, I think that this article would be apt for a good ref for a bit of Quackwatch criticism. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Seems like "Critics have commented that the opinions expressed on the Quackwatch website are not subjected to formal scientific peer review" should go where the 150+ statement is. It gives context to the 150+ statement. Like this

Quackwatch engages the services of 150+ scientific and technical advisors. As of 2003, 67 medical advisors, 12 dental advisors, 13 mental health advisors, 16 nutrition and food science advisors, 3 podiatry advisors, 8 veterinary advisors, and 33 "other scientific and technical advisors" were listed. Critics have commented that the opinions expressed on the Quackwatch website are not subjected to formal scientific peer review"

--Anthon01 (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Yep, don't mind this. Where it sit (sat) was just an example of poor editing. Shot info (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree too that it should be moved there. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Another critical source which points out that Quackwatch is not peer-reviewed. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, here it is. I remember seeing it on Quackwatch somewhere: Members of our medical advisory board review articles upon request. Clearly when articles are only reviewed upon request, we are not dealing with true peer-review. With this ref, we aren't dealing with a critical viewpoint, but rather a fact stated outright by Quackwatch and thus it should be worded as such in this article. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

A good solution. Even though I have included and edited that wording previously, it has always puzzled me why the point was included - much less belabored - at all. It has always been a deceptive straw man criticism, since no one has claimed it was peer-reviewed and such is not expected of websites. Sure, it contains alot of peer-reviewed references and bases much of its opinions on them, but it doesn't claim to be a scientific journal or scientific research. It's similar to the accusations raised against Barrett, such as "he is not a homeopath" "he is not a naturopath", etc.. Of course not, and he has never claimed to be such. It would be a demotion for him. It is similar to the problems in the criticisms section at the iPod touch article. To include a criticism of it for not having a telephone function is ridiculous. It doesn't claim to be an iPhone! (BTW, the iPod touch is great! Mine functions perfectly.) Criticisms need to have some relation to reality, not be trumped up straw man arguments or mere slurs without foundation in reality. That kind of stuff is not worthy of inclusion here. -- Fyslee / talk 06:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
It is not what Quackwatch claims about itself which is the justification for pointing this fact out. Nor is pointing this fact out necessarily a criticism. Interestingly, the iPod Touch article does point out that the device is not a mobile phone; not as a criticism, but as a statement of fact. which clarifies perhaps a common misconception or highlights a key difference between it and something it is like (an iPhone). It would be one thing if we were to say here that Quackwatch is not a cookbook (or a mobile phone carrier for that matter). It is another, to state that it is not peer reviewed; certainly this could be a common misconception and at least highlights a key difference between Quackwatch and more reliable sources for health advice (say an actual peer-reviewed journal). So no strawman; just the facts. -- Levine2112 discuss 07:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Check it out. Read the edit summary: "rv vandalism"
Sneaky vandalism: Vandalism that is harder to spot. This can include adding plausible misinformation to articles, (e.g. minor alteration of dates), hiding vandalism (e.g. by making two bad edits and only reverting one), or reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages. Some vandals even use edit summaries such as "rv vandalism" to mask their changes.  Mr.Guru  talk  07:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I would surmise that like your attempted edit which this editor rightly reverted, your accusation here has no basis in reality. -- Levine2112 discuss 07:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

We've been through this many, many, many times. Another trivial criticism that some editors want to include in the article unsourced or poorly sourced. WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV all apply here. --Ronz (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that this is a criticism. This is just a statement of fact. Quackwatch does publish scientific related articles similar to how a journal would publish articles. To avoid confusion for the reader, we should spell out that a key difference is that QW articles are not subject to peer-review, but rather (as the site states) reviewed by their technical staff only upon request. Clearly there is no OR, V, or RS issues here as this is well documented in the QW site. I am curious though about your raising of the NPOV issue. What is the NPOV issue as you see it? -- Levine2112 discuss 18:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I don't think calling people "trolls" (even in a edit summary) helps this situation. Please follow the guidelines of WP:NPA and let's discuss this with civility. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Please refer to your many, many, many arguments of the exact same situation, and the many, many, many responses you've received. The "it's a fact" argument has been refuted many, many, many times. Please stop. --Ronz (talk) 18:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't find this response satisfactory (more akin to a personal attack... please stop). We are dealing with information which has been in this article for a long time with no argument against it. Please explain the NPOV issue as you see it now. Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
DNFTT Please follow WP:TALK. --Ronz (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Ronz, I find this very disheartening. You are calling me a "troll" once again here rather than discussing a point which you have raised. I believe other editors have pointed this out to you in the past. You have made a claim that this text somehow violates NPOV. You may indeed be correct and I don't see it yet. I just want to read your rationale. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Please follow TALK or you may be ignored. Repeat TALK violations will be reported to the proper venue. --Ronz (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I have read WP:TALK once again. Please tell me the TALK issue as you see it. Then maybe you can delve in to the NPOV issue with the content we are discussing. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. Please refer to your many, many, many past discussions on this very topic. Perhaps you should start with the ones in ANI or WQA. --Ronz (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, Ronz, I am going to disengage from you for now. It is clear that you are unwilling ( and perhaps unable) to back your policy violation assertions against the material in question. Rather than backing your assertions with a requested explanation, you have rather chosen to turn this into an uncivil, personal attack war against me. When you are ready to discuss content and policy, please let me know. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Levine2112's interpretation of the title is plausible. However, claims should be verifiable by anyone looking at the source material. We can't bridge gaps with our own synthetic conclusions. The source therefore doesn't support the claim it's cited to support. Cool Hand Luke 22:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Another trivial criticism

Unresolved
 – --Ronz (talk) 16:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

"Another trivial criticism that some editors want to include in the article unsourced or poorly sourced. WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV all apply here." --Ronz (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion... It is not trivial. It is not a criticism. It has been in the article unopposed for a long time. It is neither unsourced nor poorly sourced and therefore OR, V, and RS don't apply. I don't know what your NPOV issue is with this material and I am kindly requesting that you explain your rationale. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I have no comment about the sourcing at this time. However, in my opinion, the statement isn't trivial. For many readers peer-reviewed makes all the difference in the weight they assess to a sources POV. If Quackwatch was a peer-reviewed website, many would insist, and rightly so, that it be prominently placed in the text. Anthon01 (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
"If Quackwatch was a peer-reviewed website, many would insist, and rightly so, that it be prominently placed in the text." I agree, but it's irrelevant. There are an infinite number of facts about Quackwatch, that if true, would unquestionably need to be placed prominently in the article. That does not mean that it's worth noting them when they are not true. --Ronz (talk) 22:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The point here is that QW itself notes that its articles are not peer reviewed but rather only subject to some kind of review upon an ambiguous request. Again it would be one thing if we were saying that QW is not a cookbook since nowhere on the QW site does it state this. But int he case of not being peer reviewed, QW does find this fact notable enough to list on their all-too-important Mission Statement page! -- Levine2112 discuss 18:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Continues below: SYNTH violation -- Fyslee / talk 06:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

150+

Unresolved
 – --Ronz (talk) 16:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Then what is the significance of the 150+ statement? Why bother noting all those peer advisers when they don't get used? --Anthon01 (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The answer to that can be found in the history of this article. Because of many objections claiming that Quackwatch wasn't notable and that it was a one-man operation, more documentation and information was included to meet those demands and document that Barrett involves more than Barrett and includes input and articles from other people, and this was just a small part of the other stuff that got included because of demands from anti-Quackwatch editors. We have seen this pattern many times here. More complaints means a better sourced article that invariably disproves the complaints and false charges. Why? It's very simple. Conspiracy theories that aren't founded in truth and fact are easy to expose by simply producing the facts. -- Fyslee / talk 07:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Quackwatch's reliability as a source is topic of much discussion not just here at Wikipedia, but throughout the web and in the real world. We have an entire section devoted to "Quackwatch as a source" after all. Given this, the fact that QW articles are not peer reviewed but rather only reviewed upon request is of paramount notability. The citation to Quackwatch confirms this so I can't imagine any OR, V, or RS violation. Which leaves us with Ronz's NPOV violation claim - I am not sure what he means and I would like very much for him to explain his rationale. He may have a point; we just don't know what it is yet. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
"Then what is the significance of the 150+ statement? Why bother noting all those peer advisers when they don't get used?" I'm not following you and not sure with how this relates. --Ronz (talk) 22:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The 150+ statement is trivial if those advisers are not being used or are used infrequently, don't you think? You would like to leave the trivial statement up there without a balancing statement? It certainly looks more impressive, but it doesn't reflect the facts and it certainly creates a WP:POV issue. --Anthon01 (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Now there's an NPOV violation claim which I can understand. Yes, Anthon01, the omission of the fact that the 150+ advisers do not serve as a peer-review board but rather only review upon request would create an NPOV issue somewhat akin to WP:PEACOCK. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd think that having 150+ advisors is notable. Why do you think they're only used infrequently? Why does it matter? What does this have to do with supporting the inclusion of unsourced information, which so far you've only argued deserves mention if the information were not true?
Again, there are an infinite number of things we can say that are not true. People's assertions to include them are irrelevant. That's why I've pointed out OR, V, RS, and NPOV, all which discuss how and when we include information. --Ronz (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
There are an infinite amount of things we can say that Quackwatch is not. It isn't a cookbook and it isn't a lead pipe. But that isn't notable. However, given that we give so much discussion in the article about QW's credibility as a source, that Quackwatch is not peer-reviewed certainly is notable. Above you say that this statement is unsourced. How is it unsourced? Quackwatch's mission statement page outright says that the articles are only reviewed upon request. Anthon01 brings up an excellent point. Having all of those advisers, one might assume that Quackwatch is peer reviewed. To avoid confusion (and an NPOV violation), we must say that it is not. Since Quackwatch outright states this about itself, we cannot have an RS, OR, or V violation. Quackwatch is an RS for itself (hence the dozens of self-referencing sources throughout this article). The OR claim would suppose that this statement needs some kind of original research to support it; it does not. The V claim would suggest that this information is not verifiable, when clearly it has been verified. Let me ask you this, Ronz: Do you think that the articles in Quackwatch are subject to formal peer review? -- Levine2112 discuss 23:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Having 150 advisers isn't notable if all they are is window dressing. And Barrett himself says that he uses those advisders only upon request. Why do I think they're only used infrequently? Because he told me. --Anthon01 (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
"Upon request" =? "infrequently" =? "window dressing"?! I don't see any reason to think "infrequently" applies, let alone "window dressing". It's a good example of why OR and NPOV are so important though, to prevent improper or misleading assumptions or biases.
Can we get back to the the subject at hand? --Ronz (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Because he told me means because Barrett told me. Is there a way to use personal communication as a source? --Anthon01 (talk) 23:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You need to review WP:RS and WP:V. Shot info (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the point here which Anthon01 makes is that if we are to state that QW has 150+ technical advisers, then one might assume that the articles are all reviewed by all or at least some portion of these advisers. We know from Quackwatch that this is not true. Article review only happens upon request. Whose request? We don't know. Who does the reviewing? We don't know. What we do know though is that the articles are not subject to the formal peer review process of a scientific journal. Again, this Wiki article has an entire section devoted to Quackwatch's reliability as a source. Its article review process is part of determining that reliability. So is having a board of 150+ technical advisers. Each fact is notable, relevant and verifiable. Hence, each fact is included in our Wiki article. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I can read what Anthon01 has written. I'm sure if he reviews the policy it will make it quite clear. You can continue to answer for him/her if you so choose to however, just means that it will be ignored. Shot info (talk) 06:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
"What we do know though is that the articles are not subject to the formal peer review process of a scientific journal." ?? Another straw man. It isn't a scientific journal! Websites are not "peer-reviewed", nor are articles on quackery and healthfraud on any website "peer-reviewed". They are prepared using advisors and many sources, including many peer-reviewed sources. That's it, and it's done well enough that the website is considered a good source of information regarding quackery and healthfraud by the mainstream, the press, and government agencies. Don't try to compare apples and oranges. Quackwatch doesn't pretend to produce peer-reviewed scientific research and it isn't a scientific journal. -- Fyslee / talk 07:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
No strawman at all. QW uses peer reviewed literature in their articles, QW boast recommendations from sources of peer reviewed journals, and QW also boasts about their board of 150+ advisers. Including the fact that QW articles (not the website) are not peer reviewed but rather only subject to review upon request is to state a fact which QW found notable enough to post on their website and to help avoid any confusion with the readers of this Wiki article. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
P.S. For a strawman argument, look at your own. You say that "websites are not peer-reviewed". Well, no one is claiming that. I am pointing out that the articles on QW might be peer reviewed. That is to say, that it is possible for any scholarly work to be peer reviewed. Please read the Wiki article on "Peer review" to learn more. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit war

Resolved
 – --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If this doesn't stop by the time I get home, I'm going to protect the article and start issuing 24 hour blocks. Discuss changes here. Adam Cuerden talk 18:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Adam, sorry that I reverted, but I didn't see this message from you until after I made the edit. It looks as though my reversion was made concurrent to your message here. That being said, I liked your last version and have reverted Ronz's back to that version. You have made an excellent point about "viewpoints" and I think it reads well now. I am satisfied. I am confused by Ronz assertion that this somehow fails to meet NPOV. Ronz, please explain. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry about it. I said "by when I get home" to make sure everyone had a chance to read this and calm down. PP is probably the way to go. Adam Cuerden talk 22:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I think we need a much longer protection, and have requested it. This dispute is just another duplicate of the many, many, many we have had here, some of which have lasted for months because of outright refusal to follow WP:TALK and WP:CON. --Ronz (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The article is protected for two weeks. I hope everyone can respect WP:TALK and WP:CON while we work out the dispute. Please note that this is not the proper venue for reporting or discussing problems with individual editor's behavior. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH violation

Unresolved
 – --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Re:Professions. Well Yeah. That was an abbreviated way for me to make the point. My apologies if that confused you. Did you think I didn't know that? How does that fit into a WP:SYNTH violation section on a Quackwatch talk page? Why didn't you make the point on the "List of Pseudosciences" talk page where I made that statement? Do you believe it bolsters you argument of a WP:SYNTH violation?
Re: Websites. Yes websites are not peer-reviewed, but in some cases some of the data published on them is. One notable example is MedGenMed which is an wholly electronic based journal. In addition, many journal websites make abstracts and some full-text articles available online. That data is often peer-reviewed. --Anthon01 (talk) 13:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I had forgotten about MdGenMed. It is mentioned here. -- Fyslee / talk 21:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but Quackwatch is not a journal, nor a website for a journal, nor is anyone claiming it is. Again, just another of an infinite number of facts about Quackwatch that is unimportant. --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
If it is unimportant, then why does Quackwatch state it on their Mission Statement? Seems like an odd place to put a fact that is unimportant. The point is, QW finds this fact about itself notable enough to state outright on their Mission Statement, thus it is notable enough of a fact to include in our article here. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Secondly, this matter most specifically violates WP:SYNTH because it states one of millions of possible irrelevant facts that could be included, but which we do not include. We don't include information just to provide readers with a service (although that would be good if it were very relevant and was properly sourced, and in this case rebutted). It is a form of editorializing that has been used as a specious criticism based on the straw man fallacy. No reasonable person expects a website to be peer-reviewed, and Quackwatch has never claimed anything remotely related to such a thing. It is thus the ridiculous inclusion of an obvious fact that is unnecessary to include, all based on an unsaid and unsourced straw man criticism. No amount of back peddling, claiming that it's just a "fact", can get away from the fact that the only reason it even comes to mind to include it is because there are a few unreasonable critics who have made this straw man accusation as a part of their disinformation campaigns against Quackwatch, and some editors here are more than willing to bring that same agenda here to Wikipedia. -- Fyslee / talk 06:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I am trying to follow you arguments and have a few questions.
  • The claim made on QW mission statement page says just that, "Members of our medical advisory board review articles upon request." I don't think he meant by his cleaning lady or gardener. :) There is a claim being made here of peer-review.
  • Unless you know something I don't know, I think your jumping to conclusions when you infer why this point 'comes to mind." That may be true for some editors but I don't think the wholesale generalization is helpful or true.
  • "No reasonable person expects a website to be peer-reviewed." I don't know what you mean by this since only "scientific research itself" is subject to peer-review. I'm not trying to be facetious, but because of your comment in item 1, I just don't know what you mean by this. --Anthon01 (talk) 16:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
There is a claim of review, not scientific peer review. Websites aren't peer reviewed. Pointing that out here in this article is inappropriate. --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
There is a claim of peer-review. Right? --Anthon01 (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
There is a claim of review that is not in dispute. What are you trying to say? --Ronz (talk) 17:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I am saying it is peer-review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthon01 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
And I don't know what you mean, let alone what it means regarding policies/guidelines and our work to improve this article and end the dispute that resulted in page protection. --Ronz (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The problem here is that the term "peer-review" has a special definition in medical circles. Just because some peers look an article over for accuracy, make some suggestions, maybe even additions and subtractions, doesn't make it a "peer-reviewed" article in the scientific sense, in large part because it is an article, not a scientific research paper, and the peer-reviewers are known to the author, in contrast to the peer-review process with scientific journals, where the author normally doesn't know them. There are a number of differences. Quackwatch is producing articles of all types by many authors. Some articles don't need any type of review, others do. Some simply report some type of news relevant to exposing quackery. Others go in depth and cover a subject from many angles using many sources and they may require double checking. Then those who know something about the subject check it over. It's as simple as that. Other times several work together on an article and their names appear as authors. Since most are medical professionals, this gives some weight to their opinions, and thus Quackwatch has garnered respect in the medical world as a source of information on matters related to quackery and healthfraud. -- Fyslee / talk 22:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
it states one of millions of possible irrelevant facts that could be included, but which we do not include. - If it is so irrelevant then why does QW make a point of stating it on their Mission Statement page? Clearly it is extremely relevant. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
You have gone beyond what is stated, and it is that part that is a SYNTH violation. The first part of what you write is the problem (and I strike it out here) and where you go too far:
  • "Quackwatch.org's articles are not subjected to formal scientific peer review, but rather, reviewed by the medical advisory board upon request."
A simple statement noting that "Members of Quackwatch's medical advisory board review articles upon request," would do the job just fine. -- Fyslee / talk 22:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
...which means that the articles are not subject to formal scientific peer review as one might otherwise expect. We need to spell it out to deal with this otherwise ambiguous statement. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
No reasonable person would "otherwise expect" that a website publishing articles on quackery and healthfraud would be "peer-reviewed". What part of "Quackwatch is not a scientific journal publishing scientific research" (my summation of an oft repeated point we are making) do you not understand? Are your refusals to understand this point and pressing the issue becoming disruptive? This question has only been raised on websites that have been banned from Wikipedia as sources for any purpose other than in their own articles, one of which has been deleted. To include the statement you must source it, and we would need to see that source here and approve it. Do you have such a source that is allowed to be viewed here? If not, just email it to me. -- Fyslee / talk 00:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry, but it is difficult to understand what you are saying here in this rant. It comes off as an attack on me and seems to be coming from frustration. I suggest that you have some tea (or your Zinfandel, as I know you are partial to) and come back here to restate the above in a more understandable and civil tone. Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
When you come back, I would like you to address your statement: "Quackwatch is not a scientific journal publishing scientific research." I agree with that. But how does the reader of this article know that? Do we need to include this in the Wiki article? Can it be sourced? If not, how do we know it is true? -- Levine2112 discuss 01:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Thirdly, I find it rather amusing (and considering this discusion quite ironic) that JAMA recommends Quackwatch as a source for more information in a patient information article regarding the subject of peer-review and how to judge health information and evaluate medical research! Quackwatch may not be peer-reviewed, but the mainstream still considers it to be a reliable source of information for consumers. -- Fyslee / talk 06:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Fyslee, you just summed it up exactly in your last sentence. Yes, sources of peer-reviewed literature such as JAMA consider QW to be a reliable source, QW cites peer-reviewed literature in their articles, and QW has a board of over 150+ technical advisers. If I only knew those facts about QW, I would assume that their articles are also peer reviewed. Thus, knowing that their articles are only reviewed upon request, clears that ambiguity up (though it does open the doors on other ambiguities such as who makes these requests and who reviews the articles upon these requests and which articles have been reviewed and which have not). Clearly, to avoid confusion for the reader, this Wiki article must expressly state what it states now - that QW articles are not subject to any formal scientific peer review. (On a side note, I am surprised not to find any legal/medical disclaimer on the QW site which states something to the effect of: the views expressed on this site are not meant to supersede diagnosis of a trained medical doctor but rather to aid in blah blah blah, et cetera, et cetera. Something like WebMD has. I would think that this disclaimer is somewhere on the QW site, but I can't find it. Seems to me that if they don't have this disclaimer, it could be a lawsuit waiting to happen.) -- Levine2112 discuss 18:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Just knowing that true "peer-review" is only used for scientific research papers and that Quackwatch is producing very different types of articles should settle the issue. -- Fyslee / talk 22:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
That's just it. The layman reader may not know that true "peer-review" is only used for scientific research papers or that which Quackwatch are not scientific research papers. On the surface, they certainly appear to be scientific research papers. Especially to the layman. We must make this clear. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Levine2112, you write: "On the surface, they certainly appear to be scientific research papers." Only someone who isn't familiar with what a scientific research paper looks like would say that. That's absurd. Since I doubt that applies to you, I suspect that you are trying to make an absurd point (violation). If no editor mentions the matter in the article, readers won't even think of it. This seems only intended to bring the straw man criticism of Stephen Barrett's arch antagonist (whose website is blacklisted here) to Wikipedia.
Don't underestimate people. They are not as obtuse. I think they take the articles for what they obviously are. Anyone who confuses a typical article on Quackwatch for scientific research is certainly an unusual and rare person. Fortunately making such a mistake won't get them in hot water, in contrast to those who blindly believe anything on alternative medicine websites, precisely because it isn't peer-reviewed by Big-Pharma-Stooges-Who-Are-Part-Of-The-Grand-Conspiracy. Those types of readers have little respect for real peer-review and seem to have an anti-science gene that has been manipulated into their brains. They automatically believe any type of nonsense around and refuse to believe anything if they discover it is backed up by real research. They are often termed true believers. So the few who might mistake some article on Quackwatch for scientific research will be in good hands because they will learn to avoid getting that nonsense gene implanted in their heads by reading alternative medicine websites. -- Fyslee / talk 00:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Your POV on alternative medicine is entirely clear and seems well-aligned with that of Quackwatch. However, your POV is not relevant here. Quackwatch's is. Given that QW boasts a 150+ technical advisory board, publishes articles which propound scientific research, cite peer-reviewed journals, and that we dedicate so much of this article to their credibility as a source, I think it is reasonable to believe that some people think its articles might be peer reviewed. That it is not is verifiable, reliably sourced and made completely notable by QW's own mention of it on their mission statement page. That alone should be ground enough to include this in the Wiki article... nevermind the fact that without mentioning it, we may be perpetrating a factual misunderstand for some readers. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Without a notable third party V & RS that states it, I don't see much point in further discussion (with you) on this matter. We're not getting anywhere. 02:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, we both are speculating now whether or not a reader might think that Quackwatch articles are peer reviewed. Neither of us know for sure, but considering Quackwatch's lack of peer review has been verified by a reliable source (its own Mission Statement!), I think we'd all have to agree that it would be better for this Wikipedia article to lean towards being more informative to the reader rather than less. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Why you are now insisting on a third party source is odd, considering so much of this article is self-referenced to Quackwatch and the Mission Statement page in particular is referenced 4 other times in the article! -- Levine2112 discuss 02:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I wrote above:

You have gone beyond what is stated, and it is that part that is a SYNTH violation. The first part of what you write is the problem (and I strike it out here) and where you go too far:
* "Quackwatch.org's articles are not subjected to formal scientific peer review, but rather, reviewed by the medical advisory board upon request."
A simple statement noting that "Members of Quackwatch's medical advisory board review articles upon request," would do the job just fine.

If you want to include something that Quackwatch doesn't say, but which we know is true, then it should be possible to find it from a third party source. I have only seen it from a very critical source that is so bad it is blacklisted as a reference at Wikipedia, but if you can find a third party V & RS that says it, I am certainly open to including it. Let's see what you find. If it isn't an illegitimate straw man criticism, but a neutral statement of fact, then it would be a welcome addition, as far as I am concerned. Mind you, I have never claimed it wasn't true, but now that I understand the need for sourcing better and what is involved in a SYNTH violation, I regret that I have been a party to helping it stay in the article for so long. Now I know better and therefore I object to its inclusion without a good source. Find a good, neutral source and let's see what we can do with it. -- Fyslee / talk 04:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH deals with an A, B, and a synthesized C scenario. Can you please spell out the three variables here (A, B, and C) so we can all understand why you think WP:SYNTH applies. My position can be summarized with the metaphor foo and oof. All we need to know about foo is that it is the opposite of oof. When something is foo then it is not oof (and vice versa). I think this applies where foo represents peer reviewed and oof represents reviewed upon request. In other words, foo means that the usage of "peer review" is true and oof means that the usages of "peer review" is false. Quackwatch states that that it is reviewed upon request. Meaning that the existence of peer review is clearly false. There is nothing to synthesize. It either is or it isn't. Let's try another example: Either the ball is in the house or it is not. Those are the two possible states of the ball. In or out. Now we have a reliable source which says that the ball is in the backyard. We all know that the backyard is out, so clearly we can say the ball is not in. Well, we all know (or should know) what peer review means. Either something is or it isn't. We have a reliable source which says it's article are reviewed only upon request. We all know that this means it isn't peer reviewed. No synth necessary. Synth would mean that there is some source "B" , when all we really have is source "A" which verifies by itself that QW is not peer reviewed. "B" isn't even necessary. But still, I would like too see your views of the A, B, and C variables here. Perhaps SYNTH does apply and I am not seeing your rationale. -- Levine2112 discuss 04:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The matter isn't that black or white, simply because of the nature of how Quackwatch works and the nature of the misleading way that the "not peer-reviewed" criticism has been used. It has been used off- and on-wiki to imply (or outright state it as you and I'clast have done) that there is no editorial oversight at Quackwatch, that it is a one man operation, and that there is no fact checking. Well, none of those assertions have been true. Even if there isn't full "peer-review" as would be expected of a scientific journal publishing scientific research, even though Quackwatch isn't such a journal and isn't publishing original scientific research, there is some sort of fact checking going on. It just isn't strict peer-review, but it is the type of review appropriate for a website of its sort. The ball isn't quite "in" or "out", because there isn't just one ball, but two balls that are similar, but not equal. Now even I am getting confused....;-) I suggest that we get some input from others who understand SYNTH better. Let's get some input from admins who deal with this stuff all the time. -- Fyslee / talk 05:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
What kind of fact checking is going on at Quackwatch and can you cite where you get your information from? Let me get this straight, now you are saying that we can't say Quackwatch is not peer-reviewed (even though it is verifiable) because others have used this point to criticize Quackwatch? That's pretty twisted logic. If someone uses a fact as a criticism then we can't use that fact at all? I don't think so. -- Levine2112 discuss 07:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I am not saying that such criticism can never be used. Of coure it can. Just put on your NPOV glasses and see if it will make the article better, or will it make it a vehicle for further attempts to improperly slur Quackwatch. It depends on whether it's a V & RS or one of the typical critical sources, which are rarely good sources. Are you proposing to include legitimate criticism or illegitimate straw man slurs from fringe sources? If it's a deceptive statement that directly or by innuendo improperly slurs Quackwatch, then a rebuttal statement would be proper for balance. IOW, if you find a V & RS [see note at end] that criticizes Quackwatch for not being peer-reviewed, then a counter statement that "Quackwatch does not need peer-review or claim to be peer-reviewed" would be necessary. I can imagine it might look something like this: "Even though Quackwatch does not need peer-review or claim to be peer-reviewed, critic [ref] has leveled a straw man criticism that "Quackwatch is not peer-reviewed." Get the point? OTOH, if it wasn't a critical source that just makes it as a simple statement, it might be possible to include it without creating a doubt in people's mind, a doubt they would never have entertained if they hadn't heard it as a form of criticism, which is the purpose of straw man attacks. [Note:Keep in mind that a Wikipedia RS is not necessarily truly reliable in the ordinary sense.] -- Fyslee / talk 07:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
It isn't criticism. QW says that its articles are not peer reviewed. We are not sourcing any critics here to support this factual, neutral statement. We are sourcing Quackwatch itself. It is equivalent to saying QW has 150+ technical advisers; both statements have the same source and share the same POV. -- Levine2112 discuss 08:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
No, it does not state that its articles "are not peer reviewed." You are synthesizing again. It does not address the question of peer-review for itself at all, since that is an irrelevant matter. Websites aren't normally peer-reviewed, with the exception of the one mentioned above, which is a medical journal that only appears on the internet. -- Fyslee / talk 22:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The fact that there exists an exception is even more reason to clarify that QW articles are not peer reviewed. This notable exception adds more to the ambiguity. Perhaps QW is an exception too? We all now know it is not, however a new reader may be confused (or deceived by the 150+ advisers). And yes, that QW articles are not peer reviewed is completely verified in the QW Mission Statement when they state that articles are only reviewed upon request. It is like having a source that says someone is dead. And then sourcing it to say that person is not alive. No SYNTH is needed; just a basic understanding of what it means to be alive and what it means to be dead. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
But it is somewhere in between, not either/or, as I explained above. As to the "exception", the rare person who knows so little as to be confused doesn't know about that internet journal and even a surface comparison would show no resemblance. Just because you are confused and think that "On the surface, they [Quackwatch's articles] certainly appear to be scientific research papers." doesn't mean others are in the same boat. Don't dumb down the human race as an excuse to push this through. Give people more credit than that. -- Fyslee / talk 23:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not in between. Quackwatch articles do not go through formal scientific peer review. And I am not trying to dumb down the article; only trying to include verifiable, notable and relevant information which helps with the explanation of this topic. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Websites often republish various journal articles, so the issue of whether the content is, or accurately derives from, current peer reviewed material, is of interest. Especially on such a site where scientifically literate inspection repeatedly confirms "contaminated with incomplete data, obsolete data, technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo...", both from Kauffman's examples and others. WP editors strongly favoring QW have tried to present & use QW as a WP:RS scientific source in areas where QW articles have howling technical discrepancies and rather biased opinions. So I think Levine's address of the "peer review" issue is valid. What sources are used and how summarized are a discussion but the SYNTH assertion and "troll" attacks appear to me to be part of a continual pro-QW promotional bombardment here that has yielded an increasingly POV and unreliable WP article that effaces legitimate criticism and less than favorable facts.--I'clast (talk) 13:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Outside opinions

Unresolved
 – --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I was asked by Fyslee for a third opinion . QW is not peer-reviewed, and there is no point in trying to say it is. It users a board of advisors, but that is not scientific peer review., which has a specific and narrow meaning. In fact, I know of no peer-reviewed website--the best ones are carefully edited and fact-checked, but that's not the same thing. the people running QW know perfectly well what peer review is, and don';t claim it for themselves. On the other hand, a great many non peer-reviewed sources are highly reliable. I think it fair to say that everyone thinks them so, except the people they attack. That's hardly surprising, after all. Just a brief opinion. and some personal advice to everyone: dont quibble over this sort of wording. DGG (talk) 10:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

DGG, I appreciate your third-party assessment. I think what you are saying here is pretty much agreed upon by all parties. Quackwatch is not peer reviewed. However, no one here is trying to say that it is. Just the opposite, we are simply trying to say that it isn't. Quackwatch itself says that it isn't right on their Mission Statement... articles are only reviewed upon request. It is this - the usage of this reference to state here that Quackwatch articles are not peer reviewed - where we disagree. Some editors feel that it is not notable to mention that Quackwatch is NOT peer reviewed for it is NOT many things. Others, such as myself, feel that it is notable because Quackwatch itself mentions it as part of their Mission Statement. Some editors feel that in order to derive from the Mission Statement that Quackwatch articles are not peer-reviewed, it requires WP:SYNTH. Others, such as myself, feel that there is no synthesis needed at all - that it is plainly obvious if the articles are only reviewed upon request then they are certainly not peer reviewed. Given your statement above, how did you conclude that Quackwatch articles are not peer reviewed? Bear in mind, peer review is a process which is not just reserved for the research of scientific journals but rather for any scholarly work going through an editorial and publication process. Anyhow, I hope that my summary of the various sides of this debate is accurate and I trust that I will be corrected if they are not. Thanks again for your input here and I would certainly appreciate further comment. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Review articles are not always peer-reviewed when they are published in in scientific journals and those are what in essence Quackwatch are providing. How about "Quackwatch provides summaries of the peer-reviewed literature, but does not publish original scientific or medical research." Tim Vickers 17:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that "summaries" is entirely accurate and I am not sure that they don't publish original scientific or medical research. Can any of this be cited? Their Mission Statement does state outright that Quackwatch articles are only subject to review upon request (and thus not peer reviewed). I think this is an important clarification which needs to be in this article. One might assume (I know I did at first) that given QW's impressive 150+ person technical advisory board, that their articles are subject to peer review; that some portion of this advisory board will review and verify every article published on the site. I now know that this is not true. Given the ambiguity, I believe that our Wiki article should make this clear (especially since Quackwatch makes it clear in their Mission Statement that their articles are not peer reviewed). -- Levine2112 discuss 18:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I had a look at some more of their materials and the testing of some products (eg link) would count as original research in my opinion. How about "Quackwatch publishes a variety of materials, including summaries of peer-reviewed research, accounts of medical malpractice or fraud, opinion articles, investigative reporting, and consumer testing on alternative medicine products." Tim Vickers 18:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

While this statement may be true, it still does not address the confusion of whether or not Quackwatch articles are peer reviewed. We know from their Mission Statement that they are not peer reviewed. A statement like the one you wrote, TimVickers, is welcome to the article (provided it can be sourced reliably). But we a currently addressing whether or not we should include a statement which explains to the reader that the articles of Quackwatch are not subject to any formal scientific peer review but rather are only reviewed upon request. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

"Quackwatch publishes a variety of materials, including summaries of peer-reviewed research, accounts of medical malpractice or fraud, opinion articles, investigative reporting, and consumer testing on alternative medicine products. Due to the varied nature of the material, the editorial process differs between articles, with some being peer-reviewed by members of the scientific advisory board, and others representing an author's opinion." Tim Vickers 19:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I applaud your effort. It all true, except most represent an author's opinion. How do we WP:V it? --Anthon01 19:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
We don't know if any of the articles are peer-reviewed by member of the scientific advisory board. The statement on the Mission Statement is too ambiguous to infer that. All we know is that the articles on Quackwatch are not peer-reviewed, but may be "reviewed" (by whom, we don't know) upon request (by whom, we don't know). -- Levine2112 discuss 19:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Barrett says that some are, but most aren't. --Anthon01 19:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Since we don't know the relative proportions, we need to just say "some" are and "others" are not, that is why my proposed wording isn't specific on that point. Tim Vickers 19:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
My sense of it is that even saying "some are peer reviewed" comes off as an overstatement. Regardless, there is no evidence that any article goes through the rigors of formal scientific peer review, but rather verifiable evidence to the contrary. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it actually possible, by definition, for a non-journal to be peer-reviewed? It's a long, formal process that only works with a very, very long lead time from article to posting. Adam Cuerden talk 20:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, according to the Wiki article for peer review, any scholarly work can be peer reviewed, not just those appearing in a journal. That being said, it might be enough to just state outright that Quackwatch is not a peer reviewed journal (to avoid any confusion). -- Levine2112 discuss 20:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not even remotely plausible that a reader might confuse a website with the name "Quackwatch" with an academic scientific journal. This isn't something you have to worry about. Tim Vickers 20:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but is this article suppose to be an adjunct to Quackwatch? Is this how this encyclopedia functions? With 150+ advisors and all, you would never know that from the article itself could mistaken its review process for something more formal. You would have to go to Quackwatch to find that out. Just like any other encyclopedia, shouldn't the article be able to stand alone on its own? --Anthon01 20:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
To clarify, I don't think I should depend on the 'title' or a visit to the website to clarify QW's review status. I think it should be part of the article. Just like any other encyclopedia, the article should be able to stand on its own? --Anthon01 21:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I was fooled at first. Even recently when we began this discussion and I couldn't find the text on the QW site, I started questioning my recollection and thought perhaps QW articles were in fact peer reviewed. I think we should err on the side of more information here rather than less, especially since this information is totally verifiable. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
No offence, Levine - and I do mean that, because the way I'm about to phrase this is rather awkward, but I can't think of a better way - but a moment of stupidity on your part does not mean that every person reading will make the same mistake. Adam Cuerden talk 22:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it is an honest and common mistake rather than stupidity. (No offense taken.) Don't forget that Quackwatch is written for the lay person, who might not otherwise no the difference between peer review and not peer review. BTW, I am a lay person. I am not a scientist, doctor, or even an alternative medicine practitioner. Again, since this information is verifiable per thei Quackwatch Mission Statement, then why not risk our encyclopedia being over more informative rather than less? -- Levine2112 discuss 22:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Review articles are either peer reviewed or invited, and they are always signed by named contributors, with a known and usually distinguished background. Some Quackwatch articles meet this standard. Some don't. the ones written by named scientists have the authority of their position. The ones that are copies of outside statements have the authority of the organization that made them, which is often very high indeed. The many written by Barrett rest on his personal authority--I consider him a very reliable medical journalist, but nobody has truly authoritative scientific knowledge over the range of the field he covers, and he does not claim to have such. The ones written by staff writers have only the authority of the publication as a whole, which is basically Barrett's--the reliability of good medical journalism.
I think the present statements in the article reasonably accurate about the authoritativeness. It is very widely accepted in the scientific part of the medical community. (and me personally. )
I suggest the way to go when quoting it is to give the nature of the authorship of the particular article. Most articles have good bibliographic references, which can also be quoted.
I would suggest to Barrett that what would add to the authoritativeness is the listing of names of individual reviewers for each article.
Calling his articles peer-reviewed, or the equivalent of peer-reviewed, is I think a confusion which should be abandoned. Calling them responsibly edited is much more accurate. DGG (talk) 23:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Calling them generally responsibly edited would be both OR and technically questionable in specific cases.--I'clast (talk) 13:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus on "peer-review"

Unresolved
 – --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it too much to assume that the lack of responses means we're reached consensus? Currently, the article reads, "Quackwatch.org's articles are not subjected to formal scientific peer review, but rather reviewed by the medical advisory board upon request." Have we agreed that "are not subjected to formal scientific peer review" is not verified and original research (a synthesis), and so should be removed? I haven't bothered to give much time arguing that it violates NPOV as well, given that it already these two other arguments against it.

Can we move on to deciding on an alternative for the text? There are some very good proposals already, but few editors have participated in working on them at this point. I think that more would participate in rewriting it if we all agreed that we've reached a consensus that will be respected. --Ronz (talk) 04:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It would make sense to rip that clause out and clarify upon whose request the articles are reviewed by the advisory board. Antelan talk 04:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately we don't know that information yet. Working on it. Until then, what is there is what we know for sure. -- Levine2112 discuss 06:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that Ronz's suggestion is correct, or should be. Describe the role of the advisors, and so on, but why say it's not something it never claimed to be? Adam Cuerden talk 06:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that we don't have and V RS to describe the role of advisers in terms of review other than that they don't lend peer review to the Quackwatch articles. This is from the mission statement of Quackwatch. Show me another V RS which describes their roles any differently. -- Levine2112 discuss 07:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

From the comments above, I think we've come to consensus that "are not subjected to formal scientific peer review" should be removed per WP:V and WP:OR. Thanks to everyone for getting us this far! --Ronz (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No consensus yet. Please don't take any action until a true consensus has formed. I am certainly against removing it and it seems several editors from previous conversations are also against its removal. Please continue this discussion as many feel that WP:V and WP:OR are completely satisfied here. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
The discussion is over. Sorry that you don't agree with the consensus. Please see WP:CON on how to proceed. --Ronz (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I would surmise here that you don't understand WP:CON or are choosing to ignore it. No consensus has been formed here. Some suggestions have been made but certainly no agreement has been reached to do anything yet. I think your insistence here that consensus has been achieved borders on being disruptive. Please be more respectful of the opinions of other editors here. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Moving on, I think we've come to consensus that "are not subjected to formal scientific peer review" should be removed per WP:V and WP:OR. It's been days without any response to the many comments. Since I started this discussion here, it's apparent that we're ready to work on new wording. --Ronz (talk) 19:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see consensus yet either. Anthon01 (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
WP:CONSENSUS does not require unanimity. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I see very clear consensus, after discussions that cover maybe a fifth of this page, starting with Talk:Quackwatch#The_.22Peer_Review.22_or_lack_thereof_cite, consisting of over 200 edits here since 27 November 2007. --Ronz (talk) 22:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
This is a fairly basic point. If several people disagree about whether consensus has been reached, that in itself is sufficient to prove that consensus has not been reached. Your statement that you see it means very little. If you had a true consensus, everyone would agree both that it exists and what it is, and an outsider like myself would quickly agree that it exists (while potentially remaining clueless as to whether it is right). To put it bluntly, your declaring a consensus does not create one. You and the others agreeing creates one. GRBerry 22:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Consensus does not mean everyone agrees to the decision, but that everyone abides to it. This discussion page was dead for five days. I started this discussion with the assumption that this means we have an agreement. No one disagreed with me until I bring it up for a second time, and then one of the opposing editors requests the discussions be continued. I pointed out to him that consensus does not work that way. He responded with personal remarks, in violation of WP:TALK. I don't think the discussions have to be continued at all if no new arguments are being offered. --Ronz (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
We recently had an administrator lose their administrative status in part because they mistook silence for agreement. Silence is not consent, silence is silence. This is especially true when an article is protected - if it isn't popping up on the watchlist, a lot of editors go where their watchlist is active. Go forth and find a position upon which consensus can form, but abandon your claim that you already have it. I'll give you a hint - it will probably have to be something different than what has been proposed thus far, just saying "yes" "no" "yes" "no" will never reach a consensus. Consensus is formed when the discussion goes "Well, how about this", discussing the good bad points, then proposing a new alternative "well how about version2", "version3", ... until you find a version that people agree is the best chosen. Look at what happened at the Talk:Pace memorandum; they went back and forth and got outside opinons until they had seven different alternatives - had discussed the good and bad points of all of them - and then discussed which they preferred and measured consensus in a way that an outside party could see there was a clear consensus. You haven't done it. Try. GRBerry 23:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Hence, I started this discussion. This discussion isn't about alternatives, yet. It's simply about the application of WP:V and WP:OR to an unsourced statement. On most other articles, such a discussion wouldn't even be necessary. After all, it's up to the ones that want the information to prove it belongs. However, here it seems even basics like this need to be discussed for days.
By my starting this discussion, I got other editors to start suggest alternatives, but when I brought up the assumption that they were working on, that there there was agreement on "peer review" being removed, it became apparent that the assumption was wrong. I'm simply breaking down a dispute into pieces, to prevent the type of stonewalling (three months of stonewalling, in fact) that has occurred in the past. If we continued discussing alternatives, I fear that all our work would be undone by someone simply disagreeing on the "peer review" matter. --Ronz (talk) 00:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

One way to look at this is that we could leave "not subjected to formal scientific peer review" in the article, but then who's to stop someone from adding "Quackwatch makes no pretense of being a government body," "Quackwatch does not taste like ice cream," or any number of true statements that are nevertheless "un-sourceable" to this article? Antelan talk 22:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

But your examples make no sense to the average reader. When you hear about 150+ advisors and the popular press sourcing of quackwatch, a reasonable person may wonder about level of credibility assuming perhaps that they might conform to the highest level of review.
I had an issue with "Consumer Magazine" about a year ago. I assumed that based upon their 'thorough' reporting on consumer issues, that they're methodology must follow standard scientific norms and perhaps 'maybe' peer-review. I called them to ask about their methodology. It turns out they refused to tell me how they tested their products. It was a surprise to me. Some of you might say, "Just look at Quackwatch, and it won't take long to figure ..." That may be true, but I don't think this article is meant to be an adjunct of QW. This encyclopedia article should be able to stand on its own. Making it clear to readers what is obvious from QW statement should be part of the article. Anthon01 (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
That argument has been made before and it is a good one. However, that Quackwatch is not peer reviewed is made clear in their Mission Statement where they state that the articles are only reviewed upon request. The ambiguity here is what is meant by "reviewed" and whose request are they talking about. But what is clear from this statement is that the articles are not subjected to formal scientific peer review. Quackwatch felt it necessary to mention this (perhaps to avoid any confusion which someone - such as me - might have when questioning the research and analysis which goes into these articles). From the Mission Statement, now I know that these articles are not reviewed as a rule and are not formally peer reviewed at all. I think I remember seeing a statement made by Barrett in which he said he uses his wife to review his writings, but I hardly think that counts as formal peer review. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Let's not repeat old arguments. If no one has anything new to say, then I think it's time to move on. --Ronz (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Please respect Antelan's argument. It's a good point (even though it has been made here before by Fyslee). To Antelan, it is a new point and I have no issue with repeating the counterpoint to this argument. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Please respect WP:TALK and the header at the top of this page, "Please review the recent comments below. New views and ideas on the subject are welcome; however, if your beliefs reflect already existing contributions, please consider withholding them." --Ronz (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
That's nice but it is still no reason to ignore or dismiss Antelan's point. That would be rude, in my opinion. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Please follow WP:TALK and don't make accusations that someone is being ignored, dismissed, or rude.
The problem is that while some editors may be interested in repeating the same old arguments, it is rude and dismissive of those editors who previously participated in the exact same discussions. They may not be able to repeat themselves, nor should there be a need for them to do so. Finally, this is not an argument where the last person to speak wins, nor where the person who speaks the most wins. --Ronz (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Seems to me that if consensus has not been reached you may need to repeat yourself. If fact that's what we have been doing through this discussion. Anthon01 (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely not. When I say to read WP:TALK, I mean just that. Repetition of arguments should be unnecessary. Clarification and progression of arguments are what we're after here. --Ronz (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Ronz, I happen to agree with you on the content issue, but I think you need to cool down. Your refactoring of my comment to give it its own inaptly-titled section was inappropriate, and your aggressive argument against speech on this page is not a winning one. I would say that there are very few actually distinct arguments to be made on any one issue. Argumentation largely consists of re-seasoning the same ideas to appeal to different palates. This is acceptable, even desirable. Continued discussion does not mean that consensus has not been reached. Antelan talk 00:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to give it a new name. I think it deserves a new section. I'm cool. If you want to continue this argument, it would be helpful to at least to point to the identical ones earlier. You're already being nit-picked over issues that have no bearing at all. --Ronz (talk) 01:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I think it requires the context, which is why I didn't break it into its own section. I agree that I'm being nitpicked, which is why I took pains to emphasize my view that there is probably a consensus despite continued discussion, if that makes sense. I think the change can be made. Antelan talk 01:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
What change? Can you describe the change which you'd like to make. Above you describe alternate wording. What is your suggestion? (P.S. Sorry if you view this as nitpicking. To me, it is asking everyone to be absolutely clear about their rationale. I know that is a tall order at times, but I think if we can all be clear, there will be less misunderstandings and aggressive arguments made.) (P.P.S. I still maintain what others have maintained during the course of these discussions; that Quackwatch's lack of peer review is verifiable from the reliable source of their own Mission Statement. And while notability is not necessarily an inclusion criteria, the knowledge that Quackwatch articles are not subject to any formal peer review is certainly relevant to a website which propounds medical advice for the masses... much more relevant that Quackwatch not tasting like ice cream. Make sense?) Any how I am open to suggestions on how to improve this phrasing, but I want to be clear that there is no consensus here yet, but I am (as I always am) open to fostering one. Thanks all. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I think it is reasonable for people to remove the line regarding the non-peer-reviewed-ness. I'm not going to do it myself, because I would prefer to wait until we can flesh out the rest of the sentence. But if someone wants to do that now, it seems reasonable. I know that you do not agree with this. Antelan talk 01:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
And neither does several other editors here. So why invite edits against consensus? I do think we can flesh out the rest of the sentence. So let's do so first... that's a compromise which I would certainly abide to. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"that Quackwatch articles are not subject to any formal peer review is certainly relevant to a website which propounds medical advice for the masses..." absolutely so. There is surely little really to argue about on that sentence. It should appear in the article. Peter morrell 15:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That's very well, Peter, but we need a notable reference or it's OR. Adam Cuerden talk 17:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
At the risk of repeating myself, Quackwatch's Mission Statement makes it abundantly clear that their articles are not subject to formal scientific peer review. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Seems like you believe that unless QW says it verbatum, then it cannot be said? Is that what WP:OR really means? It certainly doesn't appear to be the case on Wikipedia. Does anyone here doubt that what QW posts on its Mission Statement means anything but ... they are not peer-reviewed? Is making an "In other words" statement OR? Anthon01 (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
No, I mean that you cannot add criticism that no notable article in any reliable source has ever said. Adam Cuerden talk 18:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Please don't conflate this with criticism. It is not. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

In which case, you should really cite the mission statement itself either just as a cite or as a small quote with the cite. thanks Peter morrell 17:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

An excellent suggestion... and one which we have already done. (Great minds think alike!) In fact the very first sentence of this article relays Quackwatch's Mission Statement pretty adeptly. In fact, the Mission Statement page on Quackwatch is cited several times through this article. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"No peer review" unverifiable?

Unresolved
 – --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

"Quackwatch.org's articles are not subjected to formal scientific peer review" is how the article currently reads. This phrase is not currently verifiable by the source listed.

WP:PROVEIT makes it very clear who and how this material should be verified. The editors claiming this is verifiable need to provide us with a source. That source should contain the phrase "formal scientific peer review" for it to be verified. Editors have repeatedly asked for such a source, but none has been provided (that I can identify in the discussions above, nor in any discussion that's happened around or since "peer review" was first added to the article unsourced [7].)

I am unable to find anyone ever mentioning any source that says "formal scientific peer review". If one exists, please simply identify it for others to evaluate. --Ronz (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Anthon01 mentions here on 20:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC):

Harrison states "Instead of challenging them in the appropriate scientific forum (peer reviewed index-medicus journals) Dr. Barrett and Allen Botnick, DC have elected a forum for which there is no recourse other than Dr. Barrett’s. My perspective is that Dr. Barrett and Botnick and the like would lose a formal debate with CBP® Researchers if forced to follow the scientific etiquette of peer-reviewed journals."[3]

This does not verify the information in question, but at least mentions "peer review". However, I don't see it as a WP:RS. --Ronz (talk) 03:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Source precisely antithetical

Quackwatch's Mission Statement says that the articles are only "reviewed" upon some ambiguous request. This is precisely antithetical to the formal scientific peer review process; hence Quackwatch articles are not peer reviewed; hence this is proven, QED. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for providing a source! That doesn't meet WP:PROVEIT, since it doesn't contain "formal scientific peer review" or anything similar. --Ronz (talk) 22:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Sure, just read peer review to learn all you need to know about peer review. It is a meticulous process which requires a heck of a lot more than just a review upon an ambiguous request. In my mind, WP:PROVEIT has been met. In your mind, it has not. Let's leave it at that. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Verified and proven?

Please don't get mad at me for repeating myself, but the Quackwatch Mission Statement page makes it abundantly clear that their articles are not subject to any formal scientific peer review. The most we can expect in terms of an ambiguous "review" on Quackwatch articles is ambiguous "request" made by some ambiguous party. Clearly, there is no formal peer review process (as one might assume there to be from a publication which propounds medical advice for the masses and boasts and 150+ scientific advisory board... I know I assumed so until I read the Mission Statement page). Please re-read the discussions above which discusses these very points at some great length. Let's let our encyclopedia relay this verifiable point to clear up any ambiguity or misunderstandings about the subject at hand. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Forgive me for repeating it here but it seems apropros. Seems like you believe that unless QW says it verbatum, then it cannot be said? Is that what WP:OR really means? It certainly doesn't appear to be the case on Wikipedia. Does anyone here doubt that what QW posts on its Mission Statement means anything but ... they are not peer-reviewed? Is making an "In other words" statement OR? Anthon01 (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Anthon01 (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
It can be if it's saying they aren't something they never claimed to be, and that reasonable people would not think they are. If this fact is so important, wjhy are you unable to find a notable, reloable source that mentions it? Adam Cuerden talk 18:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Again, I think I am a reasonable person. Given that Quackwatch propounds medical advice for the masses and boasts and 150+ scientific advisory board, it is certainly reasonable to assume that their articles are subject to formal scientific peer review by said advisory board. However, this is not the case; a point which Quackwatch itself makes abundantly clear for us in their Mission Statement. We have used this same Mission Statement at least 4 other times in this article to support at least 4 other statements. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
A reasonable person with no experience with QW can read the QW article and think they might be. Anthon01 (talk) 18:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Anthon01, I've already spent considerable time with you discussing this on your talk page, I've clearly written my interpretaion of WP:PROVEIT above, and have asked for sources. While I appreciate your asking questions here, I think it best to do this in a sub-discussion as not to distract others from my original questions. Thanks!
I've subsectioned this tangential discussion, as I specifically asked for sources to meet WP:PROVEIT. Feel free to come up with a neutral title. --Ronz (talk) 18:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Considerable! Please. Anthon01 (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not involved, here are my thoughts: I think the criticisms of this site would work best of sourced, so if we want to point out that it is not "peer reviewed" we should attribute that fact to some critic. Ie: "so and so writes that..." etc. If there are no critics who have said this then we might need to leave it out, although I'm not convinced that it really constitutes synthesis to describe the fact that a source is not peer reviewed when writing on matters of science or health. futurebird (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Disruption of talk page

Unresolved
 – --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

While I've never investigated how or when it's appropriate to do so, but I think it might be worthwhile to seek an end to the disruption here. It appears, as has happened in the past, that some editors are refusing to follow WP:TALK and WP:CON. --Ronz 17:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

What specific issues of WP:TALK and WP:CON do you feel are being violated here? -- Levine2112 discuss 17:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Because this is a repeated problem and other dispute resolution attempts have failed, I'm asking for others' opinions, per WP:DR. I'm doing so here in an attempt to quickly stop the disruptions to this page. --Ronz 17:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


Looks like a clear case of refusal to respect the consensus of others. I think an RFC/U is in order at this point. --Ronz (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Outside opinion. #Consensus on "peer-review" shows three who hold one position and two who disagree. Arthur Rubin's position is unclear. Looks to me like a clear attempt to declare a consensus where none exists yet. Seek compromise and consensus before declaring someone disruptive for disagreeing with one that doesn't exist. GRBerry 20:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I think there was a previous discussion on this, in which a number of editors felt it was inapropriate, and only two (but a different two) felt it appropriate. But I can't find it. However, even if not, Levine has failed to recognize clear consensus in the past, and it is not a violation of WP:AGF to note that fact. QG may be pushing WP:CIVIL, but.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Please provide a reference or repeatedly adding unreferenced information to this article may be seen as disruptive.  Mr.Guru  talk  20:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
GRBerry, thanks for the outside opinion. I agree that there is no clear consensus here. And I appreciate your defense of me not acting disruptively as Ronz has incorrectly declared. Arthur Rubin, I can't think of a time when I failed to recognize a clear consensus, but clearly what we have here is not a clear consensus. So assume what you would like about me, but without a clear consensus, there is no consensus for me to even fail to recognize. QuackGuru, I am unclear what you are talking about, but Quackwatch's lack of peer-review is made clear on their own Mission Statement which currently serves as a citation for the statement. I agree with Arthur Rubin that you are pushing WP:CIVIL (and have been for quite some time). Please consider contributing to this discussion in a more meaningful way. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm talking about a consensus reached by 8 (or so) editors making over 200 edits between 27 November 2007 and 30 November 2007. No one made any further edits until 6 December 2007, when I brought up the suggestion that there is consensus. --Ronz (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I remember it being pretty well split, though there have been some ideas to incorporate more information about how the articles are reviewed and what purpose the advisory board serves. However, there has been no verifiable evidence other than what is on the mission statement presented here yet. Please elucidate your comments above by providing diffs which show the 8 or so editors arriving at a consensus. Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
This is a discussion I started about disruption of this talk page. If you would like to count editors, please do so and place them in an appropriate discussion. Please remember, however, this is not a WP:VOTE. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
You are the one who brought the "8 (or so) editors". I was just looking for clarification. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I think Levine has legitimate points that are not being addressed in a collaborative spirit to yield an accurate summarization.--I'clast (talk) 13:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Verified

  • Forgive my skulking about. . . the only dispuption I detect here is from Ronz. . . I agree with Iclast in that Levine's point is valid and the current phrasing is exceptionally verified. TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I concur as well with I'clast and TheDoctorIsIn. Levine has provided a reliable source, the website of Quackwatch, and there is no original research required to rephrase as he has done. Whig (talk) 18:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The statement is an interpretation of the source, being used to criticise it for being somethin g it doesn't claim to be. HOW is this justified? Adam Cuerden talk 19:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to you both for joining the discussion!
No one has verified this material, hence Talk:Quackwatch#.22No_peer_review.22_unverifiable.3F to make this crystal clear for new editors joining, as well as those that have already been through these lengthy discussions. --Ronz (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
It seems that many others disagree - that they believe this information has been clearly verified by Quackwatch itself. I would appreciate that you don't mislead these new contributors by stating your opinion on this matter as an absolute. It would be a better summary to state that some feel it hasn't been verified and others think it has been. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
But let's remember WP:CON. It doesnt matter how many others disagree, if none are able to WP:PROVEIT. --Ronz (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
WP:PROVEIT has been met per the Mission Statement. Harrison's critique is just the icing on the cake! -- Levine2112 discuss 21:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The mission statement does not mention "peer review" at all, failing WP:PROVEIT. --Ronz (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
No, it says that the articles are only "reviewed" upon some ambiguous request. This is precisely antithetical to the formal scientific peer review process; hence Quackwatch articles are not peer reviewed; hence this is proven, QED. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Verification failed. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Opinion from a truly uninvolved user

Unresolved
 – --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This was brought to my attention here.

I've only briefly looked at the arguments, and I don't know or care anything about the subject matter.

It is apparently not disputed that it's not peer-reviewed, and no-one is seriously saying it might be. (correct me if I'm wrong)

What we have, then, are one group of editors who think (based on what, I don't know) that it is somehow important to state this in the article, and another group who thinks that it shouldn't be stated unless it can be verified that anyone cares.

Before we go any further, can someone in the first group explain WHY it needs to be included in the article? Including such a statement may imply that it represents itself as being peer-reviewed, but if there's a particular reason to include it (clearly there's something driving your actions) that I've missed, I'd like to hear it.—Random832 19:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Given that Quackwatch propounds medical advice for the masses and boasts and 150+ scientific advisory board, it is certainly reasonable to assume that their articles are subject to formal scientific peer review by said advisory board. However, this is not the case; a point which Quackwatch itself makes abundantly clear for us in their Mission Statement. So why continue to include this information in our encyclopedia? 1) Since Quackwatch found it relevant enough to note on their Mission Statement. 2) Since it is reasonable to assume that readers of this Wikipedia article may be confused. 3) Since it is reasonable to assume that readers of Quackwatch articles may be confused. 4) Since Quackwatch dispenses health advice to the masses, information about the review status of their article is highly relevant. 5) Since Quackwatch claims to having a 150+ advisory board (a point made abundantly clear in this Wikipedia article) may lead a reasonable person to assume that said advisory board actually reviews each article in a peer-reviewed manner. 6) Since the information in question is made verifiable not just from a critic of Quackwatch but from Quackwatch itself. I hope this helps to clarify "this side" of it and please note that this side's opinions on this matter are much more grounded than Adam Cuerdan lead you to believe. I do appreciate you taking the time to review this issue. Thanks! -- Levine2112 discuss 19:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you have any reliable sources saying that "it is reasonable to assume that their articles are subject to formal scientific peer review"? Do you have any reliable sources saying that there is a concern about people being misled? Have they received any notable criticism for not being peer-reviewed, or for giving an appearance of being so? If it is a real issue, it should be easy to find something showing that. Your personal opinions, though, are not notable. The problem here is: The fact that they are not scientifically peer-reviewed is verifiable (well, it's a primary source). The relevance of that fact is not (as far as anyone's been able to show thus far, at least) verifiable.—Random832 19:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I completely understand and agree with you that my opinion on the matter is irrelevant. I would venture to say that since Quackwatch itself saw fit to explain their lack of review process on their Mission Statement then that alone shows relevance. Yes, Quackwatch has received criticism for not being peer reviewed. [3]This example I believe has gone on to a lawsuit against Quackwatch, though I am unsure what the current status of that is. As far as the relevance being verifiable, I would respond with, "Why is mentioning the 150+ advisory board relevant? Or why is describing their mission statement relevant. Or why mention their advertisers?" These are each primary source-derived information. Of course all of this is relevant information. Why else would Quackwatch mention it about itself? -- Levine2112 discuss 19:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
But is that site at all notable? Adam Cuerden talk 19:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The author is noteable, perhaps more notable that QW as I found 25 citations in PubMed. Anthon01 (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Harrison states "Instead of challenging them in the appropriate scientific forum (peer reviewed index-medicus journals) Dr. Barrett and Allen Botnick, DC have elected a forum for which there is no recourse other than Dr. Barrett’s. My perspective is that Dr. Barrett and Botnick and the like would lose a formal debate with CBP® Researchers if forced to follow the scientific etiquette of peer-reviewed journals."[3] [8] This notable writer says QW is not peer-reviewed. Anthon01 (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Consider the source. If you can find someone who is not being attacked by QW stating that QW is not peer-reviewed, then you'll have a better case for inclusion. Otherwise, we might as well have critics write the article for us (a sure violation of NPOV). ScienceApologist (talk) 20:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
A notable critic is a reliable source for their own criticism. Thus, Harrison can be used as a source in this article as long as it is made clear that we are dealing with the opinion of a critic. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
A notable critic is only reliable as someone who criticizes. We are not, however, talking about criticism here, we're talking about description. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you there for sure. And that description has been verified by Quackwatch's own Mission Statement. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, though, more emphasis should be given to the fact that articles are only reviewed by their advisory board on request, and maybe it should be placed in the same sentence as the first mention of the advisory board (heavy rewording of that paragraph would be needed, with the added benefit of getting away from the back-and-forth that's been going on now). The facts can be made clearer without specifically negating a claim that no-one is making. In other words, we can better clarify what their review process is, without making potentially inflammatory statements of what it is not. I.e. we can reduce the risk of confusion in the first place rather than trying to address any potential confusion directly. —Random832 19:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I am totally open to your solution (as I have stated previously when others have made the same suggestion). I think it is something which we should work on here together and form a consensus first before we take any action with the article. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, their mission statement does NOT say specifically "not peer-reviewed", so that says that they did not find that specific fact relevant (i.e. they did not see any particular risk of confusion that they felt the need to clear up); rather, they explain how (by their in-house advisory board) and when (on request) their articles are reviewed. —Random832 19:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"they explain how (by their in-house advisory board) and when (on request) their articles are reviewed" - which translates to mean that their articles are not subject to formal scientific peer review. It is like a source saying someone is not alive any more and then we use that to say that this someone is now deceased. It's a 1:1 correlation with zero interpretation or synthesis. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Harrison states "Instead of challenging them in the appropriate scientific forum (peer reviewed index-medicus journals) Dr. Barrett and Allen Botnick, DC have elected a forum for which there is no recourse other than Dr. Barrett’s. My perspective is that Dr. Barrett and Botnick and the like would lose a formal debate with CBP® Researchers if forced to follow the scientific etiquette of peer-reviewed journals."[3] [9] This notable writer says QW is not peer-reviewed. Anthon01 (talk) 20:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
This writer is not reliable as he is not intimately connected with QW review processes. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
How do you know that? -- Levine2112 discuss 21:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
If it's a minor point of criticism, and must be identified as coming from a critic, it shouldn't be included in the neutral statement of how Quackwatch is set up. It may be appropriate for the criticism section, but NOT where it's being proposed. Adam Cuerden talk 16:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Workshop

This section is intended for listing and discussing proposed compromise versions of the paragraph at the center of the dispute. —Random832 19:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Version 0a

This is the version currently protected, and the one that has been favored by one side of this edit war.

Quackwatch engages the services of 150+ scientific and technical advisors. As of 2003, 67 medical advisors, 12 dental advisors, 13 mental health advisors, 16 nutrition and food science advisors, 3 podiatry advisors, 8 veterinary advisors, and 33 "other scientific and technical advisors" were listed.[4] Quackwatch.org's articles are not subjected to formal scientific peer review, but rather reviewed by the medical advisory board upon request.[5]


Version 0b

This is the version favored by the other side of this edit war.

Quackwatch engages the services of 150+ scientific and technical advisors. As of 2003, 67 medical advisors, 12 dental advisors, 13 mental health advisors, 16 nutrition and food science advisors, 3 podiatry advisors, 8 veterinary advisors, and 33 "other scientific and technical advisors" were listed.[4] Quackwatch.org's articles are reviewed by the medical advisory board upon request.[5]

What argument is there for version 0a?

I simply do not see why we should include bits about formal scientific peer review found in Version 0a and I'm finding it very hard to extend good faith to those arguing for such a version. It seems to me that the inclusion of such wording is simply there to make a point that QW isn't peer-reviewed even though it often points out how little peer-review evidence there is for the quackery it debunks and exposes. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I am simply trying to keep relevant and verifiable information in this article. I am certainly not trying to make the point which you have outlined, but now that you mention it, it is interesting. However, I don't see how the manner in which this statement is currently included even insinuates such a point. I would suggest that you try harder to assume good faith and be careful when leveling such an accusation as WP:POINT in an already contentious environment. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Please use some other term than "verifiable", since it's clearly not per WP:PROVEIT. --Ronz (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I am more suspicious than ever now. It is very hard to assume good faith when the would-be-editors throw around hearsay accusations as below for justification for their designs on this article. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Please tell me which statement you would like me to back with a source and I will try my best to provide you with one. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
You've already read the request, but just haven't supplied the source that meets the criteria: Talk:Quackwatch#"No peer review" unverifiable?. --Ronz (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
...in your opinion. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd say it's general consensus that you have failed to provide an adequate source at this point. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggested compromise

Quackwatch engages the services of 150+ scientific and technical advisors. As of 2003, 67 medical advisors, 12 dental advisors, 13 mental health advisors, 16 nutrition and food science advisors, 3 podiatry advisors, 8 veterinary advisors, and 33 "other scientific and technical advisors" were listed.[4] Quackwatch publishes a variety of materials, including summaries of peer-reviewed research, accounts of medical malpractice or fraud, opinion articles, investigative reporting, and consumer testing on alternative medicine products. Due to the varied nature of the material, the editorial process differs between articles, with some being peer-reviewed by members of the scientific advisory board upon request, and others representing an author's opinion.

A merge of one version with an expansion of what they actually publish? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems longwinded and unnecessary to me. Why do we care about what articles are looked at by peers and which articles are not? It's not like anyone is basing scientific research off of QW. Trying to explain the editorial process is just not relevant and doesn't help the reader at all. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I have in fact seen Quackwatch cited in some scientific papers, but more important, people base their personal health decisions off this site. Certainly that alone makes their editorial process extremely relevant. Tim Vickers, I don't think we can say "some being peer-reviewed by members of the scientific advisory board upon request" because we don't even know if the ambiguous "some" is true nor do we know if the review qualifies as "peer review". Peer review implies a level of scrutiny of experts in a particular field. We cannot account for this level of scrutiny nor can we account for the review being performed by an expert in a particular field. I recall seeing a quote from Barrett stating that he uses his wife to proof articles. Though I believe that she is a general practitioner, this hardly qualifies as true scientific peer review. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Your rationale are completely uncited. Just because "people base their personal health decisions off this site" does not mean we must explain the editorial process. Likewise, your say-so about QW citations is not good enough you must actually provide the citations. We should not, in fact, include any statement about the editorial process at QW because it is enough to state who is on the advisory board. Also, you continue to "recall" hearsay that is absolutely unacceptable for verifiability reasons. I ask you to refrain from using your memory in order to request editorial decisions and just stick to reliable sources. Thank you. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
This article on Quackwatch discusses Barrett using his wife for Medical Advice on articles, but I am quite sure I have seen even more on this elsewhere at some point. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Even if it were true, which we don't know it is (I an suspicious of partisan hearsay) proofreading is distinct from review. I proof many of my colleagues papers before submission, but that doesn't mean that this is a part of the review process. You are confusing/conflating two very different processes. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

How about the above until the end of the last sentence; change that to "...some being, on request, reviewed by members of their medical advisory board and others simply representing an author's opinion." (I suspect that the level of review they claim does _not_, in fact, qualify as peer review, nor do they claim it does) —Random832 20:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any rationale for why the editorial process is at all relevant to the article. Can you explain? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with that Tim Vickers (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist's is a good point that I hadn't considered before. There are the two primary reasons that I'm familiar with for using peer review: selecting which research to fund, and publishing original research. Quackwatch does neither. Trying to say it's not peer reviewed is like trying to say that Consumer Reports isn't an academic journal on par with Nature. True, true, irrelevant. Quackwatch is like a Consumer Reports for medicine. Antelan talk 21:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch engages the services of 150+ scientific and technical advisors. As of 2003, 67 medical advisors, 12 dental advisors, 13 mental health advisors, 16 nutrition and food science advisors, 3 podiatry advisors, 8 veterinary advisors, and 33 "other scientific and technical advisors" were listed.[4] Quackwatch publishes a variety of materials, including summaries of peer-reviewed research, accounts of medical malpractice or fraud, opinion articles, investigative reporting, and consumer testing on alternative medicine products. Due to the varied nature of the material, the editorial process differs between articles, with some being, on request, reviewed by members of their medical advisory board, and others representing an author's opinion.

I have a major objection to this statement:
Due to the varied nature of the material, the editorial process differs between articles, with some being, on request, reviewed by members of their medical advisory board, and others representing an author's opinion.
It looks to me like unwarranted synthesis and borders precariously on original research. There is no indication that the editorial process "differs" between articles. In fact, I would say it is likely that the editorial process is monolithic. This sentence insinuates that QW has differing "standards" when there is absolutely no citation that shows this is actually the case. At least the statement that some material is reviewed by members of the medical advisory board when requested, but there is no indication that this represents part of the editorial process, per se. It may simply be a matter of getting further input. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

A review by an expert is by definition part of the editorial process. Just as much as much as a review by a copy-editor. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

But that neither means that the editorial process "differs" nor does it mean that when an article represents an author's opinion is hasn't been reviewed. You see the problem? The statement stakes out an editorial "policy" for which we have no verifiable source. The only source we have related to this statement is that QW articles are sometimes reviewed by the editorial board. That's it. There is nothing to indicate anything about what QW's editorial process is, how it differs between articles, or whether opinion pieces are necessarily not reviewed. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
How about this then?
The editorial process differs amongst articles; some being reviewed by members of their medical advisory board only upon request and others having no formal scientific peer review at all.
-- Levine2112 discuss 21:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
No. Levine, that slanted use of language is unacceptable. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Slanted? How? What part? I dropped Due to the varied nature of the material because that is unverified. We don't know why the review process differs from article to article other than that it is based upon some ambiguous request. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, come on, Levine. "and others having no formal scientific peer review at all"?! What's that supposed to be if not a WP:SYNTH smear attack. I know you're reasonably intelligent, please don't play dumb. Adam Cuerden talk 03:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Claims of SYNTH violations have been refuted time and time again so either you don't understand WP:SYNTH (which requires some source "A" plus some source "B" equaling some conclusion "C" scenario) or you have overlooked past conversations on this. And no I am not out to smear nor am I playing dumb. Everything in my suggested wording is absolutely true and - more important - verifiable. Quackwatch's very own Mission Statement tells us that their articles are only reviewed by their advisory board upon some ambiguous request. This means that only some articles are reviewed by their advisory board and the remainder are not reviewed at all. I believe this is exactly what my suggested phrasing says, but if you would like to suggest rephrasing, I am open to hearing your thoughts. But please drop the SYNTH argument as it is baseless and discontinue the lack of good faith assumptions. My appreciation is given in advance, so thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 08:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


The exa,ple given, at WP:SYNTH, is "If Jones's claim that he consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style, which requires citation of the source actually consulted. The Chicago Manual of Style does not call violating this rule "plagiarism." Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them." That's pretty much what is being done here: You're synthesising the definition of peer review with information about the review committee in order to say it's not peer reviewed, and criticise Quackwatch. Adam Cuerden talk 12:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It just seems like wriggling out of the main facts. QW is NOT peer reviewed period. That is the basic unvarnished truth. How you try to dress it up is another question. The basic fact should appear somewhere in this article. That is all that is being proposed. Why is it such a contentious issue? why is that a criticism? I just can't see what the problem is in stating a bald and obvious fact. Why all the wriggling around? my ten penn'orth. thanks Peter morrell 12:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Explaining what review procedure is used is fine, but this is not explaining what is done: It is criticising them by synthesising a definition and what is done in order to point out something is not done. If this was so very relevant, you'd surely be able to find a newspaper report or something mentioning it. Your best attempt was to use a non-notable personal webpage. Adam Cuerden talk 14:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
There is no relevance to the supposed "fact" that "QW is NOT peer reviewed period." What is relevant is that quacks like to use that as an excuse to ignore QW's attacks on their attempts to bilk the general public, but that's not the context of the sentences under dispute. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

What do the sources say?

I noticed the disagreement over noting that this website isn't peer reviewed, and just want to say that in cases like this it's best to go with the sources. Do any of them mention the fact that Quackwatch is not peer reviewed? (Also I have to say, assuming that anyone is out to "smear" the site demonstrates a lack of good faith.)

I realize that those who want to point that out are simply trying to assure that Wikipedia isn't coming off as supporting the site for several valid reasons. However we're supposed to be bound by information which can be somehow cited and also verified. In short if it looks like this:

Quackwatch
...is not a peer reviewed resource.[6]

Then it's ok to mention. If it looks like this though:

Quackwatch
...is not a peer reviewed resource.[citation needed]

It should not be included. Anynobody 04:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Anynobody, you have an excellent point but who could possibly be a more reliable source on whether or not Quackwatch is a peer reviewed resource than Quackwatch? Whig (talk) 04:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
It's a criticism, and thus needs to be said in so many words, not synthesised. Adam Cuerden talk 12:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll clarify: it's a criticism - your group has said so much above, where you talked about the need to identify Harrison as a critic saying that. It is thus inappropriate to include it in the section on mission and scope, which is a neutral setting out of facts. If it is to be included in mission and scope, you need to do much better than a random webpage, you'll need to find some notable description of Quackwatch that feels this is key information about it. If you want it to be included as criticism, the bar is lower - perhaps not as low as Harrison - but it still can't go where it is. Adam Cuerden talk 16:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it requires synthesis to state a fact that is clearly given by the source itself. We are allowed to rephrase, of course, if it does not require taking two or more sources and combining them. Whig (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
If this is a neutral rephrasing, why is the only source that can be found that uses it a highly critical one? Put it in criticism, if it's agreed the source will hold up to the standards. Not here. Adam Cuerden talk 17:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you're talking about the same source. The argument is that QW itself says it. We are talking about rephrasing QW's own mission page statement. Anthon01 (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I just used the phrasing which Anynobody was using for his example. I don't think it is a criticism so much as a simple fact, but I can see there are a diversity of opinions. Whig (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you (Adam) see "is not a peer reviewed resource" as criticism. Anthon01 (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
The only context we have for sources discussing QW not being a "peer reviewed source" are criticisms. Therefore, for us to include anything like this in a neutral description of the site is obvious violation of neutrality. If you want to contextualize how quacks who are criticized by QW like to complain that QW is "not peer reviewed", that makes sense. But stating this as a plain fact is misleading given the sources we have on the subject. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
[Edit conflict]As it's being suggested to be included there, particularly in some of Levine's phrasings, yes, I do think it's intended as a criticism. As to the claims of it being merely a rephrasing of Quackwatch, my response is: If it was a neutral rephrasing (which is doubtful, as it adds information not found in the original), I think we should be able to find neutral or positive sources that mention it. If it's a notable criticism, then we ought to be able to find better-quality or multiple negative sources that mention it. So, if you'll forgive the slightly vulgar phrase, "put up or shut up". Show that others find it important to mention that it's not peer-reviewed, and show that this description is used in a neutral manner. Otherwise, consider it for the criticism section, if you can show that multiple critics bring it up as a criticism. Adam Cuerden talk 18:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I was under the impression that critical items were being integrated into the body of the whole article. As per Jossi, "the criticism section will be better merged into the rest of the article, rather than in a separate section." [10] Anthon01 (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that if we agree it is accurate and verified by the original source then the question of specific phrasing is not a policy matter, but should be determined by the consensus of editors here. Whig (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Since we're still repeating the same arguments, pardon the tongue-in-cheek: Hey guys, I found a source that says the United States is not a dictatorship.[11] Should we add that to balance out the article about the United States, despite the fact that the article never claimed that the country was one? Antelan talk 18:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

  • There are many forms of government. . . but a scientific work can only either be peer-reviewed or not peer-reviewed. Before this convo, I had assumed Quackwatch used peer-review. . . albeit their own brand of it -- in-house highly-biased Quackbusters reviewing the opinions of other in-house highly-biased Quackbusters. . . Now I know better. . . there's no review there at all. Sheesh! TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah and Barrett says his review is better than peer-review, because if he were wrong he'd be getting sued over all the stuff he has said. Anthon01 (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
TheDoctorIsIn, you can reframe any debate dichotomously, but that's not a strong respons. You say "Quackwatch is peer-reviewed or not peer-reviewed." I might say, "A government is dictatorial or not dictatorial." Again, this may be true, but irrelevant. In response to your personal beliefs: because Quackwatch never claims to be peer-reviewed, and because its name is so colloquial, it is hardly their fault that you erroneously believed their articles to be peer-reviewed. Since that's original research, let's refocus on the article at hand: Does this article presently give you the impression that Quackwatch is some sort of refereed journal? Antelan talk 01:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
A government can be dictatorial, democratic, monarchal, theocratic, oligarchical and much more. . . a scientific paper can only be peer-review or not. Levine212 and AnthonO1 and others have a point. . . given the 150 medical advisor statement. . . given all of the articles on all of the subjects. . . given many of the articles cite peer-reviewed journals. . . given Quackwatch aims to give midical advice to the hoi polloi. . . yes the article would give me the impression Quackwatch is refereed. . . but the key sentence makes it clear. . . "no peer-review". Keep the sentence and there's no confusion. . . lose it and the article gives the impression Quackwatch is. TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
This is rather simple - dichotomy is in the eye of the beholder. A document can be peer-reviewed or not. If it is not peer-reviewed, it can be independently edited or not. And so on. You can frame the gov't discussion the same way: A government is a dictatorship or not. If not, it can be representative or not. And so on. My point is that you choose how you want to frame things, and the world is not so simple as "peer reviewed" or "not peer reviewed". The article does not portray Quackwatch of being peer reviewed, but by reading the article you do get the sense that the opinions espoused by Quackwatch are well-respected. This is because the sources report that important groups respect Quackwatch's opinions, while fringe groups tend to take issue with them. Antelan talk 01:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you think an article request for comments would be helpful? Whig (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Whig it could, other opinions are always welcome. I have a question about your reply; Where does Quackwatch talk about its lack of peer review and/or the importance of it? Anynobody 02:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Their mission statement on their website [12] states: "Members of our medical advisory board review articles upon request." Whig (talk) 02:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

To me that means people can send in examples they come across of possible new quackery. For example if someone read an article/ad/whatever claiming health benefits from bathing in lard, that person could then send a copy to Quackwatch (who will likely also mention it on one of their sites, if quacky enough). Medical peer review really isn't something an organization debunking questionable/unrecognized claims or products, which are suspect is why it hasn't been mentioned in the sources I've had a chance to look at. (On a side note, it's just a guess but I'm thinking that peer reviewers in this area have better things to do than evaluate how a website points out flaws and problems regarding topics like "body flushing".) Anynobody 05:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I think everyone has been operating under a misguided interpretation of that sentence from the Quackwatch website, but I think you've got it right. Antelan talk 05:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is out of chronological order. Participation is welcome by anyone wishing to comment. This box is simply for organization.

Started hereAnynobody 05:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I took that statement to mean what everyone else has, that the review board reviews when Barrett request it. I also confirmed it with Barrett. --Anthon01 (talk) 02:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, the statement is "Members of our medical advisory board review articles upon request." not health claims or dubious techniques or something else to that effect. Anthon01 (talk) 04:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Is it the mission of Quackwatch to write reviews of articles published elsewhere? —Whig (talk) 04:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Anthon01 Two questions:
1) Reviews what when Barret asks them to? (Whether x or y is Quackery?) 2) While I am willing to take your word for it sadly we can't cite that, can you provide some kind of proof of this confirmation? Anynobody 04:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is this wrapped with "out of order conversation" tags? —Whig (talk) 05:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Because here is where the thread diverged. A post was added 02:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC) before another made four minutes prior. This just helps anyone else reading this later keep the thread in order. Anynobody 05:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
It seems arbitrary and confusing to me. —Whig (talk) 05:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry to confuse you, and assure you it isn't meant to be taken as arbitrary since at least one other thread here appears to have similar issues: Talk:Quackwatch#The "Peer Review" or lack thereof cite. Anynobody 06:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Out of chronological order discussion thread ends here.


Do you think we're ready to request a resumption of editing again? Anynobody 02:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. The large majority of editors have been absent from this discussion over the weekend. We need to wait a bit longer. --Anthon01 (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, however could anyone who thinks peer review should be discussed in the article please explain who/what says that peer review is pertinent?
So far I've only seen it mentioned in articles like this one but are themselves also self published rebuttals to a Quackwatch article, not reliable sources, and probably fall under how we deal with views of a vocal minority. Essentially if we cite pages like this, we are giving undue weight to a minority view. Anynobody 04:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

From Whig's talk page

(Here are relevant parts of something from Whig's talk page.)

If Quackwatch says they are not a peer reviewed resource, they should be considered reliable on that unless there is verifiable evidence to the contrary. Whig (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

But Quackwatch never says that, IOW that is OR. It never addresses the point because it is a moot point because no one expects websites, especially sites with such an obviously clear and critical POV, to be peer-reviewed. They only make a short statement and if we are going to address the point of review at all, we have to stick with that. Anything more is OR. -- Fyslee / talk 17:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that they do not say so. I think they clearly say they are not a peer reviewed resource by stating they have advisers who review articles on request. Whig (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
There are two things going on here, "affirmative" statements, and "denial" statements. We can make an "affirmative" statement: "Yes, they have a form of review of some articles," (my careless wording to get the point across), based on one citation. We can't make a "denial" statement: "They are not peer-reviewed," because we have no legitimate citation.
I agree that they are not peer-reviewed, but we aren't in the business of writing the "truth", only what is "verifiable" using V & RS. (Look up that wording here.) Fortunately truth us usually verifiable, but not always. Unless it is, it doesn't belong here, and that is rather fortunate since one person's idea of truth may not be another person's idea of truth. Quackwatch does not use the phrase "peer-reviewed" about themselves at all. That may seem like a minor detail when looking at the truth of the situation, but precisely those words have been misused (by its enemies) regarding the status of Quackwatch. While that would normally not have any bearing on whether or not we would make an edit here, it happens to make this issue more sensitive because those enemies are in active lawsuits with Quackwatch and the allies of those enemies are editing here and trying to get the wording of those enemies included. We do not run errands for libellers or other questionable persons. If Quackwatch doesn't use those words, and no other reliable sources use them, then any discussion of the matter in any article is OR. OTOH, if we can find sources that are V & RS, we might be able to include it. I have nothing against that. It must not be done as a criticism because it is a totally improper criticism designed as a straw man attack, no matter how it is phrased. (While inclusion of such types of criticism isn't always forbidden here, in this case the existing sources of that criticism happen to be so bad that they are already blacklisted here at Wikipedia.) If a good source just states it neutrally, then we could quote them and include it as a well-sourced factoid. So far I haven't seen such a statement, simply because good and sensible sources are usually scholarly sources, and they wouldn't engage in making such a denial statement when it is totally malplaced. It is as malplaced as stating that cow's milk is not shocking pink in color. Of course it isn't, but no reasonable person would ever claim it is, so that is a moot point and is ignored, rather than denied. -- Fyslee / talk 22:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Fyslee, I do not want to have a conflict with you about policy. If I understand the V & RS requirements both are satisfied in my opinion by Quackwatch as the source of our knowledge that they are not peer reviewed, a fact you concur in above. Whig (talk) 23:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no doubt about Quackwatch being allowed as a source in its own article, but unless you can find the precise words where Quackwatch explicitly and very exactly addresses any issue about its articles being "peer-reviewed" (exactly those two words), you (or anyone else wishing to include it) are engaged in OR. It doesn't address the question because it is not a legitimate question. Why? Simply because websites aren't peer reviewed (with one exception), only scientific research papers (and that exceptional website is an exclusively on-line scientific journal publishing scientific research). It's a non-issue with everyone except those who wish to use a "denial" statement (see above) as a subtle means of denigrating Quackwatch, and there are a number of enemies of Quackwatch here who wish to include such an editorial statement. Keep in mind I don't have any objection (as clearly stated above) to inclusion if we can find a neutral and reliable source stating it as a matter of fact. To the best of my knowledge reliable sources don't address the matter because it's a non-issue. It is only an issue to those who wish to denigrate Quackwatch. We don't help them using editorial freedom. We need reliable sources. -- Fyslee / talk 01:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Continued disruption of talk page

Unresolved
 – --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:DNFTT only goes so far. I think an RFC/U is in order. Other thoughts? --Ronz (talk) 02:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, go for it. Anything to break out of cyclic arguments. Adam Cuerden talk 16:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
There is more than one user being disruptive here. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Off the top of my head. . . I can think of three editors in particular. :-) TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
So can I, but I think there's only one editor in common between our respective lists. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 04:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is helpful here at all. Whig (talk) 04:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

!

Unresolved
 – --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Do we really need six threads which are all virtually identical? Adam Cuerden talk 15:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

A couple of ideas

Unresolved
 – --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really that well-versed in this topic or the discussions, but might I suggest use of {{FAQ}}, {{Conclusion}}, {{Resolved}}, {{Unresolved}}, and {{Stale}} to help make discussion more productive? It would seem that topics are being rehashed, so if anyone has any ideas for some of the major issues that have already been dealt with, please consider posting them below for inclusion in a {{FAQ}} at the top of the page. I'll dig through the archives if you guys want, but for now is there any stuff that you have off the top of your head that seems to constantly be a problem? Cheers :) --slakr\ talk / 12:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly new to this topic as well but it does seem like it would be helpful to organize discussion in a fashion like you suggest. —Whig (talk) 04:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to at least try it, but the documentation on these templates is poor and Slakr isn't responding to my questions to him. Does anyone know how to use them, know examples where they've been used, etc? --Ronz (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I like these templates but don't know how to implement. Would agreeing on the actual content of FAQs be another can of worms? Or is it pretty straight forward? -- Levine2112 discuss 16:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't see anything that we could put in a FAQ that has been answered. All I see we could do with a FAQ would be to link to discussions concerning those questions. Since there are questions and concerns that appear to be a constant problem, maybe we could address them this way? Otherwise, all I see is we'll be tagging just about everything with Unresolved. --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and tagged each major section since the dispute began, mostly as unresolved. There's probably a stale or {{Stuck}} section. It's a start. --Ronz (talk) 17:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

FAQ #0.1

Unresolved
 – —Whig (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  1. Is Quackwatch peer reviewed?
    No, Quackwatch is not peer reviewed. Quackwatch states that, "Members of our medical advisory board review articles upon request."
    --Ronz (talk) 18:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Does anyone claim Quackwatch is peer reviewed?
    No, we have no sources that claim Quackwatch is peer reviewed.
  3. Does anyone discuss that Quackwatch's "articles are not subjected to formal scientific peer review," using that exact quote?
    No, we have no sources that make this claim.
  4. What about just the quote "formal scientific peer review" in regard to Quackwatch articles?
    No, we have no sources that mention "formal scientific peer review."
  5. What about just the quote "peer review" in regard to Quackwatch articles?
    Harrison [3] has been offered as such a source, but there is no agreement if it meets WP:RS.
    --Ronz (talk) 00:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Response to FAQ #0.1

Unresolved
 – --Ronz (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  1. Is Quackwatch peer reviewed?
    No, Quackwatch is not peer reviewed. Quackwatch states that, "Members of our medical advisory board review articles upon request." Additionally, some have criticized Quackwatch for not being peer reviewed.
  2. Does anyone claim Quackwatch is peer reviewed?
    No, we have no sources that claim Quackwatch is peer reviewed. However, given that Quackwatch boasts 150+ advisory board, metes out medical advice to the masses, cites peer reviewed literature in their articles, and covers a broad range of scientific topics, one could reasonably think that Quackwatch articles were peer reviewed. However, Quackwatch articles are reviewed by their medical advisory board only upon request.
  3. Does anyone discuss that Quackwatch's "articles are not subjected to formal scientific peer review?"
    Yes, Quackwatch states that, "Members of our medical advisory board review articles upon request." Additionally, some have criticized Quackwatch for not being peer reviewed.
  4. What about just "formal scientific peer review" in regard to Quackwatch articles?
    Yes, Quackwatch states that, "Members of our medical advisory board review articles upon request." This is antithetical to the formal scientific peer review process. Additionally, some have criticized Quackwatch for not being peer reviewed.
  5. What about just "peer review" in regard to Quackwatch articles?
    Yes, Quackwatch states that, "Members of our medical advisory board review articles upon request." This is antithetical to the peer review process. Additionally, some have criticized Quackwatch for not being peer reviewed.
    —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levine2112 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 12 December 2007

Discussion about FAQ

Starting this to list items to be considered for a FAQ --Ronz (talk) 18:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Great start. If we do a FAQ, then this shou::ld certainly be a Q and A to be included in it. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm in favor of starting a FAQ. I think this will really help us to organize discussion not only for the present but future editors. —Whig (talk) 22:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
The first Q/A was good. The others are redundant but at least now reflect a more accurate understanding of the topic. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm contesting all the additions to the FAQ. Since we're new at this, I've just made two lists until we can decide how to proceed. --Ronz (talk) 01:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the FAQ needs to be common ground - what everyone agrees to. The additions are not what we've all agreed to, nor are some of them even relevant. --Ronz (talk) 02:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You made the additions, perhaps you should remove them. That would probably be best. Question/Answer 1 is what we all agreed to. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
To clarify, we all agreed on question and answer #1. Then you added #2, #3, #4, and #5 which was not based on any common ground. I am therefore asking you to remove them rather them. -- Levine2112 discuss 03:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
We both agree on the answer, just not the level of detail, to #2, so I see no problem with that. I reworded all the others to make them even more precise. I think the differences would be better addressed by asking new questions, rather than answering a question ambiguously or with qualifications. --Ronz (talk) 04:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, with regards to #5, Harrison is a reliable source which says that Quackwatch is not peer reviewed. -- Levine2112 discuss 04:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Let's stick with FAQ #1 for now. It gets too confusing to try to resolve all of these at once and we're pretty close to a consensus on the first one. —Whig (talk) 04:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Levine, your version of FAQ #1 states, "Additionally, some have criticized Quackwatch for not being peer reviewed." Can you provide a source? —Whig (talk) 02:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a FAQ - common ground and a summary of what we've agreed upon. We shouldn't be asking for sources, but instead where in the discussion was that agreed upon. --Ronz (talk) 02:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. Do we have a prior agreement that some have criticized Quackwatch for not being peer reviewed? —Whig (talk) 02:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think so. I think we agree that the issue has been brought up by critics. I don't think we've discussed whether we have reliable sources for such criticism.
My approach to this FAQ has been to go through the discussions and find statements relevant to the dispute that are either agreed upon or uncontested. --Ronz (talk) 02:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
A source may be reliable for one purpose and not for another. For instance, a critic might not be a reliable source apart from verifying that a criticism was made, but still a WP:RS for that purpose. We shouldn't make a blanket decision but consider whether a given source meets our requirements. —Whig (talk) 03:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Here is a critic who points out that Quackwatch is not peer reviewed. -- Levine2112 discuss 03:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, but one verified critic may not be notable enough standing alone. Do we know if anyone else has made a similar criticism which can also be cited? —Whig (talk) 03:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I haven't really looked, though others here have suggested that some of Quackwatch's main detractors have made such a criticism. Anyhow, I hadn't bothered to look because my feeling was that this wasn't going to be inserted as criticism but rather just a straightforward fact which Quackwatch felt was relevant enough to mention in their Mission Statement. -- Levine2112 discuss 03:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I think so but if you're going to add the second sentence ("Additionally...") we need to back that up as well. Even if this is just going in the FAQ for now it would be good to have it properly verified with reliable sources for the purpose of establishing the facts. —Whig (talk) 03:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I am new to this process. Can someone point to a link that explains the point of preparing this FAQ? Anthon01 (talk) 02:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we're all new to this. I've just been using the links that Slakr provided above Talk:Quackwatch#A_couple_of_ideas, and using the "What links here" link to find articles like Talk:0.999.... --Ronz (talk) 03:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

FAQ #1

Unresolved
 – --Ronz (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  1. Is Quackwatch peer reviewed?
    No, Quackwatch is not peer reviewed. Quackwatch states that, "Members of our medical advisory board review articles upon request."[5] Additionally, some have criticized Quackwatch for not being peer reviewed.[3][7]

Now how do we use the {{FAQ}} template? —Whig (talk) 05:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and created a stub for you guys to work with, so all you have to do is edit Talk:Quackwatch/FAQ in order to update it (or simply click the little 'edit' link on top of the question mark. Then, simply drop "{{FAQ}}" toward the top of this talk page so that it's visible to new editors. I'd highly suggest that you keep the intro basically the same as I left it, as it is a good rehashing of some of core concepts of WP:CCC so as not to discourage editors from bringing up a truly new or otherwise important point on priorly-settled points. Also keep in mind, it's not meant for use on the article, itself. It only should be used here, on the talk page, in order to give an idea of the major stuff that's already been discussed and/or is a constant source of argument yet has already been settled several times for the same reasons.
Pardon my silly stub content. :P Cheers. :) --slakr\ talk / 09:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I contest that, "Additionally, some have criticized Quackwatch for not being peer reviewed." is not actually part of the answer to the question. It deserves it's own question. --Ronz (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's a resolution

Resolved
 – --ScienceApologist (talk) 19:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

We go with #Version 0b in the lead. If people want to discuss criticisms of QW's editorial policy in the context of criticism, we can do so, but that's a separate issue. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The way it reads now is much more informative. If you are unhappy with it, let's work out a compromise first which we can all agree not to change. Perhaps you can write how you believe the lack of peer review should read in the criticism section. That may be a healthy new step. -- Levine2112 discuss 16:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, who has criticized it for not being peer-reviewed? We need that to be able to go forward with putting that in the criticism section. You've claimed there have been cases of this and even lawsuits; so why not find some of those and come back with actual sources.—Random832 17:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Criticism? The way it reads now clearly reflects the status of QW articles. It is not a criticism, just a statement of fact. Perhaps you can help me understand why, from your POV, you believe it is criticism? --Anthon01 (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Just the fact that only people who are opposed to QW in general bother to mention "not peer-reviewed". But, regardless of any POV: if there is no difference between what is on their mission statement and "not peer-reviewed", why are you insisting on that wording instead of what is actually present in their mission statement? On the other hand, if there is a difference, then using your preferred wording is original research.—Random832 21:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
In other words, if it's "just a statement of fact", why do you insist on wording it in a negative (I mean "negative" in the simple literal meaning, as your preferred wording is a phrase involving the word "not" attached to something generally seen as positive) way? You have not provided any source indicating that _anyone_ thinks that someone could reasonably think it might be peer-reviewed. —Random832 21:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Because this is the way 'peer-review' is commonly worded. It either is or isn't' peer-review'. A reader will easily understand what that means. --Anthon01 (talk) 00:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Support: All the information in this Version 0b has been verified, while Version 0a has not, which is one of the primary disputes currently under discussion. (See Talk:Quackwatch#"No peer review" unverifiable?) --Ronz (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Disagree: I still think our original understanding of the mission statement is correct, contra the notion that their mission is to review external papers upon request. We may want to survey that question itself. —Whig (talk) 17:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Whig. Version 0a has been completely verified. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. --Anthon01 (talk) 20:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Personal verification of something is not enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. It needs to have reliable sources, not just original research, to be included. Antelan talk 00:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I know that. I just mentioned it. Anthon01 (talk) 00:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Disagree: Just to be clear. It looks like 3 yeas and 3 neas so far. --Anthon01 (talk) 00:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
This is not a WP:VOTE. I see 3 4 good arguments in support, nothing against. Please provide rationale rather than just voting. --Ronz (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Support. Version 0a is WP:OR, as no one has claimed it is peer reviewed, and no RS has stated it isn't. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Support. No weasel, just right. The other version is a mix of OR and SYNTH that doesn't belong. Antelan talk 00:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Support. One has better sprinkles and less sour cream Shot info (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Support. Without other sources, 0a is OR being used by editors critical of Quackwatch as a means of sneaking editorial denigration into the article, an obvious violation of NPOV. Facts are not mere facts. Propaganda is also facts. It is the setting and the way it is used that color those "facts". It is only critics/scientific illiterates would even consider associating the words "peer-reviewed", either positively ("is" peer-reviewed) or negatively (is "not" peer-reviewed) with Quackwatch. It is a moot point in the real, rational, world. What is stated at Quackwatch is sufficient. Let's just stick with it. -- Fyslee / talk 06:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Analysis

What I see above here are three users (Whig, Levine, and Anthon01) disagreeing and the rest of the community agreeing. I would point out that each of these users has a definite bias with regards to the subject and have raised red flags with respect to their advocacy here at Wikipedia. I think, in light of WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT that these three users' ideas are rightly marginalized here at Wikipedia for being poorly sourced and non-mainstream. Consensus, therefore, I think is measured best by considering the arguments presented. I judge, with prejudice of course, that the arguments in favor of this version are mainstream considerations while the arguments against it are attempts to impose a minority opinion as a majority. Therefore, I move that this conflict is resolved in favor of those supporting version 0b. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

0c with rationale

Quackwatch says that it engages the services of 150+ scientific and technical advisors. As of 2003, 67 medical advisors, 12 dental advisors, 13 mental health advisors, 16 nutrition and food science advisors, 3 podiatry advisors, 8 veterinary advisors, and 33 "other scientific and technical advisors" were listed.[4]

I apologize if this seems brusque, but to avoid confusion I'm going to be concise. The only mentions of article review occur in two places, the somewhat confusing statement on the Quackwatch mission page and the less than reliable rebuttals of "quacks". The latter obviously doesn't meet reliability standards and is in fact a self published source meaning it also fails verifiability. Leaving the statement on Quackwatch's mission page, which if you look at it in context, is not as significant as some believe it to be and I'll explain. The context I mean is what it's listed under,

Service Providers
  • Members of our medical advisory board review articles upon request.
    Also listed with the statement in question is information like,
  • Our web-page design was developed by Marty Mapes of Boulder Information Services.
  • Dr. Barrett's son Daniel Barrett, a software engineer, provides general technical support.
  • Our Internet Service Provider is 10types, which provides outstanding equipment, service, and technical support.
  • Programming of the WebGlimpse search engine is maintained by Adam Baratz.
  • OnlyMyEmail provides SPAM protection.
  • We also use the excellent services of SEVENtwentyfour, Inc., whose LinkWalker spider reports broken hyperlinks once a week.

None of these bolded points is mentioned in our article, and I don't see a reason to include the review comment because it's not mentioned in actual reliable sources like the ref'd Time article. If there are reliable sources out there which make an issue about the lack/process/definition of article reviews on Quackwatch then the subject would be something to write about. Interpreting their processes without citing a source is original research and thus not to be done. If mention of peer review absolutly must be made, then I suggest we do it by pointing out that one of Quackwatch's article's was published in a peer reviewed publication, the Journal of the American Medical Association by adding a statement like:

Quackwatch articles have been cited in the press, and one appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association.[8]

Anynobody 07:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Are the scientific and technical advisers mentioned is some other WP:RS such as the Time article? It doesn't appear to be. So why include that when all we have to support it is Quackwatch itself? I'd say because it is obviously notable. I would also say the same for Quackwatch's lack of peer review. It is obviously notable. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That's true, I've modified the proposition accordingly. We can say that they claim to though. Anynobody 02:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I would then go a step further with your proposal and add on something to the effect of: Though Quackwatch articles are not formally peer reviewed, Quackwatch says that they are reviewed by their advisory board upon request. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

What does Quackwatch mean?

Unresolved
 – —Whig (talk) 05:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch states on their website, "Members of our medical advisory board review articles upon request." Quackwatch is a reliable source for the purpose of quoting or accurately rephrasing this statement, and no synthesis is required to do so. The question seems to revolve over what this statement actually means. I apologize for repeating this question again, but does Quackwatch review external articles upon request? —Whig (talk) 04:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

In house articles (mostly Barrett written exposes) are reviewed. --Anthon01 (talk) 04:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
How do you prove this? —Whig (talk) 05:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
It seems evident on its face. Most of the articles are written by Barrett. Barrett doesn't write exposes on articles, rather he writes articles on specific subjects related to Alt Med. --Anthon01 (talk) 05:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Are there instances of Barrett's articles which were reviewed by the Quackwatch medical advisory board? —Whig (talk) 05:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes but he doesn't specify that on his website. Nothing verifiable expect his declaration. --Anthon01 (talk) 05:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
How can you say Yes, though? Is there some evidence you can cite? Some way of showing what Quackwatch actually does so that this part of the mission statement can be understood in only one possible way? —Whig (talk) 05:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand is there any evidence Quackwatch has ever reviewed an external article? —Whig (talk) 05:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the purpose of this section. Unless we find new sources that we can use, such questions only beg for original research. --Ronz (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm asking for verification. Not original research. —Whig (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
We verify by finding sources, so I'm agreeing with Anthon01's, "Nothing verifiable expect his declaration", though I don't agree to attributing it to Barrett rather than Quackwatch. --Ronz (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
While it's interesting to speculate, without starting with a reliable source, this is all speculation and OR and is a misuse of this talk page. Please take it to private user space. When you find a reliable source that discusses this matter, then bring it back here. -- Fyslee / talk 07:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

RfC: What does Quackwatch mean?

Does Quackwatch review its own articles upon request or do they accept external articles for review?

Attempting to figure out and post what we think Quackwatch means is original research. Anynobody 02:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
How is this? It seems obvious to most of us what Quackwatch means. Just because one person claims not to understand does not make it original research. —Whig (talk) 02:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Above, Anthon01 stated, "I also confirmed it with Barrett" regarding the meaning of this statement. If he could produce a copy of that email, it would be useful. Antelan talk 03:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Just to be clear, Antelan: If Anthon01 or somebody produces an email from Quackwatch/Barrett which states that Quackwatch articles are not peer reviewed then you would at least agree that saying so in the article would not cause a WP:OR violation? -- Levine2112 discuss 03:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
If you read more carefully, you'll see that this is not a "yes" or "no" question, so that wouldn't make any sense. The two possible answers are "Quackwatch reviews its own articles by request," or "Quackwatch reviews articles from outside sources by request." Antelan talk 19:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Would you assume it to be an WP:OR issue because of the source being personal communication? Anthon01 (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't think that the OR guidelines would take issue with that, but I haven't run into this issue before. It's just a clarification of what's already said on the website, and the only person who can really clear that up is Barrett. So, again, can you provide me/us with a copy of that communication? Thanks, Antelan talk 20:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Will post in new section below. Anthon01 (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Whig, to answer your question I need to ask you one, how do you intend to cite seems obvious to most of us what Quackwatch means? We can't link to a talk page discussion.

Please see FAQ #1. —Whig (talk) 07:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Levine2112 it would actually be original research because it would be something Wikipedians have researched independent of reliable, verifiable sources. In essence, if we come up with it and nobody else has, it's original research. Anynobody 06:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure that I agree. However, given the new source, perhaps this is irrelevant now. -- Levine2112 discuss 07:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

RfC: Quackwatch is not peer reviewed

While we agree that Quackwatch is not peer reviewed, should we mention in the article that it is not peer reviewed?

It seems to me the problem is the difference between a sentence like "Quackwatch is not a peer-review Journal", which merely states a (possibly irrelevant, and possibly not accurate) fact; vs "Quackwatch is not peer-reviewed", which sounds the same, but connotes that it ought to be. Scientific American is not peer-reviewed (generaly it publishes articles by authors of papers that already have been reviewed), for example. One possibilty might be the sentence "some critics are concerned that Quackwatch is not formally peer-reviewed" (that's true, even if the only such critics are some wikiusers). If you can come up with a fair sentence, that neither implies fraud on the part of Quackwatch, nor values it above criticism, then it will be easier to get agreement on the citation point (argueing about whether there is proof that Quackwatch is not peer-reviewed). You might try "Some critics are concerned that Quackwatch does not purport to be a peer-reviewed journal". Good luck. Pete St.John (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. You state, "One possibilty might be the sentence "some critics are concerned that Quackwatch is not formally peer-reviewed" (that's true, even if the only such critics are some wikiusers)." That strikes me as standing in the face of WP:OR. Antelan talk 22:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm still just guessing what you mean, but maybe we are converging. You mean that "QW is not formally peer-reviewed" is OR; but I'm not saying that, I'm saying "There exists a human who asserts that QW is not formally peer-reviewed" which follows immediately from the existence of any wiki contributor who has supported the inclusion of a line in the article that points out QW is not peer-reviewed. If there is no such contributor, then I don't understand what the controversy is about. Omit the line in that case, and nobody objects. Pete St.John (talk) 01:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
In the Mission Statement there is this statement "Our advisors help us evaluate web sites, answer health-related questions, review books, help prepare articles, and engage in other projects that foster the spread of accurate information on the Internet. Our projects can take anywhere from a few minutes per month to several hours per week." Now to me it sounds like articles written do go through processes for accuracy. So saying it’s not peer reviewed may not be accurate since we don’t know what the last part here means, help prepare articles, and engage in other projects that foster the spread of accurate information on the Internet. Our projects can take anywhere from a few minutes per month to several hours per week. With the staff of volunteers that help, wouldn't this mean that some sort of review happens to try to insure accuracy of the information put out to the public?
Also, where it says you can donate it also states “Either way, these donations will support research, writing, and legal actions that can protect many people from being misled.” Now wouldn't it mean that the donations help research accuracy of articles put out to the public? Anyways, this is what I have read and what it means to me. --CrohnieGalTalk 14:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Crohnie, this (tricky) debate is about QW getting peer-reviewed itself; it already actively reviews other publications. Basically it's a reviewing machine. This is getting discussed quite a bit below, as you may have noticed by now. Pete St.John (talk) 18:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I am saying that your appeal to the use of this talk page as evidence that there are some who are concerned that Quackwatch is not formally peer reviewed is contrary to WP:OR. To do so would be original research. Hence my concern about your response to the RfC. Antelan talk 20:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

New source for lack of peer review

Okay, here's a pretty neutral site which seems to verify that Quackwatch articles are indeed not peer reviewed. This is from "The Consultant Pharmacist" (the official monthly peer-reviewed journal of the American Society of Consultant Pharmacists) and is a website review of Quackwatch. Under limitations, the review states:

A giant step toward true legitimacy would involve active peer review of the articles to be published, a logical transition for a site that relies on so much of the accepted medical literature as its foundation.

I hope this will settle this discussion. Also, I think this review will serve as an excellent source for other statement already included in this article as well as new information. -- Levine2112 discuss 04:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Levine, that's excellent. I had missed the reference to an actual citation, in all this. You have a professional society, which can reasonably be presumed to share QW's stated goals, stating something (it would be good if QW implemeneted peer-review) that can be interpreted via common sense to reach the desired statement (QW was not at that writing peer-reviewed). Thank you, even if these folks never agree. Pete St.John (talk) 01:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't support what is currently in dispute, because it doesn't say anything remotely like what's currently in dispute. It might be used for an alternative though, something that would probably fit in "Quackwatch as a source." Let's see what other's think of the source. Pharmacists reviewing a website? Do they say how the web site reviews are conducted? --Ronz (talk) 04:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I think this backs Levine's version of FAQ #1 perfectly however, and we can continue to discuss what belongs in the article itself. —Whig (talk) 05:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and more than that, I think this fully supports what is currently in the article with regard to peer review. This comes to us from not only a peer reviewed source, but a pharmacist association - a group which Quackwatch is often criticize for being too tightly aligned with. Not necessarily the case, it would seem, though overall, I don't think this review is too critical of Quackwatch but essentially agreeing with what Chowka and Kauffman had said... Quackwatch is often entertaining, informative and provocative but it is not for the serious-minded. -- Levine2112 discuss 05:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I cannot find any evidence that these website reviews are actually peer reviewed. They appear to be solitary reviews, submitted to the journal, with no reviewing criteria at all. --Ronz (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Speculative and irrelevant for WP:RS. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
They state there that an active peer review process would improve the site. However, that doesn't really lend support to including a statement in the lead that QW is not peer reviewed because the opinions of this group as to how the site can be improved are not descriptive but rather prescriptive (pun for the win!). ScienceApologist (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The pun is decent, however articles which could be improved by utilizing peer review clearly cannot currently be peer reviewed. That's all we are trying to support here. Quackwatch.org's articles are not subjected to formal scientific peer review, but rather reviewed by the medical advisory board upon request. Quackwatch Mission Statement already told us that their articles are not peer reviewed, Harrison confirmed it in response to criticism and now the ASCP puts the nail in the coffin of this debate. Unless someone can provide a policy which would clearly disallow the use of each and every one these sources as citation that Quackwatch articles are indeed not peer reviewed or a source which refutes this information, then in my opinion there is no reason to continue this discussion. I'll keep my eyes open for a pertinent policy point or a refuting source, but until then I consider this entire matter Resolved. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I can't find where QW explicitly says they aren't peer reviewed, in spite of the fact that no one in their right mind reasonably familiar with the Internet would expect them to be. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Read their Mission Statement closer and see the discussions above. Why wouldn't someone reasonably familiar with the Internet expect Quackwatch articles to be peer reviewed? I keep reading a point made here that "websites are not peer reviewed, only journals are peer reviewed" - Not true. Many websites are peer reviewed (even Wikipedia has a peer review process). Expert review is also done by scientific organizations and government agencies. Regardless, making assumption about whether or not someone might think Quackwatch has peer review is speculative. What we have are three concrete sources which verify that indeed Quackwatch articles are not peer reviewed. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Comparing Wikipedia's sad attempt at a peer review process to peer-review journals is more than a bit of a stretch. Two questions: 1) have you ever gone through the peer-review process associated with journal articles yourself? 2) can you find any website claiming to have as rigorous a process as that? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
(ec) We have three sources which make claims which can be interpreted as stating that QW is not peer-reviewed. I don't think it accurate to say that we have any reviewed sources (although that wikilink may be disputed) which state that QW is not peer-reviewed. As for SA's comment, I think EB online, may have that rigorous a process, even if the reviews are all "internal" peers. But Wikipedia? (keyboard damage warning redacted). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Again, I'm trying to determine if this is a reliable source. Repeating myself from above, "I cannot find any evidence that these website reviews are actually peer reviewed. They appear to be solitary reviews, submitted to the journal, with no reviewing criteria at all." If this is the case, then these website reviews do not meet WP:RS. --Ronz (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

If we have a reliable and critical source that emphasizes that Quackwatch is not peer-reviewed, I could see reason to mention that within the criticism section, saying something like, "Critics assert that Quackwatch's articles are not peer reviewed." Of course, it doesn't belong in the lead because it's a minor criticism, and it might be helpful to note that most websites are not formally peer-reviewed, so this is not in the slightest anomalous. Antelan talk 19:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we do have reliable and critical sources that emphasize that Quackwatch is not peer-reviewed. However, per a prior agreement we no longer have an actual criticism section, but rather are implementing criticism directly into the article. Where the statement is now seems very appropriate It is not an "assertion" that Quackwatch is not peer reviewed but rather it is verified information. I hardly even consider it a criticism, but rather a fact as neutral as discussing their 150+ advisory board or who their advertisers are or their stated income. Asserting that most websites are not formally peer-reviewed is creating an argument where there is none cited and thus violates WP:OR. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Levine, you are being tendentious. I suggest you drop this line of argumentation as we've wasted more text than is possibly justified on this iteration. You are obviously biased against QW and there are plenty of people arguing that your bias is shining through in your advocacy for including some disclaimer statement about QW's supposed editorial policy deficiencies. As such, I am putting you on notice that your activities here are close to exhausting community patience. If you keep this up, we will bring this to dispute resolution as I consider this to be a classic example of POV-pushing, and something specifically forbidden by Wikipedia policy. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
SA, please observe WP:TALK more closely. There is nothing tendentious about my argument. Nor am I POV-pushing. Antelan brought up some points for which I had some civil counterpoints. This is how discussion proceed. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
No, Levine, you are in fact revisiting argumentation that has made before in an attempt to bait other users. This effectively monopolizes the talkpages and makes editing nearly impossible. Your behavior is disruptive because you are relying on repetitive argumentation to promote your bias. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I revisit argumentation as a counterpoint to other revisited argumentation. No baiting here and no bias (other than being in favor of promoting Wikipedia as a reliable source of information). I feel that you are trying turn this personal because your policy issues have been completely settled by this new source. This whole line of discussion is out of place and disruptive here. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Moving contrary POVs into the body of the article creates a more balanced article throughout. I think placing the lack of peer-review right after the 150+ statement creates a balance perspective to that statement. Let the reader decide what that means to them. When an article is written with contrary POV located in just one section, the other parts of the article read like a promotional brochure. --Anthon01 (talk) 20:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it is time to archive tangential discussions. This one is pointless, the supposed "new source" for the attempted phrasing has been rejected by community consensus. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think this one is straight to the point. --Anthon01 (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Seems more straight to the WP:POINT (Sorry, but it was such a good setup and we need people to lighten up here with a WP:BREAK or some WP:HUMOR.) --Ronz (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Some web sites very definitely are peer-reviewed in the traditional sense of scientific journals; for example, you can read the "information for authors" section of the Electronic Journal of Combinatorics. So that's citable. Obviously, most web sites are not peer-reviewed in that sense. So how about this sentence:
Quackwatch, like Wikipedia and most web sites, is not publically known to be formally peer-reviewed in the traditional manner of scientific journals.
  • by saying "publically known" we can invoke common knowledge to avoid OR, and anyone can refute it by finding a reference that Quackwatch is peer-reviewed in that sense, in which case we'd change the article. The sentence as I posed it is clumsy, and not obviously relevant in context, but if it could settle the edit-war, I'd call it a cheap concession and we can all get on with our lives. Pete St.John (talk) 20:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I very much like your suggestion. My only reservation is like Wikipedia and most web sites. I don't know, it seems a bit weaselly and of original research. However, if it means reaching a settlement here, I am open to the possibility. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
QW's peer-review or lack thereof is irrelevant to anything but criticisms. Claiming "public knowledge" is impossible to cite. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The relevance comes from the frequency of the question, not from the goodness of the question. How about this: we find two blogs, one pro-QW and one anti-; there must be many. Then we use the sentence:

Some (cf www.IHateQW.org) criticise QW for lacking a formal, scientific peer-review process, while others (cf www.ILoveQW.org) aver that it is common knowledge that few websites have such a process.

Then we could just post the corresponding comments to those blogs :-) I've thought about posting to Slashdot, "Does Quackwatch have a formal, scientific peer-review process? Does it matter?" and then just cite the more informative respones. The point is that the issue is not about QW so much as about public perception of QW and of the peer-review process. It's actually more important to me that people learn what peer-review is, I don't so much care about that particular site. So for example, this debate has already been worthwhile to me, as some editors who don't have experience with formal peer-review might follow the link above to EJC and learn something :-) Pete St.John (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely not! We need a reliable source that indicates that the question is asked "frequently" if we are going to take you seriously. I don't think that citing a blog or a messageboard is adequate for what we're dealing with here -- especially a self-generated reference. Yikes! ScienceApologist (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Please don't confuse the proposed wording (some) with the concessions I myself willingly make (frequent). This very edit war is sufficient evidence, to me, that there exists nontrivial (if misguided) concern about QW's peer-review. That's not what we want to say in the article; we are trying to seek wording in the article that respect the (apparent) concern but still be encyclopedic. Stating that there exists concern is not the same as stating there exists demographically significant... or pedagogically meaningful... etc. We can say "QW advocates formal, scientific peer-review" (by quoting QW's site) and then "QW itself is not publically known to be formally, scientifically peer-reviewed" (which is like saying, "There have been no known eye-witness accounts of unicorns in NYC"; you can't, and don't need to, cite every journal ever published, to prove that none of them have ever published an eye-witness accout of a unicorn in New York. It's common sense, but if you find one, we'll change the article.) The plan is to end this phase of this fight by saying something factual and concilliatory. Please feel free to suggest something better. However, I admit the search for "Quackwatch" with "peer-review" hits tons of criticism of peer-review, and tons of criticism of Quackwatch (and tons of other stuff), but arguing about QW's own peer-review process does indeed seem aberrant. Pete St.John (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't follow your logic at all. You seem to be saying that since there exists concern by certain editors here at Wikipedia over QW's peer-reviewed status therefore a statement explaining that concern is worthy of inclusion in the article. I simply disagree. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I do follow PeterStJohn's logic, though I still think we may be in the realm of WP:OR with it. If we are simply looking for relevance, perhaps we are over-thinking it. Quackwatch gives us all the relevance we need by telling us their article review process (or lack thereof) in their own Mission Statement. Certainly if it is relevant enough for Quackwatch's Mission Statement, then it is relevant enough for Quackwatch's Wiki article. That we have additional sources from a critic and a peer reviewed journal is just icing on the cake in my eyes. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
ScienceApologist, consider this arguement: "QW criticizes some publications for lack of peer review. QW itself is not subject to peer-review. Therefore, QW is hypocritical." That arguement is wrong but it's convincing to amateurs. We want to educate the public, not ignore them. Is there no encyclopedic way to address that concern? Pete St.John (talk) 01:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
That argument is plucked out of thin-air! Please, keep to the sources. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • How about this sentence: Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa, PharmD, in a review of Quackwatch, recommends that QW institute a formal peer-review process for their own web site, in accordance with their advocacy of peer-review for medical publications. Pure statement of pure fact, citing a reputable source, as per Levine2112 above. Pete St.John (talk) 01:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Seems kosher to me, though I would like to see some attribution to ASCP and/or the The Consultant Pharmacist. That holds more relevance than the actual reviewer in terms of "reputable source". However, we do still have the Quackwatch Mission Statement and the Dr. Harrison pieces to use to further support that Quackwatch articles are indeed not peer reviewed (as stated currently and correctly in the article). What you have suggested here I believe will serve as a handsome supplement in the "Quackwatch as a source" section to what we already have in the "Mission and scope" section. I think it is important to mention that Quackwatch articles are only reviewed by their advisory board upon request in this "Mission and scope" section because it is in Quackwatch's Mission Statement where they chose to mention it. -- Levine2112 discuss 03:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Not in the lead. And what is more, the paraphrasing is highly POV. They, in fact, say that QW is instituting more formal review processes and they laud them for it. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a brief review is called for of the social and intellectual functions of peer-review in a body of knowledge like science? There are positives as well as negatives in such a review, but it might be worth discussing this side of the issue before deciding if it is even worth mentioning it in the QW article. Peter morrell 10:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Not in the article, and I'm not sure it belongs on our talkpage either. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Help me out guys. The immediate goal is to stop the fight without hurting the article; don't you agree that a true, referenced, encyclopedic sentence is possible here? How about proposing better wording? So here's my nth attempt:

Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa, PharmD, in a review of Quackwatch posted by The Consultant Pharmacist, recommends that QW continue furthering formal peer-review processes for their own web site, in accordance with their advocacy of peer-review for medical publications

Can anything like that work? Pete St.John (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Close. . . but what does "QW continue furthering formal peer-review processes" mean? QW is not peer-reviewed. . . that is what is being criticized. . . we need to come out and say it and not beat around the bush. . . Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa, PharmD, in a review of Quackwatch posted by ASCP's The Consultant Pharmacist, recommends that QW adopts formal peer-review processes for their own web site, in accordance with their advocacy of peer-review for medical publications. How 'bout dem apples?TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
That looks ok. (note for everyone else: the exact quote is “A giant step toward true legitimacy would involve active peer review of the articles to be published, a logical transition for a site that relies on so much of the accepted medical literature as its foundation.”, which does seem to support a statement that he recommends they adopt a peer-review process) —Random832 17:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Edit conflicts can be a bear. Thus:
Update. And ScienceApologist, you misquoted; I believe you are being eristic. So I've corrected the proposed sentence with a verbatim quote:

Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa, PharmD, in a review of Quackwatch posted by The Consultant Pharmacist, recommends that QW implement formal peer-review processes for their own web site, in accordance with their advocacy of peer-review for medical publications, writing, "[a] giant step toward true legitimacy would involve active peer review of the articles to be published..."

The huge advantage of Religion, over Science, is that it is above criticism. The huge advantage of Science, over Religion, is that it is open to criticism. ScienceApologist, let's build consensus, and not fight, OK? "giant step towards ture legitimacy would be..." is not the same as "they already did it because they are so great". Right? Pete St.John (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Getting better. . . Mention what the publication is or Wiki-link to it if it exists. . . Also mention something about not truly being legitimate until they are peer-reviewed. . . since we are quoting, why not?TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 18:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The sentence (set off in italics) contains the quote with the word "legitimacy" already. There is a wiki article on ASCP, so I added that:

Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa, PharmD, in a review of Quackwatch posted by The Consultant Pharmacist, recommends that QW implement formal peer-review processes for their own web site, in accordance with their advocacy of peer-review for medical publications, writing, "[a] giant step toward true legitimacy would involve active peer review of the articles to be published..."

Cool? Again, I don't expect to make everyone happy, but it's a legit citation of a well-mannered, even positive, review, and everything's in the scientific spirit, and we get the effect of acknowledging the "no peer review, therefore hypocrites" meme by being informative, and not disinformative. Pete St.John (talk) 18:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Wow! Hey, yeah. That ain't half-bad. What was actually implemented could use the wikilinking and proper citation format, but if everyone agrees that this version can stay, I think we may actually have a consensus! I am a little disappointed to see that there was an edit war as soon as the lock was taken off this article. I think it was a little disingenuous to immediately start up with one as soon as the lock was lifted. I am not sure what Ronz's beef is with the neutrality of the section he bannered but perhaps he will enlighten us with his rationale soon. Yes? -- Levine2112 discuss 18:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Levine, if this works out (at all, in any form!) I'll be proud to have slowed somewhat the casualty rate of what seems to have been a long-running feud. Pete St.John (talk) 19:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I made some minor tweaks. No deal breakers, just grammar clean-up and ref formatting stuff. PeterStJohn, thanks for guiding us through this. I really appreciate it and I very much hope that you are right! -- Levine2112 discuss 19:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin replaced "[[Peer review]]" with "peer review" with the interesting point that the reviewer, being abstracted or paraphrased at that point in the sentence, may not mean the same thing by "peer review" as the wiki article; however, I think from the context (of an idea along the lines of "physcian, heal thyself!") it may be reasonable to presume he means by "peer review" what QW describes (at length) in it's fervent advocacy of peer review. Also, the article peer review can be construed as a helpful link for further information on the subject, not as a formal definition in a particular context. And our readers do need amplification about that, there is plenty evidence in just this discussion that "formal, scientific peer review" gets confounded with other things. But I have no problem with the change, it's a small thing. Pete St.John (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The easy solution may be to just wikilink the next instance of "peer review" as it is made in reference to Quackwatch's advocacy of such a concept and clearly we can all agree that Quackwatch's definition of peer review is along the same lines as what is described in the peer review wiki article. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The neutrality of this section is disputed

Ronz, you placed this tag on the "Quackwatch as a source" section. Would you please enlighten us with your rationale? I understand that you feel some of the sources are not independent. Can you be specific with your concerns? Thanks! -- Levine2112 discuss 19:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I already have, multiple times, as have others. Please search this page and the archives for WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV, "weight", "undue weight". Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Ronz, you added the tag today. I need you to prove it today. If that means that you simply point us to prior discussion, then fine. But please do us the favor of doing the legwork and providing us with such links to your previous neutrality concerns with any of the sources in this section. I think we would all appreciate it! -- Levine2112 discuss 19:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I would also like Ronz to make his/her concerns more explicit. —Whig (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed --Anthon01 (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
It may be clear that Ronz does not want to provide his rationale on this point. I have cordially invited him here at least three times and he/she has rebuffed all of my efforts ([13]), ([14]), ([15]). Let's give him a little while longer to respond, and if he doesn't, then I see little reason to keep the banner. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Are any of you going to make the slightest attempt here to demonstrate that you're following WP:TALK and WP:CON? --Ronz (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Ronz is right to put the NPOV banner on that section. It is not representative of the sum-total of reviews QW has received. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I have restored the flag. —Whig (talk) 17:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!
I added the tag because, "Much of the information here is not supported by independent, reliable sources as required per WP:NPOV." The newest addition to the section is just another such NPOV violation.
I'm sorry that editors here are either incapable or unwilling to do simple searches of this page and the past archives to find the previous and current discussions on this matter.
I'm sorry that one editor here would rather spend time trying to make a case that I'm acting in bad faith rather than simply searching this page.
Now that I've provided yet more information, as requested, I ask that the editors involved refactor their remarks. --Ronz (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
No. You are repeating that "most of the information is unsupported" (over and over again; which is [[Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing|tendentious). You have been asked for a specific. Please point to a specific item which has no supporting reference but needs one. If you are right that much of the material has that failing, then it should be easy for you to specify one. Pete St.John (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
No one here has indicated that they've read anything that I've previously written on this. Until they can do so, I have no idea what level of detail they want.
Further, I wrote, "The newest addition to the section is just another such NPOV violation." I'd say that's pretty clear, for anyone that bothers to read it. --Ronz (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Getting unstuck

Some basic advice for resolving disputes:

  • Remain polite per WP:Civility.
  • Solicit feedback and ask questions.
  • Keep the discussion focused. Concentrate on a small set of related matters and resolve them to the satisfaction of all parties.
  • Focus on the subject rather than on the personalities of the editors.
  • Assume good faith of other editors.

--Ronz (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Cherry-picked quote

This paragraph:

Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa, PharmD, in a website review posted in the The Consultant Pharmacist, recommends that Quackwatch implement formal peer review processes for their own web site, in accordance with their advocacy of peer review for medical publications, writing, "[a] giant step toward true legitimacy would involve active peer review of the articles to be published..."[7]

Was removed on the basis that the quote was cherry-picked. The review itself is overwhelmingly positive and so only including the criticism is a violation of undue weight. This has happened before as when the National Review article was cherry-picked for a criticism. Please refrain from doing this.

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand your rationale (though I think WP:WEIGHT is not the right policy for you to reference). In accordance, I feel that much of the positives which the reviewer brings up is already covered in our article already (as are some of the negatives as well). However, the lack of peer review is wholly undiscussed in our article (now that it has been removed). As this is a new topic not previously discussed, I don't see an issue with pulling just this quote out of Nguyen-Khoa's review. I really thought we were onto a good compromise here. I hope you can find some way to respect that and help end this longstanding debate. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The issue is, as I see it, that the reader will think that Nguyen-Khoa is being critical of QW when in fact this is not the case. If you want to discuss peer-review, it would be best to gather all the sources that we can get about the issue and see what kind of summary statement we can write about the subject. It may be that this "issue" is so oblique as to not warrant inclusion in the article at all, but if we can find enough sources that discuss it (preferably secondary and tertiary sources by neutral parties) that may be wonderful. A single sentence fragment from a pharmacist does not a duly weighted topic make. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. This is a comment from a pharmacist whose review was published in a major pharmacist society's peer reviewed journal. Weight is all but a given. I'll tell you what, for the sake of ending this feud (or at least stalling it), why don't you allow what was there to remain and in the meantime, you can gather all of the sources you can find on this topic and prepare a discussion of Quackwatch and peer review? Sound reasonable? I really think we can halt this dispute, but we would like your approval (as you seem to be the only dissenter). Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
No. If you prefer, we can summarize fairly the review, but I don't think a fair summary would include anything about peer-review, which is obviously the agenda you are pushing. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Please WP:AGF. I am not pushing any agenda other than making this article as best as it can be. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, then, I summarized the review in a better way, as I saw it. Hope you enjoy it. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I would prefer you made your suggestion here, given the delicate state of this article. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
(dang edit conflicts)
ScienceApologist, instead of deleting the work that we have been discussing here, help us improve it. In this case, you could change "in a review" to "in a generally favorable review". However, you are the one construing a consstructive suggestion as a hostile attack on QW. It isn't. We picked a statement from a source; we weren't trying to characterize the import of the source. If I pick a negative statement, from a postive review, to mislead people into thinking the review was negative, I'd be cherry-picking. If I pick the definition of the word "foobar" from Webster's thousands of defintions, because I want to know what "foobar" means, it's not cherry-picking, it's just getting what I want. No statement is made or may reasonbly be inferred that QW is therefore evil or that the review thinks QW is evil. It's constructive criticism. Please think about this carefully. Pete St.John (talk) 19:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that what we are essentially dealing with here is picking a negative statement from a positive review and therefore you are misleading people into thinking the review is negative. I have thought about this carefully, and this is my opinion on the matter: I think instead of using one source we should collect all the sources about QW's peer-review status and see what kind of summary statement we can make about it. So far, I think we've named two sources. I welcome others to name some more. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Any specific suggestions using the 3 sources we currently have? -- Levine2112 discuss 20:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Not really. I don't think the 3 sources we have are adequate to make a summary statement. I'm hoping you might find some better ones. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
If you find any, please let me know. I shall do likewise. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I can't help people from making incorrect assumptions. The sentence states that the reviewer believes QW can be improved. That's (presumably) true. My purpose is to acknowledge confusion about the peer-review process (particularly, the meme "it's not peer-reviewed, so it's hypocritical") in a truthful way that enables people to research more. The purpose of quoting the review is not to characterize the review, but to elaborate a known issue about QW's application of peer-review. Some people are concerned about that for the wrong reasons, perhaps. We can't deal with everything in each sentence. On balance, I think that section of the article is quite favorable to QW, and the list of citations to them is very impressive. It's not necessary to rebuff all criticism, to defend QW. Science emphatically does not need that kind of help. Answer criticism, don't rebuff it. Pete St.John (talk) 20:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The undue focus on peer-review vis-a-vis this review is my problem. The author isn't saying much about what he envisions for a peer-review, but rather is pointing out that a more "academic counterpoint" would be useful for professionals (such as pharmacists). This is a very different aim from what your hopes for the content are. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Two things. First, a single line is not "undue focus". Also, QW itself has quite alot of material about peer review; the topic is germane to them. Second, and more importantly, ScienceApologist, you have just doubled the item with your unilateral restatement. Note that I have posed versions of suggested sentences here, before inserting them myself. It's almost as if I were seeking consensus. Are you? Pete St.John (talk) 21:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why the topic is "germane" to them at all. All I see if that certain individuals think it is germane, but have a hard time finding anything more than off-handed remarks in reliable sources to back-up their beliefs. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
This appears to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. . . ScienceApologist is reverting against consensus. . . but what do I know, I am just a true believer in science. TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 21:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
What you linked to is a page on what arguments not to make in deletion debates. Since this is not a deletion debate, I'm not sure where you're going with this. I also didn't revert: I rewrote the sentence to more fully explain the review. I think that this peculiar statement does not serve as justification for your revert -- especially not your explicit assumption of bad faith in the edit summary! ScienceApologist (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with SA in that I don't think WP:IDONTLIKEIT may be appropriate here. However, I do agree with TDII in that SA was reverting against consensus. SA, I implore you to abide by consensus especially during this fragile and sensitive time. Thanks! -- Levine2112 discuss 22:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
There is no consensus. Stop trying to claim it. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Consensus does exist. Time to recognize. MaxPont (talk) 06:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Nice declarative statement without any evidence or analysis to back it up. I have posted my rationale. Where's yours? It's not a good thing, I'm wagering, that so many meatpuppets seem to emerge as soon as someone takes a hardline on sourcing. I also notice that User:MaxPont and User:TheDoctorIsIn both have a history of using similar argumentation (e.g. "I DON'T LIKE IT") when reverting and both were "lurkers" who swooped in to revert to a preferred version. Hmm, perhaps there is some sockpuppetry going on as well? ScienceApologist (talk) 06:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I would like to ask ScienceApologist to consider whether it is appropriate to be making sock puppet accusations, as this does not seem to add to the dialogue here. In any case I do not see anyone but ScienceApologist dissenting. —Whig (talk) 07:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I see a lot of users coming out of the woodwork in a very suspicious manner. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
It is particularly unusual that they would come just to say "Yes, there is consensus." When I'm a new editor on a page, that's rarely my first contribution. And I don't believe that consensus has formed around this issue, IMHO. Antelan talk 19:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Definitely a case of ignoring WP:NPOV, as has been done throughout this section of the article, and to a lesser extent throughout the article. --Ronz (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Time for article protection again?

If not, we're getting close to all-out edit-warring again. Anyone else for protection? --Ronz (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Currently we seem to have only one dissenter (ScienceApologist) for the peer review information in general. If he/she agrees to leave it in while we discuss his/her concerns, I don't think there will be much reason to edit war. The only issue I have currently is the banner which Ronz placed. I just want him to spell out his rationale. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I vote for waiting a little while, like a day :-) and see what we can get. I think some of us are reacting angrily to perceived attack; which makes some sense in the context, as we can surmise that QW has enemies, and quacks have enemies, so there is a real battle and we happen to be at one spot on one front. Meanwhile, thanks to Arthur Rubin's dilligence, I see I've made two reverts today. So I'll try to hold off. But I beg folks not to fight with knives, when we all want the article to be fair (even if it can't be perfect). It's OK to acknowledge dissent, even when misled or misinformed or kneejerk or ignorant or psychotic :-) But please try to act with respect for consensus. Pete St.John (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Point of order. ScienceApologist, by only adding material, evades the 3RR policy, correct? Since it's evasion, not respect of the stated intent, and the policy specifically mentions "Efforts to game the system...", in principle an admin could block him for violation of 3RR? Is that correct? Most of my time here I've focussed on content, I'm still learning wiki-legalism. Pete St.John (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
If his/her intent is to edit war then, yes. It is a blockable offense. I would also caution ScienceApologist to follow the decisions of his/her ArbCom which warns him/her about this kind of behavior. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Since I only made two edits in total to the article, I'm unclear as to what all this complaining is about. Certainly it is impossible for me to have violated WP:3RR. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not accusing you of violating 3RR, I'm checking that adding material can be covered by the policy, as well as literal reverts. So in my view todate: yes, you can in principle be blocked by 3RR if you continue with these types of edits; no, I'm not asking for that now; and yes, I consider your pugnaciousness to be misguided and disruptive. It is irrelevant that the quoted review is positive: the point is not about a consensus of reviewing, but the existence of a peer-review issue, and the ciation itself is factual, and it's germane, and all this has been discussed, so we have some degree of consenus. It by no means condemns QW of anything. We are not trying to condemn QW of anything. Answering a question addressed by one's opponent is not the same as conceding defeat. Pete St.John (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
You haven't established that a "peer-review issue" even exists except on this talkpage which is not a verifiable source that we can use to establish the existence of any issue. I also consider your comment on my "pugnaciousness" to be a personal attack and I will ask that you remove it. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I read the entire page of discussion. I am flabbergasted that SA refuses to recognize consensus. I've been lurking for awhile & I felt know was as good a time as any to delurk. MaxPont (talk) 06:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
No you've made three against consensus without discussion on the talk page --Anthon01 (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I've asked for full protection again. I encourage everyone to look carefully at your comments above and considering refactoring them to be more appropriate per WP:TALK. --Ronz (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree. I advocate patience as well. Speaking of which, does any feel that the responses given here are sufficient? I would appreciate some more input. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Website Review

I have a question about "website review." Does it mean a review of websites or a review published on a website? --Anthon01 (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The former. Do you think we should spell it out? Thoughts? Suggestions? -- Levine2112 discuss 22:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
How about we drop "website"? Would that make it more clear? ...in a review published in... -- Levine2112 discuss 22:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
We could do that. The journal says it was published in the "Information Access" department of the journal. I had already changed posted to publish. --Anthon01 (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
it seems to have been both. We cite it as a review of a website. Incidentally, it's 8 years old (dated 1999); although the organization around QW is a good deal older, but the web has changed alot in 8 years. Pete St.John (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I mentioned it because a ... website review posted ... could sounds less 'credible' then ... a review published in ... --Anthon01 (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
How about in a review of the Quackwatch website published in... --Anthon01 (talk) 23:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually Levine's suggestion implies that it is a review of the Quackwatch website. Perhaps that's good enough as it is more concise? --Anthon01 (talk) 23:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I am in favor of being concise, provided that we are not compromising clarity (I don't think we would be here). -- Levine2112 discuss 23:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. --Anthon01 (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and made the edit. --Anthon01 (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Which is better?

There are people who wish to see included the website review from The Consultant Pharmacist. There are two versions here for how this review should be listed:

Version 1

Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa, PharmD, in a website review posted in the The Consultant Pharmacist, gave QuackWatch a positive review for two articles on the site that discussed "natural remedies" available at pharmacies. Quackwatch reported that while pharmacists were unaware of the efficacy of such alternative medicines, they continued stocking them because the profit margins for such remedies were larger than conventional drugs. Of criticisms of Quackwatch, Nguyen-Khoa writes, "It appears that Quackwatch.com uses the emotional reaction of its critics to substantiate its position." Nguyen-Khoa also expressed some personal concern that most of the articles on the site were written by Stephen Barret noting as well that steps were being taken to rectify the problem. Nguyen-Khoa recommended that a mirror "academic counterpoint" and a more rigorous review process be put in place to improve the website as a resource. [7]

Comments

This version summarizes the main points of the review and contextualizes the criticisms. As such, it is able to present the reader with a fair summary of the review without pandering or cherry-picking quotes to push a point-of-view. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Not so bad, but out of context, the phrase "...concern that most of the articles were written by ...Barrett" connotes that Barrett is a problematic author, which is not what Nguyen meant; with context, it comes out to "...concern that too many of the articles were written by a single author (who happens to be Barrett)". The difference is between criticizing Barrett, vs criticising the site for publishing too many items from a single author (whoever that author might be). However, since Barrett is one of the organizers, the distinction is not very great and I can live with it. Pete St.John (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Version 2

Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa, PharmD, in a review published in the The Consultant Pharmacist, recommends that Quackwatch implement formal peer review processes for their own web site, in accordance with their advocacy of peer review for medical publications, writing, "[a] giant step toward true legitimacy would involve active peer review of the articles to be published..."[7]

Comments

This version uses a single quote taken out of context in order to argue that QW implement a peer review process (using the term "peer review" no less than three times in the sentence). This is an unacceptable twisting of the context and content of the review which actually is asking for an augmentation of QW in the direction of more formal review status rather than demanding peer review for articles currently written. As this version reads, the reader will come away believing that Nguyen-Khoa thought that QW was a source that needed improvement because it advocates peer review, a statement that is not only not verifiable, it is found nowhere in the entire review! That people are claiming this version is a consensus is an affront to the sensibilities of neutrality. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

  • First is a more even-handed summary but is too long. Not even any need to mention the name of the author of the review. Second is cherry-picking and not an appropriate use of this source. It gives the impression that whether or not the website has been peer-reviewed has been a major issue in relation to the website. It hasn't. It was only mentioned briefly in this article as part of a wider review. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Is their a WP guideline or policy that spells out that a sentence or idea taken from an article must reflect the sense of the entire article? --Anthon01 (talk) 13:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
It's mentioned at WP:NOR#Using sources. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
It's absolutely fundamental to how we conduct WP source research. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
From WP:NOR. Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited. Article statements generally should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages, nor on passing comments. Passages open to interpretation should be precisely cited or avoided. A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source's author(s). Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. It is important that references are cited in context and on topic.
Which one do you think applies? --Anthon01 (talk) 16:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The whole thing applies. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Please clarify Anthon01 (talk) 16:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, the entire passage supports my point to the detriment of those arguing against me. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Your response is non-responsive. Clearly the whole passage does not apply. Please specify which sentence(s) you believe are applicable and why. Anthon01 (talk) 17:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
If it's not clear to you that the whole passage applies to this situation, then I'm not sure how to help you. Every sentence you quoted is applicable. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I do not think there is any relevance to your biased description of the website review. It was not a positive review, it was certainly mixed with some praise and some criticism. We aren't really interested in the discussion of natural remedies available at pharmacies in this context. The Version 2 statement is correct, it is a balancing criticism of Quackwatch from a source that is not hostile. —Whig (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
It was most certainly a positive review. The criticism offered was to say two things: that the author of the review wished more contributions came from people other than Barrett and that an "academic counterpoint" would exist. That's it. That's the only stuff that could even remotely be described as "negative". The rest of the review praised QW. So it is a positive review. The version 2 statement is actually factually incorrect as it claims that the author of the review was criticizing QW for not being peer-reviewed because QW criticized others for not being peer-reviewed. Clearly this statement is not only inaccurate, it's not based on the source at all. Arguing for wording like this is tantamount to arguing for the article to lie to the reader in order to push an anti-QW agenda. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Arguing with wording? Your paraphrase that "that an "academic counterpoint" would exist" does not reflect the statement made in the article.
I think your paraphrase is clearly an understatement. Anthon01 (talk) 17:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)Perhaps you'd like to quote the context as well?


I think your selection of a sentence that is in reference to improving authorship and not just editorial constraints while asking for further developments is clearly a mischaracterization.

ScienceApologist (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the context as being important here. Please clarify how you think this reference our use of this reference violates WP:NOR. Anthon01 (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Concur with Anthon01. There's no need to include the entire review. We are not here to praise or condemn Quackwatch, but this source does not consider Quackwatch truly legitimate. It cannot be considered a positive review in my opinion. —Whig (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Strongly disagree. In context, I cannot tell whether the review is vetted by the editorial board or is the personal opinion of the reviewer, so perhaps we cannot use it at all. However, the review is clearly positive, overall, and extracting this single criticism (one of two criticisms in the review) out of context seems inappropriate. (As an aside, my late mother wrote "telegraphic" book reviews of a similar length for the American Mathematical Monthly, and no editorial functions, other than perfunctory proofreading, were performed.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Arthur, I meant the quote to illustrate the existence of a criticism of QW regarding peer-review, and only that. The review is generally positive, IMO, but that is irrelevant to me, and drawing the conclusion that this quote is meant to prove the review was negative, is a mistake. It's not about the review, it's about QW. I merely want to say that yes, someone citable (Nguyen) in a published source, criticized QW for not applying formal peer-review to itself. I don't mean for anyone to infer that therefore QW is hypocritical, fallacious, evil, criminal, or anything other than that the criticism exists. The criticism is "out of context" or "cherry picking" if the the quote is used to argue that the review was negative or that QW is evil. I didn't mean to use the quote that way and I don't think I did. Pete St.John (talk) 18:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I have no doubt, Peter, that your intentions were good in regards to this idea. However, when we write an article about a subject like this we have to think about what a reader will think upon reading the article. What I envision a reader who reads your proposed sentence will think is that the review was criticizing Quackwatch. That's just human nature: if you include the one negative statement (even if it's the most interesting) the reader will think it is characteristic of the entire work. We have to deal with how readers will interact with the material. Our goal isn't just to make sure that everything is sourced: it's also to make sure that the wordings, phrasing, and even innuendo present in the article do not mislead the reader into thinking something other than that which is verifiable. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Signing up a bunch of people means nothing if 1) they don't take responsibility for authorship and 2) they are not involved in peer-review. The peer-review statement ends up being the most significant statment in that paragraph. Anthon01 (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
How did you measure this significance? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The same way it is measuresed here at WP:RS.
That doesn't say anything about how to measure significance. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Please clarify how you think our use of this reference violates WP:NOR.
"in accordance with their advocacy of peer review for medical publications" is original research. Pure and simple. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
As you know, ScienceApologist, as it has been discussed before and you have read the web site, what you mean is that a link to the QW page which advocates peer-review should be added again. We have cited the QW site, and you know it contains copious such material, but you would prefer that we cite that particular page, in this particular sentence. Correct? Pete St.John (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
You cannot synthesize such ideas like that. Since the review of QW doesn't mention QW's advocacy of peer-review we cannot link the two. Get it? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I like Version 02 much better as it is concise and brings new information to the article. Version 01 brings up some new specific information about pharmacists, but I don't think it is appropriate for the "Quackwatch as a source" section. Perhaps in another section. Version 01 also brings up criticism and praise which has already been covered in our article. Version 02, on the other hand, brings up a new point which is relevant to "Quackwatch as a source" and is otherwise not covered in our article. Version 02 is an accurate summary of this specific point which the reviewer has made.
P.S. I think everyone should step back and realize that the only reason we are here dealing with this review in particular and not the other two sources we have which describe Quackwatch's lack of peer review is out of sheer compromise in the interest of promoting some greater harmony at this article. If parties cannot even agree to a more than fair compromise, then I see no reason why we shouldn't go back to just including Quackwatch's lack of peer review in the "Mission" section of our article as it is in Quackwatch's own Mission Statement where they tell us that their articles are not peer reviewed. Something to chew on folks. I was really hoping that we had a consensus and finally some peace yesterday. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  1. Delineating how QW is perceived to be a source for pharmacists is not appropriate for the Quackwatch as a source section? Why? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  1. I don't think the source makes that distinction at all. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Then why does he talk about what's of interest to pharmacists? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Provide us with the exact quote that you are referring to. Perhaps there is good reason why it can be included in addtion to the lack of peer review. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
"Of interest to consultant pharmacists are two articles about pharmacy practice posted in September 1998 and April 1999." ScienceApologist (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I personally don't find it all that interesting or relevant to the topic "Quackwatch as a source", but if you would like to include that in addition to the lack of peer review, I'd like to read your proposed phrasing. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I already offered proposed phrasing above. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  1. How is Version 2 accurate when the reviewer makes no mention of QW's advocacy of peer-review? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  1. I beg to differ: A giant step toward true legitimacy would involve active peer review of the articles to be published, a logical transition for a site that relies on so much of the accepted medical literature as its foundation. Advocacy indeed. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
He's saying that because QW uses medical literature that peer-review would be a logical transition. If the site used newspaper clippings then peer-review would not be a logical transition. Where is the advocacy? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Using peer review as its foundation is certainly advocating it. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
That's an unwarrranted synthesis. They are using medical literature as a foundation. That means that they have some level of professional expertise. The "logical transition" is to professionalism of peer-review. Nowhere do we have to assume that Nguyen-Khoa is saying that because they use peer-reviewed sources they should therefore be peer-reviewed. That's jumping to conclusions and reinterpreting what he actually said. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I see no synth whatsoever. Editors keep misuing WP:SYNTH here at this article. Synth implies some source A plus some source B combined to arrive at conclusion C. We are only dealing with one source here, so SYNTH is improbable. I think Nguyen-Khoa's meaning is quite apparent. "Accepted medical literature" is peer reviewed literature. His opinion is that Quackwatch uses it as their foundation and that it where therefore be logical for Quackwatch itself to be peer reviewed. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
You are combining a source with your own innuendo to make a new comment that the source doesn't make. His meaning is not to say that QW should institute peer-review because accepted medical literature is peer-reviewed. That's you throwing around your own spin. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  1. Your statement is "P.S." looks like a threat to engage in disruptive editing. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  1. Only if you are assuming bad faith in me. My point was to say that we were working well together and that took us this far, but your lack of good faith and edit wars are ruining everyone else's good faith efforts to compromise. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
You know, telling someone that they are not assuming good faith is itself a violation of WP:AGF. Just so you're aware. I stated my concern, all you have to do is say that you aren't doing that. Then we move on. It's as simple as that. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay. Then I am not doing that. Move on. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, your intentions were good. But, you must understand that a full explanation of every source is too lengthy to put into an article. Encyclopedic content must be concise and easy to understand. The original material was more suited to the article than your revision. You further compounded the problem by removing his/her contribution. Remember this: It is always better to add to an article than to subtract from it. Jerome709 (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You have just contradicted yourself. If a full explanation is too lengthy and we need to be concise then removal of a source that cannot be concisely summarized would be justified. We should not allow statements that misrepresent sources to be made. Your final adage is one I explicitly reject and would like to know where you came up with it. It's certainly shouldn't be Wikipedia guidelines or policy. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Function

"Despite its importance as the ultimate gatekeeper of scientific publication and funding, peer review is known to engender bias, incompetence, excessive expense, ineffectiveness, and corruption. A surfeit of publications has documented the deficiencies of this system." David Kaplan, How to Fix Peer Review, Science Advisory Board As I said yesterday, maybe the whole issue of peer review is a non-starter because of its vagueness and complexity of function/role and its obvious flaws. It clearly cuts both ways in the QW case. Peter morrell 07:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this would be better taken to Talk:Peer review. —Whig (talk) 07:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, it is HERE that peer review has suddenly become such a bone of contention! but there are losses and gains for each side from even mentioning peer review. It's a can of worms. Peter morrell 09:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see us arguing over whether peer review is a good thing in all cases or discussing its limitations. These may be good points in an article about peer review or in an article where its limitations are relevant. Can you say how you think the limitations of peer review are relevant to an article on Quackwatch? —Whig (talk) 10:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If you defend peer review as a great thing, then clearly QW is currently deficient because it is not peer reviewed. Also if you argue peer review is not so big a deal, then that stands in favour of the current QW status as being somehow OK. However, the mainstream view in academia is that peer review is an excellent, if flawed, system. It does two things. First, it establishes a code of good conduct for all academic publications as accepted/established views; second, it filters out 'unacceptable views' from the mainstream and denies them the cache of academic respectability. Thus the outcome is that peer review is a gold standard type of credibility stamp. If something is peer reviewed then it is assumed to be accepted mainstream cast-iron material, kosher material if you will. So I think the status and function of peer review underpins this discussion. If peer reveiew is no big deal then prove why. If it is a big deal, then why is QW not peer reviewed? and indeed if it were, then it would certainly gain greater kudos. That is a summary of the issue about peer review and its relevance to this article/discussion. Peter morrell 10:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Peter M, a fallacy that I'm trying to resist, in this article, is that everything is either Good or Bad. A claw hammer is great for driving nails into wood; it's tragic if it's used to bash-in baby skulls. Formal Peer Review serves purposes and has flaws, like any tool. I certainly support peer-review for scientific publications and I have participated in the process from both sides (as a reviewed author, and as an anonymous reviewer chosen by an editor). That does not mean QW "is deficient because it is not peer-reviewed". I gave the example of Scientific American, which is not a peer-reviewed publication, but solicits original expository contributions from the authors of previously peer-reviewed papers. Ngyuen suggested (8 years ago) that QW would be improved if it instituted peer-review for itself. I do not endorse, or deny, that opinion; I haven't researched it. I do consider it a legitimate critique and can be given in lists of citable examples of pros and cons among public opinion. But it is very important for everyone to understand that the Scientific Method does not claim that if something passes peer-review, then it is Absolutely True for All Time. Every human process has imperfections and scientists are expected to welcome constructive criticism. Divine processes may have no imperfections, QW is certainly not divine and does not purport to be. Neither does the Institute for Advanced Study, last I checked :-) Pete St.John (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

AN/I

ScienceApologist has brought an AN/I which I have construed to be relevant to the debate(s) here. Pete St.John (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

I think this should have been posted here when the notice was first made: Wikipedia:RSN#Quackwatch --Ronz (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The independent reviewer there noted what many on this page have been saying - secondary sources, such as Quackwatch, would not be expected to submit to peer-review. This is a strange issue about which people are up in arms. Antelan talk 19:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Quackwatch is not only acting as a secondary source. Many of its comments are not from a primary source. Anthon01 (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Commentary in secondary sources is, of course, not from the primary sources. It is perfectly in keeping with acting as a secondary source. Antelan talk 20:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Warnings

Science Apologist, Whig, Anthon01, and Levine2112, calm down, please. I warned all of you about this before, and I frankly don't care what you decide, but you have a decent source, so it's now reasonable, if not necessary, to include the information somewhere, if phrased neutrally and given appropriate weight. And given it took you, what, three weeks to find a reliable source, I think we can say that the place is "not the lead". Of course, positive information from that article may also be included, and perhaps should be

In any case, sort it out and be civil, or I'm calling your mother an uninvolved admin in to pass out some 24 hour blocks. And then we'll use sarcasm. And irony. And the comfy chair. Adam Cuerden talk 20:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This warning is not very friendly. We are not children. —Whig (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I want to make clear my position (at least one part). Whatever previous flamewars there may have been, Levine2112 definitely was constructive, in my view, helping me (and others) seek consensus, and ScienceApologist (and others) was in my view definitely disruptive to that consensus. Bringing the ANI against Levine, at a point where some of us believed a consensus was in sight, was in my view a wiki-legalistic tactic to subvert the consensus, and I can't ignore that. I'm opposed to indiscriminate nuisance suits without accountability.
I very particularly support Levine in this, because he and I are on opposite sides. Hypothesize two abstract camps: protective of science, and protective of alternative medicine. They need not be exclusive, but I had never heard of WikiProject Alternative Medicine before this and would prefer to avoid it (because of quackery). ScienceApologist and I support science over wishful thinking, and oppose quackery. Levine2112 and I support openness to criticism. He cooperated with me towards consensus. ScienceApologist fought it tooth and nail (which I'm starting to document at this user-space page on account of the ANI). Pete St.John (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I skimmed the recent contributions, and so may have missed things. Adam Cuerden talk 22:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
To be clear, Peter St.John, while you and Levine may be on opposite sides in an abstract big picture, you are on the same side in this discussion. While you and Levine maintain that ScienceApologist tried to subvert a consensus, I believe that there was not enough time (about a day) or enough input from all involved editors (mostly just one side) to generate a true consensus. To this degree, I disagree that ScienceApologist subverted any consensus. Antelan talk 22:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I mean exactly that Levine and I are on different (not necessarily opposite) sides in terms of our goals for the article; I put protecting good science first, he may be construed to put protecting a postive view of alternative medicine first (I believe there is good in alternative medicine, but also there is quackery. There is quackery sometimes in science journals too). And yes, definitely I side with Levine on this particular point of reaching a consensus about admitting a criticism of QW regarding peer-review. But let's examine your critique about the small amount of time to reach consensus "about a day":
  • my first entry in the debate would be at the section on RFC, RFC re peer review at the QW talk, on Dec 11.
  • at my talk, discussion starts on the 12th.
  • Levine2112 posted a barnstar to that section of my talk, on the 13th. Arthur Rubin and I agreed that it was early, and I said I'd wait to move the barnstar to my user page after we see some stability. (I can cite those particulars, the main takeaway is that Levine and I thought we were achieving consensus on that day). At this point I had been involved in about two days (not one day) of trying to build consensus. By this time my sentence (mangled by ScienceApologist, but tolerable) had appeared in the article. Part of why I thought we were making progress.
  • ScienceApologist brought the ANI against Levine today, the 14th.
So one could turn this around and say that he didn't give us time to build the consensus but brought a wikilegalistic attack only three days after I had replied to the RFC and started trying to help quell the heat, and only one day after the barnstar (the time we thought we were reaching consensus). Which evidently I failed to do, so I can kiss the barnstar goodbye, huh? Pete St.John (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Whether or not SA was premature in bringing an ANI has no impact on whether consensus had formed, or whether there had even been enough time, input, and exchange of ideas to form a valid consensus. Antelan talk 23:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
My claim is that the ANI is disruptive. Today, for example, I've had to chase claims and counterclaims of edit warring, instead of working on the QW article itself. Only three days have passed since the RFC. Granting the RFC, it might have been more appropriate for an outsider responding to the request, to bring any ANI, don't you think? I had been considering it myself but holding off in hopes of building the consensus. And nobody is claiming that a consensus was formed; if I had thought that, I would have moved the barnstar to my user page. Some of us thought that we were close. We now seem further. Pete St.John (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
You say that nobody is claiming that a consensus was formed, but that isn't borne out by the talk page: Levine2112 ("SA was reverting against consensus"), DocBoat ("ScienceApologist is reverting against consensus"), MaxPont ("Yes. Consensus does exist. Time to recognize."), Anton01 ("No you've made three against consensus"). Your comment ("But please try to act with respect for consensus.") led me to believe that you, also, thought there was a consensus. Perhaps I misinterpreted that? Antelan talk 23:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
GRBerry 23:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC): "Go forth and find a position upon which consensus can form, but abandon your claim that you already have it." --Ronz (talk) 23:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Consensus is not necessarily achieved during discussion but rather in editing. A new version was posted which seemingly everyone agreed was "good enough" except for ScienceApologist. Since ScienceApologist was the only one reverting the edit, he/she was in fact breaking an otherwise consensus version. Even Ronz and ArthurRubin who were very much present at the article during that time were not discussing to remove or change the edit. I really thought we had reached an accord (if it was too early to declare consensus - which can really never be declared since and article is never "done" and WP:CCC, right?). -- Levine2112 discuss 23:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Right, and I'm saying you didn't have a true consensus. Just because an active group of people agreed with you did not mean that you had achieved consensus. Many had no chance to comment in the very brief intervening time between the beginning of the discussion and the declarations of consensus. Antelan talk 02:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
We need finer distinctions than used in any of those comments, I think. 1: editting for a minority view is against consensus, IMO, even if there is no clear majority. If one person says "X", two say "maybe", three say "NOT X", and two say "Y", then X does not reflect consensus. 2: Tending to a consensus is not the same as establishing a definite consensus. If one person proposes wording "foo" and one says "that can be improved" and two say "that is OK as it stands" and one says "no", there may be progress towards a consensus, but no definite specific consensus. I agree with DocBat that SA reverted against consensus, in the sense (1); I'm not familiar with that particular point in the debate, but in general, SA reverted improvements that had enough support he should reasonably be expected to have known that he did not represent consensus (in general, some of us discussed specific wording proposals on the talk page, while he made changes unilaterally.) When I asked him to respect consensus, I thought that he was definitely in a minority and his changes did not reflect consensus, but this is more in the sense of (2), we were gradually improving the compromise wording and his changes did not reflect any agreement I perceived in the Talk. Basically, I assert that Consensus is not Boolean (either true or false) but discernable (we hope). I had been planning a list of statements for us to vote on, towards identifying definite consensus on definite points. But editting contrary to a majority, in the context of an edit war, is contray to consensus, IMO, even if there is not yet a definite final consensus. Short version: editting against consensus does not imply existence of a final consensus. We honestly thought we were making progress. Pete St.John (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
So it appears we are agreed that there was no consensus. This is why that slew of comments about SA editing "against consensus" was inappropriate and materially incorrect. If someone had incorrectly accused me of doing the same thing, I don't think that seeking outside administrator help would be an unreasonable response. Antelan talk 02:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The current version in the article is unacceptable. . . how do we move foreword without everyone spazzing out again?TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 09:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The easiest way is to be specific about desired changes, point other editors to sources that back any controversial statements, and point out both sources and WP policy that support any particularly controversial statements. Antelan talk 09:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted the page to were it was during the lock. Let work here to gain consensus before editing. Anthon01 (talk) 15:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the original research bit about peer-review. See the resolved point above. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
The text you removed is not WP:OR. You may have a compelling reason to remove it, but WP:OR it is not. The posted review status of "Reviewed on request" tells you it is 'not peer-reviewed' and therefore not WP:OR. I would like to get other opinions on this matter. Anthon01 (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
If it is not WP:OR show me a citation that says that QW is not peer-reviewed in so many words. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
You want me to provide you with another citation when the statement by Quackwatch stands on its own. Why do I need to provide another when QW's statement says it already? The Consultant Pharmacist article says it also. Anthon01 (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I totally disagree with your contentions. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
You don't believe QW statement means no peer-review. You also think the Consultant Pharmacist doesn't say it either? Anthon01 (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Allow me to understand, you will allow no paraphrase of the verified reliable sources? —Whig (talk) 20:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
You say paraphrase, I say spin. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This debate should be moot, as the entire section has been removed per Crohniegal's rationale. Antelan talk 20:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that a consensus has been reached on the current text. Anthon01 (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Correct. Hence "should be" instead of "is". Rereading this, "could be" would have been a better choice. I'm offering this, per Crohniegal, as a way out of this as-yet fruitless debate. Antelan talk 21:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Anthon, not every change in an article needs a consensus. With Antelan deleting the disputed section it helps stop the fighting about wording and who did what. I think it's a win win situation don't you? --CrohnieGalTalk 21:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
This is a huge change and many of the editors that have been participating are not 'here' yet today. Whether it's a win-win I am not sure; I need time to think about it. Anthon01 (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think this is a 'huge' change? As for win win, I think deleting the Mission and Scope section should have helped stop all of the arguments that are on going plus that section wasn't notable in my opinion. As has been said many times, peer reviews on websites are not the norm. The Mission statement says more about this then just what is being said here. I posted it earlier [16]. I don't understand why this continues to be a problem with some. This article for some reason gets going in circles as can be seen in the archives. I guess the problem I have here is that anything an editor writes needs to be debated to death and explained. I am trying to explain my position but maybe I am not saying it clearly enough for some editors to understand, if this is the case my sincerest apologies. --CrohnieGalTalk 15:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

CrohnieGal's rationale (non-notability) isn't even accepted by CrohnieGal. —Whig (talk) 22:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean. Anthon01 (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm referring to this. [17] —Whig (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Is it win win or is it lose lose? Deleting notable, verified, reliably sourced information from this article to avoid dispute would not serve the goals of Wikipedia in my opinion. —Whig (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for repeating but I suggested the removal as a win win situation since what was being added has no notability in my opinion, of course. --CrohnieGalTalk 15:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Please let me clarify, I think that QW is notable for an article but I do not think that what was deleted was at all. --CrohnieGalTalk 12:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Crohniegal should not have been forced to clarify that, as these are obviously two different things. Can we be a tiny bit more generous in interpreting each others' statements? Antelan talk 06:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Antelan I appreciate your comment. --CrohnieGalTalk 15:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
No disrespect was intended toward CrohnieGal. —Whig (talk) 06:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Whig and Anthon01 (Anthon posted on my talk page)I appreciate your comments. I have to admit that I did think poorly of the comments being made about me. Thanks again for clarifing for me. --CrohnieGalTalk 15:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Fluoridation: Don't Let the Poisonmongers Scare You!" Article adapted from The Health Robbers: A Close Look at Quackery in America, Bob Sprague, Mary Bernhardt, Stephen Barrett, M.D.
  2. ^ Jay, Nordlinger (2003-06-30). "Water Fights: Believe It or Not, the Fluoridation War Still Rages -- with a Twist You May Like". National Review. Retrieved 2007-10-30. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
    Indeed, there are anti-anti-fluoridationist whacks at QuackWatch.org. This site contains an article -- generally informative and persuasive -- that says, "The anti-fluoridationists' basic technique is the big lie. Made infamous by Hitler, it is simple to use, yet surprisingly effective." This is perhaps not the best way to win an argument, especially with serious-minded people.
  3. ^ a b c d e f Harrison, Deed E., When You Can’t Critique CBP In The Peer-Reviewed Literature, You Can Always Send Your Article To Quack Watch: A CBP® Instructor’s, Researcher’s, & Clinician’s Rebuttal to Allen Botnick, DC
  4. ^ a b c d e Barrett SJ. "Scientific and technical advisors". Quackwatch. Retrieved 2007-02-12.
  5. ^ a b c Barrett SJ. "Quackwatch - Mission Statement". Quackwatch. Retrieved 2007-02-12.
  6. ^ Ideally a link to the source which says so.
  7. ^ a b c d "Selected Web Site Reviews". American Society of Consultant Pharmacists. Retrieved 2007-12-11. Cite error: The named reference "ascp" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  8. ^ The Man Who Loves To Bust Quacks Time magazine Sunday, Apr. 22, 2001 By LEON JAROFF
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Quackwatch/Archive_6&oldid=1057134334"