Jump to content

User:Herbxue/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Testing

For fun later: http://www.raysahelian.com/quackwatch.html


"In articles about themselves, primary sources are allowed within reason, and it is actually nearly impossible to accurately write such an article without finding documentation from the original source. Common "knowledge" is normally exempted from the requirements for sourcing. "Common sense" is something else and actually rather rare . Disruptive editors will sometimes just tag anything they question, when a casual knowledge of the subject actually suffices. The problem is with the editor, not the article." Now back to Alexbrn's question..... -- Brangifer (talk) 05:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC) diff

FYI, here is the relevant sourcing policy: Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves.
I have also provided the diff for my comment for future reference.
The Sahelian comments have been discussed and discarded long ago. You can search the QW archives if you wish. He's an enemy of QW who got upset for being outed as a developer of nutritional supplements. It's basically a revenge comment. Sahelian complains about Barrett's nutritional knowledge, but fails to recognize that Barrett is considered enough of an expert on the subject that he received an FDA Commissioner's Special Citation Award for Public Service in fighting nutrition quackery,[1] and in 1986 he was awarded honorary membership in the American Dietetic Association.[1] Sahelian reveals a severe lack of knowledge about the background of QW, Barrett, and the purpose of QW, demanding that it change its focus. His criticisms were considered too ignorant to be worthy of use in the article. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b Joel R. Cooper. "Consumer Health Fraud...don't be a victim! Interview with Stephen Barrett, M.D." The Medical Reporter.

_________________________________________________________________

Neutral Editors comments on acupuncture article:

As someone who came here to learn about acupuncture, knowing little about it, I found this article pretty unhelpful. It's poorly organized, and it feels overwrought and strained. It could be retitled "Wikipedians problems with acupuncture (and also a little about acupuncture too)." How about an article about the practice, and a separate article, or one section, about efficacy? This article really tells me more about the interests and priorities of the various authors than the topic itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:4101:9057:9545:AA4F:6B48:F034 (talk) 06:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Sharing test Link to document (audio file)