User talk:I'clast/NCAHF lg archive

Criticism Statements

Hi Fyslee. I liked your reply. You are completely free to edit anything you like. That's what a wiki is.

Your comments on Tim Bolen and his motives are not indepedently verifiable. The only factor here is notability and verifiability. Bolen is a known critic of NCAHF and his opinion is verifiable no matter what you claim his motives are. I don't consider it hate speech any more than the NCAHF attacks on chiro and other professions can be considered hate speech.

This is a mute point of course because all this talk is simply over a small section of the article that both of us feel can be bettered:

The NCAHF has been accused of attacking many professions and of using the guise of consumer advocacy to present false indictments of complementary and alternative medicines. Some critics have accused the NCAHF of being a front for pharmaceutical companies and corporate medical interests.

Although I feel it can be bettered, I think this wording is real and adequately sourced. Could you please put your suggested wording below and any references you'd like to add. How would you like it to read? Please let's just workshop this here and then we're done. Simple. If you don't want to suggest anything I'm fine with that too. I'm content with the article as is.

Peace. Metta Bubble 03:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Suggested Wording of Criticisms

Dear Metta (may I call you that? It's very similar to a common Danish girl's name - Mette - which happens to be a cute name.)

I appreciate very much your professional and cooperative spirit in this matter. I'm not used to that here at Wikipedia. This is the way I envision that the editing of controversial subjects should be done. Even though editors have different viewpoints, it should still be possible to cooperate in the production of a good article that covers the various aspects of a subject.

Here is the current wording:

   * The NCAHF has been accused of attacking many professions and of using the guise of consumer advocacy to present false indictments of complementary and alternative medicines. Some critics have accused the NCAHF of being a front for pharmaceutical companies and corporate medical interests.

There are basically four charges:

1. "attacking many professions": This should be easy to document, and I'll provide the proof myself in the revised version below.

2. "the guise of consumer advocacy": This is an ad hominem attack, without any proof, since such a charge cannot be proven. It's just a negative opinion. Interestingly I have never heard this charge before, so I would like to know the source. Since it can't be verified, it should be deleted. Otherwise it must be considred to be the contributing editor's POV, which can't allowed. If allowed to stand at all, it should at the very least have a linked source.

3. "present[ing] false indictments": This is also an ad hominem attack, without any proof or even examples. I have never heard this one either, so I would like to know the source. If it can't be verified with concrete examples, it should also be deleted.

4. "a front for......": This is an old conspiracy theory charge that has been rebutted many times, and no evidence has ever been presented for the charge. I'll accept it for now, since a good rebuttal is in place.

I guess the part I object to the most is the two words "guise" and "false." They are very POV statements, which stand there as accusations without any verification. The sources need to to be verified. All parts of a Wikipedia article are subject to the verifiability rule. If they can't be verified, they can summarily be deleted by any editor, and the deletes will be backed up by Wikipedia policies and administrators.

You write above:

   * "Although I feel it can be bettered, I think this wording is real and adequately sourced."

I haven't seen the sources you refer to. Which ones are they? Please provide the links here.

I'm not sure what you mean by "real." As the statement stands, there is really only one serious ("real"?) charge (the first one), the rest are ad hominem attacks, so they hardly deserve to be in a criticism section. They are beneath that level. I guess we need to decide just how low we will go. They are predicated on the conspiracy theory ("front for.....") being true. Since it has been rebutted, they fall to the ground like a house of cards.

If there were really "serious" charges of inaccuracy, wrongdoing, or other matters that could be verified and rebutted (even if unsuccessfully), then such charges and rebuttals would deserve to be part of the article. Ad hominem attacks are unworthy of being taken seriously, and only make critics look frivolous and unserious, since they appear to not be able to deal with the issues, and thus revert to desperate attacks on the person.

Here is a proposed revision:

   * The NCAHF has been accused of unfairly attacking some professions, among them acupuncture, chiropractic, herbal remedies, homeopathy, and naturopathy. Some critics have also accused the NCAHF of being a front for pharmaceutical companies and corporate medical interests. A natural consequence of belief in this conspiracy theory, is that some critics do not believe the NCAHF's "consumer protection" claims, and feel that it is only interested in attacking all forms of complementary and alternative medicine as a form of turf protection.

I believe the first charge is partially legitimate, and the others are worded so as to represent real charges, regardless of their legitimacy or illegitimacy. If there are any other "serious" charges, I'm sure someone will add them later......;-)

I deal with these charges and the people who make them all the time, so I have some understanding of this matter "from both sides of the fence." (I am myself a former user of alternative therapies, including having my own patients die.)

What do you think of the revision?

I also need some links to those sources you mention. -- Fyslee 22:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Suggested Wording (round 2)

Please don't make demands of users. I find it uncivil. Add more sources yourself if you want them. You mentioned you had enough materials above already to argue both sides of the article.

Also note, from the WP:V policy:

   * The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth

Nobody here is asserting the NCAHF uses a guise, we are saying the NCAHF is accused of using a guise. Which is a verifiably true as a summary of criticial opposition. The simple fact is that the criticisms verifiably exist. A link has been provided that founds the views presented.

Regarding your suggested wording: Inline external links to rebuttals are unhelpful to a criticism section of any article, as are terms like "conspiracy theory". I've re-edited below what I find more reasonable:

   * The NCAHF has been accused of using the guise of consumer advocacy to unfairly attack complementary and alternative medicine professions; among them acupuncture, chiropractic, herbal remedies, homeopathy, and naturopathy. Some critics have accused the NCAHF of being a front for pharmaceutical companies and corporate medical interests, dismissing the NCAHF's mission statement on consumer protection and claiming the NCAHF's real interest is in criticising alternative medicines as a form of turf protection.

Let's stay focused on the article and the wording. I think we're making progress. I note another editor has already added more information to the article. So you're getting your demands in a roundabout way. Metta Bubble 01:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

skepticism and pseudoskepticism

In light of the recent discussions on the all inclusiveness of categories, should we be discussing skepticism and pseudoskepticism on this page? --Dematt 18:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Funny Dematt, I was just thinking the same thing! If a notable source has raised the issue, sure. I was just reading the article that redirects from pseudoskepticism and was somewhat amazed by how well Truzzi's criteria fit some would-be skeptics. cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 07:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?

I just ran across this article and am stunned by the POV. Perhaps it should be moved to "Criticism Against The National Council Against Health Fraud"? If not, no discussion of litigiousness belongs in the introduction. Certainly, claims of the amount of litigiousness should be cited. Why is there no summary of what information the group provides, and who uses that information? Why is there no cross linking to the medical standards and consumer protection laws they claim to uphold? Why is the bulk of the article criticisms against the organization? --Ronz 01:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

   The litigation is neutral. Both sides are sueing each other. You're misinterpreting and assuming. Read the articles and you'll see it is balanced. 58.178.100.66 06:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

   Excuse me? Please assume I've directed your "argument" back at you, accusing you of each exact point you accuse me of, that you're irate for such a personal attack, and that we've worked out that each of us has different perspectives on this... Meanwhile, if no one has better arguments that don't involve personal attacks at me, I'm proposing that all discussion of litigiousness be removed from the intro, and all discussion of criticism and litigiousness be reduced (or more on the topics I mentioned be introduced) so they take no more than half the article. Alternatively, move the article to "Criticism Against The National Council Against Health Fraud" --Ronz 14:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I've read through some of the POV and NPOV articles further, and marked the article with POV. The move is out of the question. Moving the discussion of litigiousness out of the intro shouldnt be contentious I hope. The rest of the article will be more difficult to deal with... Ideas? --Ronz 21:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

       Litigation is a primary tactic of the NCAHF. Why shouldn't it be mentioned in the intro? Jim Butler(talk) 23:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

           Do we have a reliable secondary source stating as much? Still seems a POV issue. Do other organizations that use litigation as a primary tactic have similar introductions on their pages? --Ronz 00:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

               How about a primary source? "NCAHF's activities and purposes include: Encouraging and aiding legal actions against those who violate consumer protection laws." A court's finding of a SLAPP-suit is notable for any group, let alone a consumer advocacy group, isn't it? cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 00:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

               No, I specifically asked for secondary sources, sources that could help us not make POV decisions when working solely from primary sources. Do other organizations have such info in their intro? Is it really a primary tactic? --Ronz 19:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't NCAHF's own site sufficient for this, Ronz? It passes WP:RS, self-published sources in articles about themselves. That site says:

Activities and Purposes

NCAHF's activities and purposes include:

       * Investigating and evaluating claims made for health products and services.
       * Educating consumers, professionals, business people, legislators, law enforcement personnel, organizations and agencies about health fraud, misinformation, and quackery.
       * Providing a center for communication between individuals and organizations concerned about health misinformation, fraud, and quackery.
       * Supporting sound consumer health laws
       * Opposing legislation that undermines consumer rights.
       * Encouraging and aiding legal actions against those who violate consumer protection laws.

   * Sponsoring a free weekly e-mail newsletter.

That's as clear as it gets. Restoring to lead, and removing the "frequently" pending verification. Also added clarifying sentence re their mission statement. thx, Jim Butler(talk) 22:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

   The issue isn't clarity, it POV. That's why secondary sources are preferrable over primary. I guess we should add each and every activity and purpose into the intro then so as not to be biased, correct? And what does a libel suit have to do with this mission statement? Is the second SLAPP suit related to the mission statement or not? Is this a summary of each and every legal activity NCAHF has partipated in that is related to this important part of their mission statment? Why is all this information so important that it precedes the Introduction section? Are any other articles in Wikipedia similar to this? --Ronz 01:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

   Ronz, I understand your concern as a sort of POV meets WP:OR issue. OTOH, I think as editors we have some latitude in deciding whether something is notable enough to be in the lead. Answering your questions in turn:

       I guess we should add each and every activity and purpose into the intro then so as not to be biased, correct?

       Depending on notability, sure. From Stephen Barrett, did you notice this, regarding his litigiousness?
       And what does a libel suit have to do with this mission statement?

       That one has to do with Barrett.
       Is the second SLAPP suit related to the mission statement or not?

       Sure. NCAHF litigates, per their mission statement, to protect the public; they were found to have violated an anti-SLAPP statute, which is meant to protect the public. I didn't have to put my thinking cap on for too long to perceive the irony there. That logic doesn't strike me as so advanced as to be OR, and the SLAPP does cross my notability threshold for lead inclusion .... but of course, that's just me. TBD what other editors think...
       Is this a summary of each and every legal activity NCAHF has partipated in that is related to this important part of their mission statment?

       No. The SLAPP is more notable. SLAPPsuits are inherently notable, because they're something analogous to malpractice.
       Why is all this information so important that it precedes the Introduction section?

       See WP:LEAD. To a significant degree, notability remains an editorial judgement call. Obviously reasonable editors can disagree, eh? So I guess we should POV tag (oops, I see it already is) and seek input from others if we continue to disagree.
       Are any other articles in Wikipedia similar to this?

       Similar in what way? Including notable non-flattering stuff in the lead? I could name a few.  :-)
       best regards, Jim Butler(talk) 06:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

           "I could name a few." Yet you don't. These are the problems with not working from secondary sources: we have to dermine what's notable. I disagree with your perspective and logic - we're are at an impasse. I'll update as others contribute or when I find new information. --Ronz 15:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

           Ronz, I do understand your concern about having a secondary source commenting on the SLAPP issue, and I just dug one up from an earlier version of the article: the Business Law Section Newsletter of the Beverly Hills Bar Association. I'll put it back in; let me know what you think.Re "I could name a few": As I said, I was referring to articles about people or organizations with non-flattering material in the lead. Obvious enough e.g.'s include Scientology, O.J. Simpson, etc. etc. Please see WP:LIVING#Public_figures for principles that we can apply here as well, including use of primary sources. regards, Jim Butler(talk) 01:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

"judge feared that an NCAHF victory"

I can't find the source for that. "Zealot" is inaccurate as well. Am I missing a source besides #16? --Ronz 19:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

   I'm afraid it is there. (I don't know why the opinion isn't on a government web site, but only on QuackPotWatch, but that's the way it is. CA may not publish minor court rulings.) Try section IV.C., which includes:

               Both witnesses’ fees, as Dr. Barrett testified, are paid from a fund established by Plaintiff NCAHF from the proceeds of suits such as the case at bar. Based on this fact alone, the Court may infer that Dr. Barrett and Sampson are more likely to receive fees for testifying on behalf of NCAHF in future cases if the Plaintiff prevails in the instant action and thereby wins funds to enrich the litigation fund described by Dr. Barrett. It is apparent, therefore, that both men have a direct, personal financial interest in the outcome of this litigation. Based on all of these factors, Dr. Sampson and Dr. Barrett can be described as zealous advocates of the Plaintiff’s position, and therefore not neutral or dispassionate witnesses or experts. In light of these affiliations and their orientation, it can fairly be said that Drs. Barrett and Sampson are themselves the client, and therefore their testimony should be accorded little, if any, credibility on that basis as well.
   "infer" → "feared", and "zealous advocates" → "zealot" may not be quite correct, but it's understandable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)That also counters my assertion that the judge should not have said "feared"; he didn't. It doesn't support the SLAPP allegation, but that is supported by a few secondary sources, even if not by the primary source. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

       Thanks for the clarification. However, it's either correct or not. In this case it's not, nor is it understandable except in the context that there are many people attacking NCAHF and Barrett because they don't like being held to standards of medical ethics and evidence-based medicine. --Ronz 20:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

           I think I've cleaned it up. Any comments? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

           Great job! --Ronz 23:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Skepticism - See Also, Cat

See Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#See_also, Wikipedia:Categorization#When_to_use_categories. There is no need to make it explicit in the article, in fact See Also is specifically for related topics that are not already mentioned in the article. As for CSICOP, I wasn't clear: [2]. Again, the citation is not necessary. --Ronz 04:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The CSICOP lists it as a skeptical organization, but the organization does not itself claim to be one. In fact, the CSICOP lists about anything as a skeptical organization that would only remotely fit into this category: for example talk.origins (and not in the category here, either), although it is merely a usenet newsgroup. This classification is not appropriate. Let's stick to the organizations own profile. I propose different, better criteria: List in the category only those organizations listed as members of the International Network of Skeptical Organizations. This one also does not contain The National Council Against Health Fraud. What do you think? --Rtc 05:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

   Categories are used for articles that are related to the subject, not just for organizations. That's why you'll find Stephen Barrett and NCAHF also categorized under Quackery, since they deal with that subject. Categories are useful as a service to readers and the concept of "service" should be uppermost in our minds when categorizing. Just use common sense about what is actually happening, rather than some precise wording. If you want to make a category for official members of the International Network of Skeptical Organizations, be my guest. In that case, NCAHF could easily become a member organization. It would just be a formality. All the board members are active skeptics, and Barrett, the VP, has been listed by Skeptical Inquirer as one of the outstanding skeptics of the 20th century, and is a Fellow of CSICOP. The activities of NCAHF, Barrett, the other board members, and the other contributors to the website, can be fairly considered as skeptical activities. They use critical thinking when evaluating extraordinary claims, and seek to expose the claims for what they are. This is a common activity of scientific skeptics. -- Fyslee 11:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

TAG

If Barrett has edited this article in the name of the NCAHF then it should be noted.NATTO 04:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine. The tag has been moved to the talk page where it belongs. -- Fyslee 06:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticism Section & nPOV

Can we edit this to something that has at least a vaguely nPOV? Unless there's a good secondary source for the generalizations, I think they should be removed. Specific claims from primary sources can be kept, but Wikipedia is not the place to accumulate information from primary sources and synthesize statements on what those sources are saying overall. Also, I'm not able to find the actual statement used from the article cited "These critics dismiss the NCAHF's mission statement on consumer protection by claiming the NCAHF's real interest is in criticising alternative medicines as a form of turf protection." Can someone find it? --Ronz 19:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

   The citation for NHC discuss the "turf war" and cites Coulter's book as an example. Ronz, please point to specific generalizations or synthesized statements which you would like to see addressed. We'll make it through this. I promise. Levine2112 20:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

   Yes, I've read through that source and can't find anything that resembles the quote. As for the generalizations, I mean the entire section, now that the Bolen quote is gone. It's either relatively direct from a source or it's not suitable for Wikipedia. Also, I noticed ref #6, the untitled one, is a bad link now - the site is still up so it probably just was moved. --Ronz 23:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

           I don't think it is a direct quote from the article but rather an attempt to capture the gist of it with regards to NCAHF. Perhaps you would like to provide a better summary and capture the essence of what this article is saying about NCAHF specifically. I'm sure you could improve on what's there now. Levine2112 01:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

           Removed. --Ronz 15:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been searching for other controversial topics that deal with criticism in this way and can find none, but lots of discussions that this one violates WP:NOR. Again, the problem is that we're not relying on secondary sources, but instead editors are choosing primary ones without researching them well and without seeking balance for a NPOV. I suggest removing the entire Criticism section as is, as well as the Lawsuits section which now contains just one lawsuit. --Ronz 16:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I don't even understand why you removed the criticism you mentioned above. I asked if you wanted to rephrase it. Bottomline, NCAHF is a contraversial "organization" which stirs up its own trouble. The backlash is part of what makes NCAHF notable enough to warrant its own article. As for the lawsuits section, it is an example of what NCAHF has tried to do in the real world (and not just on their website's mission statement). I'd love to have some more actual examples of their work added here as well. The King Bio suit info is all cited from the presiding judge's summary judgement. Is a judge's written opinion not a reliable source? Levine2112 16:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

   As I've repeatedly brought up, I think we have WP:NOR violations here. I removed the quote after our discussion for the very reasons I mentioned: editors are synthesizing summaries from primary sources, and creating NPOV problems in doing so. There are reliable source issues that we're repeatedly having problems with as well, but just because a source is agreed reliable doesnt mean we can ignore NOR and NPOV. Find a reliable, secondary (or a tertiary source) that supports your viewpoint, and we won't have these problems. --Ronz 18:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

       Does this mean that we would have to find reliable secondary and tertiary sources to cover NCAHF's history and mission statement, or are we to rely on what they have written first-hand on their site? Levine2112 19:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

           No one has mentioned that they may violate NOR or NPOV. I can't imagine how anyone who has read WP:NOR would think so. --Ronz 20:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

               The subject of an article is allowable as a source in its own article. This even applies to self-published sources in articles about themselves. So it certainly applies to corporate websites with multiple authors and fact checking. -- Fyslee 21:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

                   Right. NCAHF is a primary source on itself. And the judge's opinion is a secondary source for describing the nature of NCAHF... just like anyone who provides a critique of NCAHF. Levine2112 04:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

                       Actually, I think court transcripts are considered primary sources, but WP:RS allows them: "Wikipedia articles may use primary sources only if they have been published by a reliable publisher e.g. trial transcripts published by a court stenographer, and may use them only to make purely descriptive claims." Also useful is WP:LIVING, which says "Where a fact has first been presented by a verifiable secondary source, it is acceptable to turn to open records as primary sources to augment the secondary source. Material that is related to their notability, such as court filings of someone notable in part for being involved in legal disputes, are allowable ... where they are publicly available and where that information has first been reported by a verifiable secondary source." Here, it appears that the court transcripts are primary sources that augment the Beverly Hills Bar Association secondary source[3]. regards, Jim Butler(talk) 06:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Lawsuit Section - NOR & nPOV

I'm trying to keep the discussions of the different sections separate when appropriate, but to summarize, I think this section also violates WP:NOR and WP:NPOV for the same reasons mentioned above: the editors are using only primary sources and are synthesizing statements from the perspectives of those primary sources. Why is there mention of SLAPP without the ruling on the issue? Why are no other lawsuits mentioned? --Ronz 00:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

   Ronz, maybe the wording is unclear: my understanding is that King Bio moved to dismiss NCAHF's suit under the anti-SLAPP statute and the courts agreed. I changed it to be clearer. Here is the secondary source I am following. If there are good V RS's for other suits, by all means let's put them in, but I urge against deletionism. thx, Jim Butler(talk) 00:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

   Thank you Jim. Levine2112 04:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Massachusetts listing

Thanks for the search link, Levine2112. Of course, this is still dubious information to present. I was researching through Massachusetts law, trying to figure out how NCAHF might be licensed, and gave up pretty quickly after finding numerous ways they may or may not have to be incorporated, certified, filed, etc. Additionally, I found that depending on what they've done to legally work from Massachussetts, they are different deadlines for doing so, some that only apply after multiple years of doing business. After all my research I think it's important to ask, how do we know that this search is relevant? --Ronz 03:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

   If no one can actually provide sources demonstrating that the search is relevant, I see no option to remove it per WP:RS. Since we have no reliable source concerning the current legal status of NCAHF as a corporation, I'm removing the "suspended in California" info too. If we could come up with the date they moved to Massachusetts, that would be something at least. --Ronz 20:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

       So let's find the date and let's find a third-party source which states their reasons for moving. Let's also find a source about their status as a non-profit in Massachusetts. Until then, why delete information that we factually know to be true and are entirely relavent to this article? Levine2112 21:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

           Great. Until we find proper, reliable sources, it's out per WP:RS. It's shoddy research, promoting a biased point of view. --Ronz 23:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

               How are the official state websites[4][5] shoddy and/or unreliable? I mean, I don't intend to have an edit war over this, but I'd like to hear your rationale for calling the official government business licencing sites unreliable? Levine2112 23:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

                   I'll try to be more to the point: Why is it notable how NCAHF exists as a business entity? It's not. The fact that NCAHF is suspended in California is not notable - it happens when a business moves. The fact that a business moved is not notable either. The fact that NCAHF is not listed with the cited Massachussetts search is not notable - as far as I can tell, there are many, many ways that NCAHF could exist as a legal nonprofit within Mass. How the company is operating is not notable. Placing the two statements together, about the CA license and the MA search, gives the impression that the company is unlicensed or otherwise operating illegally. --Ronz 00:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

                       You make a very good point and I now agree that the statements should not be in the article at this point. I think it would be relevant to know whether or not NCAHF is operating legally as a non-profit or not. Considering that they are an organization which jumps on others for fraud, it would nice to know that NCAHF isn't guilty of the same. Levine2112 01:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

                               I think that their status as a nonprofit does have a certain bearing on their notability and credibility. As Fyslee noted on another page, an entity can be notable in part by virtue of what it claims to be but isn't. Particularly given NCAHF's stated mission of exposing misrepresentation in the public interest, anyone interested in NCAHF has reason to expect a certain degree of transparency, which is no more than that expected of any nonprofit org. Jim Butler(talk) 03:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

                                   That's why any insinuation that the company is conducting business unlawfully is a blatant NPOV violation. We don't know how the company is conducting business as a nonprofit, which is a non-notable fact. --Ronz 04:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

                                   Agree with your first sentence, Ronz, but I'm not at all sure that the information in question necessarily insinuates unlawfulness. Maybe it just means the NCAHF is at the moment in a transitional or inactive phase. Or not... -Jim Butler(talk) 05:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
                       This may mean nothing, but I just used that Massachusetts business licence portal to do a search for another organization calling itself a "private nonprofit" - New England Center for Children - and it was listed. Levine2112 01:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)The same goes for "NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES". Levine2112 01:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)And "BOSTON GREENSPACE ALLIANCE, INC." Levine2112 01:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)And "ADVOGUARD, INC.".And "COLLEGES OF WORCESTER CONSORTIUM, INC."Note that I found these by doing a Google search for Massachusetts private nonprofit. It is interesting that they all show up in the state registry for registered nonprofits, while NCAHF does not. I would very much like to get to the bottom of this. Levine2112 01:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

                           No offense, but do you think NCAHF would last a minute operating illegally when so many individuals and companies want NCAHF to disappear, and when it is involved in so many legal disputes? For the record, I tracked down the introduction of the material: [6] [7] [8] --Ronz 01:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

                               Then let me ask you this: Don't you think that NCAHF would want to register with the state as a nonprofit so that the are exempt from paying state business taxes? Levine2112 02:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

                               See my comment at the start of this section - MA law is complicated. --Ronz 02:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed NATTO's slight changes to statements. The fact that it is no longer a California company is not notable. Businesses move. The information was originally added as part of a theory of certain editors that the company was avoiding paying taxes, or otherwise conducting business illegally. A NPOV statement would be that the company moved it's operations out of the state of California, which is not notable. --Ronz 14:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I have re-introduced the notable and verifiable information about the status of NCAHF in California following the KIng Bio lawsuit and the move to MA. Looking at the discussion here it is clear that most editors agree this item belongs in the article. The timing of the departure of NCAHF from California is relevant as well. The facts are as they stand. Readers should have them available so they can make up their own mind on the issue.NATTO 20:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

   The arguments above still stand. Businesses move. So what? Your attempt to connect it with the King Bio suit (which wasn't totally finished yet) is your OR, so I suggest you refrain from this line of inquiry unless you can find reliable, non partisan, sources (and conspiracy theorists are not reliable sources). Your admitted attempt to introduce negative POV is also a violation of NPOV policy. That it is also OR makes it even worse. -- Fyslee 20:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

           NATTO, why is the timing of the move relevant? If there is notable relevance then might I suggest creating a history section of this article and including it there.Ronz, no matter how complicated MA law is, in order for organization to rightly call themselves a non-profit and accept donations, their filings have to be made apparent both federally and in the state from which they do business. There is no getting around this that I know of. If there is a loophole which NCAHF is employing, I'd love to know about it. Levine2112 21:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)I just checked with the IRS and saw that NCAHF is listed federally as a non-profit. Still can't find them in the state system though. It's odd. Levine2112 22:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)Using the Mass. state system I was able to look up organizations and corporations by officer names and could still not find NCAHF using Barrett or Baratz. However, I did find Baratz's "for profit" business, hawking skin rejuvenation products... [9] (for those that are interested)... some of which use certain ingredients and promise miraculous results which are labeled "quackery" on Barrett's Quackwatch site. Very interesting.Levine2112 22:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

           From my research into MA law, NCAHF could very well have a five year period after moving to MA before they are required to formally file in the state. This is why WP:OR exists, to keep speculation and shoddy research out of the articles, not to mention NPOV violations. --Ronz 00:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

           Skin Systems also share their mailing address with the NCAHF [10]: 119 Foster Street Peabody, Massachusetts 01960 and they also share the same fax number.... NATTO 23:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

               The move from one state to another would be relevant for any organisation. The fact that they moved is a NPOV fact and is relevant in their history. THe NCAHF presently list their address in MA [11]but, for time being, the legal status in MA cannot be verified ( so I left that part out ). There are secondary source that say the NCAHF was evicted from Loma Linda and the results of the King Bio suit is known. Since the NCAHF does not explain what happened to them after 2000 [12] we do not have their version, which, if available, should be included in the article. Since their move is a known fact and their legal status in California is verifiable with a good source, why would the fact that they moved from CA to MA be excluded from the article ?? There is certainly at least one reason why they moved. I agree with Levine that the issue of why they moved requires further clarification. If it is forthcoming from the NCAHF then great. NATTO 22:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

               It's not relevant. It was introduced in blatant violation of NPOV. It's OR. This is an encyclopedia. If it's not forthcoming from NCAHF, nor available from a reliable source, then it's not appropriate for the article. --Ronz 00:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

               Blatant violation of NPOV ?? What is not NPOV in stating that the NCHAF moved from CA to MA ? That is not a POV, that is a fact. And it is not OR at all no more than quoting the NCAHF website for other purposes in this article. The NCHAF has itself stated they were in California and the CA governement website list them as " suspended " so they were clearly there ( both primary and secondary sourced ). It is also a fact that the NCAHF now list their address in MA. All factual and NPOV. Yes this is an encyclopedia that provides factual information to readers and the information above is factual and verifiable. The following is simply stating the verifiable facts from either the NCHAF website or reliable sites, as they stand:

" The NCAHF is presently located in Peabody, Massachusetts [13]. It had been previously located in California [14],but since 2003 the corporate status in California has been listed as "suspended" California Business Portal" NATTO 01:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear. It's introduction was part of a blatant NPOV violation. See the links above. The editor who introduced it did so as an attempt to show that NCAHF was not paying taxes among other things. There's nothing notable in it, unless someone wants to continue to promote that POV. --Ronz 01:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

   Fair enough. What is am suggesting is to simply state the facts as per above. As for the status of the NCAHF in MA, when it is known it can be added. NATTO 03:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

               I am trying to get more information on the current status, and when I get it, I'll place the information here. Then we can determine if it's relevant or not for inclusion. -- Fyslee 19:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

       No one is questioning that the move is factual. (As far as "eviction" from LLU, that is not factual. It's a false accusation from an unreliable and antagonistic source without foundation.) It's more a question of whether it is relevant to start including all kinds of factual information in the article. Other information is more important and we don't include it. Shall we begin to list the names and addresses of all the officers and consultants? How about all the phone numbers? All that information is on the website. People can look it up if they feel it is relevant. Let the readers do it. To illustrate, if we get around to writing an article (and well we might) about Dr. Imbeau, anti-amalgam dentist from NZ who holds several unscientific beliefs (as evidenced by your edit history here at Wikipedia), should we also list every previous mailing address, including Toronto, just because the post office lists the addresses as "mail undeliverable, person has moved"? What relevance would such information have in an article here? It's just not encyclopedic. -- Fyslee 04:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

           Fyslee, we can certainly see how objective you are in your edits by the way you deem necessary to make it personal as evidenced by your reply here to a simple suggestion that was being discussed on this talk page. Your have strong views about issues yourself. Your beliefs are known but you are not the arbitrator of what is scientific or not. We can also appreciate the tone of your reply especially for someone who constantly makes complaints about straw man attacks.... As far as adding information about the location of an organisation there is nothing unusual there and no suggestion has been made to add phone numbers and lists of members. NATTO 19:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

               Don't worry. (I wrote "to illustrate....") The fact is, neither you nor I are notable enough to qualify for articles here. My illustration was done in that way to get your attention and to drive the point home, and since you noticed it, it looks like I succeeded in getting your attention, but I fear you may not have understood the point....

               The information you are attempting to include, unless notable, is not worthy of inclusion, just as your previous Canadian addresses would be non-notable if an article was written about you, or the inclusion of telephone numbers would also be non-notable. Such types of non-notable facts just clutter up the article. They can be found on the website. -- Fyslee 20:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

                   NATTO, perhaps things would clear up if you let us know why you feel their present location and old location is relevant. You also mentioned the timing of the move having relevance. Can you elaborate? Levine2112 20:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

                       Yes, please do. -- Fyslee 20:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

                       Edit conflict - Fyslee , it is not the first time you have done this so it certainly shows how you address point of views that are not in agreement with yours.... And Levine, in answer to your question, there are other article about organisations in WP and it is not unusual for these articles to contain information about the history and location of such organisation. For example the article about the ADA [15] i.e Based in Chicago, Illinois....The Association has more than 400 employees at its headquarters in Chicago and its office in Washington, D.C. . So my suggestion is not a unique situation in WP. I must admit that the signficant reaction elicited by this suggestion is puzzling.... NATTO 20:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

                           It is likely the reasons you have previously provided (which had OR written all over them) that have caused this matter to get more attention. -- Fyslee 20:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

                       If you refer to discussion on another talk page which was not for the purpose of an edit in the article then the assumption is erroneous. I also take note of the discussion on the talk page and take the comments into account in order to arrive at an agreeable edit for the article, as per WP policy. NATTO 20:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

                           I certainly agree with you NATTO that including the base of operation and the history of the organization is relevant. I am not questioning your intention for adding this, but you mentioned above that the timing of their move was relevant. Seriously, I'm just curious. What's the deal with the timing of their move? I just want to know. But I agree that it isn't outlandish or even OR to say that NCAHF was orignially based out of Loma Linda where Baratz taught but then moved to Massachusetts. This obvious could be worded a hell of a lot better with more and better VRS details. Levine2112 21:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Baratz never taught at Loma Linda. The former president, William Jarvis, taught there and therefore it was registered in California. Around the time he retired, he also retired from the presidency of the NCAHF. Bill London also served as president somewhere around then. Baratz was later elected as president, and since he lives in Massachusetts, it is now headquartered there. This is a paper thing, not a building thing. They are a non-profit that just needs an address. We're not talking about the AMA, ADA, or GM. -- Fyslee 22:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. So far, I agree that none of this seems all that notable. Pretty mundane. Any idea when the operation moved to Massachusetts? The year? Levine2112 22:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

                       There are many things that are unclear including in what circumstances William Jarvis retired from Loma Linda University and the departure of the NCAHF from California ( various reasons have been put forward by critics ). Solely for the purpose of discussion on the talk page : Dr. Day in a letter to Dr. Ray Cress [16] suggested that he may have sent and signed a defamatory letter [17] about her that may have been written by Jarvis so that it could be sent on the letterhead of the University....[18].

                           "Then suddenly it dawned on me! You signed the letter, so therefore you are legally and morally responsible for its content, but I propose that the actual author of the letter was Dr. William Jarvis. Since he is no longer on the faculty of Loma Linda University, he cannot legally use the University's stationery to write his letters of character assassination against those who believe in natural methods of healing. Is it true that Dr. Jarvis wrote the letter and gave it to you for your signature? " ( excerpt from her letter )

                       Dr. Ray Cress is apparently a member of the NCAHF and he wrote a letter of apology to Dr. Day and retracted his false statements [19]. Again I am not suggesting putting things that are not clarified in the article. The facts are that the NCAHF moved from California to MA. It seems that 2003 is the time ( to confirm ). This is part of their history and, as mentioned above, I think it is relevant and NPOV in an article about the organisation, or any organisation for that matter. The context is not clear so it can be left out of the article until it is. NATTO 22:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

                           Sounds good to me. Any suggested wording? Levine2112 23:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

                               Suggested wording for what? There is no reliable source. Lorraine Day's word isn't worth much, and what does this have to do with the NCAHF? BTW, NATTO has used one link twice. The first link is wrong, and we need it for context. The Day matter is described other places as well. It's quite complicated. Check Quackwatch. -- Fyslee 05:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

                                   NATTO, thanks for providing the correct URL. I'm not sure, but I think the two URLs need to be traded. Take a look and correct them, or correct me....;-) Quackwatch has coverage of the Day situation. She is pretty slippery and takes quotes out of context when it suits her purpose. This link [20] provides one example, where she takes a quote and implies that the writer actually believed it, when in fact he was just stating what she believed, and in the next breath he questioned it. For more coverage: [21] [22][23][24]

                                   On April 22, 2005, Barrett published this:

                                           * "The Bottom Line: I do not know Day personally, and I have made no formal evaluation of her mental state. But based on what she has published and her refusal to make crucial medical records public, I do not believe she cured her cancer with diet and I strongly advise against following her advice." [25]

                                   It's an interesting case, but not really relevant here.

                                   The speculations regarding Jarvis' retirement are just that, as well as Day's gross speculation that he authored the letter, for which she offers no proof. As for Julian Whitaker, he is not a respected MD in the medical community, but is known as a rogue alternative medicine doctor. His behavior at the meeting she mentions was against an agreement he had made with Jarvis, and his behavior was such that the physical intervention of the campus police was required. The meeting was held on April 7, 1997, Whitaker wrote a letter to the university president on July 1997, and Jarvis retired (as one does when one reaches that age) in the end of Sept. 2000, more than three years after the incident. I simply don't trust her, and neither do the authorities. -- Fyslee 16:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

As suggested previously: " The NCAHF is presently located in Peabody, Massachusetts [26]. It had been previously located in California [27],but since 2003 the corporate status in California has been listed as "suspended" California Business Portal" - The date 0f 2003 is taken from the CA website so it is verifiable. NATTO 23:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

That their status is "suspended" in CA is interesting. (Notable? I don't know.) By definition, having a status of "suspened" means: The California corporation has lost all rights and powers for failure to meet statutory filing requirements of either the Secretary of State's office or the Franchise Tax Board. This is very much different from being "dissolved": The California corporation has voluntarily elected to wind up its operations, has completely dissolved its business as a corporation, and has received a tax clearance from the Franchise Tax Board. Suspended suggest some negligence or wrong-doing in terms of statutory filings.[28] Levine2112 23:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

   I do not know for sure why it is "suspended" but it is factual and verifiable as per WP policy. It seems relevant in the context of the move because it gives us a verifiable date as to when the NCAHF legally stopped doing business in CA. Maybe the people at NCAHF can explain why the legal status of the CA corporation is "suspended" instead of dissolved ?NATTO 23:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

       The reason for the suspension is clearly stated there: The "Agent for Service of Process," (probably the president or secretary of the NCAHF), "** RESIGNED ON 03/22/2003." -- Fyslee 05:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

           That is not a reason to explain NCAHF suspension. Also, [Fyslee] works directly with Stephen Barrett on the Healthfraud list and the quackery webring. Both are members of the "rag-tag posse of snake-oil vigilantes." Why is Lee able to moderate others postings when he is a teammate of Barrett's and far from unbiased. Why this operation was suspended and no paperwork can be found in Massachusetts after 3 years is entirely relevant for this operation soliciting public funds.

           Several of Barrett's other Rag-Tag Posse members have spent years attempting to destroy our small non profit foundation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ilena (talk • contribs).

Today is 12/6/2006

Today is 12/6/2006. Barrett's teammates have invaded every aspect of my life and people close to Barrett have attempted to shut down my non profit corporation since SLAPP suing me in 2001. Since Polevoy lost to me November 20, 2006, Barrett's publicist Willa Nidiffer has been advertising a website that I was arrested in San Diego and that I had filed for bankruptcy. These are false statements. Nidiffer uses the name "Nanaweedkiller" and proudly calls herself "Barrett's Parrot." After Barrett lost the Appeals to me, Nidiffer widely circulated a piece claiming I was arrested for selling crack cocaine to children in San Jose, Costa Rica. A review of her postings will show she is definitely a publicist for Barrett and his various campaign. A previous pseudoname of Nanaweedkiller was "The Reverend Cathy Credulous" and the accurate, "Disinfoagent@disinfo. I tell you this here to put into perspective what has happened in the years of Barrett suing and losing to me.

He is "credential watch" but refuses to answer basic questions about the operations of NCAHF. HE challenges and attacks the licenses of others, but refuses to respond to questions about his own operation.

This is the link to the Massachusetts Corporate Search Webpage ...[29]

With Barrett putting himself as THE AUTHORITY on "CredentialWatch" and all of his other WATCHes ... it is entirely relevant WHO is behind his campaigns and how squeeky clean are his own credentials.

He has publicists such as "Nanaweedkiller" and a disbarred attorney, joined with him to attack those he is suing. If you doubt this one moment, please read: [30]

and see Barrett, Grell and Polevoy and team mates proudly calling themselves "The Rag-tag Posse of Snake Oil Vigilantes" (their name for themselves, not mine.)

Where is and when was NCAHF incorporated as they claim on the websites is a more than relevant question? Please unbiased moderators, help find out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ilena (talk • contribs). 12/6/2006.

Ilena, if you read the section just above entitled "Massachusetts lising" you will see our attempts to find out the non-profit status of NCAHF. We really didn't come to an agreement or answer. It has been suggested that they are not listed in Massachusetts because they are entitled wait up to 5 years without filing there. I don't know if this is true. If you have comments to add to the above investigation of their corporate status please do so! Much appreciated and congratulations on your victory. If it is true, I am sorry that Barrett is resorting to such base and unfair "sore loser" tactics. Some people just have to be right no matter what the cost. Levine2112 00:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

   "Where is and when was NCAHF incorporated as they claim on the websites is a more than relevant question? Please unbiased moderators, help find out." Until we find a particular source, then prehaps it should just be reported as such. It should be noted that other non-profit (or even profit) organisations haven't had such detailed examination as this one :-) Shot info 01:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

       Certainly not. But if an organization is acting unlawfully (and that can be confirmed by a reliable source) then that information should be brought to light on that organization's Wiki article. No? Levine2112 01:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

           Remember, people, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NOT. --Ronz 01:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

From the NCAHF website: "NCAHF is a private nonprofit, voluntary health agency that focuses upon health misinformation, fraud, and quackery as public health problems."

If this is factual, it should be provable in 5 minutes. It's been over 3 years and still no evidence that they are incorporated or nonprofit. Why can this not be proven if true?

I do not believe that a non profit corporation can solicit funds for over 3 years with no corporate standing. If this is true, the person should be able to document it.

Further, I would like to reiterate that [Fyslee] works directly with Barrett and is a member of the Rag-tag Posse of Snake-oil Vigilantes with Barrett. How can this be considered "neutral" to have him as any kind of moderator with censoring privileges? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ilena (talk • contribs).

You do realize that "Rag-tag Posse of Snake-oil Vigilantes" is part of a satire site, dont you? --Ronz 03:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

   Some people obviously think Little Britain is a documentary on the UK :-) Shot info 03:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

       Are we going to allow Ilena to turn Wikipedia into Usenet? This is a nightmare scenario. She is possibly the most prolific writer of hate mail on Usenet, and can keep us endlessly occupied with a combination of attacks, libels, conspiracy theories, etc.. If she can't learn to keep her personal hate campaign out of Wikipedia, then she may be up for another (much longer) block. We're trying to produce an encyclopedia here, not engage in a war. -- Fyslee 05:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

           "If this is factual, it should be provable in 5 minutes" and largely irrelevant to wikipedia. "Factual" (for a given level of factual) is not really the aim WP:V. If an organisations makes a claim of "non-profit" status and they are still up and running (particularly a vocal consumer group like NCAHF) one can expect that they are a non-profit group, or the litigious nature of the US probably will have seen them forced to remove the title. I strongly suspect there is a nature of a conspiracy theory in pointing out the status/non-status of this organisation. And one largely irrelevant to wikipedia.

           And to answer Fyslees comment, I would assume that the normal wiki due process would be followed. I note that Ilena has yet to open a user account. Shot info 07:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

               I would like to correct one comment from Shot info, which also may be a valid account. User:Ilena is a valid account. She just hasn't created a user page. If she had, I would expect it to be speedily deleted under CSD G10, if it's anything like her Usenet posts. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Barrett's publicst has had since October to find out the legal status of NCAHF in Massachusetts. To date, no evidence of a legal corporation has been found. The FACT that Barrett harasses other entities with vigor makes this an extremely relevant issue. It is not rocket science to prove the existence of a corporation in Massachusetts. I have searched several times and NOTHING has come up, although they continue soliciting funds from the public. Ilena 23:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Find some verifiable information to back your claims. We've had a detailed discussion this already. Your personal disagreements with Barrett are irrelevant. --Ronz 02:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

None so blind as he who refuses to see. I posted inrefutable evidence of the suspension in 2003 by the State of California ... you censor it.

I posted that even though [Fyslee] several months ago was going to provide evidence of the NCAHF's legal status in Massachusetts, he has not done so. Further no listings are available in the State records as are every other corporation legal to solicit funds in that state. You censor it.

Who is biased with presenting evidence??? 22:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ilena (talk • contribs).

I dont appreciate the insults, Ilena. I suggest reviewing WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. --Ronz 00:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This now seems to be a notable criticism from a notable source. If someone has evidence to refute it, please present it. Levine2112 00:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

   Ilena is not a notable source in the Wikipedia sense. This idea is her invention (the edit history shows she introduced it originally), so it's blatant OR, and no source has ever been produced to slant it this way by placing it in the criticisms section. It's just a fact of no significance, much less an OR POV one. Jarvis retired. The presidency went to London, then to Baratz. Baratz lives in Massachusetts, so registration in California is pointless. Period. -- Fyslee 00:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

       NCAHF states that they are a registered nonprofit in Mass. but are not listed in the state's corporate database. Seems notable and not trivial. Levine2112 00:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

           Obviously you regard "notable" in a non-wikipedian sense. A person's stated opinion is "notable"??? All the more reason to declare it POV and strike it from the article. Ilena has been on the receiving end of SLAPP happy Americans yet doesn't find it odd that other litigious Americans (ie/ Hulda Clark et.al) don't jump all over NCAHF's "notable" lack of inclusion in a publicly accessible database. One would think that government incompetence is responsible, but hey, when does that ever stop a conspiracy theory??????? Shot info 00:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

               We have a criticism section so that notable critics can provide their opinion of the subject. Levine2112 00:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

                   Methinks somebody needs to have a re-read (or perhaps a read) of WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR. Shot info 01:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

                       And whom might that be praytell? Levine2112 02:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

           The most one could state from that is an unencyclopedic comment (not a criticism) that "the editors of Wikipedia could not find any registration in Massachusetts." They could not state that "it is not registered," just that they "could not find the registration." Such a statement is not allowed, since editors are "invisible" in articles. So far this is a matter of OR designed by Ilena as a criticism. I have asked her on her talk page just what she means by it. -- Fyslee 00:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

               Is not Ilena a notable critic of NCAHF? So as long as her statements are presented in the form of a POV criticism, what's the problem? Levine2112 00:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

                   Notability is not the only requirement for inclusion here. That opinion needs to be published in WP:V and WP:RS, and for it to be notable, preferably several, although that's not always necessary. She is the first to question it, which she did when she introduced it as an edit right here at Wikipedia. That's blatant POV WP:OR. That section should be removed entirely, and if it is replaced (but not in the criticisms section), some neutral form of wording used which doesn't mention the fact that this is just because some editors here can't find the registration. -- Fyslee 00:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

                       Sure. Suggestions? Levine2112 02:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The lack of evidence against something is not evidence for it. --Ronz 01:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me. If there is a legal entity in Massachusetts under the name of NCAHF it can be easily proven. [Fyslee] has had months to provide the evidence, if any, of their legal status and has failed to provide any. Ilena 03:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyone here can write an email to Barrett and to Baratz to clarify the situation. I have done so several times but haven't gotten any response. So for those who claim I have some kind of close relationship, well, it's not very close at all. I'm not even a member of the NCAHF! -- Fyslee 09:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Ilena 16:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC) Can someone from Wikipedia be so kind as to explain how posting a link to show the suspension of a supposive non profit "watch dog" corporate listing is considered a POV?

This article is about the NCAHF ... if they are fraudulently advertising and have no corporate status, that does not appear to me to be 'attacking' ... only 'revealing.' Ilena 16:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

A corporation which winds up business in California, but fails to file dissolution papers, is listed as "suspended". (Source, Spidell's California Taxletter, October 2006 and December 2006, among others; the context is that the suspended corporation still owns the annual $800 franchise fee.) Recent changes in California law may allow a suspended corporation to retroactively dissolve. That, together with User:Ronz's assertion that corporations may have 5 years to register as a non-profit in Massachusetts suggest the only relevant information is that NCAHF moved from California to Massachusetts. That doesn't strike me as notable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that Massachusetts allows a non profit to operate for 5 years without a corporate listing?

Where is the evidence for the reasons that NCAHF was suspended in California?

Why are these considered POV? Ilena 16:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The reason given on the California Secretary of State's web site for the suspension is that the California process agent resigned. Given that the group has moved to MA, it's plausible that the agent in question also moved to MA, making him ineligible to continue as agent. As for 5 years, you'd have to ask User:Ronz. All I can find is that registration as a nonprofit is not required unless the corporation takes in more than $5,000 in contributions, or solicits contributions from 10 or more people in MA. Why it is notable that an organization that moves from CA to MA fails to maintain its CA corporate registration? It's not exactly a POV violation; more of "undue weight" for non-notable information which would tend to indicate that the organization is not operating properly. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

There is not one shred of evidence of anything Arthur Rubin and the anonymous "ronz" has written. The note about the secretary resigning is NOT the "reason" given for the suspension of this license.

This is pure and utter censorhship. NCAHF calls itself a "watchdog" solitics non profit donations and has no corporate entity in evidence and you continue to censor these facts. "Plausible" is not a fact. "Suspended" is. Ilena 19:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

   Ilena, please stop with the personal attacks. --Ronz 19:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

       Ronz, please note that Ilena did not make a personal attack. She is commenting on the edits and not the editors. Levine2112 19:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

           Obviously, I disagree. --Ronz 20:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

           Actually, I concur that Ilena did not make a personal attack this time. However, the reason given for suspension is exactly that the agent of service of process resigned, which would automatically cause a (temporary) suspension. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This is what is written regarding the suspension from the State of California in 2003.

Corporation THE NATIONAL COUNCIL AGAINST HEALTH FRAUD, INC. Number: C0834009 Date Filed: 12/8/1977 Status: suspended Jurisdiction: California Address POST B 1276 LOMA LINDA, CA 92354 Agent for Service of Process

   *
         o RESIGNED ON 03/22/2003

It is not, as alluded here, the "reason" for the suspension, but the "reason" there is no "agent for service of process" should anyone want to sue them. Further, discussions with the Secretary of State in Massachusetts reveals that NCAHF is NOT a legal entity and has no corporate status there. Further, the anonymous Ronz suggestion that they may operate for 5 years or 5 months with no legal status is totally false.

There are facts, not my point of view. Ilena 20:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

(Would you please use standard Wikipedia conventions on indents, and note WP:SPAM on adding links to your web site whenever you talk....)The reason for suspension should be available if someone is willing to pay the corporate records fee. I don't know the exact amount, but it should be under $45. If you insist that the reason the corporation was suspended is not that everyone moved out of the state, which would cause a suspension if they failed to formally disolve the corporation, the burden of proof is on you. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You will be reported for the 3 reversion rule. You are attempting to censor FACTS regarding this very possible illegal operation who calls itself a "watchdog" and has been accepting donations with no apparent legal status for 3.5 years. Ilena 23:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Ilena

   I don't see a statement that they moved from CA to MA as notable, and the corporate status adds little to that. And you've already violated 3RR, if I counted correctly, while I only have 2 reverts in the last 24 hours. I'm not going to report you at WP:3RR, but I might endorse the statement if someone else does. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

   NCAHF was SUSPENDED ... not dissolved. Their attorney for the disaster lawsuit failure against King Bio was the 'secretary' and he resigned (Morse Mehrban)... one way to stop from being sued. This was shortly after NCAHF lost all appeals to King Bio. All the denials and smokescreens around their questionable legal status are not facts, but playing Johnnie Cochrane. Because of [Fyslee] and you attempting to censor my valid criticism, I contacted the Secretary of State and Attorney General of Massachusetts. They have assured me there is no legal status for NCAHF to be collecting donations ... despite their research showing MANY websites and blogs pointing to and advertising that they are "a private nonprofit" in the State of Massachusetts and NCAHF being a part of a large webring. I do not appreciate your blatant attempts of censorship. Ilena 00:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Ilena

   Thanks Ilena, for contacting the Secretary of State and Attorney General of Massachusetts and getting them to confirm your concerns. Now you only have to share the actual communications from them with us and we can continue. --Ronz 00:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

       (reported from User talk:Ilena) sa [31][32]I apologize for not explaining myself better. I would like to add that truth is irrelevant to Wikipedia; verifiability is the primary requirement. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that NCAHF not being registered in MA is verifiable; all we can be sure is that they're not registered as a MA corporation; that database doesn't seem to have foreign corporations registered to do business in MA. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

           Thank you I'clast. It is definitely verifiable that NCAHF is NOT registered in Massachusetts. The Secretary of State's office has reiterated that all legal corporate entities are listed in their database. Any legal corporation in any state can prove their legality in a heartbeat. Ilena 15:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Notability

Can someone explain to me why this organization is notable? Is there any coverage of it other than by itself or its direct opponents? JoshuaZ 02:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Because of it's association with Quackwatch and Stephen Barrett. --Ronz 02:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Massachusetts listing again

We came to a consensus on this issue back in October. No one has found any new verifiable, reliable information since. Summarizing what I think we agreed upon: The fact that NCAHF's business license is suspended in California is not notable. The fact that we do not know how NCAHF is currently operating as a corportation is not notable. Any statements assuming the contrary added to the article not only go against our concensus, but most likely violate WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOT, and possibly WP:NPOV as well. --Ronz 00:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed notable if NCAHF is operating and collecting donation and advertising with no legal corporate status. This is a mockery of an "encyclopedia."

Consensus??? The Attorney General and Secretary of State of Massachusetts were not in agreement with your "consensus." They reiterated that no corporate status was awarded NCAHF and had it been, it would have been on their website. You fool only the other fools.Ilena 01:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Ilena[reply]

Please stop with the personal attacks. --Ronz 01:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning your confirmation with the Attorney General and Secretary of State of Massachusetts: Please provide us with copies of the communications from them and we can move on. --Ronz 01:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, post your home address "ronz" and I'll send you the recording of the telephone conversations. You are attacking facts. Fact is that NCAHF was suspended, not dissolved. Fact is, they are not a legal entity in Massachusetts. Ilena 02:04, 13 IlenaDecember 2006 (UTC)Ilena

Phone recordings will not suffice as evidence. Can you get something written? That's quite a feat though, getting them both on the phone personally. --Ronz 02:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please post the transcript and recording on your web site, and we'll consider it. (I don't always agree with Ronz.) I believe that for a cost of less than $100, one can obtain an official transcript of the suspension notice from California. I'll cover the cost (send an E-mail) if it shows the reason for suspension as other than corporate officers (including the agent of process) resigned or left the state. I think I'm safe, but I'm willing to place a small side-bet on the issue. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(reposted from User talk:Ilena) [1] There are a number of large corporations doing business in Massachusetts which I cannot find in the directory. This may be a defect in my search proceedures, but it does indicate the possiblility that NCAHF may be registered in another state. Also, non-profits do not necessarily have to register as a foreign corporation in all states in which they solicit donations, even states they are physically located in, but only in those states to which they direct donation requests. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the 990 form filed by NCAHF with the IRS for 2005. It specifies that they have also filed in California ... where their corporation was suspended in 2003. [2]

Ilena 17:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Ilena[reply]

So, when Arthur says "foreign corporation", you mean "not incorporated in Massachuesetts", not a corporation outside the US. I think many states give some kind of (semi) offcial status to their websites. So NCAHF's "true status" might be "originally CA incorporated, CA suspended (post BioKing legal meltdown), and *thinking* about being registered in MA to do business as a 'foreign corporation', operating out of MA[3]"??? Sounds like a complex tax exempt & registration status claim/situation to me. The current NCAHF article has it written as the observable states' registration information allows, improvements are welcome.--I'clast 18:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope we can all now see why Wikipedia wisely forbids original research. All this speculation based on ill-will and conspiracy theories turns out to be just that. The NCAHF is still registered in California. Can we get back to serious editing, instead of chasing OR theories? -- Fyslee 18:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fyslee: NCAHF's corporate registration is suspended in California. If it's not a valid corporation anywhere, that would be relevant

I'clast is correct as to what I mean by "foreign corporation".

Ilena: It should also be pointed out that the guidestar.org link above may be provided in violation of their terms of service, and appears to be a 990-EZ extension request for tax year 2004. One wonders where the actual return might be. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[Fyslee's] claim: "The NCAHF is still registered in California" is based on what? Please provide link. Although suspended in 2003 in California, they are still claiming on their 990 form that they are filing in California where they have no legal status. Ilena 19:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Ilena[reply]

How are those recordings of your conversations with Attorney General and Secretary of State of Massachusetts coming along? --Ronz 19:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz, your antagonizing isn't helping here. Ilena is doing a good job providing new information to shed some light on this issue. Your reversion of this last edit is unwarranted at this point as it was carefully worded to be a statement of fact without any POV. I don't want to start another edit war over it. Levine2112 20:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But we already agreed it was not notable. WP:AGF --Ronz 20:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I may be changing my mind about that given the new information Ilena is presenting here. Give her time. Levine2112 20:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating:

I reviewed the 990 form filed by NCAHF with the IRS for 2005. It specifies that they have also filed in California ... where their corporation was suspended in 2003 (990 form, not just the extension at this site) [4]

Also waiting on Mr. Lee's proof evidence that: "The NCAHF is still registered in California" Ilena 23:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC) Ilena[reply]

No Ronz, I don't see previous consenus on notability per se, rather perhaps notability in certain suggested hypothetical instances, not even OR. The awareness of facts has changed slightly, and clearly there isn't your consensus. What I see is that you and Fys took advantage of the confusion about the most current status of NCAHF to argue and to lead NATTO & Levine away from concluding anything substantial about the status of NCAHF. This included a simulated threat or feint at NATTO's privacy (Fys' feint,Natto's reply) and...

"Placing the two statements together, about the CA license and the MA search, gives the impression that the company is unlicensed or otherwise operating illegally. --Ronz 00:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC) "

Yes, the facts, as far as known, do raise that possibility, and such a possibility is notable in & of itself to present the bare facts, especially since NCAHF and its interlocking directorate QW, seem to have been posted on Wikipedia for not-so-subtle "examples" of solicitations, some less indirectly than others1st addition of page linked with NCAHF membership & donations form my previous criticism.As so frequent with the QW orgs' related assertions, after all the sound and fury, the actual facts can be quite different than the superficial presentations or appearance. Encyclopedic data on even "the dot"s becomes significant - what are these organizations is very encyclopedic even if not *all* facts about a mystery cult or questioned organization are known.

Before you even start on me, I'll say an org that claims that it is an MA org, wait it's a CA org, no it *was* a CA org, has no publicly verifiable registered/active status, call me in PA, sent your checks to MA, apparently ignores requests from even its ardent supporters, legitmately seems to me notable as the appearance of the movement of the pea in a (possible) shell game (it's here, it there...). The OR & POV is from the folks that reject the latest data from the state registeries.

Besides, in these situations, there's nothing like partial information to attract more complete information. The facts are stated w/o embellishment, let those who know more, Improve the text.

As for WP:OR, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, read 'em yourself Ronz. WP:NOT? Wikipedia is NOT a shill.--I'clast 00:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No new evidence exists. So we're back to arguing everything over again? Why's it notable that we don't know the current legal status of the corporation? --Ronz 01:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Methinks it is just possible that the NCAHF is registered outside of MA. Regardless, it is not notable, other organisations are not picked to pieces over whether or not they are (or aren't) registered. Pushing it is pushing POV and wiki isn't the place for that. I am removing and will continue to remove all references to "registration" for NCAHF until WP:V and WP:N are met. Shot info 02:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Idle speculation used to justify ignoring current, verifiable information in concordance with the published, public registration claims & tax filings of the article's entity, so Shot_info flunks WP:V. Substantial inconsistencies between such published statements that are WP:RS, WP:V such as for public fund raising, tax exempt orgs are intrinsically WP:N, we simply are limited on commentary as far as publishing a conclusion, we only publish the verifiable facts.

Actually Ilena offers new information, the tax forms if nothing else (I am not sure of all the previous registeries and corp status discussions) as well as months of time for any other speculated exceptional possiblities to float to surface. Prior discussions simply did not press the verified information home because of the distracting smoke.--I'clast 11:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have no new notable evidence. Ignorance of why NCAHF has filed tax forms as they have is not notable. --Ronz 16:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Methinks" is evidence of what?Ilena 02:51, 14 Dec 2006 (UTC)

Methinks you have no info per WP:V and that makes it not notable per WP:N regardless of your POV on wiki, wiki is what wiki is. Shot info 02:55, 14 Dec 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, see above. Wiki is not your personal forum, deleting verifiable content AND a whole section especially when specifically requested to improve it *after* adopting previously used formats for the same material, such as at QW:About_the_site , is frowned upon as provocative and uncooperative.--I'clast 11:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki is not anyone's personal forum. I suggest all editors read WP:NOT#SOAP. I find this edit war and much of the discussion surrounding it in blatant violation of this. --Ronz 16:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fact is Barrett and NCAHF pick apart other organizations they attempt to destroy.Ilena 02:51, 14 Dec 2006 (UTC)

This is not a fact. I feel that it is the root of the WP:NPOV and WP:NOT problems though. --Ronz 16:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what, we are talking about wiki here, not your POV. Shot info 02:55, 14 Dec 2006 (UTC)

More like other editors' intransigient POV over a blown smoke cover of idle speculation (i.e. speculated unaforementioned registrations in other states and grace periods but would still seriously conflict internally with now multiple sworn, public documents).--I'clast 11:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, just POV. Our ignorance of what these documents mean is not notable. Speculation on what they might mean is not notable either. --Ronz 16:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fact: On 2004 and 2005 tax return, they said they were filing in California.Ilena 02:51, 14 Dec 2006 (UTC)

So what. Shot info 02:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notable inconsistency previously noted.--I'clast 11:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, our ignorance and speculation are not notable. --Ronz 16:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fact is any legal corporation can prove it in a nanosecond.Ilena 02:51, 14 Dec 2006 (UTC)

This is not a fact. Again, this is the root of NPOV and NOT problems. A non-profit corp with extremely low income has many ways to exist as a legal business entity. Just because we do not know how NCAHF exists as a business entity does not mean it exists illegally. --Ronz 16:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, not notable. You seem to having problems with wikipedia here. Shot info 02:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is notable here is the continuing resistance to a clue stick. She definitely is having problems with some editors that have shown little or no sign of cooperation, fairness or inclination to stop heckling in their edits in order to frustrate her contributions. What I see is self congratulatory wikilawyering and shoving it in our faces rather than a serious atttempt to address issues.--I'clast 11:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have a problem here. As Ilena is clearly an interested party, her statements that the actual 2004 and 2005 Federal tax returns stated they were filed with California. is not "admissible", unless she can legally scan and upload them. But even the 2004 extension, clearly filed after their California charter was suspended, shows an anomaly — that they planned to file in California after their corporate suspension. If someone from the organization could come here and tell us where the organization is now chartered, we could verify that fact. (The information doesn't appear on their web site.) No, I'm afraid there's enough verifiable information to be of interest. The question still remains whether it violates some other Wikipedia guideline, such as WP:BLP#Public Figures

Material from primary sources should be used with care. For example, public records that include personal details such as home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations and home or business addresses should not generally be used. Where a fact has first been presented by a verifiable secondary source, it is acceptable to turn to open records as primary sources to augment the secondary source. Material that is related to their notability, such as court filings of someone notable in part for being involved in legal disputes, are allowable, as are public records such as graduation dates, dates of marriage licenses and the like, where they are publicly available and where that information has first been reported by a verifiable secondary source. See also WP:V.

Corporate registration information and tax returns are certaintly "public records", and Ilena is not a "verifiable secondary source". But, as an anti-fraud web site, inconsistent tax filing goes to their credibility. It's a close question. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing close about it. Our ignorance of how NCAHF exists as a business entity is not notable. Much of the discussion around this issue demonstrates what I think is blatant disregard for NPOV, NOT, OR, V, and N. --Ronz 16:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What Mr Rubin is calling 'ignorance' is blindness. The State of California's suspension notice is public and the link has been provided several times. This is a clear and obvious attempt to censor appropriate and factual criticism of NCAHF, including by those with ties to this operation.

This is not POV ... this is clear and utter censorship and attempts to conceal evidence by Ronz (who could be Stephen Barrett himself).

What is being ignored here is any legal entity can prove it's legality in a heartbeat. The rest is pure and utter censorship.

Ilena 17:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was Ronz who called it ignorance, not me. If it were established that their 2004 tax returns were to be filed with California, then the only question would be "can a suspended California non-profit corporation still legally operate as a California entity?" (Whether it can legally operate as a Massachusetts entity is irrelevant, because their tax filings would state that they are operating as a California entity.) I think what Ilena has uncovered from public records can be stated in the article without comment, if it meets WP:BLP. The close question is whether it does meet WP:BLP. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"then the only question would be "can a suspended California non-profit corporation still legally operate as a California entity?"" which is a largely irrelevant question if the corporation does not need to operate as a Californai corporation (or any corporation registered in any state or territory of the United States) in order to qualify under the US IRS 501(c)(3) regulations. Shot info 06:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies Mr. Rubin. Indeed, it is "Ronz" who is hiding behind anonymity and claiming "ignorance" for facts in evidence that he chooses to ignore. Thank you for your support of providing this information to the public. Barrett has a history of using what he called "guerrillas" and anonymity for his campaigns. See quote from an article he wrote in AMA Journal here.[5] Ilena 17:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neither hiding nor ignoring anything. I'm certainly no "guerrilla" and I don't appreciate any of your accusations and insuations. Please stop it with the personal attacks. --Ronz 18:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz is hiding his identity. If he believes that quoting Stephen Barrett's published article in the AMA news is an attack, that is his opinion. Quoth Stephen J. Barrett, writing in AMA News on August 25, 1975, describing the Lehigh Valley Committee Against Health Fraud:

"By working "undercover" using assumed names and box numbers, we've gotten all sorts of information and publications other groups, like the medical societies, haven't been able to lay their hands on.

...Really, we're a bunch of guerrillas - we're not a large group, there are about 40 members, but we're the only such group in the country."

Stop removing the evidence about NCAHF. This is not POV, this is facts and you are censoring the truth. For someone who screams that you are being "attacked" so often, perhaps you should come out of your anonymity and admit who you are. You are now complaining that the facts on NCAHF's suspension shouldn't be under criticism. You are attempting to censor facts. Ilena 18:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop with the personal attacks. --Ronz 22:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict]Ronz, as I first asked, please try to improve the article, there are number of positive possibilities. If we have tenatively agreed that the bare CA suspension, MA absent status statement stays, I think we can defuse some tension. Ilena, I agree with Ronz' deletion of the telephone segment as basic WP:RS until more documentation is available. Also, although several editors here operate in their true name or are known, we don't insist on true names from other editors as a matter of privacy and etiquette although sometimes it might be helpful. And Arthur, thanks for some patient analysis.--I'clast 22:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stays? I strongly disagree. It appears others do as well. Where is that discussion so we can all weigh in further? I think it's POV and not notable. If it's not notable, there's no reason to keep it in. If it's POV, it should be removed. I'm trying to improve the article by preventing information from being added to the article that is in violation of multiple wiki guidelines and policies. I don't appreciate your suggesting I'm doing otherwise. --Ronz 22:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking for your positive, additive contribution. I think if you discussed other things about NCAHF's history or such, it wouldn't feel like such a stick in the eye to mention something that isn't so positive. A lot of editors have felt the status anomaly was notable, you have pushed your point of view very hard here, let it go.--I'clast 22:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Along with your accusations of POV, I don't appreciate your demands either. --Ronz 22:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz, perhaps you are being a tad over-sensitive. I'clast is not demanding... I'clast is asking. Specifically, asking for coorperation. Levine2112 22:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I disagree. I feel I'm cooperating without compromising wiki guidelines and policy. --Ronz 23:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits Wars are against Wiki guidelines and policy and yet the recent history of this article is riddle with your reverts. I'clast and Ilena have both presented verifiable facts and have shown great care in wording without POV. I am just asking (not demanding) that instead of accusing people of this-and-that, why not edit more cooperatively and be more civil with each other? If someone is being uncivil, don't call them out on it here. Instead, write them a nice message on their talk page explaining why you feel they are being uncivil and suggest ways they can improve. Sound good? Levine2112 23:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I disagree. Most of the "facts" aren't, and none are notable. As for the rest, I already have. Buy why is it that you didn't you follow your own advise and post on my Talk page? --Ronz 00:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking to you now. Levine2112 00:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Massachusetts notable? That's where they collect their donations and that is the address they list on their homepage. Ilena 22:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now we are getting somewhere. Fact is, we don't know what state they are registered in or even if they are registered in the US. The address on their website is just that....an address, probably just their postal address. Not to dissimilar to the approach that businesses around the world use, I might note. Hence, since we don't know, we don't know and wiki is not the place to put allegations. I fail to what "where they collect their donations" means or how it affects corporation registration location. Shot info 23:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I highly recommend you upgrade your understanding of non profit foundations. Unlike you, the Attorney General of the State of Massachusetts reviewed the same website and found it quite notable that they collected funds in Massachusetts with no state corporate license. Further, Barrett and [Fyslee] could prove a legal corporate status in a heartbeat were it available. Further, their IRS form lists California ... even years after they were suspended there. No other state was mentioned. Ilena 23:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I highly recommend that you have a look at WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Also, I would suggest that you have Tom Reilly back you up. Also, why isn't the IRS onto them if they lodged in CA and yet CA had suspended them. Prehaps CA's database is screwed up? FACT is we don't know and hence, we don't know, which is what the article was amended to. Shot info 23:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The California database is up-to-date.[6] The information displayed here is current as of "DEC 08, 2006" and is updated weekly. As far as the IRS, they probably have not been notified of the suspension yet. Ilena 01:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And so we're back to speculation, still blatantly in violation of WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:N. More importantly, we're wasting huge amounts of time on these speculations. --Ronz 15:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What speculation? This is a government site. How much more verifiability do you need? God? There's no OR. It's right there in black-and-white on the site. No NPOV violation and I don't know which NOT violation you are referring to. And WP:N? Come on. This is so notable! This concerns the corporate status of this organization. I'm sure sure there's more to this story and hopefully leaving this up on the article (which we will), will prompt more of the NCAHF story to be revealed. Any other WP: letter violations you want to throw around? Or can we just move on and stop wasting time on this obvious attempt to white wash this article? Levine2112 03:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We disagree. Completely it seems. --Ronz 03:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great if you actually enumerated specific violations instead of Wikipedia letter codes, then we could actually know what we are disagreeing about specifically. Levine2112 08:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I already have, repeatedly. I'm unaware of any definition or policy of "white washing" on wikipedia. Please explain or stop using. --Ronz 15:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide again then, or point me to a place where I can read it. FYI, Whitewash is a form of censorship via omission in which errors or misdemeanors are deliberately concealed or downplayed. Levine2112 18:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And why is it that accusations of "whitewash" are acceptable per WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NPA? --Ronz 19:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop evading my simple request and provide your explanation of how the Sahelian quote make each and every violation which you have cited. Otherwise it shows that you are deliberately concealing information for no good cause... hence whitewash. Levine2112 03:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but there is absolutely no reason for me to meet any request of yours, especially when you are repeatedly uncivil towards me. --Ronz 05:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please edit cooperatively. I apologize for any perceived uncivility. Now let's have your explanations. Levine2112 07:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There at 49 other states and several other territories that this organisation could potentially be incorporated in. Since we don't know, it is not notable to say "They are not registered in MA and suspended in CA and by the way, wiki editors haven't bothered to look elsewhere". In my opinion, this is why it is not notable, as it is largely irrelevant. The only fact that we have is we do not know. And if we don't know, it is speculation. Shot info 08:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We know from their site that they say they are located in Massachusetts and are a non-profit.

Their website has an address on it. The pertinent laws (Non-profit organization has some basic info) do not require an organisation to be in the state they do business in. It is preferably but not compulsory. Nor it is compulsory to be a corporation (IIRC) to claim 501(c)(3) status in the US. There are sections relating to unincorporated organisations (ie/ partnerships and the like). So we are back at

1. The address is no bearing on their location for corporation status.

2. We don't know if they are incorporated.

3. It is in fact possible that they are not incorporated.

4. It is likely that tax exception status (in the US) is unaffected by this lack of corporation status.

5. They lodge their tax forms in CA, from an address in MA.

Hence we are back at speculation. Shot info 08:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We know that Massachusetts has no business listing for them. We know - from the California business portal site

And in all honesty, these are the only two "facts" that we have. All else is truely speculation. Shot info 08:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- that they once had a license in California but that license has been suspended for quite some time now. Despite this, we know that they filed tax docs in California after the time of the suspension.

It isn't a "license", corporation. What you will find is that the original corporation chartered in CA has been suspended for various reasons (which all have been discussed in the archive). So potentially the NCAHF is not operating as a corporation. What does this mean? It means that it can be operating like a lot of small business, sole operators, contractors, self-employed people, partnerships etc. etc. etc. But this is just speculation. As I keep saying we don't know. If we don't know, then it is WP:OR to say otherwise. Shot info 08:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is all very curious and we could all speculate wildly on the "whys" and "whos" and "whats" and "wheres" and "hows" of this curious behavior... but we won't do that in the article because that is a violation of WP:OR. However, we can and should put in what we do know - what I state above. I guarantee that the rest of the story will come if we don't sweep these facts under the rug now. Sometimes you have to hang a lure - a verifiable lure - out there for others to come around and bite and share resources and information which they are privy to.

This is NOT the reason wikipedia exists and in fact it is exactly why this information should not be here. Shot info 08:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Truly, there is no legitimate reason not to include this entirely verifiable information in the article... and as I said, the advantage is that it will lead to a more complete article. Time and patience, dear editors. Levine2112 08:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT anybody? When it becomes notable, then by it's own definition, it becomes notable. Shot info 08:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I were making a donation for $100 to NCAHF (in MA), I would be very much interested that it is duly registered. That it is not actively registered either in MA or CA is an anomalous fact, I *definitely* would want to know that about in and of itself. For people so concerned about fraud and scams this point seems elementary. IT'S NOTABLE and anomalous, even Arthur agreed here.--I'clast 11:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duly registered as what. Registered as a non-profit organisation. Well the IRS (who by the way are probably just a little bit more informed on the subject than everybody here) believe they qualify. But as a corporate body, well, this is what we are trying to find out. So to answer your quite obvious strawman, yes, you can make a donation to the 501(c)(3) organisation. In the US, you don't need to be a corporation to be an "organisation". Something I note you have and keep ignoring in your efforts to WP:PUSHPOV. Since you don't seem to know about corporations or charities or not for profit organisations in the United States, I suggest that you check what WP:OR states about drawing conclusions from "facts" in wikipedia. Shot info 22:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

King Bio

Hired as or for would be nice, reference.--I'clast 22:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've done a good job recently of improving the King Bio section. I dont understand the purpose or see value in adding, "NCAHF then hired it's own Vice President and former Chair Stephen Barrett and Wallace Sampson." --Ronz 22:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because they were paying themselves to be their own witnesses. Read the case. The judge goes into this in great length and why it seems like suspicious behavior. Levine2112 23:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incorporation Status/Massachusetts listing yet again

Summarizing where I think we are so far:

We have no source that shows it's notability (so it should be removed per WP:V and WP:N). --Ronz 16:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is completely verifiable from the sources given that NCAHF's business license was suspended in CA; that they claim to now operate out of Massachusetts; that Massachusetts has no listing for them; and that they still filed for taxes in CA after moving to Massachusetts.Levine2112 17:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But we have no source saying this is notable. I'm not saying the information is not verifiable, only that the notabiliby is unsourced. --Ronz 18:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have lots of original research here speculating why it may or may not be notable. This research is the only rationale for supporting the inclusion of the information (so it should be removed per WP:OR). --Ronz 16:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We do have a lot of OR going on here speculating about the irregularities I just enumerated above. However, none of this speculation was in the version you just deleted. It was just the cold hard facts. Levine2112 17:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the speculation on this discussion page (and archives) are the only rationale, then it's OR. --Ronz 18:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is for documenting what is verifiably known (so the information should be removed per WP:NOT). --Ronz 16:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I state above, all of the information is verfiable from extremely notable sources: California State government, Massachusetts state government, and IRS tax records. Levine2112 17:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"and its current status is unknown" is not verifiable. It's an admission of OR, and is completly unencyclopedic. --Ronz 18:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This information is repeatedly presented within this discussion as criticism of Barrett (so it should be removed per WP:NPOV). --Ronz 16:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article isn't about Barrett. So I don't know why you mention him now. This is about NCAHF. And the last version which you deleted was not presented as a criticism nor in the criticism section. Levine2112 17:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mention him because other editors have. The fact that it's currently not presented as criticism doesn't change the past discussion here. --Ronz 18:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have no consensus on the information at this time (so it should be removed per WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS). --Ronz 16:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have no consensus that it should be removed either. Levine2112 17:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Thanks for agreeing we have no consensus. But of course articles aren't filled with what hasn't achieved consensus, but what has. I guess that this is a NOT issue as well. --Ronz 18:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Ronz, please stop. We know you don't want people to know about the suspension of NCAHF, but there is a new consensus that this is relevant for an entity claiming to be incorporated. It's been over 6 months since NCAHF has been questioned and provided no evidence of any legal corporate status. [Fyslee] said in October he would find out, then made claims of it being legal again with absolutely no evidence. Either provide the link to a legal corporate entity, please, or let the facts stand. Thank you. Ilena 18:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. I disagree, so by definition there is no consensus. Levine2112 also says there is no consensus. Perhaps you should consider stopping instead. Thanks for providing more information that this is an issue of OR and NPOV though. --Ronz 19:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"relevant for an entity claiming to be incorporated" the entity in question do not make this claim. This is the point that you have been ignoring inasmuch as you ignore the fact that you don't need to be incorporated to claim non-profit status. You are trying to make the claim that they are not incorporated to push your POV that it means something nefarious. What I suggest and keep pointing out and you all keep ignoring because you are not looking at this outside of your POV. Shot info 22:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Ilena's comment earlier "It is indeed notable if NCAHF is operating and collecting donation and advertising with no legal corporate status. This is a mockery of an "encyclopedia." ". Since NCAHF can legally operate and collect donations and advertising without a "legal corporate status", this implies that in fact it is no longer notable. Unless of course, there is a new legal fiction invented to make it notable. Shot info 23:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry to have to point out your error, but indeed, NCAHF does claim to be a corporation and does indeed collect donations.It further, claimed to be filing with California after their license was suspended (not dissolved) in California. Whoever chooses to deny these facts, seems to be acting in a disrespectful manner. Any legal entity can prove itself in the heartbeat of a hummingbird. Ilena 23:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with being in error, which is why I am pointing these things out. I don't see anywhere in NCAHF literature (ie/ their website) where they make the claim to be incorporated, the only location I can find is on their tax return where they have "INC." after their name. This is probably the fault of the accountant preparing the paperwork as I know that simple errors like this often crop up in my own experience and since the IRS hasn't stopped it, it would appear that the IRS does not mind. It is not "proof" that the NCAHF is holding itself out to be incorporated. As "any legal entity can prove itself in a hearbeat..." I will point out that partnerships and sole operators are next to impossible to "prove themselves" using information that Wikipedia finds verifiable. This comment is a strawman and largely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Shot info 00:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are dated verifiable statements as to NCAHF status. (1) NCAHF, Inc. tax ext filings with MA address, (2) CA suspension 1993, (3) NCAHF, Inc. currently solicits membership & donation with MA address, (4) there is no MA registration on file is also a fact, whether or not there is some "intent to file" provision or not (these things are usually for 1-2 yrs of passive or inactive status, INAL, don't really care). These facts, changes and discrepancies, are notable and somewhat anomalous in and of themselves. Any changes in status ARE notable, you are free to add them. Whether or not the article is absolutely most current is not required - as long as the facts that are known are also dated, they remain accurate, verifiable stmts of fact. Again, you or the NCAHF principals are free to update them with fresher, verifiable facts as available. As I said earlier this ISnotable to ordinary individual readers for ordinary reasons, whether or not NCAHF is "legal".--I'clast 00:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(1) This is the only document that has been discovered to date since NCAHF was suspended in CA. It's relevance can be dismissed if you have had involvment with tax returns for corporations. As I pointed out above, the IRS has no problems with this and I believe it is the accountant who has "XXXXX Inc" on their books and the typist just typed it in.

(2) Agree

(3) Does NCAHF, Inc. or NCAHF (no Inc) make these claims. From my reading only NCAHF exists. No "Inc."

(4) Agree.

So the notable facts are, they were incorporated in CA, they aren't now. And their current status is unknown. Thats it. Now if this is notable, then so be it, but since there are various editors (Ilena for example) who make the link between "illegal" and "I cannot find their incorporation status" who make the claim that this is notable, I am suspicious of their motives (WP:OR). You will note though that I have left the status in there. Shot info 00:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find it extremely amusing that you are suspicious of my motives, and not a suspended California Corporation who still collects money in Massachusetts while claming the State of California is lying about their corporate status. This has been going on for over 41 months. Because of this, people who want to sue NCAHF have no legal way to do so. User:Ilena|Ilena]] 03:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Bullocks, you are showing your ignorance on the matter if you think that a natural person or a corporation cannot be sued. You have your own person as an example. BTW "while claming the State of California is lying about their corporate status" proof anybody?????? Shot info 05:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Baratz and [Fyslee] claim that NCAHF is a legal California corporation while the State of California claims they are not. For Baratz and Lee to be correct, the State of California would have to be lying on their website for 3 1/2 years about their status. Ilena 15:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rag-tag Posse of Snake-Oil Vigilantes

I have been mocked for mentioning this posse ... seen it called a "satire page" ... when in fact, it is a group, which includes Barrett and [Fyslee] and several others, who proclaim that they go after "net quacks" and that their official sites are ncahf.org an quackwatch.com. Here is an archived page: [7]. I just checked, and within the last few weeks, they have removed the current site showing the Posse together. Here is an archived listing of their websites: Our web sites: www.quackwatch.com www.healthwatcher.net www.ratbags.com www.ncahf.org [8]. This Posse was formed the same year as Barrett and Team launched several SLAPP suits against critics and those who practiced modalities which they disagreed with. These members are seen on blogs, usenet and various chatgroups in various disguises advertising NCAHF/QW and attacking the same people as the plaintiffs are suing. Anyone, like Barrett, who calls himself "the media" (isn't he humble) will use the various mediums to push their viewpoints and minimize their opposition. Have a lovely day and thank you. Ilena 16:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does this have to do with the article? Why are you disrupting the talk page? I propose this section be immediately moved to the archive. --Ronz 16:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption is in the eyes of the beholder. Many believe you were disruptive when you kept 'editing out' the evidence of NCAHF's non Corporate status. Thank you and Have a lovely Holiday. Ilena 18:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inc. it is

Shot ^{[9] [10]} arguments:

(1) Here it is, NCAHF, Inc. right now, 19 Dec 2006 (UTC), second paragraph of the NCAHF membership/donations solicitation.

(3) NCAHF is still representing itself as NCAHF, Inc. and soliciting funds from MA, right now, as such as in (1) above. Even if it shifted to a personal dba or whatever, that status change would be notable and perhaps complex, but "not a good, reassuring thing"^TM.

Again, legality is not the only notability issue. Exact "current status" unknown/known is not required, simply most recently / last known dated status reports, or portion thereof (e.g. not currently officially listed/registered in MA), is fine, there is always a lag (Wiki Yearbook anybody?). You don't have to know everything to state the notable facts that you do have, and they can speak for themselves. Any others?--I'clast 07:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Humour me, but since you are being very pedantic, why doesn't the "NCAHF Inc" ask it's donators and members to write checks out to "NCAHF" with no Inc? And why is it that in all the website, this is the only location that the "Inc" is still in. You are drawing a long bow here. Remember WP:OR. I must admit, I do like how you and Ilena (et.al) are wanting, nay, needing to find some bizarre little fault in an organisation that is plainly not incorporated, and not playing your little game of "find the conspiracy". HOWEVER, in saying all that, I don't object to it appearing but I find it very, very, very odd that it is regarded as notable, particularly in the light that some users (Ilena etc) have written that they regard this as illegal and hence notable. So if itisn't illegal, does that make it not notable? Anyway, time to move on. Shot info 12:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inc: NCAHF doesn't seem to use Inc in its pre2003 newsletters either, assuming no alterations. Googling 1999-2006 "Inc" is about 100x less common than w/o Inc. and a temporary drop in half for Inc in 2004 & 2005 (uh-oh, BK whopper & fries?). More Inc: bottom para,CredentialWatch 2006, Google("national council against health fraud inc")=766. The change of this organization from Inc to non-Inc. would indicate some change of interest to prospective contacts. There is nothing plain here, it's dealing with shadows, all we can do is report the WP:V facts we can find. NCAHF & associates seem to maintain the mystery(s). Illegal would be only one of several reasons for notable. If NCAHF has truly changed from Inc to non-Inc, the article's history should reflect that, but that is OR right now. Basically: NCAHF literature sometimes says it's Inc (which *any* use may be more important to the states than the non-uses); IRS forms (unsigned by NCAHF officer) say Inc, CA says it's Inc, suspended; but it almost always used/promoted the inc'less acronym (like my utility company).--I'clast 14:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summarizing: Lots and lots of original research trying to demonstrate notability. Ilena continues to push her pov. We have no concensus.

I think this research is interesting and worth ensuring that it's available for editors to read. However it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, nor should it be the sole supporting reason for publishing something about it in the encyclopedia itself. --Ronz 18:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ronz, we have WP:OR to push a POV provided by Ilena, and the article ignores WP:N again to advance Ilena's POV. Of course under protest it has been watered down such that it is not so obvious that it is PUSHPOV, instead there is a piece of trivia (unmarked) to allow the decision to be "left up to the reader" which is a admission of the failure to follow WP:N. I vote that we remove the section altogether given that a consensus cannot be reached per the normal wiki guidelines. Shot info 22:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the credit ... but the suspension of NCAHF and the proof that it is NOT a legal Massachusetts Corporation is not my POV ... they are facts, albeit ones that you and others would prefer to hide. Ilena 22:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ilena, your failure to understand wiki and it's purposes is documented on your talk page. The discussion isn't the "fact" is their notability. There is no argument about "hiding" or whatever this is YOUR POV creeping into the picture and frankly your failure to engage in fruitful wikiediting isn't helping to convince me that this exercise is nothing more than PUSHPOV. Now, lets vote. Shot info 23:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinion. I couldn't disagree more. Please and thank you. Ilena 23:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, would you care to briefly articulate exactly what phrase(s) you consider OR and/or POV and why, please.--I'clast 00:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that would be ever so useful. Thank you. Ilena 00:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So far it has been pointed out many, many, many times and then when it all comes to a conclusion, you ask....again. The original reason the original words by Ilena was put in there was to PUSHPOV and it was blatant OR. So after many, many, many, many, many, many, many words in the talk page later, it has been boiled down to proving a negative (ie/ we can prove what it is not) while engaging in OR by saying "It claims to be Inc but it isn't registered"... Then the whole question of N comes into play. Levine says it is N because "It claims to be Inc. but it isn't registered and if I was paying I would like to know this" (my paraphrase) so we have Levine saying it is N based on OR. So since it is OR why is it still notable. In particular when you remove the OR (the whole proving a negative bit about MA registration) it just becomes a dot trivia point about CA registration. Of course Ilena is PUSHPOV her POV to support her allegations of "illegal" activity which calls into the very question of why this now trivial point is notable. Now all this has been discussed over and over again and the reason it stands is because yourself, Levine and Ilena all have various reasons to include it. Ilena's is obvious POV, Levine is derived from OR and that only leaves yourself. And from the other three editors questioning this, it appears that you position is that it is notable. Why? Shot info 01:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I may have screwed up the 2nd archive, can somebody have a look? Shot info 01:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shot info, my dear. With all due respect, it appears you are uneducated in State requirements for non-profits and suspended non-profits. If you understood this, you would fully understand what is so notable about NCAHF who claims to be a 'watchdog' and goes campaigns for: 'Accountability for those who violate consumer laws. " Ilena 01:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC) Please and thank you. Ilena 01:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here we have evidence of WP:OR. I have previously pointed out that the IRS does not require an "organisation" to be a corporation to qualify for non-profit status. As for being uneducated, well, I'm not the one with the repeated warnings for uncivilty on my talk page.Shot info 04:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shot, I wanted to give you the opportunity to clarify your positions on specific phrases after all the hub bub, so I could better address them. Frankly, matching your comments to specific policies is unclear if not confusing. Also it helps if you use difs e.g. "original words by Ilena", presumably her first ever edit on NCAHF (7 July 06). By the way, I forgot to thank you for this reply, with 4 enumerated points, I felt is was clear and easier to address.--I'clast 02:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, Shot Info, I believe you are putting words in my mouth and creating what is known as a "Strawman Argument"... where one creates an advesary which they can make an argument against. My reason for stating that this information is notable is that it concerns the corporate status of this entity. If it were in good standing with the state where it files taxes, then it wouldn't be notable. But as it isn't in good standing with California - it is suspended and has been for quite some time - this information is notable. No original research. Anyone can check the California Business Portal in one click and now we can check their IRS tax filings. Our job at Wikipedia is to collect information which can be verified and be presented by the editor following NPOV. Now then, for us to say that they are operating illegally WOULD constitute a WP:OR violation as we have not seen a reliable source (as of yet) stating this. However, to state that their license is currently suspended is verifiable from the highly reliable state business portal. To state that NCAHF operates out of Massachusetts can also be verified by checking their own website. Now then, just because they operate out of Mass. doesn't mean that they still aren't a California corporation. You can register your corp. in any state and not have an office there, but come tax time, you have to file with the state you are registered in. That is why - I would imagine - NCAHF files in CA yet has their office in Mass. Of course you won't find them in the Mass. corp database and stating that they aren't in the Mass. database is NOT notable.

To summarize: That they have a suspended business license in the state which they file taxes IS notable. That they operate out of Massachusetts IS notable. That they don't have a business license in Mass. is NOT notable. That they are operating illegally DOES constitute Original Research at this point as we don't have a verifiable saying just that. It isn't enough to have two facts which seem to point to this... we need it outright stated by a reliable source that NCAHF is operating illegal by collecting donations while their business license is suspended. All information - and especially one which claims an entity or person is acting outside the law - needs to be verified.

I hope this makes you clear about my current position on this. And know that I am not stubborn and I am always willing to change my mind. Just present the verifiable information and we'll see. Levine2112 02:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A public apology: the quote I was reviewing "If I were making a donation for $100 to NCAHF (in MA), I would be very much interested that it is duly registered" is actually from I'clast rather than from Levine. Sorry about this, I misread the signature when making my paraphase. Shot info 04:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Levine, I slightly differ on MA because it is content rather than the subject or topic, where WP:N is not applied for this kind of notability (usefuless). See below Policies...--I'clast 07:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, lets do this again

1. Is the organistion a corporation....yes/no/unknown?

2. Is this notable...yes/no

3. Is the organisation a corporation in CA....yes/no/unknown?

4. Is this notable...yes/no

5. Is the organisation a non-profit organisation for the purposes of being able to call itself non-profit...yes/no/unknown?

6. Is this notable...yes/no

7. Is the organisation acutally resident in MA or is this their postal address...yes/no/unknown?

8. Is this notable...yes/no

9. Is the name of an organisation on a tax return more important than the EmpID# in area D of the return to the IRS...yes/no/unknown?

10. Is this notable...yes/no

So far from reading the above it appears that we have Levine agreeing that the current information is too much. So it can be pruned. Which will turn it into a dot point. And again it needs to be asked, is a single short sentence about incorporation status in CA ... notable.....without resorting to POV and OR. The more we discuss this, the more it seems like WP:ILIKEIT. Shot info 04:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had hoped that you would enumerate, briefly explain *your* current best thinking & policy points since you (along with Ronz) asserted so many. This list asks questions in forms that may not correspond to the verifiable facts that we do have and is hence not so useful.--I'clast 04:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because when you remove the OR and the POV you end up with a trivial point. Now admittably this is my POV but why I keep harping on it is that it is my opinion (and seemingly in agreement with Ronz and Arthur, but I will let them answer for themselves) this "fact" deserves to be deleted because of the non-triviality issues discussed in WP:N. I don't disagree with the fact, or even some of the conclusion(s) drawn from them. BUT we are in wikipedia here. We wikilawyer for a reason... Shot info 05:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O and while discussing notability, is this dot point notable to an english reader resident in Canada, or the UK or for that matter anywhere around the globe? Wiki is just not for US residents. Shot info 05:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Policies when you RTFM

I, along with other editors here, have frequently used "notable" in more of a colloquial sense covered by other policies rather than WP:N; e.g. (from NPOV)^{Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete} where "determining whether some claim is true or useful" for content as well as other policies.

WP:N asks that the subject, NCAHF, and the topic, Incorporation status (or originally,About the organization) be objectively notable, noted by multiple sources, but not content^{Dealing_with_non-notable_things} (needs to be WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV). The content here are the sentences. Despite the details that we don't know, there are enough facts here to identify an anomaly(s) that are useful to aid the general readers. Should readers be interested in a corporation has effectively left a state with legal troubles hanging on it that you are betting your money or your life on? hmmm. Wait, there's more. An unincorporated company/association can be legally and financially dangerous to its members by potentially being liable. all the members, collectively, or any one member may be liable for the entire value of the contracts of the association. The remaining members, for instance,...may be liable.... Members of unincorporated associations may also be liable for any civil wrongs that they participate in, authorize or even simply assent to by vote or otherwise.[11]. eeuuuu. Do we have all the gods-eye answers? No. Do we have to have them? No. Perhaps, at least readers will know more facts, each one counts, and it enables them to ask more informed questions and make more informed decisions. So when someone asks you to be "members" of an unknown or unincorporated association (company, uninc corp), be careful there pardner.

WP:OR is frequently (mis)quoted on source based research here, ^{WP:OR#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources}. Read it:

Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

I'm not wikilawyering, I'm editing an encyclopedia, I've seen real corporate and academic frauds, and I've avoided a number of burns by such "pedantic" caution. I hope others will appreciate the effort, I've written bare facts to be encyclopedic.--I'clast 06:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N asks that the subject, NCAHF,... be objectively notable, noted by multiple sources, but not content^{Dealing_with_non-notable_things} ...The content here are the sentences. Despite the details that we don't know, there are enough facts here to identify an anomaly(s) that are useful to aid the general readers.

Your POV from your OR.

Should readers be interested in a corp that has effectively left a state with legal troubles hanging on it ...[bet].. your money...on?

Your POV from your OR.

...An unincorporated company/association...its members by potentially being liable. all the members, collectively, or any one... Members of unincorporated associations may also be liable for any civil wrongs that they participate in, authorize or even simply assent to by vote or otherwise.[12]. eeuuuu.

Again, your POV from your OR.

Do we have all the gods-eye answers? No. Do we have to have them? No....facts, each one counts,...informed questions...informed decisions. So when someone asks you to be "members" of an unknown or unincorporated association (company, uninc corp), be careful there pardner.

Still your POV from your OR. So how much of your OR do you have to write to claim that you are not engaging in sythesis....or (god forbid) POVPUSH?

So in other word WP:ILIKEIT...check:

Admitably the original intent of drawing readers to the conculsion that the organisation is acting neferously has being removed but only replaced with something more subtle. "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C." ^{WP:OR#Synthesis}. Shot info 07:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't split my comments, it makes them hard to read. I've extracted my text and reformatted yours.

Now, I've tried to conversationally illustrate some of the encyclopedic interest, prudent caution, potential uses, and all I get is a face full of "POV and OR" on bare facts. Hear this. There is strictly no SYNTHESIS in the content, so pls quit trying to blast me/us with OR, POVPUSH, ILIKEIT. Again, pls read WP:NPOV, Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete.

Bottom line: WP:V, WP:RS applies to the two content sentences; WP:N (WP:NOTE) may apply to the whole subtopic. WP:OR does not apply to source based research. Germane, bare facts & no synthesis. I don't think this can be more clear. If you don't like Wiki policies, you can try to rewrite them. But not the facts.--I'clast 09:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've made myself perfectly clear on this. I think it's OR. I'd like a source to back all the interpretation of facts. I think any other editor could and should ask for the same. --Ronz 16:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In case you missed it above, I've quoted the relevant Wiki policy, WP:OR, on this: ...collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. There is *no basis* for claiming OR here in the Incorporation Status section. There is no interpretation presented, just the bare facts collected from relevant government sources, any interpretations are from the readers.--I'clast 19:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Piece by piece

Let's look at this one sentence/clause at a time and please point out and explain in detail how a WP:OR and/or WP:NPOV violation is being committed:

NCAHF, Inc. corresponds with, and solicits for, new members and donations from Massachuesetts.^[1]

Verifiable fact. No opinion. Levine2112 19:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not verifiable, NCAHF "Inc" does not exist. This is OR in making the assumption that the only page in the entire website is the sole source of this claim. The balance of the information suggests that this is incorrect. Shot info 22:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NCAHF Inc does exist. Just look at the reference on this statement. The organization which one would mail their membership dues to is: National Council Against Health Fraud, Inc. It says this right on the page. How is this OR? I'm sure they are offically National Council Against Health Fraud, Inc., but for brevity they just call themselves NCAHF. They used the Inc. since 1977 when they first filed for a business licence in CA, according to that business portal search. Would this sentence be fine to you if we just dropped the "Inc."? Please clarify. Levine2112 23:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So if they exist, which state are they incorporated in? We know that they aren't in two. So is that notable? Or is it OR to say "They are in MA, but aren't a corporation in MA"? Shot info 23:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According tro that tax record (which I will search for in this talk page's archive) they are still filing in CA. Levine2112 23:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link to the 2004 tax filing which shows them operating out of MA but still filing in CA. [13] Levine2112 23:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NCAHF's corporate status in California was suspended in May, 2003, ^[2]

Verifiable fact. No opinion. Levine2112 19:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Shot info 22:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and it is not natively registered as a Massachusetts corporation.^[3]

Verifiable fact. No opinion. Levine2112 19:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is verifiable, but it is also verifiable that it may not be registered in 48 other states. So this is not notable. It is OR to include point 1 and point 3. Shot info 22:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But Mass. is where their office is. Hence, "not natively registered". However, I am unsure whether this is notable. Tons of corporations aren't natively incorporated. It is possible that while their office is in Mass., they are still (or wish to be still) incorporated in California. There's no problem with doing that. That's completely legal, unless nonprofits have different rules. Levine2112 23:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it is not notable and have been laboring this point. Shot info 23:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully this will clear things up. To me, everything above is verifiable and doesn't present any opinion other than the barebone facts, but I would love to hear what others think specificaly. Levine2112 19:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^ NCAHF Membership Application
^ Secretary of State (California). Corporations.California Business Portal current as of "DEC 15, 2006".
^ Secretary of the Commonwealth, Corporations Division. Corporate DatabaseThe Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Boston, MA. accessed 19 Dec 2006.

WP:BLP

This policy states we may not use primary sources for potentially (thank you, Ilena) defamatory information if there no reliable secondary sources for the information. If it applies to groups and associations, as noted in a recent Arbcom case, this would require that the incorporation status section be removed. This is still a close matter. I don't see OR or NPOV violations, but the WP:BLP issue may require removal. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, Arthur. The State is the ultimate source of the legality or non legality of a corporation. Frankly, with all due respect, all of this blah blah about a verifiable fact about a suspended operation is a bit pathetic. Thank you. Ilena 15:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty basic. We are discussing corporate status, legally a fictional being, a creature of state, *not* a living person. Hence not a Biography of a Living Person, no BLP.--I'clast 19:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be picky, but unfortunately the US Supreme Court has defined a corporation as a "legal person", entitled to civil rights and permitted to sue for defamation. However, I don't understand why a truthful statement about a corporate status could not be stated. A charity has to even be a 501(c)(3)... So if this organization (however it is created) is accepting donations, it has to have some kind of IRS designation and registration with the state. One way to find this out is to ask the organization? There either is or is not some kind of registration.
To be defamatory, a statement or presentation must be false. If a statement is not false, it is not defamation. There can be defamation by innuendo, but that has to be very clear cut, and it is rare - that would be where the way something is presented logically results in a false conclusion. If one is using a reliable resource as a reference, and it is truthful, there should be no problem. In an article like this, I would think corporate status may be pertinent -- especially where the entity sues others and the issue of standing has been raised.
Public figure - this organization would be considered a public figure. That is, the only way even a false statement could be actionable is if (1) the actor knew the statement was false; or (2) acted with reckless disregard for the truth (eg did no investigation). It is nearly impossible for a public figure to prove defamation, even without the "Internet Decency Act". Jance 22:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure Wiki's definition of a "living person" is not the same as U.S.C.'s definition of a "legal person"... though I appreciate the out-of-the-box thinking, Jance. But even for argument's sake, Arthur, if were to assume that NCAHF is a "living person", the CA state portal is an extremely reliable secondary source... you must admit. I'm sure their database is kept accurate to a least the week, let alone the 3 going on 4 years it has been since NCAHF license was suspended. Ilena, can you please post the link to that tax record again (or I can search this talk page's archive for it.)? Levine2112 23:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neverrmind, Ilena. I found the link to that 2004 tax record which shows that they were still filing in CA despite being located in MA. [14] Levine2112 23:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus?

Rather than arguing lets develop the consensus:

Deletion
Prune down to just CA status
Keep
Add or increase

So far my reading of the above as Ronz with 1, myself wavering between 1 & 2, Arthur at 2, Levine between 2 and 3, I'cast at 3 and Ilena at 4. Am I correct with my readings? Shot info 22:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I can express an opinion... I "vote" 2. I do not think it would be appropriate to leave the MA statement in there, without more information. That is improper innuendo. Also, if you keep #2, it might be a good idea to check the IRS, too.Jance 23:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty accurate in terms of my feelings. While their lack of incorporation status in their home state of Mass. is verifiable, I am not convinced that this is notable. Their CA status however is entirely notable. Since it has been suspended since 2003, it is pretty obvious that this isn't just a clerical error. I know the state gov't is full of red tape, but I'm sure whatever the issue is, NCAHF could have fixed their business license status in 3 going on 4 years. Levine2112 23:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be presumptuous, but can I point out that it appears we have a general consensus approaching 2? It would appear that Levine, Jance, Arthur (Arthur, I don’t want to speak for your though) appear to clearly support this position and I am willing to support it (as I agree that it is notable albeit trivial but other articles have lots of trivia as well). This leaves Ronz, I’clast and Illena to respond. Shot info 23:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That being said, it might be nice to state where they are located... Peabody, Massachusetts... and leave out the "not natively incorporated" bit until someone explains why that is notable. Levine2112 00:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm cool with 2. Ilena 01:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! we are close to a consensus... if not there already. Lose the Mass. bit and we are there. Sound good? Levine2112 01:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep.Jance 01:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My position has not changed - I think it should be deleted (why is it back yet again?). I'm going to seek a 3rd party perspective, since I still see the original research as being a problem. However, if Arthur agrees as we're assuming, then I won't remove it because of issues of original research or consensus on those issues. The NPOV issues still exist, but those should be discussed further before taking action. --Ronz 02:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude! We have a consensus here. There was give and take. I changed my mind of a few things. Even Ilena has been generous enough to give a little. There is no Original Research here... this is straight up verifiable facts. And this has been completely NPOVified now. Let's roll with this positive surge of cooperative spirit and let's move on. Again, good work! Levine2112 02:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I've explained my position. --Ronz 02:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work everyone! Shot Info, thanks for being the one who presented this solution! Good work all. Levine2112 02:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be late; I concur with 2. Well done, Shot Info. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Jance 03:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet! Levine2112 03:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previous issues

I'd like to again give everyone the chance to address the issues I brought up before, with a slight update on where I think we stand: [15]

We have no source that shows it's notability (so it should be removed per WP:V and WP:N). I'm not saying the individual facts are not verifiable, only that the notability is unsourced. --Ronz 01:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you show notability? That the info of the license suspension is quoted in someplace other than the CA State Portal? Levine2112 02:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:NOTE is simply based on multiple sources for *an article* as an objective measure, discussed previously[16], not single lines of content and individual facts. Read the policy.--I'clast 12:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I disagree with your interpretation. Thanks for the explanation though. --Ronz 16:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have lots of original research here speculating why it may or may not be notable. This research is the only rationale for supporting the inclusion of the information (so it should be removed per WP:OR). As long as the speculation on this discussion page (and archives) are the only rationale, then it's OR. --Ronz 01:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is just one of those things where the notability is completely obvious. Any gross irregularity in the corporate status of a company (especially one that has been that way for 3 going on 4 years) is just plainly notable. Levine2112 02:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was no WP:OR. Ronz continually repeats & misuses WP:OR, dismissing CLEAR, desired source research as WP:OR even when presented the direct quotes requiring no interpretation. A great motivation for the "full facts version"[17] is because the phrasing simply doesn't read very well with natural questions that are being forced to remain unanswered. There are a dozen encyclopedic reasons for this contetn, some editors will igonre them all. It amazes me someone can parade this deletionism so blatantly.--I'clast 12:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm allowed my own interpretation, and without uncivil remarks against me for having them. Take the personal attacks elsewhere. --Ronz 16:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is for documenting what is verifiably known (so the information should be removed per WP:NOT). I think we've addressed this partially. We still have Wp:not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox which is really just WP:NPOV below. Also, there's Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Ronz 01:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have made concerted efforts to present this information in the most neutral way possible. Levine2112 02:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTE is most about the whole articles themselves having multipe sources as an objective standard of Notablity. Little "n" notability is actually other policies that include usefulness of content like individual facts (more subjective). To me, the "little n" notability (see above) for content is intrinsic when by conventional business practices, yellow and red (warning) flags fly all around these kind of facts. The two sentences expressed no opinions. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not indecipherable & misleading. Right now the Incorporation section may lead a reader to conclude, or be just plain confused, whether NCAHF is even operational since it has been suspended so long and does not begin to address the natural questions of a reader that we have WP:V facts for (It's corresponding out of Mass. but it is not a Mass corp either.). The original phrasing is not indiscriminate, that's part of *others'*(not my) soapbox.-I'clast 12:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This information is repeatedly presented within this discussion as criticism of Barrett (so it should be removed per WP:NPOV). The fact that it's currently not presented as criticism doesn't change the past discussion here. --Ronz 01:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have NPOVified this information. This isn't an article about Barrett nor does this information appear in Barrett's article. Levine2112 02:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another blatant distortion alleging policies, again. Previously explained above.--I'clast 12:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Explained or not. It's happened, and likely to happen more. --Ronz 16:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have no consensus on the information at this time (so it should be removed per WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS). Despite this it has been repeatedly reintroduced. --Ronz 01:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all of our cooperative efforts (finally!) we do in fact have a consensus. See above. Levine2112 02:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch all I wrote that I just now deleted. If you are talking about the MA status, I think we are in agreement that it should not be included. It is innuendo, without enough information to be anything but innuendo. The CA status is relevant, and consensus was reached, I believe (see above). But Ronz, please, is there any way you can talk in English? Oy vey maria, I am weary of WP:TLA. ;-) Jance 02:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying. The WP references are there specifically as references to the guidelines and policies in general. --Ronz 02:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilawyering, Ownership examples:Events--I'clast 12:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you bring those up, because I had considered it also, but thought it uncivil. --Ronz 16:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, these issues were brought up to the statment "NCAHF's California corporate status was suspended in May, 2003, and its current status is unknown." --Ronz 02:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ronz, personally I think the point is not notable (mainly not due to verifibility or anything like that but just because it's a pointless piece of trivia), however, given that a consensus was reached it should stand and wait for further information or other editors. I guess we have all had a good stab at it and really we have ended up back where we were about a month ago :-) Shot info 05:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To correct the article's future history, the issues were for "NCAHF, Inc. corresponds with, and solicits for, new members and donations from Massachuesetts. NCAHF's corporate status in California was suspended in May, 2003, and it is not natively registered as a Massachusetts corporation." This original proposal of the Incorporation Status section reads & satisfies user questions much better also. Encyclopedic writing is being dismissed as WP:OR.--I'clast 12:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to discuss issues here. Is someone dismissing something? --Ronz 16:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

This is very confusing to read. The only part for which there was a consensus was "NCAHF's corporate status in California was suspended in May, 2003." All the rest in that paragraph was to be deleted. Jance 16:13, 21 December 2006

US-based

There is still no proof that NCAHF is a legal operation ... "US based" is distraction ... non profits are based out of and licensed by individual states. There appears to be no proof of any current legal license for NCAHF, therefore, it may well not be a legal "private non profit" as claimed in their advertising. Ilena 18:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But there is no resource which actually states that they are operating illegally. An interpretation of the facts does seem to suggest that, but it we must interpret then we get into the WP:OR realm... Original Research. It we had a reliable source which specifically states that NCAHF is operated illegally, then we could say just that. If we had a reliable source that said it thought that NCAHF is operating illegally, then we can say that the source makes that claim. So unfortunately, even if in your heart of hearts you know that they are operating illegally, you can't post it on Wikipedia without a good reliable source stating so. Levine2112 18:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying Levine ... yet that isn't how it works. Any legal entity must prove their legality ... not someone has to prove their illegality. One can't prove a negative as I'm sure you know. Non profits are not "US based" ... they are based out of a State where they are supposed to be licensed. So ... even though they claim to be "US based" ... there is no proof that they are legal. If they are legal, and have a state license, it could be proven with one click at the appropriate state database. Viva la maccabees. Ilena 18:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I might be wrong about this, but I would assume that if we are going to state that something is illegal without a reliable source saying so, then we better be 100% sure of it. I'm going with the "innocent until proven guilty" philosophy here. Also, I would think that any company (legtal or not) which has its home office in the United States can call themselves "US based". But I may be wrong, if you are saying that there is some sort of a special provision for non-profits. Levine2112 18:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To say "illegal" would definitely be OR at this point w/o those WP:V/RS sources. However, the current half sentence form is poor, uninformative encyclopedia writing based on badly mangled interpretations of the rules.--I'clast 19:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested rewrites? Levine2112 19:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm not suggesting saying that is is written that it is "illegal." I would clarify however, that a legal entity needs and is able to prove itself so in a heartbeat. Maybe something like: NCAHF's corporate status in California was suspended in May, 2003. [3] No current state corporate status has been evidenced. Ilena 20:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And the problem with this second sentence is that it is unencyclopedic, proving a negative? Have you tried the other 48 states and not to mention all the territories? Mind you one of my original rewrites was "Its current corporate status is unknown" which in hindsight is bleh writing... Anyway, this comes back to the original point I have been stating all along. We all agree (except for I'clast) that it is OR to state anything other than what we know about CA, and then we have to ask ourselves, is it now N? We have reached a consensus though so lets let fresh eyes and evidence have a look. Shot info 05:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Per the external links guidelines, the number of links on controversial topics should not be weighted to the pro or con side - yet currently we have an imbalance of critical external links, many of which also contain large amounts of advertising, again in contravention of the external link policy. I'm trimming them down to one critical link to balance the NCAHF link - we could discuss which critical link should be included, but the current number is disproportionate and contravenes the guideline. Finally, assuming Ilena is Ilena Rosenthal, if she's here to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia and/or remove potentially defamatory information about herself, those things are encouraged. If she's here to insert negative, questionably sourced information about Stephen Barrett and all his enterprises at every possible turn, then it may be worth reviewing the conflict of interest policy as well as "Wikipedia is not a soapbox". Importing personal grudges or conflicts into Wikipedia is strongly discouraged. Besides, don't worry - there's already a surplus of anti-Barrett editors here. MastCell 20:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry ... what is it that I posted that is not sourced adequately for you? Ilena 21:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had in mind edits like this; perhaps you were unaware at the time, but personal phone conversations cannot be considered reliable sources for Wikipedia purposes. I think the overarching concern was the importation of a feud between yourself and Stephen Barrett into Wikipedia, which is unlikely to be constructive in the long run; hence the suggestion to review the conflict of interest guidelines. MastCell 21:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The edits have long moved past the telephone conversation to the "bare facts" Inc Status discussion.--I'clast 21:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that; Ilena had asked for an example of inadequate sourcing. I'd also reiterate the above, regarding conflicts of interest, WP:NOT, and the inadvisability of importing a feud between Barrett and Ilena to Wikipedia. MastCell 22:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel words

I tagged the Criticism section - the first two bullets both suffer from "Some critics..." and "A criticism of NCAHF is...". They need to explicitly state who is making said criticism. See WP:WEASEL for the relevant guideline. MastCell 21:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I do not agree that the spamlinks advertising NCAHF AND quackwatch.com should remain and my critical site be censored. I have added it back and do not feel it should be removed without serious discussion and total consensus. Ilena 21:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, please review the external links guidelines. You are not being censored. If you would prefer your personal site to be the critical link of choice, then make it so, although insisting on the inclusion of your personal, self-published site which solicits donations raises serious issues of conflict of interest. The link to NCAHF is not spam in this context; again, please see the external links guidelines, which clearly states that "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any." I'm not making this up to harrass or censor you, and please don't take it that way. These are guidelines that have been agreed upon by the Wikipedia community. MastCell 21:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COI is not the only issue. The rules here expressly prohibit posting links to ones own website. Others may do so. That would be a different matter. So the issue isn't just about the quality of the website (which is still an issue), but the very fact that Ilena keeps posting it herself, in contravention of the rules here. If anyone else wants to dirty their hands by doing it for her, it's their choice. -- Fyslee 21:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the ambiguity, MastCell. I have clarified the critical sources, repaired the links and removed the "Weasel Words" tag. Levine2112 21:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. MastCell 21:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have still not established here that NCAHF is a legal entity. Do you have that evidence? If it isn't supplied, then this entire article becomes highly questionable since it is stated as a fact that this is a "non profit" although there is no evidence of this legal status. The consumer laws do not state that an operation must be proven to be illegal to stop them from operating. This operation has had 3 1/2 years since suspension in California to show evidence of its legality somewhere and has failed to do so to date. Ilena 21:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[Fyslee] has again removed my critical link. It is not a vanity link but important and valid criticism for a very questionable operation with no apparent evidence of legality. [Fyslee] claimed it October he would provide evidence of the legality and has failed to do so. I am replacing my critical link and see no reason to have it removed by Stephen Barrett's just resigned "assistant list manager." Ilena 22:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What don't you understand above? Can't you read? You are in direct violation of Wikipedia policy. Please stop. -- Fyslee 22:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You keep claiming I "would provide evidence." I only said I'd try. I have just about as much influence with them as you do, so your conspiracy theories just don't cut it. You write to them and try to get a response. I haven't gotten much help. -- Fyslee 22:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reinstated Ilena link. I attest that I have no connection with Ilena nor her foundation apart from Wikipedia. Levine2112 23:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the sick joke. It doesn't take "influence" to get an operation to prove its legality. One link to the State where they are legally incorporated if they are is all it would take. The rest is distraction and playing games. My criticisms on my QuackWatchWatch [18] page are valid and your removal of this is censorship, call it what you want. Ilena 22:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No matter the quality or subject of your site, it is against policy for YOU to post it. Period. -- Fyslee 22:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, according to you, if Barrett gets a monkey to advertise his site and put up links to it, that's legal in Wikipedia ... but if he does it instead of his monkey, it's not legal? How do we know it is the monkey and not Barrett posting his own links?Ilena 22:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer, yes & yes. His Boy Scout honor & certain practicalities.--I'clast 03:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, please, please review Wikipedia's guideline on external links. This is a site about Barrett/NCAHF, so a link to the NCAHF website is appropriate. If this were an article about Ilena Rosenthal, then a link to your site would be appropriate. This is not a complex distinction. Constantly re-inserting your website into this article is wrong and a conflict of interest. If your website is really appropriate as an external link, someone will add it - as I pointed out, there's no shortage of anti-Barrett editors here. MastCell 22:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the problem with excluding Ilena link for reasons that what she has on her site is not factually accurate and is designed to mislead the public... we could say (and many have said) the exact same thing about all of Quackwatch. We have a handful of verifiable, notable critics on the Quackwatch article who say that Quackwatch is not factually accurate and is precisely designed to mislead the public. Bottomline, Ilena's site falls under point 4 of WP guidelines of what should be linked to: Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews. Considering her direct legal involvement with NCAHF, her site has content which is entirely relavent. Levine2112 23:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a very basic issue here: Quackwatch is linked from Quackwatch because it's the subject of the article. Similarly, if this were an article about Ilena Rosenthal, or the Humanity Foundation (?sp), then a link to her site would be appropriate. But it's not. The comparison to Quackwatch is inappropriate, because you're talking about an article specifically about Quackwatch - in such context, an external link is unquestionably appropriate. Again, it's all in WP:EL. MastCell 00:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the about 100 articles out there with Quackwatch listed as an external link. Am I to take it that I could remove all of those links too then? For instance, would the Quackwatch link (entitled "Homeopathy: The Ultimate Fake") on Homeopathy fall under the same rule for deletion? Levine2112 01:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry for the misunderstanding on my part. I get it now. I don't have a strong feeling about QW as an external link, nor the homeopathy article, but you could certainly make a case on the talk page for removing the QW link from that article based on an interpretation of WP:EL, and if consensus exists, remove it. MastCell 02:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I also do not have a strong feeling about this. That said, one cannot fault Levine's logic here. Jance 04:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who decides what is Valid Criticism for a Questionable Operation????

Again I have Lee and Ronz ganging up and taking off my critical opinions of Barrett and threatening to ban me from Wikipedia for critical insight into this operation. This is clear censorship. Ilena 22:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong again. Stop attacking other editors when they explain policy to you. It's because of policy violations you're getting in constant trouble here. Try to learn and you'll have more success. I'll support you then. -- Fyslee 22:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the root of the misunderstanding: Wikipedia is not a place for you to expound your critical opinions of Barrett. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and it's bound by policies which I and others are trying to explain to you. There is no organized conspiracy to censor you here; what you're perceiving as such is the reaction of unconnected editors who are seeing Wikipedia policies violated. Your importation of your feud with Barrett to Wikipedia has been highly disruptive. In general, we try to be nice to newcomers, but you've now had the relevant policies explained a number of times. MastCell 22:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question - I don't know the answer. Clearly, the subject of this article is Barrett. Therefore, an external link to his home page is appropriate. The same is not true of any personal website, including Ilena's. My question is this: while an external link of the man is clearly appropriate, is it acceptable to use the same website as reference within the article?Jance 00:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely if you want to write about NCAHF's viewpoint, since he's an officer and spokesperson for the company. Beyond that, it becomes a slippery slope. I don't think you can go far wrong if the page you're linking to has its own references that can be checked and verified, and the page just summarizes those references or gives NCAHF's viewpoint on those references. Still, it can get slippery when it's one of the criticism pages. Why not just discuss the specific references you have in mind? --Ronz 00:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it only be slippery if it is on the criticism page? I would think it could be a slippery slope in any section. I actually don't have a specific example. It was a general question. Jance 01:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is entirely too much emphasis on Barrett here, Baratz is still Pres. Most of the signed papers at NCAHF seem to be authored by Wm Jarvis[19] in California. Historically I get the impression that W Jarvis ("retired" Pres?, CA nexus), J Renner (dec'd 2000 as then Pres) and V Herbert (bd member dec'd 2002, "trial expert") were much more active and central figures to NCAHF and NCHRI, at least in the 90s. It might be more encyclopedic to have the body counts (won, lost & who) on the NCAHF's "witch trials" e.g. Shari Lieberman, PhD, got her RD back with public acknowledgement of a faulty NCAHF attack. When was NCAHF or its predecessor founded (198-?). And, of course, I think that the corporate status is still an uninformative, prejudicial knee jerk.--I'clast 03:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just googled her, and what I found is alarming. It does appear that NCAHF caused a lot of grief on an innocuous issue, without any grounds. Jance 02:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Issues

Yes, Baratz needs to be mentioned. Dates of incorporation (or whenever the org was started and as what).
I don't know that as a matter of public policy, many would argue with the right of anyone to comment on the efficacy of medical practices. The only limit to that, of course, is defamation, and it appears to be the case that nobody has sued NCAHF for defamation (have they?). If there has been a public apology (close to admission of defamation), that should probably be cited. (I don't know what an RD is).
The real issue here, that needs to be mentioned more specifically, is a much larger issue that is only mentioned in two places: To what extent should a non-government authorized health group be allowed to investigate and essentially prosecute "Quacks"? I mean this quite literally, since this was argued by NCAHF in the Superior Court in LA County - that it should have the authority of a prosecutor, and that the burden of proof should be shifted to the defendant to prove that he did not do what the plaintiff claimed (even a prosecutor has to prove his case). THAT is why King Bio is important and needs to be stated (I restored the original paragraph, and included citations).
I am not sure it would be informative to have every single court case. Two examples seem ok - one where NCAHF essentially 'won' and one where it didnt.
If anyone can find a reliable reference on that RD, it would be good to incude. This sounds like a real abuse, and is noteworthy.Jance 02:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More information:

"Whitaker has taken up the causes of others in legal or ethical difficulty. In 1995, he viciously attacked the American Dietetic Association for its attempt to discipline Shari Lieberman for violating the ADA code of ethics. (See Raso "Progressive or renegade? Shari Lieberman up-close," Nutrition Forum, 1994;11:9-15.)

".... Whitaker is Past President of the American Preventive Medical Association (APMA). (Ms. Lieberman a APMA board member.) APMA is largely made up of chelation therapy practitioners who lobby for laws that would strip medical licensing boards of their power to discipline maverick doctors who use chelation therapy for questionable, unapproved purposes." - Jarvis [20] -- Fyslee 10:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about Whitaker. I googled Shari LIeberman and found this statement:

"Dr. Lieberman was successful in forcing the ADA to reinstate her RD credential and in forcing the ADA to publicly acknowledge its mistake with retractions and notices to its membership."

It sounds like she sued the ADA and won. Is this correct? If she violated ethics, then presumably she would not have prevailed.Jance 22:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity link issue

Please stop. Despite Barrett's Ring Leader's claim that my link is "vanity" ... I am a valid critic of Quackwatch/NCAHF and there was NO consensus that my criticism should be censored here. I am a prevailing defendant against Barrett, have been quoted in the LA Times, Wired Magazine, MY DNA, WebMD, The Scientist among many other publications. I have been reading many articles in Wikipedia recently, and have seen how Barrett's teams fill articles with their criticisms while attempting to stifle criticisms against them. This is not Healthfraud/Wikipedia edition, and I have extremely valid criticisms to be aired against this questionable operation. Thank you.Ilena 15:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for confirming that you have a serious conflict of interest and that your placing of your link is a forbidden practice here. Your criticisms are another issue entirely, and if you present them properly, you may have more success and even get my support in including them. Continually violating Wikipedia policies to force your opinion and criticisms on articles here is not the way to do it. -- Fyslee 16:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You, [Fyslee] have proven yourself to be a totally unreliable source of information regarding the questionable NCAHF. You have posted that they are a legal California Corporation several times ... totally and utterly unfounded. My criticism is valid and NO CONCENSUS has been reached to remove my link and I am reinstating it. Ilena 17:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline is that as long as there is no consensus, the material in contention remains out. --Ronz 21:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NCAHF / QUACKWATCH OPERATIONS

Happiest of Holidays All.

After coming back to Wikipedia a few weeks ago, I've received a lot of additional information about the joint operation of NCAHF and Quackwatch. I believe there was an appeal earlier to join these two articles, and I fully support it. It is impossible to tell where one operation ends and the other begins. Barrett rules ... as NCAHF head of 'internet operations' as well as Chairman of QW. [Fyslee] (fyslee) runs their Webring Operation of 90 blogs and websites each promoting the other. Lee appears to be stationed as a professional healthfraud 'editor' here on Wikipedia. I've seen him pounce on and revert valid edits within seconds of their appearance. I see he just quit his longtime job as "Assistant Listmaster" of the Healthfraud List. He has repeatedly claimed that NCAHF was a legal California Corporation and for months removed the links proving this was false. His performance on Wikipedia resembles a Barrett puppet, in my opinion.

QW/NCAHF claims to send over 11,000 subscribers their newsletter ... JOINTLY. Barrett runs the Healthfraud List with an iron hand and promotes both QW/NCAHF and their Webring. Barrett signs with adverts to both QW and NCAHF and in fact, their sites cross promote and reference each other. It is rare that he is not wearing both these hats for his published opinions. For these reasons, I vote that the two articles be combined.

I recently visited several articles on Wikipedia and one would believe that it was QuackWatch / Wikipedia Branch. Single articles are filled with Quackwatch POV ... while others were fought off by [Fyslee] and others.

Regarding the lack of legal corporate status in evidence ... the fact that hours and hours were wasted as people defending Barrett used every distraction and propaganda trick in the books is pure bullying. It is not a game for a non profit to prove their legal status. It could have been done in a heartbeat. The silliest game of all was for them to ask us to prove the negative that they were not incorporated in the other 49 states. I call that Quack Logic.

One of Barrett's own published definitions of what he opines is quackery"... quackery could be broadly defined as anything involving over promotion in the field of health." With 90 blogs and websites and thousands of articles circulated promoting QW/NCAHF, from someone with no current medical license and who has been called, by the Appelate Court of California, biased and unworthy of credibility'; speaks volumes as to his projection. Last count, there were over 417,000 pages promoting Barrett on a google search. Over promotion?

Further, I wish to readdress the fact of his failure to protect his patients by passing the Psychiatric Exams in several decades of "practice." This fact was only brought to light in the deposition of Barrett's losing SLAPP suit to Dr. Koren recently. Up until then, he had proclaimed himself an 'expert' in things by simple wiggling his nose or some other decider. For years, he was asked why he had never been board certified, and refused to admit that he had FAILED his boards in the 60's. This is relevant and a valid criticism of Barrett. He was licensed in the 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's ... many of them spent questioning and attacking the credentials of others. His are more than questionable. No board certification means LESS patient protection, LESS questions to his license. I believe around 85% of medical licensees protected their patients with board certification by the 90's ... why not Stephen Barrett?

After perusing Wikipedia ... it seems to me that rules are made up by those promoting Barrett about criticsm about him ... but censored regarding him.

Thank you. Ilena 18:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This quote is but one of the 417,000 edits by User:Ilena oppose Barrett. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For Pete's sake... please stop, Ilena. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor is it a forum for you to import your grievances and feud with Stephen Barrett. You are behaving disruptively, and at some point the community's patience will expire. MastCell 20:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that I am being disruptive. I am standing up for my write to edit and not be censored. I agree, Wikipedia should not be a soapbox ... and that is what the NCAHF/QW Team is making it into. I was shocked to read the totally biased QW references throughout Wikipedia. Barrett hides behind people like [Fyslee]. Without consensus, it has been claimed that my opinion is "personal" and unworthy of merit to be allowed on Wikipedia. I am the Director of The Humantics Foundation and head a large support group and have for over 11 years. We provide free information to thousands on the dangers of breast implants and related topics. Barrett's ACSH.org was one frontgroups (junkscience.com another) who spread the disinformation the industry wanted via flacks like Mike Fumento and Steve Milloy. These groups are all part of the webring Lee heads, promoting each other. It is widely believed that Barrett's meritless SLAPP suit against me (feud in WikiSpeak) was backed by industry who want to silence my viewpoint on implants. Remember, not even one word I wrote or reposted about Barrett was considered by any court to be even arguably defamatory. Losing plaintiff Polevoy and his flacks have claimed I am the "laughing stock" of the internet. This claim was made while he was calling himself "Vera Teasdale" in over 50 posts blasting Dr. Clark and myself. I have been quoted several times in the LA Times, in The Scientist, Journal of Nutrition and Health, Chemical & Engineering News, Wired, My DNA, and WebMD, to name but a few. I am very familiar with how Barrett uses people like Fyslee ([Fyslee]) who gathers others to bully and intimidate. Thank you.Ilena 20:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resolve these issues in the real world, not on Wikipedia. That's what I and others are trying to get across - and trust me, I have no love lost for Steven Milloy & co. It's a simple matter of what Wikipedia is and is not, and it's not a place for you to disseminate external links to a site you run which attacks Stephen Barrett, regardless of the merits of the site or lack thereof. MastCell 21:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose this section be immediately moved to archive as it's off topic and disruptive. --Ronz 18:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop with the personal attacks

Ilena, you continue to violate policy by making personal attacks on other editors and by failing to assume good faith. You continually impute motives to others based on your own conspiracy theories, you continually violate a number of policies here, and you fail to collaborate with other editors who have opposing POV. Until you learn to do that, Wikipedia is not a place for you. Take your battles back to Usenet, where anything goes. If you want to edit here, then play by the rules. If you do that, I'll be glad to cooperate with you.

Let's get a few things straight here:

Barrett does not own me, control me, or work through me. I occasionally contact him to attempt to get information. Anyone here can do that, and possibly with better success than I have had. None of that is forbidden and it is actually something that editors should do. We should research our subjects and attempt to get documentation.

The Anti-Quackery Ring is my own creation, and was inspired by no one else. Neither Barrett or the NCAHF has anything to do with it. It is not his or its ring in any way, shape or form, so stop lying about that matter. The Skeptic Ring was something I inherited from the previous ringmaster. It took some time for me to convince Barrett that Quackwatch should be a part of those rings. Web rings have little effect on the site visits of larger sites, while smaller sites get some benefit. He has absolutely no influence on the rings, and in fact there are some sites in them of which he is less than enthusiatistic, and in fact I share the feeling about some. Milloy's site is one of those I am ambivalent about. I have no idea what Barrett thinks about it, and I couldn't care less. I make the decisions there. Anyone want to take over as Ringmaster? Applications accepted.....;-)

I am greatly saddened by the effect your abominable behavior has on the cause of women with breast implant issues. I sympathize with that cause, and I also sympathize with the women who are ashamed to have you in their company. You do more harm than good for them. While neither my mother nor both MIL (my FIL remarried) had implants, they all died of breast cancer, so I've had these tragedies far too close to take them lightly.

Please show some evidence that you can act like an adult and learn something here. Many editors have repeatedly tried to teach you proper behavior here, yet you persist in violating various policies, including attacking other editors, assuming bad faith, promoting yourself, posting links to your website, and generally bringing your Usenet wars to Wikipedia. Please show that you have some common decency, courtesy, good manners, and some semblance of good ethics. We haven't seen it yet. You seem to think that because you got away with posting other people's lies and undocumented personal attacks, that it's okay to post them. Well, it's not. It's still wrong, even if you can legally do so. That's the moral dilemma you fail to understand. You just don't seem to have an understanding of ethics and morality. On that matter you and Bolen are very similar. It's a street thug mentality, and we don't need it here. Here we try to cooperate. The best articles are often created by editors with opposing POV who cooperate. -- Fyslee 00:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[Fyslee], you have proven yourself to be totally unworthy of credibility. You repeatedly lied that NCAHF was a legal California Corporation and vandalized my posts proving otherwise. You attacked me the moment I posted NON POV links and you continue to fill my talkpage with your delusions. Regarding my breast implant advocacy: I have helped thousands of women find biased information on breast implants, we have provided several implant removals, and your criticism of my advocacy is just more propaganda. I have been quoted in Wired Magazine, The Scientist, the LA Times (several times, Chemical & Engineering News, US Today, US magazine, Washington Post, Washington Times, San Diego Business Journal, to name a few. Your attempts to separate yourself from Barrett are laughable. He runs the internet operations of NCAHF/QW with you handling the Web ring. Who are you to call others "quacks" ????? You and your "Quack Files." Ilena 02:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just read your lie that I "got away with posting other people's lies" ... what a load of nonsense. Every court backed me that not one word I wrote or reposted about Barrett was even arguably libelous. YOU think you know whether or not Terry Polevoy stalked Ms McPhee? Were you there? Did you see him on Usenet calling himself "Vera Teasdale" and attacking Dr. Clark and myself? Why is Polevoy obsessed with the physical location of young Adam Dreamhealer? There is no evidence that I posted anyone's lies ... only repeated nonsense by you and others of the Rag-tag Posse of Snakeoil Vigilantes. Ilena 02:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ilena, this is ridiculous. Because a statement is not libelous does not mean it is true, or appropriate, either. And Fyslee, it doesn't mean it is a lie. I thought I had seen some ridiculous things on Wikipedia, but this beats all. Ilena, if you think you are convincing or helping anyone by spewing venom, you are sadly mistaken. Do you blame anyone from responding when you accuse them of conspiracies and lies and god knows what else? I suppose I will be added now to your 'hate' list, but I feel a need to say what I think here. And I think it is outrageous. And no, I am not getting paid by Barrett, or Fyslee, or manufacturers, or anyone else. I am calling it like I see it. And all of this looks flat-out insane.Jance 05:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is insane ... especially the Rag-tag Posse of Snake-oil Vigilantes which includes Barrett and Grell and Polevoy and [Fyslee]. Yes indeed, Terry Polevoy, the losing plaintiff, WAS caught donning the disguise of "Vera Teasdale" to attack me and Dr. Clark. It may not have happened to you and you don't want to believe it .. but it's 100% verifiable and factual. You may also be unaware that Barrett, ever so humbly called himself "the media" in Time Magazine. If you don't bebelieve that ACSH.org (where Barrett is an "advisor" (God help the advised) has been paid to create disinformation in the breast implant world, you are being naive (at best). PR is a huge business ... ACSH and junkscience.com and all their quacky frontgroups have indeed been working together (or conspiring since you like that word) to put out as much propaganda as possible on the 'safety' of breast implants. Have a lovely day. Ilena 15:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ilena, the topic is your behavior. Care to address the topic? Your continued attacks on Barrett and editors here are the very reason your behavior is being called into question. --Ronz 18:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me update your information. My edits were removed from the moment I came to Wikipedia exposing NCAHF's questionable corporate status. State records were called POV and removed by you and others. When I first began to read here ... Barrett Vs Rosenthal was unrecognizable to the facts of the case. Jance has done an admirable job of getting the basics of this article correct. I am very familiar with being ganged up by people defending Stephen Barrett and his questionable operations and his "feuds" (SLAPP suits that go for over 6 years and end up in The Supreme Court of California). Thank you and have a lovely holiday. Ilena 20:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what does this have to do with your behavior? Is it just you indirect way of saying you don't want to discuss it, you don't care, or the situation justifies it? --Ronz 20:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is interesting that for someone who claims to be such an activist with regard to breast implants, Ilena doesn't seem to spend any time editing the article. Yet, Jance, who seems to take much in step with Ilena's views on matters, spends a lot of time editing the article in question. --Curtis Bledsoe 17:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin noticeboard post

This has gone on long enough. I've posted to the admin noticeboard regarding Ilena's persistent disruptive editing. MastCell 18:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to slow down a little. If I understand part of the orignial underlying provocation problems here, it seems that Ilena has details about her WP:BLP treatment that have been in conflict with the Wiki articles surrounding SB/QW/NCAHF and may have been given short shrift.--I'clast 01:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What details? I'm all for removing anything that violates WP:BLP right away. But Ilena's focus has been to use Wikipedia as a front in her war against Barrett (which is totally inappropriate), ignore policy left and right, and keep pushing a link to her personal site. I don't agree that Ilena was "provoked"; if anything, she's been given quite a bit of slack per WP:DBTN, and shown no inclination to respect Wikipedia's policies. But again, if there's a specific WP:BLP concern, let's hear it - without all the abuse/linkspamming/soapboxing/incivility/etc. MastCell 03:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She said that her legal victory is quite misrepresented in treatment. I personally am not up to speed on that issue. One also could make a case that there is a second warring front on the Barrett story, just much more Wiki saavy. Now I agree that she has to come to conform and needs to learn the culture if not the rules, but I am not big on training by attack / Wikilawyering when there seem to be outstanding issues. One issue may be resolving if the last edit holds.--I'clast 05:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is it misrepresented? The cases she is involved in are accurately described. eg see Barrett v. Rosenthal. All the cases are summarized, with court holdings or resolution.Jance 07:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that IR feels that that the Wiki articles on her legal victory do not convey & portray her legal outcome correctly *to the average reader*, and that it comes across that her legal victories were based on technicalities of SLAPP & CDA'96 rather than non-defamatory statements per se, especially in the Barrett v. Rosenthal article, although ruled non-defamatory is mentioned in the SB article. Here is Fyslee agreeing...you got away with posting other people's lies... with this point (I am not looking to kick Fyslee, just that the analyses reported here have stakes). IR previously complained that the California courts cleared her on a number of points or levels not adequately described here. Of course NPOV, RS and a representative legal analysis is a problem for us to follow in detail here. Her other issues focus on the accurate incorporation staus on NCAHF (we may be getting close) and that all 3 articles drift into pro-QW sentiment now and over delete less favorable information.--I'clast 13:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barrett v. Rosenthal was only based on CDA and it was hardly a 'technicality'. The issue as to whether or not IR made non-defamatory statement against Polvenoy 'per se' was NOT before the court. There was one sentence in a concurring opinion where the judge, in dicta, agreed with a lower court that IR did not defame Barrett. That remains in the article on Barrett. There is absolutely no reason to include it in Barrett v. Rosenthal (although it was discussed in the section on the lower court opinion). The concurring dicta was left in Stephen Barrett to appease IR --there is no encyclopedic reason to leave it. Any non-defamation as against Barrett was never an issue in BvR - it was settled in the lower court and not appealed! It is not even part of the opinion. So please explain why exactly you or she want to rewrite the case? If she wanted to appeal the factual issue of the Polvenoy statement, she should have told her attorney to raise that issue before the CA supreme court. That was not raised. Once again, only one issue was even before the court - her immunity under the CDA. And you or she now calls that a technicality???Jance 15:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Like I said, I am not up to speed on the nuts & bolts of IR's case. I somewhat followed the various conversations on her legal situation and this seemed to be a comment & a factor in IR's response about perceptions of her results.--I'clast 21:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The NCAHF corporate status was incorrecty stated. In MA, the corporation must register with the AG (Division of Charities) and get a 'certificate' before it solicits donations from the public. It does not appear as if that has occurred, so NCAHF can not natively operate (soliciting funds), natively or otherwise.Jance 16:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IRS Search

Jokestress added an interesting reference that doesn't work from any computer I've tried. [21] Can someone provide the search criteria? --Ronz 23:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure--

Go to http://apps.irs.gov/portal/site/pub78/
At Name, choose Includes
Type in National Council Against Health Fraud
Click the radio button that says All of the words

You should get one result: NCAHF.

Name: National Council Against Health Fraud Inc.
City: Peabody
State: MA
Country: USA Jokestress 23:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That works. Thanks! --Ronz 00:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The IRS may not have been informed by NCAHF as required by law that their license was suspended. The same link shows they are claiming to be legal in California, which we all know is untrue. Massachusetts definitely has proven beyond any doubt that they have no legal status and the address you quote is Baratz's Skin Clinic. It appears that editors here are uneducated in the fact that non profit corporations must be licensed. There is no evidence that NCAHF is or has been since 2003. Ilena 00:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the section for more supported phrasing - NCAHF is currently on the IRS list as Peabody MA, it qualified previously but that is modified by the California/MA status data in the most current state references.--I'clast 00:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-profit corps generally file with the IRS (NCAHF has done so). State licensing requirements for businesses/charities vary. Here is MA Jance 01:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be picky BUT if NCAHF is not registered with MA per the link (above) it is not eligible to receive donations, regardless of what its IRS status is. The way it is now stated is misleading. Until it files with the state, it can't legally receive donations. Ilena is correct about thatJance 16:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then what does this mean?:

"A public charity with a 50% deductibility limitation."

That's what comes up when one finds the MA listing (above) and opens the "Code" box. -- Fyslee 21:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct Jance. Further, The IRS requires the corporations to inform them when they are suspended or dissolved. According to the IRS records, for 3 1/2 years NCAHF has failed to do so and continues to claim California as their legal entity. Further, whether or not they will be given legal corporate status in the future in Massachusetts is an unknown at this time despite the prophets making this claim. Also, there is no evidence that the "agent of service" moved and the information I have received is this is not the case and certainly not has been proven. Thank you and have a lovely day. Ilena 21:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who has claimed that the agent of service "moved"? It clearly states on the Calif. site that he "RESIGNED ON 03/22/2003". -- Fyslee 22:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was posted as a fact on the article page. The corporate status of the National Council Against Health Fraud, Inc. in California is shown as suspended on March 22, 2003, because the agent of service resigned (moved). Thank you and have a lovely day. Ilena 22:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is now reworded to what can be justified from reliable sources. The word "moved" was (no doubt good faith) editorializing that was not in the original. -- Fyslee 22:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not accurate. The reason for the suspension is not given. You have put two events together and claimed causality. Further, it is not addressed that there has been a 3 1/2 year lapse in having a legal corporation collecting donations, and they have never stopped soliciting donations. Thank you and have a lovely holiday.Ilena 23:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR it is not wikipedia's place for to address "that there has been a 3 1/2 year lapse in having a legal corporation collecting donations, and they have never stopped soliciting donations". 23:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The reason for suspension is available for all to see in the reference given.

As far as a claim of a lapse, we need references to verify it per WP:V, preferably a secondary source [22]. --Ronz 23:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but you are assuming a causal relationship which is not factual. Thank you. Ilena 03:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're starting to see why I've been constantly reminding everyone here that these problems we're having with this section all come from the fact that we're working entirely from primary sources, when we should have mosly secondary sources instead. We can only write what we can verify. Without secondary sources, we have to make some assumptions to link together the verified facts. It's a mess. --Ronz 03:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too many semicolons for me. I am not sure why the 50% deductibility is raised, unless it is to suggest that the organization is not "primarily charitable", and thus would not fall within the provision. I rather doubt that. And yes, I probably was assuming too much about "moving". Mea culpa. The comment about registration is necessary to avoid misrepresenting - that is if you have anything at all in there about incoproration. Jance 00:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NCAHF will be qualified to solicit donations when it registers with the MA Division of Public Charities.[5][6] This is not a fact. Whether or not they receive legal corporate status in Massachusetts is unknown as is whether or not they will qualify. The State may take into consideration the fact that they have been soliciting and collecting donations in Massachusetts for 3 1/2 years after being suspended in California and decide against it. It is supposition, not fact. Thank you and have a lovely evening. Ilena 03:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then say "may". It is not likely that it would be denied - but strictly speaking, yes, that is true. Jance 03:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does need to be noted was it says in the faq proved at MA:

16. Q: Do you have a list of all charitable organizations in Massachusetts?

A: We have a computerized list of the nearly 25,000 charitable organizations which register with the Division. It is available for inspection at our office or a hard copy may be purchased for $100.00 plus postage. This list is not available online or in disc form.

It is worth asking the question, is a "charitable organization" = "corporation"? I note that various people seem to think "Charity = organisation = corporation" which is not necessarily the case. Shot info 03:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, when you start saying "may" in wikipedia it's time for WP:OR to pop back up :-)

"Don't shoot the messenger". I tried to rephrase a tortured paragraph. I also attempted to incorporate "may" while including the link to both the requirement and the division search. One could phrase it in the negative "The state website does not show a registration for NCAHF as a non-profit organization." I was trying to be "positive" but as Ilena points out, corp status upon registration is not a given. It is also remotely possible that NCAHF filed for registration, it got lost and somehow did not appear on the website. (groan)

A legitmate charity would be a corporation taxed under IRS 501(c)(3). I can't imagine a charity, other than a church or such group, that would not be a corporation. You wouldn't have an LLC, LLP, LP, GP, etc.Jance 03:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And as I keep pointing out, it is now speculation, drawing conclusions from various pieces of data to come to the outcome that the article currently is. Lets face it, because there are so many non notable pieces of information in this paragraph, the natural desire of humans is to start drawing the links. What we have is a small piece of trivia, an "ugly" half a sentence that for some reason is notable (is it?), so somebody expands that, but it needs more extrapolation, more....more....more, and then we have the OR speculatory paragraph that we have. Wikipedia is not the place to say "Look we just don't know" which is really what the Corporate Status of NCAHF is. Of course, I have been saying this all along, but it serves the purpose of various editors to keep including it in. Shot info 03:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the speculative pieces. The ugly parts have a few more fig leaves in front. We have quoted the latest relevant, verifiable sources available. Whether the rest of the information is proprietary or unobtained can be someone else's job. Time to quit picking at the scab and move on.--I'clast 04:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ya, ok. I think 'non-natively' is odd, but this seems a lot ado about nothing.Jance 04:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Proving a negative" ??? Why is it that once again it needs to be pointed out ... again, there are 48 other states that it could be hiding in, not to mention the whole OR thing about assuming it is a corporation and assuming that it is in MA, and assuming it is this, and assuming it is that. People, the trail has gone cold, the facts are not notable, they are pointless trivia that only are leading us to make synerginistic conclusion after conclusion. The question needs to be asked, "Why is it notable?" which I note has not been answered satisfactorily. Shot info 04:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Shot, but that is ridiuclous. The corporation says it is located in MA. That should be where they are registered, if they accept donations in MA. Your argument is illogical. What I don't understand, is why this is such a big deal, in this article. On either side. Jance 04:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"if they accept donations", that wouldn't be an assumption now would it... But all this aside, the point is not notable. As for the big deal, remember the original reasons it was included "They are operating illegally" ???? WP:OR ... again anybody. But I'm giving up on this and leaving it for admins, as the consensus we reached as slowly (well quickly actually) been undermined by I'clast et.al. who are driving their POV that the NCAHF is "illegal" just a little bit to hard. Shot info 05:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Assuming that it is a corporation", Inc. is not OR or an assumption. NCAHF still carries itself that way itself online, with the IRS site, and with California as "suspended", not dissolved; to say otherwise is an unsupported heroic assumption. It is a notable fact that NCAHF is not currently registered in CA (the latest evidence of registration albeit suspended) or MA (where it is HQ'd and operating), just speculating about the other places *is* WP:OR even if plausible. The problem here is not with Wikipedia.--I'clast 05:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is we have no secondary sources. --Ronz 05:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Source

The NCAHF has been accused by critics such as Robert Atkins MD, James Carter MD, a reference seems to have dropped off or being forgotten about for this claim. Shot info 03:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atkins and Carter are mentioned in the ref to http://www.ncahf.org/about/history.html --Ronz 03:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ronz, I guess this link should be included in that paragraph? Or have I missed something (it is very late....) Shot info 12:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's already listed as the second reference at the end of the sentence. It's a pretty shaky reference given that the context is that they are just perpetuating someone else's misrepresentations. If we ever get around to making this article encyclopedic, the reference should probably be removed. --Ronz 16:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting New Info on NCAHF

[23] In 2002 were using the Peabody, MA address. The older archives are a bit sketchy, so I can't tell when they began using MA. If you look at the archived membership solicitations from 2003 through 2006, they continued to claim to be a legal non-profit. [24][25] [26]

Also, notice here, current webpage of QW [27] ... ... Subscriptions: $20/yr. Send order to National Council Against Health Fraud, 119 Foster Street, Building R, Second Floor, Peabody, MA 01960. It's not clear where one begins and one ends is not clear. Barrett signs with both titles, and the two websites go back and forth and forth and back. Thank you and good nite. Ilena

There are three issues here. Well, 2 issues and a point.

One is whether or not DCAHF is registered with MA. I hope to hear from David on why he thinks it would not be on the website. In the state where I live, it is pretty easy. My spounse (who has over 20 years practicing law, agrees that many states now have this on a website like that which MA has.) At one time, it was much more difficult, with different layer (sometimes counties) as David suggested. I don't know that is still true in most places. But states do this differently.
The corporation would have to be soliciting donations to be required to register. It is possible that a $20/yr subscription to Quackwatch does not fall within that requirement. I don't know. For one thing, I believe that Quackwatch is a different organization. For another, it is possible that an educational subscription is not a charitable donation. It is a good question for someone who really wants to find out. Call the state. I also am now curious. Oh and don't forget - they are claiming only 50% deduction. Would they still be required to register to accept donations?
Leaving in only a 'part' of MA point could be misleading. I think it either all stays out, or we need to get the right sources. There are ways to do this. One can find out what the subscription "buys" what is its purpose, and then call the state and ask what the requirements are, and how we can find out. That is what I would do. I am not going to do it, because I have spent way way more time on Wiki and I have a trial to prepare for.... but Ilena, or I'last (?) -- either of you could figure this out. We just need ot know we have the right sources, and that the claims we make are legally correct. Beyond that, accurate information on the legal status is relevant, because of the nature of the organization. I admit I have waffled, as I can see both sides, but I am leaning towards inclusion. There is a saying about "clean hands" in equity. He who seeks equity must do equity (eg he must have clean hands). WHile this is obviously not an equity situation, the principle surely applies. If NCAHF is going after others for their fraud, violations of the law etc, then NCAHF should have its own house in order. Jance 07:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Secretary of the Commonwealth's web site, DBAs are registered with the city or town they are located in. Now, DBAs may not have "Inc.", so, if they really are still operating as NCAHF, Inc., they would need to be registered in some state. For what it's worth, DBAs in California register with the county, and the state doesn't seem to keep track. (I asked the Secretary of State's office about a DBA, and they specifically told me to check with the county to find out what its real identity was.)
The "50%" issue is a red herring. (I should have brought it up earlier.) Some charities are 50%, and some are 30%; the percentage is the percentage of AGI (Adjusted Gross Income) which is allowable as a current deduction.
I'm pretty sure that subscriptions are not legally "donations", even if they could have worded it that a $20 donation gets a subscription, which would have the same effect. but would be a solicitation of donations.

And I'm Arthur, not David. David is better paid :) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 09:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur, I am very sorry (I must have been half asleep). As to the 50%, I assumed that was what this meant, but was not sure how, or if, it made any difference in the definition of "charity" wrt need to register. I tend to agree about the meaning of "subscription." Regardless, without more, it should not be in the artilce.Jance 15:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NCAHF claim that they accept tax deducible donations

Please look at the archived membership solicitations from 2003 through 2006. NCAHF ontinued to claim to be a legal non-profit. [28][29] [30] All three of these links, after their supsension, include the statement that they accept tax deductible donations and claim to be a legal corporate entity.Thank you.Ilena 16:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does this have to do with the article? --Ronz 17:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, it appears that you have little schooling in corporation and non profit law. One who understands this, realizes that in order to collect donations as they solicit on the forms above, a non profit must be a legal entity. This deals with consumer protection and state laws. A non legal corporation does not have the legal right to solicit donations and give tax deductible receipts as is claimed in their operations advertising. As there appears no verified legal entity in 3.5 years, this appears notable. Thank you and have a lovely day. Ilena 17:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, no I do not. I'm here to work on encyclopedia articles, not to do original research that would violate the policies and guidelines of this encyclopedia. --Ronz 17:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link (I think all three are the same) that Ilena provided do not prove that NCAHF solicits donations. All this civility is enough to make one choke.Jance 05:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any with eyes to see, with all due respect, can look at the links from NCAHF official websites provided above, read the back of their brochure where they are claiming to be a legal non profit corporation and gives a place to enter donation amounts. These are from the years after the California suspension. [[31] If documents from their own website claiming to be a legal 501(c)3 (in 2006) isn't evidence that proves NCAHF solicits donations, I am unclear what would be. Thank you and have a lovely day.Ilena 16:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm not "any with eyes to see" and I must have "little schooling in corporation and non profit law". They aren't requirements to be an editor here, but seem to be to follow all the original research. Just one of the many reasons why original research is not allowed here in place of verifiable sources. --Ronz 18:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is verifiable, is their operation's brochure on their website I have referenced. This verifies that they are still soliciting donations claiming to be a legal 501(c)3. Have you gone to the links and read this? It is extremely clear. Thanks and have a lovely day. Ilena 19:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I find interesting is that you have shown us through your research that they were using the MA address in 2002. Does that make the "suspended in California" information completely non-notable now? It seems to me that they moved. --Ronz 19:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The more I think about this, the more I see no good reason to have the paragraph at all. What is the point? What is the relevance of noting a CA suspension that is based on nothing more than the failure of a registered agent to follow a technical protocol? If the organization was not soliticing donations, then I don't see the point - and nothing Ilena has linked to proves this. Membership, amd subscriptions are not the same thing as donations. If you have something that says they are, then by all means show us. Jance 03:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The National Council Against Health Fraud is a US-based organization headquartered in Peabody, Massachusetts?????

For the purposes of Wikipedia, I understand that verifiability is the hallmark of articles. However, I have seen nothing whatsoever that indicates that TNCAHF is a legal organization as described here. Conversations with the State of Massachusetts and internet searches of the State registered database have indicated that they have never registered. I believe this is a misleading quote based on the advertisements of this operation, and on nothing verifiable. Claiming that it isItalic text makes a reader believe that it isItalic text what it claims to be ... but this is not in evidence to any Wiki standards that I've been learning about. Until that verification is in evidence, it seems that this entry quote is going against standards. Thank you. Ilena 17:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you're starting to see the problems of not having secondary sources to draw upon. We have many primary sources, which give us many facts to work from. But how do we put those facts together to be a part of an encyclopedia article? When we don't know enough to fill in all the blanks, what do we assume? --Ronz 17:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. We do not know where NCAHF is headquartered. It is an assumption. So let's get rid of the entire paragraph. This is absurd. What it sounds like to me is that MA requires registration of a non-profit corp (MA calls it the same) is necessary to solicit donations in MA. We do not have proof that NCAHF is doing this. Therefore, to do what you suggest, Ilena, is to be reckless and very likely wrong. While that may or may not be defamation of a public figure, it is wrong.Jance 22:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't write "HQ'd" but personally find it a potentially acceptable summary word if somewhat inflationary and over cueing on size & stability, further needing the balance of the observation, non-natively. Non-natively is not an accusation or stmt of wrongdoing but merely the factual, sourced observation in the totality that contains an incompletely understood anomaly. "corresponds from" is most neutral & factual, if, perhaps, slightly over circumspect. Also I do think a historical note, "chartered in 1977" (California site) would be a consideration here.--I'clast 23:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Chartered in 1977" sounds good. I've looked over their history and I don't see much notable (name changes and mergers with similar groups). The bits in their early history about laetrile, antifluoridationism and cancer quackery are interesting, though probably not documented well enough for our use. --Ronz 23:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the following considered an "unnecessary & pointless fact" and then removed?:

"A public charity with a 50% deductibility limitation."

I would think that some non-original information from a reliable source like the IRS would be welcome. That's what comes up when one finds the MA listing and opens the "Code" box. -- Fyslee 20:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok. Why is it relevant to anything? I don't care, if you want to leave it in, leave it in,Jance 23:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- Fyslee 23:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still do not see how this information is notable. But then , I am coming to suspect nothing in that paragrah is notable, and worthy of inclusion in an article.Jance 03:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curiously WP:N agrees with you :-). Shot info 04:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo

Making progress. Thanks and have a lovely weekend from the Jungles Ilena 23:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with Curtis

We have a bigger problem than any of the 'regulars' here. A SPE is vandalizing this page. For example, Fyslee has already reverted after Curtis deleted the information on King Bio. Fyslee told him to stop doing this, and if he had a problem to bring it here. Curtis obviously ignored it. The section on King Bio is not editorializing. If Curtis bothers to read the case, he would understand this. There is absolutely nothing that is in this section that is not EXACTLY as the court described it. This is an important case because it goes to a criticism that this COURT had of NCAHF. It is MORE than a simple ruling. As to the other massive edits, I think he should discuss here. At this point, I believe any of these massive edits should be considered vandalism.Jance 05:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The back-and-forth changes qualify as edit warring, but the policies and guidelines are very clear that content disputes such as these are not vandalism. Still, I wish Curtis would be more respectful of other editors work. --Ronz 05:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The section on King Bio is CLEARLY editorial and POV. I'm removing it because there is no link to support it. We have no way of verifying that the statements of the court were quoted accurately and taken in context. So the section should stick to dry reporting of the facts. I'm sorry if that offends your need to slander Barrett, but it is in keeping with wiki policy. --Curtis Bledsoe 05:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UNLESS YOU CALL A COURT OPINION EDITORIAL AND POV, THIS IS NOT EDITORIAL AND POV .Curtis needs to read the case. There surely is a link to it. And, there is also a citation of the lower court. Wikipedia does not require a hotlink. This is not slander to Barrett. You need to learn what slander is. This is exactly as the court stated it. The hotlink that is there is pretty clear about what the lower court held and why. The case is easily found. Anyone can get a copy. IF YOU WANT A HOTLINK, I WILL INCLUDE A HOTLINK - however, I do not like the source since it is an anti-Barrett source. That does not change the court opinion. But fine, I will include it - I had removed that link, because I thought it was not appropriate. However, a non-hotlink citation to a court case is most certainly within EVERY Wiki guideline and rule.Jance 05:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not calling a court opinion editorial. What I'm calling "editorial" is an attempt to put an unreferenced claim as to what the court may have said into an article on wikipedia. If you have a link to support the quotes, then provide it. If not, then don't. But if you can't, then don't expect me to leave unsupported editorial comment in this article. --Curtis Bledsoe 05:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IT HAS BEEN PROVIDED. THERE IS A CITATION FOR THE LOWER COURT OPINION, AND THERE IS A HOTLINK TO THE APPEALATE OPINION. If you don't like this, then I can't help you. But these are properly sourced.

It seems to me that deletion of a major section of work after being told to stop is tantamount to vandalism. If you don't want to call it that, then call it total disrespect, total failure to understand wikipedia guidelines (and that of any paper, for that goes) and an inability to understand basic citations.Jance 05:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As long as we're talking about citations, why don't you show me where the link to the court's comments can be found? --Curtis Bledsoe 06:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis, do you know what a citation is? I provided the citation. It is not a link. The citation is the 'address' where you can look it up in the court. This is a valid way of sourcing. The hotlink is the appellate decision, and it pretty much echoes everything in the lower court. The only thing not there is the quote - which pretty much sums up both the lower and the appellate court decisions. And the quote can be found by the citation I provided. Not everything is a hotlink.Jance 06:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't be bothered to provide a link to support the "quotes" in the article, then don't be surprised if they are deleted. You must provide adequate documentation to support such controversial claims. If you're not willing to provide verifiable support for your claims, then don't bother making them. --Curtis Bledsoe 06:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of having at least some discussion of NCAHF's position statements, which Curtis added at length and Jance removed. It would be especially nice if there are third parties that have published comments on one or more of them. --Ronz 05:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see huge sections of the article not be spitefully wiped out. --Curtis Bledsoe 06:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NO. My edit was just as good faith as yours, Curtis. Add those sections back in - fine with me. It just seemed that after a massive deletion of a properly sourced section, your other massive edits looked questionable. Jance 06:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so it was just a "coincidence" that after I added some material to the article and after you had been complaining that my removal of your material (which you still haven't troubled to support with a link or anything) was inappropriate, you removed everything I had added to the article? You weren't trying to "get a little of your own back" or anything? --Curtis Bledsoe 06:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to engage in a childish fight. If you want to add it back, add it back. I am not objecting. Jance 06:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, can I take this to mean that you're going to stop doing what you've been doing? --Curtis Bledsoe 06:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue to add in improperly deleted sections - such as King Bio. We can discuss the other sections you added. They are way too long, and need references. I think it is a good idea to discuss NCAHF positions - but not in a thesis, and not without references. Jance 06:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided references to support the sections I added. The information comes largely from NCAHF's own website. However, there is also supporting evidence from other websites that I add when appropriate. I think your main problem seems to be that, when more information about the organization is added, and the article is appropriately fleshed-out, the criticism of them begins to seem trivial. That isn't really a problem (though people who nurse an irrational hatred of NCAHF may disagree) because the fact of the matter is that apart from the people who find themselves described as unethical practitioners, NCAHF is seen as a beneficial organization. --Curtis Bledsoe 17:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now we are in the situation of something as trivial as corporation status is notable, so therefore why isn't what Curtis is adding notable? After all it is actually what the organisation states it is doing. Normally I would argue that (if possible) it should be pruned down to a single heading and each area a dot point under this heading to make the overall length of the article shorter. But since the "incorporation-crowd" want, nay need, their WP:N-cake and eat it as well, it is only fitting that all relevant information is added. Will be interesting to see how this is classified as non-notable :-) Shot info 06:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jance, what your problem with Curtis is here, is that he is soapboxing, turning a word, a phrase, or a sentence on a subject into a whole section, a billboard for NCAHF with relatively trivial, low density, POV material. This also dilutes and pushes down the Critics' analyses sections. A more skillful writer would put Curtis' 3 sections on a diet, into one section of 8-10 lines with 2-3 more subjects from the NCAHF's site list with *some* reference links and Wiki links (this is not a invitation to start a QW spamsite). This behavior is why so many polar articles bloat up so large, if an editor is not so skilled (or interested) to craft succinct informative prose.--I'clast 12:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much easier though when we have secondary sources to draw upon. --Ronz 16:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed,.

Your POV (and incivility) is duly noted, I'clast --Curtis Bledsoe 17:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I interpret it, NCAHF supports only "Reform chiropractors" [32]. It might be worth looking to see what publications reform chiropractors have and what they say about themselves vs other chiropractors. --Ronz 17:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

King Bio

Stays until someone can show me on WP:RS or any other Wiki rule that a court citation is not a valid source. Jance 06:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC) I have left what Curtis added, and added back the improperly deleted section on King Bio.Jance 06:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you don't have a court citation. You have an allegation of one without any supporting links. If you want to rely on paper, then feel free to scan the court documents that must surely be in your possession and include them as graphical images. But you can't just CLAIM to have a court document that says something - if it is contentious as this. --Curtis Bledsoe 06:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I DO have court citations. That is what you are missing. Show me what in Wikipedia requires a hotlink? If you want me to use an already scanned version, I will. But I don't think you would like the website it came from. That does not make the opinion any less valid. It does not make the citation invalid. Jance 06:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis, this is a PROPER citation:

Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Case No. BC245271 (December 3, 2001).

Jance 06:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia requires controversial claims to be verifiable. Your statement that claim to have read certain words from a court document is inherently unverifiable. If you can't provide access to the information you post so that someone else can verify that what you say is true, then it isn't verifiable. --Curtis Bledsoe 17:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how many edit conflicts I'm going to continue to get here :-) :-) ?? Shot info 06:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Dont know. I do not have a scanned version of the Superior Court case. It is not necessary to have a scanned version. However, I will add an anti-Barrett website that has a scanned version, if you want. I don't care. Jance 06:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about that findlaw site? I agree that we don't need an electronic reference, a paper reference from a RS (... it's TLA time ...)is fine HOWEVER, I am surprised the LA county couts don't have something electronic. I think that dubious link should stay off though as it may (probably) not be accurate. Mind you, if the sole source of the King Bio info is from that site originally (including the court citation) then I would prehaps err on the side of caution and actually find a paper copy. Since I'm in the UK, I cannot really do it :-) Shot info 06:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that Findlaw will only quote opinions published in reporters, and those are usually only appellate opinions. This is a trial court opinion. I can find a paper copy. I will do it, because I think this is probably worth it. It does highlight the court's concern (which obvoiusly the appellate court agreed with). I do not doubt that the opinion is scanned, and is not changed. The words there are clearly the court's. But I can find a copy. Until then, this still should stay, because it is properly cited.Jance 06:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Curtis...leave alone :-) As much as QWPWpotwatchquackwatchwhatever is run by a paid mouth it will do for the moment. Still surprised cannot get document electronically, but Que Sera, Sera :-) Shot info 07:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You would think that courts would get the trial court opinions electronically filed, but gee its only the twenty-first century. I will call the LA Courthouse to see what I can find (I am on the other coast!).Jance 08:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quackpotwatch as a Jance's source and editorial commentary

You've got to be kidding, right? I mean, if the document in question was a scan of a certified court document, then it might not matter much what website was used as the source. But given the fact that the link in question isn't a scan at all but rather a typed transcript with no verifiability, it doesn't really qualify as a verifiable source for the claim that the court issued a "sharp rebuke" of NCAHF. In fact, the phrase "sharp rebuke" appears nowehere, even in the questionable Bolen document. Therefore, it is inappropriate editorial comment and must be removed.

As for the Bolen document, Bolen himself is of such dubious credibility in these issues that any unverifiable document attributed to him must be questioned and, in any case, doesn't come anywhere near meeting wiki standards for authority and verifiability. --Curtis Bledsoe 17:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Curtis Bledsoe 20:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NO HOTLINK IS REQUIRED

You decide, Curtis. Etiher you can have a proper citation, or a hotlink to a website you (and I) think is inappropriate. No, this section will not be removed. It is on-point, relevant and the quote is directly from the opinion. Every statement made in that section is directly from either the trial or appellate court decision.

You show me what Wikipedia rule requires a hotlink. This is sufficient for now - it is obvious that it is the court's language. And this was scanned, and converted to HTML. You might be better served by cleaning up your own section and providing any references. Jance 17:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Jance. There is no requirement that the primary (or secondary) source be accessable online, only that it exist. It would be nice if it's existance could be verified online, but even that is not necessary. If it's quoted incorrectly (as tax protestors do with court decisions on their web sites), it would be corrected by others with access to the true source. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the process of trying to get a hardcopy to scan. It may take a few days. However, I do not doubt that this is the court opinion, as it is not excerpted. Moreover, the appellate court decision is linked, and it affirms the trial court decision, and quotes some of it. If anything here is quoted incorrectly, I will be the first to change it, or concur wtih any change. Thank you, Arthur. Jance 18:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it doesn't contain any quote about a "sharp rebuke", does it? --Curtis Bledsoe 18:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that is not a 'sharp rebuke', what is? The quote is direct, and it was clear what this is. Would you rather say, the court "stated"? Fine. It is lousy writing. Jance 19:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is for the reader to decide for themselves what it is, not for the editor to comment and tell them what to think. That's why they call it an "editorial comment". It is inappropriate in this context. Your opinion as to what is "lousy writing" is irrelevant. --Curtis Bledsoe 20:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reproducing NCAHF Website?

Will others please look at what Curtis has added to this article? While I think a concise section on NCAHF position is useful, it appears that Curtis has simply recopied the entire website here. And, of course, the references are not properly formatted. Jance 18:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not correctly formatted IN YOUR OPINION. You are, of course, free to reformat them as you like, provided you don't break the link. As to the website, there's nothing wrong with using an organization's website as a source for the views and actions of the organization. It is certainly more important (and interesting) to have the majority of the article contain information about the organization rather than the bulk of it being made up petulant complaints from a handful of quacks who find themselves targets of the organization. --Curtis Bledsoe 18:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis, can you try to work with us? Is there some reason you would not want to be consistent in formating an article? I agree that these points need to be made. I do not agree that you need to republish the website here. That is bad writing. Even the criticism does not do that. For what it is worth, I have already deleted much of the criticism which was poorly sourced, or badly written.Jance 19:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're the only one being obstructive here. I'm trying to contribute to improving the article and you insist on removing valid and useful information. Why is that? --Curtis Bledsoe 19:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis, this is ridiculous. Your 'imrovement' is recopying a webpage here. That is not valid or useful. If there is a particular point not brought out in the summary, let's discuss it.

If you want to make a point in this article, making it unwieldy and long will not do what you hope. It will, on the other hand, make a reader's eyes glaze over. This is not the purpose of Wikipedia. And please tell me why you want to have a patchwork of references, with no consistent formating?Jance 19:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's ask others what they think, and arrive at a consensus.Jance 19:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't. I want to have a section that accurately conveys the position of the NCAHF and you are preventing me from doing that and offering no valid reason for doing it. I accepted your formatting changes because they were positive and beneficial. I will, however, continue to reject your attempts to remove important information from the article for no valid reason whatsoever. --Curtis Bledsoe 19:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we discuss it before you recopy an entire webpage in an ariticle. Let's talk about what specifically you think must be included that isn't summarized.Jance 19:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis, you are not going to recopy a webpage here. Period.Jance 19:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I'm doing. --Curtis Bledsoe 20:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are. I think it is about time for an RfC.Jance 20:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a blatent copyright violation. These points must be summarized.--Hughgr 21:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On what do you base this claim? What part of my attributed quotes don't fall under "fair use"? --Curtis Bledsoe 21:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NCAHF position papers are copyrighted but include permission for noncommercial reproduction. 216.193.137.208 18:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Dr. Barrett, for nullifying the copyvio argument against including accurate information about the NCAHF. --Curtis Bledsoe 19:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An example

Recently, there has been controversy regarding the use of amalgam fillings by dentists, because the amalgam contains mercury. Some forms of mercury are toxic to humans, but the NCAHF cites the CDC in stating that there is no evidence that "the health of the vast majority of people with amalgam is compromised" or that "removing amalgam fillings has a beneficial effect on health". [7].
The NCAHF criticizes those who they believe exploit unfounded public fears for financial gain. A former dentist from Colorado lost his license to practice dentistry for improper conduct including diagnosing "mercury toxicity" in all patients who consulted him in his office - even those who had no mercury fillings. In addition, he recommended extraction of all teeth that had root canal therapy. The court ruled that the treatments were "a sham, illusory and without scientific basis." [8]The court also ruled that dentists who advertize their practice as "mercury-free" are acting unethically because it falsely implies that amalgam fillings are somehow dangerous and that "mercury-free" methods are superior.
The NCAHF asserts that breath, urine and blood testing for mercury are inaccurate. Other tests for mercury exposure described by the NCAHF as invalid can include skin testing, stool testing, hair analysis and electrodermal testing.[9]

What does this leave out that is so critical to the article? It summarizes the main points, and provides a reference for more detail. Jance 19:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It leaves out the details that I provided in my version. Despite what you seem to think, you're not the sole keeper of this article. --Curtis Bledsoe 20:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neither are you, Curtis. What specific details does this leave out? And why is it necessary, in your opinion, to recreate the entire webpage? I have an idea. Let's call Dr. Barrett and see what he thinks? I suspect he would agree what you are doing is ridiculous. He seems to be a decent writer, and while I do not want to incur anyone's wrath, I agree with many of his points.Jance 20:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not attempting to "recreate the entire webpage". That would be both pointless and impractical. I am, however, attempting to create an accurate description of the position of NCAHF and you are pointlessly obstructing this effort. --Curtis Bledsoe 20:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see what other editors think. I do not think a 100 page article is appropriate in Wikipedia.Jance 20:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't either. It was never my intention to wrote a "100 page article". However, I do think it is important to convey accurate information about the organization and I wish you shared that sentiment. You statement that NCAHF claims that mercury compounds aren't toxic is particularly egregious. --Curtis Bledsoe 20:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Egregious? You have got to be kidding. I have no problem with the statement of the CDC finding - in fact, I left it. You are continuing to violate 3RR and yes, it looks like a 100 page (might as well be) rambling recreation of several webpages. It is bad writing, badly formatted, and ridiculous. I am asking assistance from admins at this point.Jance 20:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not kidding. Your claim that they had said mercury compounds are nontoxic was deceptive and irresponsible. If you can't take an objective view of this subject, then perhaps you should refrain from further edits. --Curtis Bledsoe 20:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then you are delusional. I did not make any claim. NCAHF does, from what I can tell, claim that mercury compounds in fillings are nontoxic. I think this is supported by the CDC, is it not? And, I left the way you wrote that sentence, so your entire argument here is a red herring. It is absurd.Jance 20:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this is what I wrote:

"Some forms of mercury are toxic to humans, but the NCAHF argues that the form used in dental fillings is not." And I left the CDC reference. What is not accurate about this? Regardless, I left your quote from the CDC, since it was helpful here. So your raising this as a complaint is bull, and I think you know it. Let's see what other editors and admins say about your WP:OWN of this, your continual reversions, and your belligerance. Gee, maybe I should go find some real Barrett haters, and see what they think. I was actually hoping to get input from Barrett supporters who have some clue as to what a Wikipedia article should look like.Jance 21:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it is a preposterous statement. The NCAHF does *not* either imply or explicitly state that "the form [of mercury] used in dental fillings is not [toxic]". If they did, it would be a lie and a dangerous one at that. So the question is, are you either attempting to discredit the NCAHF by attributing ludicrous statements to them they they never made, or are you sincerely unaware of the misinformation in your statement? Which is it? --Curtis Bledsoe 21:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I sincerely was unaware that this was not correct. I was not attempting to discredit the NCAHF. As it was, I left the sentence you had, so I don't see what your quarrel is. However, I do have a quarrel with your excessively long additions. I was also attempting to change the text so it was not a reproduction from the various websites. It appears that an admin has already handled this, or is in the process of doing so.Jance 21:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a "quarrel" per se. I do have some concerns about your editing in that you don't seem to understand what "editorial comment" is. I also have some concerns as to your reading comprehension if you sincerely didn't understand the extent of the misinformation in your "mercury" statement - or else your sense of responsibility when characterizing the statements of others. If Organization A said that a certain folk-remedy was safe because, even though it contained cobra venom, the amount wasn't sufficient to injure the subject; would you then characerize Organization A's statement as them claiming that cobra venom wasn't toxic? I'm not trying to "bust your hump", I'm genuinely concened that you don't seem to have the skills necessary to be a good editor here. Also, your hot temper and incivility is cause for additional question. As to your concerns about the length of the article, I would suggest that if you lack the concentration to read and understand a simple article like this, perhaps you ought not to be trying to edit it. --Curtis Bledsoe 21:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would question who has the hot temper here. I am not going to bother replying to your inosults. It appears that your additions are being addressed by admins.Jance 21:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can question whatever you like. However, you're the one who's engaging in the incivil conduct here, not me. --Curtis Bledsoe 21:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel better?22:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is a direct quote from the source you cited, Curtis:

"Although some forms of mercury are hazardous, the mercury in amalgam is chemically bound to the other metals to make it stable and therefore safe for use in dental applications."

The only argument is whether "toxic" is different from "hazardous." Your entire complaint is bogus.Jance 21:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you still don't seem to grasp the problem is, in fact, part of the problem. --Curtis Bledsoe 22:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be unable to grasp the problems you create here, Curtis. I quickly acknowledged your better version with the CDC quote, and left it. That is the only thing you could possibly come up with, and you continue to harp on it. That is ridiuclous, and extremely uncivil.Jance 22:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I understand the problem fine. You want your own POV to stand in the article while I insist on it being neutral and informational. That's a problem all right, but it is yours alone. --Curtis Bledsoe 00:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are breathtaking. I have asked for additional input. I have asked you what specific points did you think were missing. I have asked you to be civil. If you bothered to read my edits, you would see that I am not "Anti-Barrett". Jance 00:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that you find my comments "breathtaking". I'm also not sure why you think that's relevant. Your surprise or confusion in being confronted with your POV is not germane. The nature of your bias is also beside the point. You keep insisting that you're not "anti-Barrett" as though that has some meaning in this context. It doesn't. The problem isn't your view of Barrett but rather your inability to keep your own biases our of your edits. --Curtis Bledsoe 00:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel better?Jance 00:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged Copyright Violation

Unless anyone can actually provide any evidence of a copyright violation, I'm going to remove the notice. I'll give y'all 48 hours to come up with any reason why I can't quote small portions of a web site under fair use. --Curtis Bledsoe 01:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is under WP:FU you are only allowed to quote brief amounts of text and only "used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea may be used under fair use." meaning, you're not supposed to use it to make up text you could of paraphrased and achieved the same goal. --Wildnox (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what I did. I quoted small amounts of text to illustrate the position taken by the organization. Paraphrasing the text in question is absolutely inappropriate since the discussion is their specific positions as illustrated by bullet points. You can't summarize bullet points and convey the same meaning. Ergo, the bullet points are necessarily quoted directly. This is clearly not a copyright violation. --Curtis Bledsoe 03:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no copyright violation. NCAHF position papers can be reproduced in part or in full for noncommercial use. Barrett 216.193.137.208 19:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if that is in fact the truth(a cite would be nice), I have no reason to say that there is anything wrong with the contributions other than the edit war brewed over them. --Wildnox (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support. I also don't think the edit war will continue as Jance has reportedly left [33] and taken the edit warring with him. I hope now that we can get on with improving the article. --Curtis Bledsoe 21:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis, don't count on my leaving so fast. I am tired of your personal insults, your belligerence and your constant reverting - now you are disrupting three different articles.Jance 22:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing is, I dont think the issue is dead unless we have a cite for the "NCAHF position papers can be reproduced" unless the user 216.193.137.208 can go through the process of verifying on wikipedia that he is indeed Barrett. --Wildnox (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not dead. Do you really think that the edits Curtis added help any article? Anywhere? Forget about the copyright vio, have you looked at what he wanted to add? They are excessively lengthy. I have posted (below) a proposed summary. He just states that it is "incorrect" without giving a single specific. The only thing he insists on doing is lifting entire sections of various websites, so the article is completely unreadable.Jance 22:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I can locate such a citation and will endeavor to do so when the lock is lifted. As for 216.193.137.208's identity, I don't think we'll have a problem there since the identity of the user is irrelevant (though no one seems to doubt that it is Dr. Barrett). The statement that the documents contain the copyright information in question doesn't depend on the identity of the user for verification. --Curtis Bledsoe 22:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying it's one or the other, if you have a cite it doesn't matter if he's Barret, and vice versa. I'd like to add that I'm not commenting on the actual content value of the material, as I am not a usual contributer here and wish to leave those kind of decisions to those who are interested in this article. --Wildnox (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not it's not, you copy pasted whole paragraphs. Whole paragraphs are in no way "brief". --Wildnox (talk) 04:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line here is there is no way these large sections belong in an encyclopedia article. As I pointed out above, it would be best to look for sources that support or even comment on NCAHF's positions. Such references would help support their notability and guide us on what to prioritize for our summaries. --Ronz 02:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at my summary - either in history or on the Copyright talk page. I welcome all input, although I note that Curtis has already given his and I prefer not being further insulted. What Ronz has stated here has been my point all along.Jance 02:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Ronz: You are incorrect. The sections aren't "large", they are small portions of the overall documents and are necessarily quoted verbatim in order to illustrate the organization's position on the issues in question. Citing secondary sources is certainly useful in other contexts but is inapplicable for the examples we are discussing. The question isn't whether or not people agree with the organization's positions, the question is what those positions specifically are. If you want to address the validity of the positions, that can certainly be done in the "criticism" section. The fact remains that in order to accurately convey the position of the NCAHF with regard to various treatments and therapies, the bullet points of those positions must be quoted in order to establish accuracy. --Curtis Bledsoe 03:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. That means we have a content dispute. Looks like we'll have to work to a consensus. --Ronz 03:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your disagreement is noted. Do you have any facts or details to support/articulate your disagreement or is this just a case of "because you said so"? I made my position clear and I invite you to do the same. --Curtis Bledsoe 03:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've made my position clear as well. The large quotes are unencyclopedic. They should be summaries, as Jance is proposing. --Ronz 03:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where have you made your position clear? The quotes in question aren't "large", they are, in fact, small portions of the overall material that are necessarily quoted verbatim. You've expressed the opinion that they should be summmaries - which is fine because they ARE summaries. What Jance has proposed aren't summaries at all, but a watered-down, unencyclopedic version of the summaries that not only lack factual information necessary to convey the meaning but, in Jance's case, actually contained dangerous misinformation. The summaries I proposed were absolutely encyclopedic in the sense that they conveyed relevant and accurate information about the subject of the article. I'm not sure what your definition is, but that's mine. --Curtis Bledsoe 04:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still unclear? WP:NOT#SOAP WP:NOT#IINFO Wp:or#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources WP:ILIKEIT. By their very nature, encyclopedias summarize information. Here on wikipedia, we try to use mostly secondary sources to guide us in what to prioritize and summarize. --Ronz 04:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's all well and good but you still haven't explained what YOUR position is. The articled you cite don't tell me anything about why you have persistently mischaracterized my edits or what exactly you think is wrong with them. My edits are encylopedic in that they summarize the position of the NCAHF and then illustrate that position by taking small quotes from documented sources that accurately represent the position of the organization. You can't possibly pretend that the versions proposed below do that. They are not encyclopedic because they aren't accurate, they don't accurately reflect the organizations views and someone seeking to learn about NCAHF from this article would be poorly served by them. --Curtis Bledsoe 04:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis, if you'd explain below what you'd like to add or change, then they could get inserted into the article and resolve the copyvio. Thanks --Hughgr 06:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add what was taken out. Key bullet points quoted from the NCAHF web site to clearly articulate their positions on the issues. The copyvio is a red-herring. There is no copyvio, as the information in question is clearly within the scope of fair use - that is, small amounts of material directly quoted for non-profit educational use and properly attibuted. The claims of copyvio were simply a tactic to get the material removed in the absense of any legitimate reason to do so. --Curtis Bledsoe 06:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NO. The consensus is that your edits are unencyclopedic, excessively lengthy, possibly copyright violation, and not what any other editor deems appropriate. The task now is to either fix the article and insert this text, or discuss and edit the text here and then insert it.Jance 06:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The technical aspects of fair use and direct copying aside, there is another issue, Plagiarism#Wikipedia plagiarism that has gathered Wikipedia unfavorable attention. Again I agree with Ronz (!!) on "unencyclopedic" here.--I'clast 10:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, since much of it was not in quotes and only generally cited (not even that until I made an issue of it). There is no reason to belabor this, as I can see. There is an overwhelming concensus - all but one - so it's a moot point. Let's move on.Jance 17:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since Dr. Barrett has definitively pointed out that there is no copyright violation, let's drop this red-herring issue and get on with improving the article. --Curtis Bledsoe 19:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know where he has done that., but there is the issue of writing and length. The edits are still a problem.Jance 19:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should go look and you'd see where Dr. Barrett has cleared up the issue. There's also no issue with the length either - that was just an offshoot of the copyvio red-herring. As for the writing, you're entitled to your opinion of course, but until you are willing and able to articulate your objections, there isn't much that any of us can say about them. --Curtis Bledsoe 19:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was not an issue of just copyright. It was also an issue of length. Look at the edits of every other editor here.Jance 19:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And they were all concerned about the copyvio in one form or another. But since that was never really an issue, then I'm not sure what your problem is. You say the sections are "too long", but you don't quantify that by saying how long is too long or why the position sections shouldn't be the same as the Mission Statement. --Curtis Bledsoe 20:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

It appears that the consensus is that Curtis' additions are too long, unencyclopedic and may violate copyright. Therefore, I suggest we discuss the summaries. I have provided a start, below. If there is anything there that is incorrect, please discuss it. I don't think there is, but I am not infallible and don't claim to be.Jance 04:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that there is a consensus. The article should not stand as it is. We should not allow one editor who has been belligerent, insulting and condescending -- and wrong, I might add - to bulldoze and WP:OWN this or any article.Jance 06:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Section

This is my proposal. I welcome respectful input:

All the references are included in the history...However, I suspect some of this will need to be edited. This also is rather long, but at least it is not extremely lengthy and is not whole sections lifted from a website. I have changed it a little more here, than what was on the talkpage.

NCAHF Positions

Acupuncture

The NCAHF asserts that acupuncture is scientifically unproven as a modality of treatment. Research during the past twenty years has failed to demonstrate that acupuncture is effective against any disease. Perceived effects of acupuncture are probably due to a combination of expectation, suggestion and other psychological mechanisms. NCAHF states that "scientific literature provides no evidence that acupuncture can perform consistently better than a placebo in relieving pain or other symptoms for which it has been proposed". The use of acupuncture should be restricted to appropriate research settings. Insurance companies should not be required to cover acupuncture treatment, and licensure of lay acupuncturists should be phased out. [6].

Amalgam Fillings

There has long been controversy regarding the use of amalgam fillings by dentists,[34] because the amalgam contains mercury. Some forms of mercury are toxic to humans, but the NCAHF cites the CDC in stating that there is no evidence that "the health of the vast majority of people with amalgam is compromised" or that "removing amalgam fillings has a beneficial effect on health".[7] The NCAHF criticizes those who they believe exploit unfounded public fears for financial gain.[8] NCAHF asserts that breath, urine and blood testing for mercury are inaccurate. Other tests for mercury exposure described by the NCAHF as invalid can include skin testing, stool testing, hair analysis and electrodermal testing.[9]

Chiropractic

The NCAHF contends that chiropractic can be dangerous and lead to injury or permanent disability.[citations needed] However, the NCAHF does not categorically oppose the practice. NCAHF differentiates between what it calls "hucksters" and "scientific chiropractors". The latter should advance only methods of diagnosis and treatment which have a scientific basis. For example, NCAHF claims there is no scientific support for subluxation. Legitimate chiropractors should restrict the scope of practice to neuromusculoskeletal problems such as muscle spasms, strains, sprains, fatigue, imbalance of strength and flexibility, stretched or irritated nerve tissue, and so forth. Chiropractors should refer cases involving pathology to qualified medical practioners. [10] In contrast, "hucksters" suggest that chiropractic adjustment will cure or alleviate a variety of diseases, such as infection, arthritis, cancer, diabetes, nutritional deficiencies or excesses, appendicitis, blood disorders, or kidney disease. These practitioners use unproven, disproven, or questionable methods, devices, and products such as adjusting machines, applied kinesiology, chelation therapy, colonic irrigation, computerized nutrition deficiency tests, cranial osteopathy, cytotoxic food allergy testing, DMSO, gerovital, glandular therapy, hair analysis, herbal crystalization analyses, homeopathy, internal managements, iridology, laser beam acupuncture, laetrile, magnetic therapy,and so forth.

Diet Advice and Herbal Remedies

The NCAHF is opposed to dietary recommendations and practices not supported by scientific evidence that NCAHF recognizes, including behavior related claims. Unverified assessment methods such as iridology, applied kinesiology, routine hair analysis for assessment of nutritional status are routinely criticized or castigated. NCAHF and some of its members have long and actively opposed implementation of beliefs that they characterize as unfounded or unscientific.

NCAHF also questions the health claims, marketing, safety, efficacy and lableling of herbal supplements. Currently, herbal preparations are not regulated as drugs. The NCAHF advocates regulations for a special OTC category called "Traditional Herbal Remedies" (THRs) with an adverse reaction surveillence program, product batches marked for identification and tracking, package label warnings about proposed dangers of self-treatment, oversight requirements from outside of the herbal industry, and strong penalties for unapproved changes in herbal product formulations.^[1]

Diploma Mills

A diploma mill or "degree mill" is described by the U.S. Office of Education as "An organization that awards degrees without requiring its students to meet educational standards for such degrees established and traditionally followed by reputable institutions." The NCAHF claims that many unqualified practitioners are able to mislead the public by using diploma mills to get "specious degrees". Diploma mills are not accredited, and frequently engage in "pseudoscience and food faddism". Diploma mills are harmful, both to the "students" and to the public. [12]

That would be perfect. Thank you for the effort. :) --Hughgr 03:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're absolutely unacceptable as they lack critical information about the NCAHF positions on these issues - which was the entire reason these sections of the article were written in the first place. Can we please get past Jance's attempts to censor valid information from the article? --Curtis Bledsoe 04:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Hughgr. I think we need additional input, from Ronz, maybe others.Jance 04:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These summaries are great. I'm for putting them in right away so editors can work on them within the article itself. --Ronz 04:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that everyone's done with the self-congratulation, can we get back to the issue? No one has yet explained why the incomplete summaries are necessary or desireable. --Curtis Bledsoe 04:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[35] --Ronz 04:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cute, but utterly beside the point. Besides, the use of secondary sources in this context is absurd. The issue at hand is the position of the NCAHF, by definition, information on this subject cannot come from secondary sources. As I attempted to explain before, the issue at question isn't the validity of the organization's positions, but what those positions are. If the organization took the view that all homeopathic practitioners come from the planet Mars, we would still have to report the fact. We could, in the criticism section, include some secondary information that showed how unlikely it is that homeopaths are actually martians. But that doesn't change the original claim. Please indicate to me that you have gained some understanding of the point I'm trying to make because the way you keep on about secondary sources, it doesn't seem like you do. I'll keep explaining until you get it, I just want to know when to stop. --Curtis Bledsoe 04:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that you don't like my perspective. The secondary sources would help us to show notability of these positions and help us prioritize what we actually include in the article. --Ronz 04:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dislike your perspective - how quick some people here are in assigning personal motive to dispassionate and constructive criticism. However, you're still incorrect. The question is not the validity or notability of the positions but what those positions are. To answer that question, primary sources are the only suitable means for determining the positions. If you wanted to know what Al Franken's position on an issue is, you wouldn't ask Rush Limbaugh, would you? No, you'd ask Al Franken, or, if he had a web site you would quote from his positions as expressed on that web site in order to ensure both accuracy and objectivity in reporting those positions. It wouldn't be fair to Mr. Franken if some wiki editor paraphased the details of his positions, possibly omitting some key detail dear to Mr. Franken's heart, would it? No, of course not. The only fair and accurate method would be to list Franken's positions on issues. Then, in the criticism section, people like Rush Limbaugh could be quoted, along with, say, Janeane Garafalo to provide some balance. Don't take this personally. Just because I'm telling you that you're wrong that doesn't mean I don't like you. In fact, if you think about it, it actually means the opposite. My taking time to point these things out to you is a gesture of respect. Someone less patient and understanding than myself probably wouldn't bother. --Curtis Bledsoe 05:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you acutally say this? Someone less patient and understanding than myself probably wouldn't bother. Now I have seen everything. By the way, since you are such a stickler on "accuacy" and "correctness", I will observe that your grammar is incorrect. The word "myself" is reflexive. Jance 06:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason your're inserting your incivil conduct into a conversation that doesn't concern you? BTW, you're wrong about reflexive pronouns. My usage in this case was correct as the subject and object of the sentence are the same. --Curtis Bledsoe 17:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the sentence you wrote, " Someone less patient and understanding than myself probably wouldn't bother." Here, "myself" is not the same as "Someone." Eg, "myself" is not a predicate nominative. Also, "myself" is not an object. Therefore, you are incorrect. So you don't know everything. Amazing.Jance 02:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that you do this, Ronz? I will help, but I would rather not make this edit, since Curtis has formally complained to ask that I be banned. Although it appears that nobody has agreed with him, I would rather not compromise my ability to edit. I can help you find the references, which are in the history.Jance 04:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not asked that you be banned. --Curtis Bledsoe 04:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, blocked. (Another dangerous paraphrase) ;-) Jance 04:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. The first step to solving a problem is to admit the problem exists. ;-) --Curtis Bledsoe 05:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we could work out what the above summaries need, or need to have changed, we would have a concensus. Then they could get inserted into the article. Please don't let it get personal. It's only Wiki! :)--Hughgr 06:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What they need is what was taken out - key information in the form of bullet-points quoted (not paraphased) from the original source. Without this, the summaries are worthless. --Curtis Bledsoe 06:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

in other words, he wants the entire sections that he added, copied directly from the website. This is WP:OWN and it is bad writing. If that is at all relevant in Wikipedia. Jance 06:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly it isn't WP:OWN and I'm not sure you're in a position to comment on "bad writing" either way - even if you did it civilly, which you don't seem capable of doing. --Curtis Bledsoe 17:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you agree about WP:OWN! Now we can move on.Jance 17:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you didn't understand the first time I said it, perhaps I should (though perhaps I shouldn't bother) repeat myself. Clearly it isn't (note additional emphasis) WP:OWN. --Curtis Bledsoe 17:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis stop being so goddamn abusive. You are wrong,. Period, You tell me what one single editor agrees with you here. Anyone, except maybe Barrett (if he is that egomaniacal, then I have second thoughts about him). What you are doing is WP:OWN and abusive. Jance 20:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I now understand your incivility. You were reportedly blocked for it before but now you've come back under a pseudonym and it has multiplied. So my question is why do you continue to be incivil? --Curtis Bledsoe 20:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have to have the last word, is that it? Are you having fun yet? Or are you always this abusive?Jance 21:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I have no pseudonym. So your attempts at bullying won't work with me, Curtis. There is a reason I do the work I do.Jance 02:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inserted Text

I have inserted the text, per our consensus. Here is one section that Curtis added, that needs to be edited properly. Please help with this:

Herbal Remedies

The NCAHF claims that the sale of OTC herbal remedies is a multi-billion dollar business. They describe the following as problems:

Unreliable Labeling
- False and Misleading Labels. According to the claims of pharmacognosist Varro Tyler, less that half of the herbal remedied examined were accurately labelled. There are four ways in which herbs are commonly described: the English common name, the transliteration of the herb name, the latinized pharmaceutical name and the scientific name. Thus, ginseng can be referred to four different ways: "ginseng", "ren-shen", "radix ginseng" and "panax ginseng". However, the English term "ginseng" can also refer to P ginseng (a.k.a. "oriental ginseng"), P quinquefolius (a.k.a. "American ginseng") and Eleutherococcus senticosus (a.k.a. "Siberian ginseng") which, though they are referred to by the same generic name, are different plants.
- Misinformation Mongering. Many individuals will, in order to promote their businesses and increase their profits, perpetuate false and misleading claims both about their own products but also about orthodox medicine.
Questions of Safety. In their natural state, herbs may vary in both potency and contain substances with unwanted side-effects.
- Questions of Efficacy. Currently, herbal preparations are no regulated as drugs. The NCAHF believes that it would be in the interests of consumers for this to change.
Economic Issues.

To address these, and other issues, the NCAHF makes the following recommendations:

Establish a special category of OTC medicines called "Traditional Herbal Remedies" (THRs) regulated as follows:
- Labels must alert consumers to the fact that herbal remedies are held to a lower standard than that applied to standard medicines. Suggested wording: "This product is regulated as a

Traditional Herbal Remedy, a special category of medicines not required to meet the full stipulations of the U.S. Food, Drug, & Cosmetic Act which are applied to standard medications."

- Limit THR products to those with properties sufficiently documented in the pharmacognosy literature to assure an acceptable measure of safety and efficacy.
- Limit herbal remedy products to those known not to have lethal or damaging side-effects when taken in overdose, or over an extended time period.
- Limit THRs to the treatment of nonserious, self-limiting ailments.
- Require THRs remedies to meet the same labeling standards for all drug products.
- Require plant sources to be identified by their scientific names.
- Require that all active ingredients (items that cause an effect) be quantitatively and qualitatively identified on the label.
- Require herbal remedy products to contain sufficient amounts of pharmacologically active substances for the product to perform as expected. Only those expectations that can be supported by science should be permitted on labels. The FDA should develop a set of acceptable claims just as it has with health claims for food products.
- Require labels to inform consumers about what effects they should expect. Suggested wording: (eg, valerian)

"The active ingredient in this product is valerian. Traditional folk medicinal uses for this substance include: as a sleep aid, and a relaxant. Valerian has been shown to depress the central nervous system at the doses indicated."

- Require a highly visible, easily accessible postmarketing surveillance system for tracking unanticipated adverse reactions. The system must enable consumers as well as health professionals to report, and regulators to gather and disseminate information on adverse effects. A good candidate for the agency to receive reports is the U.S. Pharmacopeia Practitioner Reporting System which passes reports on to the FDA and Poison Control Centers. Suggested wording:

"Adverse reactions associated with the use of this products should be reported to 1-800-638-6725."

- Require manufacturers to mark product batches for identification, testing, and tracking.
- Require warnings about dangers of self-treatment on labels and/or package inserts. Suggested wording:

Caution: Self-treatment may delay proper health care. See a medical doctor if health problems persist.

- Require substantial representation from outside of the herbal industry to assure sufficient skepticism in herbal regulation.
- Impose strong penalties for adulterating herbal products with potentially dangerous substances.

Source: ^[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jance (talk • contribs)

"a reductionist view"

I propose the following as a summary of the NCAHF herbal page, added to the Diet Advice section:

NCAHF also questions the health claims, marketing, safety, efficacy and lableling of herbal supplements. Currently, herbal preparations are not regulated as drugs. The NCAHF advocates regulations for a special OTC category called "Traditional Herbal Remedies" (THRs) with an adverse reaction surveillence program, product batches marked for identification and tracking, package label warnings about proposed dangers of self-treatment, oversight requirements from outside of the herbal industry, and strong penalties for unapproved changes in herbal product formulations.^[1]--I'clast 23:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^ ^a ^b ^c [http://www.ncahf.org/pp/herbal.html NCAHF Position Paper on Over-the Counter Herbal Remedies.] NCAHF. 1995. accessed online 31 Dec 2006.

That sounds good to me. Jance 23:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like that too. It's concise and to the point, well done.--Hughgr 00:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

The edit war has just stopped. Let the discussion begin. Guy (Help!) 20:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have consensus on the summaries above and on formatting other NCAHF policy statements in a like manner. --Ronz 20:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The summaries above are factually inaccurate as they do not contain the actual positions of the NCAHF but rather paraphrases. Since a paraphase of a position is, by definition, not the actual position, they cannot be as accurate as the original position. Therefore, they are unacceptable as content for this portion of the article. If you want to paraphrase the positions of NCAHF in the criticism section, then go for it. But in the "Positions of the NCAHF" section, it simply won't fly. --Curtis Bledsoe 20:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Everyone else disagrees. Perhapes you can find us examples in other encyclopedia articles to demonstrate your point if you're going to continue to oppose consensus. --Ronz 20:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree. No Wikipedia policy demands exact quotes in this situation, and there are many circumstances (much legal and medical writing, for example) where paraphrases are an improvement. Furthermore, this article links NCAHF position papers as references.

It may be helpful (though not entirely necessary) to include short-but-relevant quotes in the footnotes for the NCAHF in-line references. Many of the Citation templates contain a parameter for this. (I'm not certain what the fair use limits are on this sort of thing, but it shouldn't be a problem in this article.) / edgarde 21:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree. I guess this means the consensus thus far is to not have the excessively long quotes - even if it is not a copyright violation.Jance 00:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree. Curtis' stmt evinces no concept of encyclopedic summary & writing.--I'clast 00:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree. Of course WP must be allowed to rephrase while still keep the meaning unchanged. MaxPont 15:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinions are noted and incorrect. The article is reporting the fact of the position. This can only be done by reporting what the positions are and the best way to do that is to use the bullet points from the actual positions. Paraphrasing the position is simply unacceptable. --Curtis Bledsoe 20:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Curtis, paraphrasing is incorrect according to you. However, that is not according to Wikipedia consensus. Your objection is noted, in many different locations. Your objection does not affect the editing of this article. Jance 21:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis, as a way forward, "bleh, that sucks!" is a good deal less productive than proposing alternate text. Guy (Help!) 20:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What else can I say? The summary is accurate. It is even good grammar. ;-) I suggest that Curtis start with what he considers inaccurate, and we can discuss it. Jance 21:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that would be most helpful, a specific list of what he considers to be inaccurate. --Wildnox (talk) 21:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Also an item that is too complex, too opinionated and too long will probably suffer frequent, even worse "accuracy" problems as well as not be encyclopedic. Summarize with *appropriate* hotlinked references, can't beat the clarity on positions.--I'clast 00:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the summary's with the link referenced are wholly adequate to get the NCAHF's point across. We don't need to copy an entire website here. If curtis would just explain what he feels is missing, we can get past this.............--Hughgr 01:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HAPPY NEW YEAR!!! It is very evident that Curtis is the only one that wants to recreate a website as a WIkipedia article. I think the matter is settled, especially since he is unwilling to discuss any summary. The only issues are what specifics might need 'tweaking'. For example, l'cast suggested a clear concise summary of "Diet Advice." I do not know how to prevent Curtis' reversion back to a version that is his own, and not the consensus. The article is protected now, but it also seems clear that Curtis is not willing to accept a consensus. Perhaps an admin can help us here. Jance 02:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what an admin could do, other than block Curtis. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True. Jance 07:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have two issues:

The first is that if we accept verbatim lengthy block quotes from the NCAHF website, then it either has to be fair use, or the owner of the copyright has to relinquish all copyright (or alternatively re-copyright it under GFDL). Fair use, in terms of encyclopedia articles, does not include full reproduction of copyrighted web pages when a summary would be adequate, and a readily available reference to the original is given. Publishing the original under GFDL means that this text can then be copied, changed, misformed, sold as a book, used in advertisements, (etc etc) by anyone, without NCAHF being able to do anything about it at all, i.e they then have practically no say in what happens to their writing. So just saying Wikipedia can use it is not sufficient, it has to be released under the same licence as wikipedia, the GFDL, or it has to be public domain (compare requirements for illustrations). I do not think that that was the intention of the NCAHF spokesperson who said it was OK for Wikipedia to use the text. Does he realise that that means anyone can do with their text what they want to, without the NCAHF's permission? If so, one wants the change of copyright confirmed in writing.
It is not, and has never been, standard practice for encyclopedias to quote the full policies or position statements of an organisation which is being described. I think one can take the article on the United States Constitution as a definitive example. If full text quotation were the normal standard, then I have little doubt that that article's succinct paraphrasing of every article would have incurred the wrath of the majority of the citizens of the USA. That has not happened, so by analogy it is not necessary to spell out verbatim the NCAHF position on anything, except where specific important words or phrases are quoted. Indeed, the extent to which the NCAHF position is being described in detail for every item seems to me already very close to advertisement or POV-pushing. An example is the paragraph long desciption of "huckster" chiropractic, with a list of all sorts of techniques, which gives me absolutely no (as in zero, nothing) information about the NCAHF itself. Had I written an article about the organisation, I would have abbreviated the summaries even more, since the originals are but a link away on the net. --Seejyb 09:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, when I read the article, it looks encyclopedic and doesn't read to badly. It could do with some pruning BUT it seems that editors have a blurred view of what is notable or not. Ie/ the critism section (not to mention the corporation status) are treated somewhat as a sacred cow rather than having the article holistically examined. My (late) take on all this, is that editors are principally offended with Curtis's taking it on himself to redo the article. Personally I think he has done an alright job....but again, it could do with some pruning (IMHO) however as the article stands it gives an excellent account of what, who, where and when the organisation is. So what if info is only a link away, people keep crowing for "facts" as it is an "encylopedia". And you cannot deny that they are now in there. Although I must admit, the copyvio and plagarism attacks were pretty good to overcome notability objections :-P Shot info 11:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shot_info, could you pls give us a dif as to which recent version of the article you consider most encyclopedic?--I'clast 12:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright concerns

(I've moved this from the "Alleged Copyright Violation" section because it appears from Seejyb's post that this is an ongoing concern. Sarah 12:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Non-commercial use is not acceptable and not compatible with Wikipedia licensing because Wikipedia articles can be used commercially. We cannot comply with "non-commercial" conditional use. The licensing needs to be public domain or GFDL. Sarah 02:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this makes two reasons that these edits should not be included here. Thanks for clarifying.Jance 02:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands, the NCAHF website very clearly states, "All articles on this Web site except government reports are copyrighted". If the copyright holder wants to release this material for us to use, he/she needs to send an email from an address associated with the site the material has been copied from to permissions@wikimedia.org, stating that they give permission for the material to be used under the GFDL and that they understand that this means it may be freely copied, redistributed, edited and used commercially outside of Wikipedia. Or they need to place a note on the website stating that they agree to the material being used under the GFDL licence. An anon editing from an IP and signing as "Barrett" is simply not sufficient for permission. You may be able to quote small excerpts under fair use, but only under this guideline: "Under fair use guideline, brief selections of copyrighted text may be used, but only with full attribution and only when the purpose is to comment on or criticize the text quoted." Sarah 13:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Sarah. Does Curtis have anymore objections?--Hughgr 00:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that clearly allows me to quote portions of the individual documents in question in order to illustrate the positions of NCAHF with regard the the various issues on which they take positions. So now that we've gotten past this copyvio red-herring, can we FINALLY move on? --Curtis Bledsoe 03:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks, Sarah. Hopefully when the protection lifts, there will be no reversion problems. The Wikipedia policy makes sense.. And, I am heartened that most editors are willing to work together to build consensus. Jance 04:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not resolved. Curtis ignores "brief" and "...only when the purpose is to comment on or criticize the text quoted." Illustrating NCAHF's position could equally be met by paraphrasing. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 04:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's resolved either. Curtis' participation in this "Protected" discussion completely ignores the group consensus and numerous discussions of why information absolutely must be abridged in an encyclopedia article. Perhaps I'm misreading his perspective? --Ronz 04:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What can we do to find resolution? I seem only to antagonize Curtis, since I had first suggested the summary. Therefore, I thought it more productive to let others talk with him. I have a much better feeling about Wikipedia, after seeing people like Ronz, and I'cast, Arthur, and others focus on a content issue and come to agreement. Sarah has helped clairfy the Copyright policy, and most agree that more is not better. I guess the next step is to see if we can agree on a non-protected article. Consensus does not require 100% agreement. What to do you think we do from here?Jance 06:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ask the admins to remove protection or at least update the "Positions" section, and if necessary, let the admins make the first move to solve Curtis' "hearing problem".--I'clast 07:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone else like to do this (this might be better).Jance 19:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked him on his talk page,diff no answer yet but its only been a couple of days...I don't know how long we should wait. Or should we just request that the page get unlocked and see if he disrupts it again?--Hughgr 20:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he is ever going to concede. We might as well request the page be unlocked, and then if he reverts it, we can call in an admin. I don't know what else to do, do you? Jance 20:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, let the editing continue. :) --Hughgr 00:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone add

the referrence to the herbal suppliments para. I'clast has it above. Thanks! I really should learn one of these days....... :)--Hughgr 01:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks, Hughgr. Unfortunately I know how to do it, but I dont know what website she sourced. Jance 01:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1] NCAHF Membership Application

[2] Secretary of State (California). Corporations.California Business Portal current as of "DEC 15, 2006".

[3] Secretary of the Commonwealth, Corporations Division. Corporate DatabaseThe Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Boston, MA. accessed 19 Dec 2006.

[herbal-4] [http://www.ncahf.org/pp/herbal.html NCAHF Position Paper on Over-the Counter Herbal Remedies.] NCAHF. 1995. accessed online 31 Dec 2006.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]