Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism/List of questionable claims

Excellent idea!

Hi QuackGuru. Congratulations are in order, and Happy New Year! I expect this could be a parallel to the List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts‎. The concepts are often related, but not identical.

I don't know how you have found all these articles, but when the Quackery category was deleted, a few (some obviously pro quackery) editors immediately removed the category tag from a whole lot of articles. It was proper for them to do so, since that category had been deleted, but I suspect they did it with glee! I suspect that many of the articles you already list are among them, but by following those editors' tracks, we might be able to find more. Just watch my edit history and you'll be able to figure out what was going on and who deleted the category tag. Then follow their tracks. If you will please activate your email, I'll email you the names to watch. Let me know on my user page. -- Fyslee 09:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Question

Is this just a list or should we be adding some sort of NPOV statements along with each. Even medicine has elements of quackery, while chiropractic has elements that are not. How do we handle that? --Dematt 03:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This is another attempt at POV labelling. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. This article should be put up for deletion due to major NPOV issues.--Hughgr 07:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoa! Slow down a bit. This is a list, not an article. There is no labelling going on, and therefore no NPOV issue.

This isn't a category label that gets attached to articles without explanatory comments. We know what problems there were with the quackery category! The problems with category labelling are avoided by using lists instead. Of course medicine has elements that can be considered quackery when misused, and of course chiropractic has elements that aren't. Obvously the medical and chiropractic aspects that aren't related to quackery wouldn't come to mind for a student of the subject, only the aspects that are related to it. If you will notice, there are medical subjects and subjects on all sides of the spectrum. Some are only words that are not themselves quackery, but are considered red flags by some skeptics. Just as long as there is some relation to the subject in some situations, it's fair game to include it. (Please add psychotherapy!) One first gets into POV problems when one starts labelling.

Suppression of opposing POV is very unwikipedian. Wikipedia is about presenting all significant POV, and attempts to limit the ability of editors to contribute or collaborate is a violation of the principles that govern Wikipedia. Many similar projects exist here for supporters of alternative medicine and pseudoscience. To be fair, should they also be deleted? I think not. They have a right to profile Wikipedia's resources as well. As long as NPOV is preserved (which can be avoided by not labelling) there is no problem.

I invite your collaboration here. We need to make sure NPOV problems are avoided, so if you see direct labelling that might be in violation, please edit appropriately. Notice that the long list of possibly related categories is mostly only listed, and not actually used as a category at the bottom. This is another way to avoid problems. They are included as resources, not labels.

As with all new lists and articles, nothing is finished yet, so a premature deletion will be seen as on obvious editorial attempt to suppress possible opposing POV, a practice that is forbidden here. (The job of Wikipedia is to present POV, not suppress it!) This list is simply a resource for people studying the resources found at Wikipedia. It thus strengthens Wikipedia as a resource. Readers can then study for themselves and make up their own minds. -- Fyslee 08:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

May I inquire from Hughgr what your NPOV issues are with this list? As a list it is a compilation of articles that some people consider have something to do with quackery. As a writer about science I find this a fascinating and helpful list. It alerts me to areas that I have not previously considered. It is a valuable resource. The POV/NPOV issues are surely considered in the individual articles and not the list itself. Further, the list includes both (to coin a term) pro-quack and anti-quack articles (sound like a flock of ducks), so I think the list cannot be considered as pushing a POV.Maustrauser 08:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess in a nutshell, who or whom decides what goes on this list. It can be easily perceived as a perjorative. --Hughgr 19:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a valuable tool and resource for reading, investigating, and understanding many different topics on the subject of related in some way to quackery. Editors decide what goes in the article. Discussion is also helpful. On that note, this is a different type of article. This is an article listing. Nothing more. Lists on Wikipedia is encouraged. Cheers, --QuackGuru 20:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It is literally, a very POV list. I agree that it is easy to perceive as a perjorative, as well as be utilitarian for editors of a certain persuasion.--I'clast 02:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually for all persuasions, especially if you help build it. It presents material for various POV. Right now any quack can use it to make a case that Barrett is a quack. There is no expression of opinion or POV in relation to any item or name. It's totally neutral and thus couldn't better get closer to the Wikipedia ideal of NPOV. The POV occurs when it gets used by the reader. The only shade of POV is the fact that the subjects are considered by some to be related to quackery, but it is not defined in what way they are related. Some persons are historical figures, some are active debunkers, others have been falsely accused, etc.. Please add subjects you feel are related to quackery in some way. If you read the list carefully, using your own POV, you'll find areas of comfort and discomfort, just as I have felt. That's because it contains items from opposing POV. I have personally added many items that only believers in quackery would add, but I have done it for them, simply because I am familiar with their thinking, and realize that they would consider it to be related to the subject. -- Fyslee 02:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Cautionary notes

I have included cautionary notes for editors (that are not visible for readers):

• Extreme caution should be exercised when writing descriptions. Direct labels that could be construed as violating NPOV policy should be avoided. There is no need to label items as quackery, scientific, quacks, debunkers, for or against quackery, etc.. Let readers decide for themselves.

Feel free to edit them to make sure we avoid NPOV problems and edit wars. Quacks and their promoters will take a whole arm if we give them a finger. By avoiding direct POV labeling, we can avoid problems and have Wikipedia policies as our support. -- Fyslee 10:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not working for me. Can you show me where lists are treated differently than articles from a NPOV perspective? When you label entire categories as "related" to Quackery, you are making a statement whether that was your intention or not.

The other consideration is the subjective nature of the definition of quackery. Anything can be related to quackery, particularly in a capatalistic advertising society where the one that advertises the most (i.e. quacks the loudest) wins. Where do you draw the line? Unfortunately, I don't consider psychotherapy quackery, nor medicine, and I wouldn't put them on a list of quackery items, but if the line is low enough to include chiropractic and acupuncture, it begins to include significant others, including physical therapy, cholesterol and heart attacks, immunizations, etc. IOWs, there is a lot of gray out there - draw the line too low and it will be easier to list the things that are not quackery. --Dematt 15:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

First as you stated above anything can be related to quackery,..., so you do agree with the article. Second, where do you draw the line? Simple. The first paragraph has a strong disclaimer. It cleary explains to the reader to decide and draw their own conclusions to each specific article which has, however remote, a relation to quackery regardless of how minute. Third, some people may not consider a certain subject as related to quackery but some people do. You are entitled to your own personal opinion though. Forth, the list is an extremely educational tool to resource many different subject matters that would be impossible without this article listing. Don't forget the reader is not a puppet and can easily draw and decide their own beliefs. --QuackGuru 19:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with the article in its present form. That is not to say that you may be able to adjust it in such a way that might work for me, but as it stands right now, the lead does not satisfy my concerns. In its present form, the list can include everything that anyone calls quackery - including things that most consider modern medical science, and before someone started to add them, we should consider talking it through so none of us waste our time. --Dematt 21:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinions again. You have not demonstrated what is wrong with the lead paragraph. The article list does not have to satisfy your personal beliefs. We must adhere to Wiki guidlines only which has already has been done. However, you are entitled to your opinion. We do not need to waste time talking about things which you have not demonstrated what is wrong. Please explain specifically what "Wiki Rule" has been violated or desist. At the risk of repeating myself, their is a "strong disclaimer" paragraph at the top which clearly explains the "List of articles related to quackery". Thanks. --QuackGuru 21:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Your absolutely right. Lets start here:

• references for list members
• [While we're at it, we probably ought to consider the section on the lead, too. --Dematt 21:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Surely, what is listed depends on what is said in the 'mother' article? If the article on psychotherapy (for example) mentions that it is contentious because there is some evidence that it doesn't work, then it can be included in the list. If the 'mother' article does not mention the subject being contentious then it isn't included. Equally, groups that exist to combat quackery are clearly included because they self-declare themselves to be anti-quackery. I don't see this to be difficult at all. The battles over NPOV should take place at the article level, not the list level. Maustrauser 21:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The mother article is where readers will read specifically about each topic. The lead paragraph at this "list" clearly explains the facts. Pleaae explain specifically (Dematt) what needs improvement or cease and desist. Thanks, --QuackGuru 21:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you could argue that contentious = quackery, but I don't think it will fly. If you pushed the "mother article has to mention quackery", then maybe you might have something, but even that is borderline and I don't think anybody would be condemned for taking their pet subject off the list on that basis. So that leaves us with discussing Quackery right here on this page in a NPOV manner with each presented member of the list noted with verifiable and reliable sources.

So first, as per references for list members, the lead has to describe who is on the list specifically. We need to have a clear definition of those that get to be on the list and why something would end up there. Scientific skeptics, debunkers, etc., are all "general" weasel words that won't do as sources. With the list that we are trying to build, especially with the contentiousness of the title of this article, we have to have specific sources that make the specific claim, preferably verifiable online by a reliable source, peer reviewed being the best and then dropping down to plain opinion by some competitor or something. Otherwise, anyone can take anything off the list they want at any time. Make sense?

BTW QuackGuru, I'm trying to save your article, or I could cease and desist as you have requested. It doesn't matter to me. I think if we work together, we might be able to get something that works, but it needs to meet WP guidelines.--Dematt 01:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way? I have noticed you continue to attack the article list but fail to explain specifically what you think does not meet WP guidlines. So, please explain what you think needs improving or see you around. --QuackGuru 01:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"WP guidelines" like? Shot info 01:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Am I the only one that follows links? I'll place it here for you from references for list members.

"Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources, especially in difficult or contentious topics. Beware of those cases in which the definitions themselves are disputed. Many lists on Wikipedia have been created without any membership criteria, and editors are left to guess about what or whom should be included only from the name of the list. Even if it might "seem obvious" what qualifies for membership in a list, explicit is better than implicit.

The policy Wikipedia:Verifiability states that "articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. Editors should therefore provide references." The responsibility for providing a citation rests "with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain." Inclusion on the list should be based on what reliable sources say, not on what the editor interprets the source to be saying. In the case of edits lacking citations, according to Wikipedia:Verifiability:

Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but some editors may object if you remove material without giving people a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, a good idea is to move it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, or tag the article by adding {{not verified}} or {{unsourced}}. Also in that case it may be helpful for your co-editors to leave a clarifying note on the talk page, for instance indicating which sources you already checked. You can also make the unsourced sentences invisible in the article by adding <!-- before the section you want to comment out and --> after it, until reliable sources have been provided. When using this "commenting out" technique it is usually best to leave a clarifying note on the talk page.

However, in lists that involve living persons, the following policy related to Biographies of living persons applies:

Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page. These principles also apply to biographical material about living persons in other articles.

"

You do not have sources for any of your members on the list. --Dematt 01:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

A consequence of following that manner of application (and policies can be applied differently) would create an unnecessary NPOV edit war, leading to deletion of the article, which is probably the intent of some editors. While you wouldn't do that, some would. If we start labeling, then we get into POV problems. If we divide the people up in quacks, debunkers, etc., then we'll have BLP issues as well. We can avoid all those problems by letting the list be a list and letting readers use it as a resource. Right now any quack can use it to make a case that Barrett is a quack. If we also start stating that a therapy or practice is quackery, then the very discussion and provision of documentation will only cause bad publicity for that method. We've seen these kinds of Pyrrhic victory situations here before. The more the objections mount, the more documentation is forthcoming, and the more the subject gets exposed. There is no need for that. It can be done in the articles. -- Fyslee 02:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand this "list" should remain just a stand alone list. Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia --QuackGuru 02:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your courtesy. --Dematt 03:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Dematt, it seems that QuackGuru beat me to the punch. This is a list, it would seem his wikilawyering beats your wikilawyering :-) Shot info 06:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Fails the smell test

Yikes! This sounds like a Nixon’s enemies list. Or a McCarthy commies list. We will put you on the list because we hate you and you convince us you are not a quack/commie, OK? Placing things on a list that it is labeled Quackery and letting the reader decide is already coloring their perceptions. So that suggestion by QuackGuru, is obviously a bad one.

The problem is that making a list of things that people can’t stand is making a mockery of Wikipedia. Why not make up a list of articles that people find refreshing? Please don’t.

Who decides what is quackery? Ex-psychiatrist Stephen Barrett? He flunked his psychiatrist boards and then misrepresented himself as an expert witness in psychiatry (!) in legal matters. (go figure) Yet his website has been placed prominently at the bottom of this “list” as the so-called “clearinghouse” of good taste by Fyslee, former assistant list-master to the hate-master and who has a long personal history of cozy togetherness. See what I mean? A bit self-serving, yes? And, oh yes, the more links to Stephen Barrett Enterprises (Donations gladly accepted!), the more exposure for Fyslee web activities. Way to incestuous and self-serving.

This list has become yet another abuse of Wikipedia as link-farm to dubious ‘skeptics’ (a euphemism for hatred) bigot sites. Hey! How about this as a name for this list: A list of things that will likely ultimately lead the reader to one of Stephen Barrett Enterprises hate-sites? (Donations gladly accepted!)

Let’s save us all a lot of time and bad feelings and have a big bonfire with marshmallows and say a few eulogies and voluntary self-delete this questionable activity. Steth 23:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Steth for your edifying additions to this discussion. Maustrauser 23:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

See? Even Maustrauser agrees with me! Any others? Steth 00:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for providing evidence that you haven't even looked at the list very carefully (it covers all sides), since your ad hominem and straw man attacks are off-base, as usual. Please take your personal attacks elsewhere and stop violating wiki policies by treating others with bad faith, and by making false charges. I actually removed a link to Quackwatch, I'm the one who added psychotherapy, and there is no labeling being done here, and no links that benefit me. My activities (practically none) outside of Wikipedia are not for you to comment on Wikipedia. Your sense of smell is your POV, and your POVpushing suppressionism and deletism of opposing POV (which is not evident in this list, since it covers all sides) is not allowed here. -- Fyslee 00:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

My sincere apologies Steth, but I was being sarcastic. For the record, I do not agree with you. As a science writer I find this list incredibly useful as a resource. It does cover both sides and thus cannot be considered POV. It is the articles themselves where POV battles take place - not a list (I apologise for repeating myself but clearly Steth hasn't read my earlier contributions). Maustrauser 00:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This "list" passes the smell test since all dissenters failed to demonstrate any POV. Their comments only have strengthened the necessity for this list because we now know who the true quacks or should I say the trolls are! --QuackGuru 01:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. A list of topics "related" to the discussion of quackery are just that - related to the discussion of quackery. No one can deny that many of the topics on this list are frequently included in discussions of quackery - therein lies its usefulness as a list on WP. As others have said before me, the list includes a strong disclaimer stating that in no way is WP saying the below items ARE quackery. I don't really see the problem here.--TN | ! 01:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like an end-run & rerun of previously deleted "quacky" sentiments. Here Q-related creates an obvious +1 subjective "heroes" list interspersed with a -1 subjective "goat" list still susceptible to all the ills identified previously. Another QW spamsite and link page hobby horse; AfD, rename or at least more objective accuracy and move to personal subpage.--I'clast 02:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You have failed to explain anything specifically except your trollish behavior. This here is just a list. --QuackGuru 03:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I found it. "...I created this new article as a back door to the category that was wrongfully deleted by voting.[1] Those voters who did not like the category are perfect examples of the quacks who sell snake oil and so forth. The category is gone but the truth lives on! --QuackGuru" This quote is also insulting and completey mistaken as to the background & motivation of at least this editor. Troll??! WP:NPA. --I'clast 03:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah! The category is gone but the truth lives on! I enjoyed reading my comments again. We know the motivations of the editors. The truth will come out. Thank you so much. --QuackGuru 03:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You obviously don't know skat, about me. Also you might review WP:AGF. "The truth" has a zealous sound to it.--I'clast 04:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your words of encouragement. I appreciate it. --QuackGuru 04:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Iclast, for saving me the trouble of looking up the AfD catagory:quackery. :) This "list" is no different than the problems that it had.--Hughgr 05:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This still fails the smell test. It is intentionally meant to be inflammatory by those who feel they own skepticism. Why would you want to deliberately create resentment here? What have I said that wasn't true? And please don't monkey with my edits and titles in order to force POV into an encyclopedic endeavour. Steth 05:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Lists versus categories

The long and bitter controversies that surrounded the Category:Quackery led to the deletion of the category. Why? Because of NPOV issues that can be dealt with in articles, but not in categories:

"Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. A list might be a better option." [2]

A list is "a better option," and that's what we're doing here. By keeping it a bare list, we avoid NPOV issues altogether, yet we have a valuable resource.

More good information can be found here, where the option is "can", not "must":

• Lists

-- Fyslee 02:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying, as well as QuackGuru above concerning lists and stand alone lists as well. However, note that your link to Lists states that guidelines still need to be followed. Also note that each gay or lesbian mentioned on the "example list" has a reference. Stand alone lists still need to follow NPOV convention. It can be done, and has to be done. Remember, the other reason the category Quackery failed was because it was viewed only as a pejorative term used by some as an attack on others. While this list has some built in protection by claiming to include anything without specification, who gets to decide what does not go on the list if we do not use reliable sources? Me, you? We're just editors, we're not allowed to use our knowledge as sources. --Dematt 03:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me speak a little louder this time. This is just a list with a disclaimer at the top. Editors contribute to the list. Enough said. --QuackGuru 03:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No need to yell;) I think you made your point. Thank you for you time. --Dematt 03:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me point out a clear declaration of POV (as well as choice of name) by QuackGuru,[3]& section above.--I'clast 03:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your words of encourgement. I'm loving it. You have a lot of great ideas for this article list. --QuackGuru 04:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Related categories

Why are the links external links to Wikipedia categories, such as Category:Hoaxes ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes Category:Hoaxes]) rather than Category:Hoaxes ([[:Category:Hoaxes]])? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Alert on WikiProject Medicine

Some comments

• Both the title and the lead violate Wikipedia:Avoid self-references (see the examples in that guideline). The use of the words "topic" and "people" rather than "article" is essential here. Other self-ref is the inclusion of Wikipedia categories and WikiProjects.
• The "inclusion criteria" are wide and vague, trying to achieve the impossible: namely including a list member without daring to say why.
• The core list of articles is deliberately uncategorised, which is unhelpful to the reader and apparently only done in an attempt to "avoid NPOV problems".
• The list is completely unverified. If it were to be verified, then the act of doing so would automatically place a member into the "quack" or "anti-quack" category. Any editor blanking much of this list (as it stands) would technically be supported by WP:V policy (though I wouldn't support such wholesale disruption).
• The list includes living people. I'm sorry but saying that e.g. "Andrew Wakefield" is "related to quackery" is a potentially libellous statement that needs a reliable source, which in turn ultimately tells you why the editor thinks they are related to quackery.
• The list tarnishes broad categories of medicine with the "quackery" brush. One only has to read the history of Western medicine to know that many of our well established drugs were discovered by those who's beliefs would be regarded as quackery today. Two examples: aspirin as an anti-fever drug and potassium bromide as an anticonvulsant both owe their origins to wacky ideas.
• Whilst categories are problematic (an article's inclusion in a category is rarely accompanied by a reference), this list is currently no better.
• If e.g. WikiProject Pseudoscience wish to keep a private list of topics that interest project members, then that is fine. Currently, IMO, this vague list has little encyclopaedic merit.

Colin°^Talk 12:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep. --Dematt 13:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit war on Glucosamine

The current in/out edit war on Glucosamine should stop: WP:V policy states:

Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.

The use of the edit summary as a means of providing "evidence" is discouraged. Colin°^Talk 12:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Unless the format of this list changes, this is going to continue to happen. It needs to be well defined and referenced. --Dematt 13:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If the format of the list changes, this is going to continue to happen, as some people are considered "quacks" or "anti-quacks", depending on who you talk to. Categorization by type of association is impossible, as Colin noted above. If this article contains the evidence or pointers to the evidence, it will become apparently biased. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you clarify the last sentence. Is this a reason why you think the list should be excluded from WP:V or a reason why you think the list is doomed to fail WP:NPOV were it to satisfy WP:V? Colin°^Talk 14:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

(Without considering User:ScienceApologist's later comment.) If there is some mention of quackery (or of medical fraud, or detecting either) in the Wikipedia article, it should be listed here, regardless of the degree of involvement. Otherwise, I don't think we can include the article here without further comment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 15:26, 3 January 2007.

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Lists must be self-contained with their own references. Colin°^Talk 15:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This entire discussion is confusing. However, I agree with Arthur that categorizing the article into "quacks" & "anti-quacks" would be impossibe. Even Barrett seems to think the jury is still out on glucosamine and it should not be written off as "quackery". Jance 16:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Consider this...

Those writing this article might consider a similar article written about the creation-evolution controversy. --ScienceApologist 15:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

A good idea. Why not write a long article about the Quackery vs. Alternative Medicine controversy and direct all controversies there. MaxPont 18:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Consumer Bill of Rights

Why is this included on this list? How is this "quackery"?--66.82.9.53 20:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If you read the introduction you would note that these are articles 'related' to quackery. Not articles about quackery or necessarily quackery. The Consumer Bill of Rights helps consumers protect themselves from quackery. Maustrauser 22:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

A Bare List For Educational Research

As the same with the List of chess topics which does not have any references is a good format to follow. The main articles are the place to read and debate, not here. The listing should mostly remain a stand alone list. The first paragraph (with its the strong disclaimer) could be expanded to avoid any misunderstanding as to what inclusion in this list means. --QuackGuru 01:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

"Chess" and "quack" are not even in the same ballpark. I highly doubt anybody could be offended by "chess".--Hughgr 06:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Disclaimer: What I write here is not directed at User:Hughgr, but has general application......True enough about "chess" and "quack" (which is not used or even implied in the list), but being offended is in the eye of the beholder (which says more about them than about anything else), and it's their responsibility to try to understand, and to examine both sides of the subject. (If they don't want to be bothered, then they shouldn't bother others by hindering them.) It isn't a sign of a strong self-image or ability to see outside the box when offense is so easily taken. Dealing with other topics that may seem offensive should instead strengthen one's knowledge base and ability to act in a collaborative and NPOV manner.

The possibility of offense is not a legitimate ground for blocking subject matter at Wikipedia, especially when that offense is not intended (and is obviously avoided by leaving out POV labelling and categorization), but is self-motivated and then used as an excuse to exclude other POV. Just because some users who are not interested in the subject find it of no value or offensive, does not mean that many other persons far beyond Wikipedia feel the same way. The world is bigger than one POV, and Wikipedia is a resource for many POV.

I see that the List of vaccine topics is formatted just like this list, and includes many of the same controversial people without any annotations or comments at all. It is also a valuable resource for those who are interested in the topic, especially for those who know something about it. The same applies here. Those who know something about the topic find it valuable, while those who don't like it or don't know much about it find it offensive or worthless.

BTW, using the "Related changes" link at the left provides a unique collection of links as a "watchlist" that is not found elsewhere, and which would not exist if not for this list. -- Fyslee 12:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If I were to create a list of creeps and I added "Fyslee" (just using you as an example - you know I don't feel that way - only as an example of the emotion it evokes) to it, you would take offense. It says nothing about your insecurity, only your sense of value and you would be right in arguing in your own defense. It would be up to me to prove you were a creep, and if I couldn't, I would expect you to take your name off the list. I would also expect you to ask me what the definition of a "creep" was and who decides who is a "creep". If I couldn't answer that, I would expect you to ask me to get rid of the list. That's all this is about; encyclopedia value and NPOV. There is no value in creating a list of creeps and those people who call people creeps for others to look at. I can go to My Space for that. --Dematt 13:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahem. Barrett v. Rosenthal (or the trial court) specifically found that being called a "quack" is not libel. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point, we haven't even addressed that issue. --Dematt 15:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It's still considered "hostile language", not the basis to build goodwill.--I'clast 16:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Dematt, I understand your point. If we were actually doing that, then there'd be a problem, but we're steering clear of calling anyone anything. It is not libelous to include people who may have been placed in connection with quackery at some point in time. If it's not the debunkers, but the quacks themselves, you can be sure that they often have already been calling MDs and scientists quacks for a long time! But we aren't even getting into such detail. Anyone who studies the subject will readily understand why some people and subjects are on the list, while many others will remain a puzzlement to them. Why? Simply because their relation to the subject may be more obscure or in a totally different role. Not all quacks and debunkers are very vocal about their activities, but those listed here are notable enough to be featured in articles. Another reason why the relationship may not be clear is because we cover many different POV by providing tools for all to use, and thus ones own mindset will mean one uses the tools differently, coming up with different results. Isn't that the essence of NPOV? We don't lead readers, but provide both sides and let them decide for themselves. As far as hostile language is concerned, none of it is applied specifically to any subject, and it's only hostile if you feel yourself hit.

The existence of perceived "hostile language" is an often necessary fact of life and is not a legitimate Wikipedia reason for stopping an article or list -- if we were using such language, which aren't. "Quack" isn't even actionable, and is at best (worst) slightly insulting. Wikipedia contains lots of hostile and vile language in many articles. We aren't even getting near such a thing. -- Fyslee 16:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

We can't purport to qualify or quantify the degree of quackery or non-quackery a subject exudes, that would be pointless and nonsensical, not to mention inaccurate at the very least, if not downright incorrect and immoral. We would have to add WP to the list as being related to quackery as well, as it no longer reports it, but has joined in the battle only using nuclear weapons leaving no man standing. Let's just observe and report as we should. Take a step back. This list isn't doing what you want it to do. --Dematt 17:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right. The list isn't doing what I wanted it to do. I don't know what it's originator intended. I have given up and have reported so on the AfD. Now it's up to the originator. Of course we both know that no matter how good this list is made, as long as it contains the Q word, the same objections and objectors will appear....;-) -- Fyslee 19:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

And perhaps they should. This process is necessary for all of us; it is what keeps us all in check with reality. You are both a gentleman and a scholar and as always I look forward to working with you. --Dematt 19:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Much appreciated. You have a fantastic ability to disagree agreeably, and I respect you for that more than you may realize. You truly understand NPOV and collaborative editing, and my dealings with you have been nothing short of a pleasure and learning experience of the best kind. Regardless of the outcome here, we can still edit collaboratively and contribute here as best we can. In spite of (and because of!) our differing POV on several subjects, we actually make a good team, because we help each other approach ever closer to NPOV. Thanks for that. -- Fyslee 20:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Luke, I still think you would make a great chiropractor. Are you sure you don't want to come join the Dark Side;) --Dematt 20:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You know, it's so nice to see such brotherhood and fellowship and two people enjoying each other's company. That's what it's all about. Helping one another.

But I am confused Fyslee as to why your blogs/websites and internet activitity all seem to center around denigrating and dehumanizing Dematt's career choice. Reading your "contributions" both in the past at Wikipedia, and your personal sites, by extension since he is a chiropractor, you generally feel that he is a murderous, theiving, lunatic who wants to harm children and steal your wallet. Isn't this a contradiction to your 'goodwill' stated above? Perhaps you could clarify this for us. Thanks Steth 22:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOAPBOX much? Shot info 23:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I won't debase myself by replying to such a gross mischaracterization of my POV. -- Fyslee 23:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I do still have your wallet, but I was just borrowing it;) --Dematt 03:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Organic Food

Why is organic food on this list? I don't get it. --LadyLiz 22:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The votes are in.

Article is deleted. I redirected the page to save me any further embarrassement. --QuackGuru 11:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, this process doesn't work that way, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion & Colin, typically 5+ days so everyone gets to vote & comment. Then an admin will make a determination and close the vote page.--I'clast 16:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Question for everyone

If this article gets deleted, shouldn't this also be deleted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiproject_Rational_Skepticism/List_of_articles_related_to_quackery

It seems odd to me that a deleted article can be moved elswhere in WP. Anyone have any thoughts on this? Thanks Steth 12:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_articles_related_to_quackery"

No, that's in a project space. Bubba73 (talk), 14:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

But isn't that part of the vote, Delete or Move? If it gets voted to delete and someone decides to move it anyway, then what is the use of everyone taking the time to vote and discuss if one person can do whatever they please? Steth 18:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I got the impression that it was safe in project space. Bubba73 (talk), 19:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily.--I'clast 14:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

ALERT! ALERT!

I have re-read the initial entry at the top of this page :Excellent Idea!" and the more I read it more I think something is fishy here. It is this quote that concerns me:

"...but by following those editors' tracks, we might be able to find more. Just watch my edit history and you'll be able to figure out what was going on and who deleted the category tag. Then follow their tracks. If you will please activate your email, I'll email you the names to watch. Let me know on my user page. -- Fyslee 09:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)"

What's up with that? Doesn't this violate some rules like Assume Good Faith? Quru was concerned about editors notifying others about the AfD Alert! Was this whole thing a set-up from the beginning? Anyone know if this violates WP behavior guidelines?

I am concerned when editors use Wikipedia for their personal agendas and this is why this is smelling fishier and fishier. I am also astonished at how Quackguru become so skilled in creating and editing such an extensive list with perfect syntax the day after he signs on as a new user. Would anyone care to share their thoughts about these concerns? Thanks Steth 05:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It screams WP:AGF to me... Shot info 10:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"Assume" does not mean blindly do so, Steth is voicing concern and asking questions about possible evidence, not directly accusing. "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include...sockpuppetry... Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice." It's getting warm in here.--I'clast 15:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see being able to format a list correctly as suspicious, especially since the Wikipedia categories are formatted as external links rather than as the obvious (to any experienced Editor) [[:Category:category name]]. S/he could, I suppose, have experience in another Wiki? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, judging from the response, the whole thing appears like it was begun in bad faith, so it is no stretch of the imagination that we could have been manipulated here. It is concerning that this whole thing may have been staged to further agendas and waste lots of time and energy by many editors. Just my opinion. Steth 16:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Note regarding Steth

Ongoing comments by Steth is not assuming good faith. Steth has not helped in any way in improving the list. Seems odd to me. Has not added anything to the list. The only thing Steth has done is continued to be negetive. I smell it now a troll that is. Please comment on improving the list and stop your strange behavior. --QuackGuru 17:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Note

People who are opposed to quackery are listed on this article. The title of this list is "List of articles related to quackery". People who are genuine and notable opposing to quackery deserve to be on this remarkable list. Related to quackery does not mean quackery. It means related in some way. People who oppose quackery are on this list too. --QuackGuru 04:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt that you, and many of QW followers really mean certain fiercely contested mainstream medical notions as quackery, as "anti-quackery" might imply for CABC as a researcher.--I'clast 05:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Let the readers decide their own conclusions. FYI, I am a leader not a follower. BTW, this list will be gone very shortly anyways. Note---->

Note to all editors: Does anyone have another title for this list that does not have the "Q-word" but still have a similar meaning. --QuackGuru 05:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Clean Up

This list has gone thru a major clean up. I removed the persons section so their is no WP:BLP concerns. I suggest the title could be changed to > the 'List of articles related to skepticism'. Suggestions are welcomed on how to improve the list. Thank you. --QuackGuru 16:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

Why were my additons of Flu Vaccine, Psychiatry, and Pharmaceuticals deleted? I provided references and everything? Please discuss. Levine2112 23:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The info you added were deleted because they were not notable to say the least. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or personal essay about your profession. Mr. Levine. You are a psychologist in real life. Then you claim your job (about psychiatry) is related to skepticism (quackery). You are an author about the topic > Psychiatry <. We know the truth. Thanks. --QuackGuru 01:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you are insinuating here please? I feel offended but I am not sure if it is just that I am misreading what you wrote and I don't want to rush to judgement here. Please restate. Thanks. Levine2112 01:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

No thanks sir. You want to say I am saying something. You want to. You want to read more into anything and everything I do. I know about Psychiatry, flu vaccine, and pharmaceuticals. It is not notable for this article. It is transparent what is happening here. I hope we understand. Please focus a little more on building an encyclopedia rather than adding non-notable stuff and attempting to delete notable stuff. I think you want to read more into my comments. Rather than focusing on the non-notable stuff you added to the article you seem to want to focus on me. No thanks. Wish you the best Mr. Levine. --QuackGuru 02:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay. But I truly am baffled by what you had written. I think that you are implying that I am too biased to edit here. You seem to be focused on who I am, or else you wouldn't have written what you wrote. Well if I am too biased then I imagine that "Quack Guru" would be too. But let's move on.

I thought this is an article which list things that are related to the issue of skepticism in health care (or more pejoratively... Quackery). Everyday we hear news about Psychiatry being called quackery or pseudoscience (if not by a some researcher then by some Scientologist actor who probably could benefit from some meds). That is notable. More notable than obsure things such as Megavitamin Therapy or Natural Hygiene. I've never heard any personality rant and rave and call Matt Lauer smug for believing in Innate intelligence... not the modern scientific definition, but the original metaphysical concept from over a 100 years ago. And Pharmaceuticals is largely related to skepticism in healthcare. Remember, this article doesn't imply that just because something is listed here then it is "quackery"; merely that it is somehow related. I am scientific skeptic and a consumer advocate and I consider it to be so. Isn't that what the first paragraph of this article says? Oh, and then there is the flu vaccine... again, I may not personally think that it is pseudoscientific, but there are a lot of people out there who certainly do. Perform a Google search. This is very notable. Remember, if this article is going to cut it, it can't just be a collection of things that you - QuackGuru - think are related to Quackery or healthcare pseudoscience or skepticism. This has to remain a cooperative effort and a pool of thoughts (all meeting the standards of WP:RS and WP:V of course). Otherwise, I would suggest that Wikipedia isn't the place for this and instead you should take it to a personal blog or to a place with only likeminded thinkers as yourself. Levine2112 02:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want this article to cut it then why did you vote to delete it? We both know why you are still here. Please remove your non-notable stuff so you and I can both move on as you said, so to speak. I am not interested in hearing blog talk by anyone. I prefer to focus on the issues and to remove non-notable additions from Wikipedia. Voting delete is not a cooperative effort to me. BTW, I expose the truth about the issues of the subject matter here. Thanks Sir, --QuackGuru 03:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I am only trying to help. My vote to delete is explained. If this wasn't a one-sided attack article, then perhaps you would have more support to keep it. But I guess it is clear that you don't want my help. Levine2112 03:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want to help then why you are so insist on deleteion of this brand new work in progress article. We know the truth. Please focus and explain on how to improve the article. It is clear you have not been very helpful because I do not see any helpful information. Or did I misunderstand you. Thanks anyways. --QuackGuru 03:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Who is we? The royal we? Or are you speaking for others? I tried to delete one thing (Innate intelligence) that I thought was atypical and lacked real support for being on this article. Again, this is an effort to strengthen the article. I am certainly not an expert in all of the things listed here, but of the things I do know is where I try to contribute. I also enjoy researching new things and will try and help out with this long list, but I do fear our efforts are for naught. We'll keep trying though! Do we think this is a wise course of action? Levine2112 04:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

QG, can I suggest that you WP:AGF please. Shot info 04:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Clean House

Please comment on improving the article. The article is going thru an unprecedented transitional period at the moment. I hope we will have good comments and ideas here. Thanx. --QuackGuru 04:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Editing by project detractors and supporters of pseudoscience

This is a current problem! This list is not to be edited by just any editor at wikipedia. This is private area. -- Fyslee 12:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? This is a wiki, we don't have bit that all wikipedians can't edit!--Doc^g 12:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

From my observation, it seems that the requirements to edit this so-called "private" area is to be obsessively consumed with hatred of non-drug types of methods. Oh, yes, if you populate this list with any links that eventually lead a reader to any of the 'non-profit' sites owned by Stephen Barrett Enterprises where donations are gladly accepted (!) well then that would certainly be OK, too!" Steth 17:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, just as well I have my anti-woo spray on, Steth almost got me there. Needs more CAPs though to really cut it :-) And it's Stephen Barrett Enterprises ^TM :-) Shot info 08:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Non-Notable Info

Theses new additions* added by Mr. Levine are a "List of articles related to health fraud and skeptical medicine".* Please click on red (and make it blue) and start a new article. So-called controversial medicine that is not mainstream belongs on Wiki but in a separate article. This article here (List of articles related to scientific skepticism) should not become a laundry list. Antibiotics[11[12]* Paxil[123]* Pharmaceuticals[124]* Psychiatry[125]* should be added to the List of articles related to health fraud and skeptical medicine. So, in this regard, I welcome anyone to start a new article ASAP. A appreciate your enthusiasm Mr. Levine. Thanks to all and may the force be with you. --QuackGuru 17:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Eh? From our Quackery article and Definition of quack

"Quackery is a derogatory term that is defined as the "medical practice and advice based on observation and experience in ignorance of scientific findings. The dishonesty of a charlatan."

A "quack" is "a fraudulent or ignorant pretender to medical skill. A person who pretends, professionally or publicly, to have skill, knowledge, or qualifications he or she does not possess; a charlatan."

Looks like health fraud and sceptical medicine do belong on such a list - in fact probably more so than "scientific scepticism" which is only tangential at best. Anyway, you don't WP:OWN this, so you don't get to say what goes on it if it survives.--Doc^g 18:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Um. It looks like Antibiotics[11[12]* Paxil[123]* Pharmaceuticals[124]* Psychiatry[125]* should be added to the List of articles related to health fraud and skeptical medicine. This article is about a 'List of articles related to scientific skepticism'. This list here is going thru major changes. It seems some may want to turn this list here into a 'laundry list' so it will be deleted. Info that belongs in another articles belongs in another article. This is simple to understand. Thanks. --QuackGuru 18:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Says who? Under its current title, such things obviously belong here.--Doc^g 18:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The current title was agreed upon by most if not all Wikipedians who discussed it to be changed. I do not know anyone who wants to keep the title name. A more appropiate title fit is clearly the List of articles related to scientific skepticism. Under that title and description the list should remain shortened not expanded. Also under the title: List of articles related to health fraud and skeptical medicine the articles Antibiotics[11[12]* Paxil[123]* Pharmaceuticals[124]* Psychiatry[125]* belong their. Nobody has agreed to the current title here. The title will definately be changed. Under the new title the, List of articles related to scientific skepticism, the list should obviously remained shortened. Thanks. --QuackGuru 19:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I am a scientific skeptic and a consumer advocate and I think Vioxx, Paxil, and Pharmaceuticals should remain. This is what this article is about. What the issue other that censorship? Levine2112 20:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Call it pharmaceutical company abuse, bad medicine, medical blunders, dicovered side effects that lead to (premature) withdrawal as a result of the system working as intended -- whatever -- but it´s not quackery. Make another list for such situations. There have been plenty of examples of the system learning and reacting to new knowledge of risk/benefit problems, and plenty of examples of pharmaceutical company abuse. Such an article probably exists already. I certainly hope so! -- Fyslee 20:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I call it scientific skepticism and quackery. It belongs here. Levine2112 20:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Well... you can call it whatever you like but this list is going through changes presently. I believe this article needs to be focused and not have a laundry list of a personal essay from your job as a shrink, Mr. Levine. You have chosen a respected career related to the pharmaceutical industry. Okay. You know a lot about drugs and shrinks and talking good in discussions. So, you also know the info you added does not belong in this article. Please start a new stub called the List of articles related to health fraud and skeptical medicine if you think the info you want added still belongs on Wikipedia. You have not explained why the info is not suited for the new stub offered to you. It does belong in the list of articles related to health fraud and skeptical medicine. Don't you want to start a new stub? I suggest you could take a break if you still do not understand this clearly. Thanks. --QuackGuru 01:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a convenient POV fork wastebasket to privilege an unencyclopedic POV list with personal favorites.--I'clast 02:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the quack — those are different concepts and could easily be in different articles. I'm replacing the dispute tag with {{POV-title}}, for the moment. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

POV Title

The title of this article should be changed to something neutral. My suggestion for the title change is the 'List of articles related to scientific skepticism'. Frankly, I would like this article peer-reviewed by professional admins. who have experience with overviewing and editing articles. Any suggestions on focusing this list would be helpful. Thanks you. --QuackGuru 02:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The lead

This is the current lead:

• "The following is a list of Wikipedia articles and categories that are related to the subject of skepticism and to a degree about quackery. Inclusion here is not a statement that the subject is quackery or the person is a quack, only that scientific skeptics, debunkers, and consumer protection advocates consider the article to be related to the subject and of possible value when investigating the subject of quackery. Some listed items may be considered by them to be forms of quackery, promoters of quackery, openly against quackery, red flags for quackery, or mechanisms and thought patterns conducive to it. Both sides of the issues are included. See the individual articles for more information."

Can we consider taking all the references to quackery out? --Dematt 04:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Current Lead

The following is a list of Wikipedia articles and categories that are related to the subject of skepticism and to degree about quackery. The definition should be interpreted broadly, as it may be direct or tangential, and refers to any concept, method, profession, organization, or person who has ever (including historical) been associated with the concept of critical skepticism. The subject or person may have been on the "receiving end" of accusations, on the accusing end, or on the study end (hence the inclusion of various terms related to medicine, science, psychology, logic, law, etc.).

This list is about skepticism as well as its association with quackery, which is the reason for the inclusion of some topics related to quackery. The two topics are often related.

Some items are included simply because there has been debate from skeptical critics that have characterized it as its possible involvement of being relating to quackery, regardless of whether it was or was not. Other items are included as educational aids, as an understanding of these subjects should enable one to better understand the subject of skeptical topics, and hopefully be enabled to resist and expose it.

Therefore inclusion here is definitely not a statement that the subject matter is quackery or the person is a quack, that soley it is related to rational skepticism by certain groups or people. It is only listed here because scientific skeptics, debunkers, consumer protection advocates, and/or government officials (FDA, FTC, etc.) consider the subject to be in some manner related to the subject of skepticism or quackery, and therefore of possible value when investigating the subject. Some listed items may be considered by them to be openly against quackery; measures that help to prevent it or expose it; forms of quackery; promoters of quackery; red flags for the possible presence of quackery; or mechanisms and thought patterns conducive to its acceptance and promulgation. Many sides of the issues are included. See the individual articles for more information.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

I have updated the lead. I hope this explains it better. Please go ahead and rewrite the intro if it needs any changing. Thanks. --QuackGuru 05:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

While I understand that scientific skepticism and quackery can be related, do we have verifiable and reliable definitions (not WP)? WP defintions can change and are not considered reliable. One of our problems is that one person's quackery is another person's miracle. You won't convince either that the other is correct, so we have to use solid defintions. --Dematt 13:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I just went through the 7 references that are cited in the lead. I am concerned that we are using sources that make their living criticizing. These are their own defintions and they don't reference their defintions well either. IOWs they are using original research. I did see one that referenced a peer reviewed source:

• A quack is a person who pretends to have knowledge which he does not possess; who promises to do what he is either not sure he can perform or what he is certain he cannot perform; who represents his practice to be more successful than that of other men; who pretends to cure diseases known and admitted to be incurable; whose manner is confident and imposing; whose tone and language are unhesitating and boastful; who employs remedies, the nature and composition of which he keeps unknown and who deals in specifics and universal remedies. He is addicted to handbills, newspapers and similar modes of making known his pretensions and proceedings. This is the quack and the conduct of this man is quackery.

(From Edinburgh Medical and Surgical Journal 1845; 63: 176)

I haven't been able to access the journal itself, but this sounds reasonable. Any comments? --Dematt 14:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it sounds reasonable. The problem here is that pseudoskeptics are trying to pervert the definition for their own political agendas. (And I never thought I would sound like a conspiracy nut!) TheDoctorIsIn 23:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

This has always been my point as well. The subject of quackery makes perfectly reasonable people turn ugly. It is not necessary. It doesn't serve anyone's purpose, although perhaps there are those that like to incite riots. We have to make sure that we are not creating original research. This is an encyclopedia where we just report what we can verify with reliable sources. If not, all we have is anarchy and a contentious article that is the subject of neverending edit warring. WP's answer is NPOV, VER and RS. So far it has worked pretty well. --Dematt 23:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thinking

After doing several different online searches, I am coming to the conclusion that both "quackery" and "scientific skepticism" are subjective concepts that have useful purposes, though in an ironic twist, their abuse may become as dubious as quackery itself. Our own WP articles are not referenced and only border on NPOV. They need a lot of work that I don't have time to perform. Anyway, we likely will never be able to find sources that are peer reviewed, much less agree on a definition of either term. So basically, this list becomes something that is itself borderline NPOV and subjective and there is no way to make it otherwise unless we state something to the effect that "this list may be bologna". However, I'm not sure that we will find a reliable source that can say that either. I guess that is why it is not in WP article space. As far as a list in project space, maybe somebody will find it to be useful, but it may also be misleading to newcomers who may think they are looking at a list of quackery. I suggest that the lead portray that better. Just my thoughts, comments? --Dematt 15:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Lead Intro: Therefore inclusion here is definitely not a statement that the subject matter is quackery or the person is a quack,... The intro has the strongest disclaimer imagineable. I suggest you re-read it carefully. The disclaimer is there for a purpose. It does inform the reader. I realize the intro is telling. The intro clearly explains to the reader to let oneself draw their own conclusions. Thanks. --QuackGuru 21:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Why does an article on scientific skepticism have to include that sentence. Why not just say:

• This list is of articles and categories related to the subject of scientific skepticism for use by WikiProject members. Scientific skepticism is a type of skepticism that looks to evaluate claims for their scientific merit.[citation needed] Anyone can be a scientific skeptic and any subject may find itself under the scrutiny of a scientific skeptic. This lists the popular concepts and/or subjects for scientific skeptics.

Or something like that. That is pretty NPOV and though it needs some work, it is clean and does not have to be derogatory for anyone to use the list for whatever purpose they want. Make sense? --Dematt 23:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The above statements violate Wikipedia's standard. You are telling me to remove the strong disclaimer and then replace it with POV jargon?

You wrote> Anyone can be a scientific skeptic and any subject may find itself under the scrutiny of a scientific skeptic. This lists the popular concepts and/or subjects for scientific skeptics.<*

Any subject does not find its way under scrutiny. Those are false statements.* I strive for the utmost neutrality. Thanks anyways for trying. --QuackGuru 00:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Please keep in miind that I am just an editor here. You can insert anything that you want to make it more accurate. As long as it is verifiable by reliable sources. So, if there is a requirement for being a scientific skeptic, we could rewrite like this:

• This list is of articles and categories related to the subject of scientific skepticism for use by WikiProject members. Scientific skepticism is a type of skepticism that looks to evaluate claims for their scientific merit.[citation needed] Not just anyone can be a scientific skeptic as you must (insert the qualifications that you found) and not just any subject may find itself under the scrutiny of a scientific skeptic as they must (insert the qualifications required to find themselves under scrutiny). This lists the popular concepts and/or subjects for scientific skeptics.

Your turn. --Dematt 02:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your commentary for the list of interest. Your spirit is bright. I added another reference to verify the meaning of skepticism for the lead and its thought process. The new additional reference explains it better than your info. Let me know if you have any other concerns. I'm online right now. Thanks. --QuackGuru 05:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Your new reference was excellent. It is a primary source, basically an opinion piece that from a non-peer reviewed source that gives a good argument for teaching scientific skepticism in schools. It really should be used in the Scientific skepticism article as well, noting that it is the opinion of the author. Did you notice that it did not mention quackery? Me, too. And since he did mention "Climate science", we can make sure that is on the list, since the both your lead and my lead would allow its inclusion. Meanwhile, I still think your lead is unecessarily long and is not an accurate description of the title or the contents. What is it that you do not like about keeping it short like mine? --Dematt 13:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The info you wrote does not explain much if anything. It is basically your opinion. Other refs explains about quackery.

This reference that is in the article has been peer-reviewed.*

In Support of Skepticism: "Most institutions demand unqualified faith; but the institution of science makes skepticism a virtue." (Merton, 1962) This reference at the end of the lead has been peer-reviewed in the: Reprinted from Environmental Science and Policy, Vol.3(1), 2000, 19-20. Copyright 2000, with permission from Elsevier Science.

It also cited many references:*

Barnett, T.P., et al. 1999. Detection and attribution of recent climate change: a status report. Bull.Am.Met.Soc. 80(12), 2631-2659. Bronowski, Jacob. 1958. Science and human values. Penguin Books Ltd., p.68. Lakatos, Imre. 1978. Philosophical Papers 1, Cambridge U. Press, p.1 Merton, Robert K. 1962. Social theory and social structures. Free Press, NY., p.547. Petersen Arthur C. 1999. Philosophy of climate science. Bull.Am.Met.Soc. 81(2), 265-271. Science, 1982. Creationism in schools: the decision in McLean versus the Arkansas Board of Education. Science (215), 934-943.

Thanks. --QuackGuru 18:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the thing about citing sources is that you are not citing the sources that he used to come up with his opinion, you are citing his paper that is his opinion based on those papers he cited. One of them might have been peer reviewed, but that does not mean his paper was peer reviewed. He could be some crackpot for all we know - (I'm sure he is not). Do you know who he is? Why should we believe him?

Does this make sense or am I just wasting my time? --Dematt 18:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The paper was peer-reviewed in the Environmental Science and Policy, Vol.3(1), 2000, 19-20. Copyright 2000. The citations are the source for the article. Thanks for asking. --QuackGuru 18:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Environmental Science and Policy" is not peer reviewed. Check the editing policy. This would be an article that can be quoted as an opinion paper. --Dematt 22:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Their policy does not say: not peer reviewed. Also, it was reprinted in the ES & P. Thanks. --QuackGuru 22:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Climate Science

The recent addition of climate science, also called climatology, does not belong in this list of articles. Climatology is the study of climate, scientifically defined as weather conditions averaged over a period of time, and is a branch of the atmospheric sciences. The study of climatolgy itself is not under scrutiny. Thanks. --QuackGuru 17:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

QuackGuru, I just now put that in because that came from the article that you just said was such a great source for the lead -Article In Support of Skepticism: "Most institutions demand unqualified faith; but the institution of science makes skepticism a virtue." (Merton, 1962)? Surely it fits?? --Dematt 18:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The recent addition of climate science, also called climatology, does not belong in this list of articles. Climatology is the study of climate, scientifically defined as weather conditions averaged over a period of time, and is a branch of the atmospheric sciences. The study of climatolgy itself is not under scrutiny. The word virtue is metioned in the article. Do you wnat to add the virtue too. I doubt it. Thanks for trying. I appreciate your effort. --QuackGuru 18:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Basically what you are saying is that the concept of global warming is not a subject that is of interest to scientific skeptics and should not be on the list? Right now that is probably one of the most important scientific debates for all of our sakes. I hope scientific skeptics are looking at the data and trying to evaluate its validity. Think about it, doesn't that mean that it needs to be on the list? --Dematt 18:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The process of climate science is not under scrutiny. What is not scientific about climate science. Please explain. Thanks. --QuackGuru 19:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually its process and methodolgy are under increasing scrutiny by notables, e.g. Wm Gray.--I'clast 02:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It does not matter what I think. The source that you placed states the following:

• "Taking the issue of climate change as an example, there are healthy signs of increasing recognition of the importance of dealing with important methodological uncertainties. Petersen (1999), in an inspiring article entitled "Philosophy of Climate Science", states that, "Climate science has to deal with important methodological problems concerning climate simulation. Among these are methodological problems related to climate model hierarchy and complexity, tuning and falsifiability, and uncertainty. All these subjects have only recently become topics of discussion within the climate science community." He finds that uncertainties are currently not thoroughly and methodologically assessed for the purposes of policy usefulness of climate science. Barnett et al. (1999), in a scholarly article summarizing the status of detection and attribution of an anthropogenic climate signal, also find that "Only recently has detection work paid serious attention to the variety of uncertainties that attend the observations and model projections of an anthropogenic signal."

He is advocating that it is the result of scientific skepticism that climate science is beginning to deal with the fact that their climate models might be wrong. This is an argument for scientific skeptics. IOWs, this is an area that concerns scientific skeptics. Isn't that what this list is for? Scientific skepticism is not all about quackery, it's about validating claims. This list is about those claims, isn't it? If not, then the title is not appropriate. --Dematt 20:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have misinterperted the meaning of the information. The process of climate science has not come under scrutiny itself. Thanks anyways. BTY, can you start a new stub called the List of articles related to health fraud and skeptical medicine? Thanks. --QuackGuru 20:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been wrong before. How about giving me your interpretation and we can consider you opinion as well. Otherwise, I see no reason why climate science should not go on the list. --Dematt 22:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

No thanks. I see no reason for climate science to be on this list. I already told and explained to you why. Climate science itself is not under scrutiny. Cheers. --QuackGuru 22:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Message for Dematt. I have a great idea for us. Please start a new stub called the List of articles related to health fraud and skeptical medicine. This sounds like a good plan. Let me know what you think. Is this a good idea Dematt? Is it a good title? If not what title do you think is appropiate. We can work on the new stub together. --QuackGuru 01:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course items may overlap two or more lists. But to me this new list just serves as decoy about an ill-defined POV (misre)presented as "scientific".--I'clast 02:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I am intereted in working with Dematt who is helping me with this list. We are allowed to start a new list very soon. It might look similar but it will be different. Thanks. --QuackGuru 02:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm helping much. You've pretty much put the labor into collaboration for me. I do enjoy a good working relationship with thoughtful people, and the article you propose has potential if it could be created with V and RS and in a NPOV manner. It could be a really interesting addition. But, forgive me for saying this; it seems it's yourway or the highway. I don't think you need me for that. I hope you don't mind if I choose the highway;) --Dematt 03:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed climatology from the list. You may find the global warming controversy a good read. --QuackGuru 06:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Psychiatry

The recent addition of Psychiatry [144] again and again does not fit like a glove in this list of articles. It belongs in another list such as the List of artices related to health fraud and skeptical medicine. This article list should not become a long laundry list. I have explained my reasons before. Please explain the reason for adding it back in. I do not understand. Thanks. --QuackGuru 18:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Then there is so much here that would belong in that new page which you are proposing and not here. I mean nearly half of the entries in this list are more related to "skeptical medicine" (even though I don't think that is a fair decscription) than here. So what do you want to do? Levine2112 18:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Start your new stub called the List of articles related to health fraud and skeptical medicine or something with a similar title and then we can work on it together. Keep in mind, skeptical medicine will remain separate from alternative medicine. Explain in the intro about skeptical medicine as it relates to pharmacueticals drugs, psychiatry, etc.. Don't forget to add these to the new stub: Antibiotics[11[12]* Paxil[123]* Pharmaceuticals[124]* Psychiatry[125]*. Wouldn't you like to start a new stub! I'll meet you at the new proposed stub, hopefully. Thanks. --QuackGuru 18:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

So then you are using this list to single out Alternative Medicine from Skeptical Medicine? Why? Either one is related to scientific skepticism. Isn't that what this article is about? I can think of a host of other healthcare related topics which would benefit this list by being added here. Is this list limited to healthcare related items or can I add anything which is related to scientific skepticism and would be helpful for this project? Levine2112 20:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I remember voters said they do not like a laundry list. Each list should be focused. I recommend you could start a new stub. Why not? Isn't that what Wiipedia is about? What is your objections to start a new stub. I do not undserstand why you do not want to start a new stub. It would be in articlespace for the whole world to read. I am puzzled. Thanks. --QuackGuru 20:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Starting a new stub doesn't solve the issue here. This is a list of articles related to scientific skepticism. Antibiotics, Paxil, Pharmaceuticals, Psychiatry, etc. are all articles related to scientific skepticism according to the criteria at the top of this page. The list can include both things that are labelled "alternative" and "mainstream". Scientific skepticism does not make a distinction. Thanks for the apology though. Levine2112 20:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but the information you added is better suited for a focused new list. I am apologizing in advance for letting you know that is does not belong in this list. I understand you are sensitive. I also understand you want to strengthen this list and delete it at the same time. I find that very interesting. You can start a new list in articlespace that would be beneficial for Wikipedia. It does solve your concerns. Please explain why you dislike to start a new list. Thanks. --QuackGuru 21:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with starting a new list, but it doesn't solve the issue here... that you are trying to limit in scope to just include the "alternative" whent here is plenty in "mainstream" which should also be included here. So yes, I would like to delete the biased soapbox list which you are attempting to create. But at the same time, if there must be a list, I would like it to be a fair one which can encompass everything it should and doesn't get limited by a biased agenda. Levine2112 21:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

If you have no problem with starting a new list then go ahead and start it. Show me how your list is so fair. I would like to see the difference. You mentioned if the list here is lengthened then it is better and if the list is shortened it would be wrong. I don't understand. Lists should not be a laundery list. That would be a soapbox. ---> I think it would be better to have two separate lists instead of one massive list. <--- What do you think? Thanks. --QuackGuru 21:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This list can be longer and include a fair balance of subjects related to scientific skepticism rather than just a selection from the alternative world. It you are just selecting subjectively according to your own POV with an agenda to disparage, then that is soapboxing. IMHO, that is what you are intent on doing here. I am adding to this list to give it better balance and to provide a more useful list. Levine2112 21:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You said you have no problem starting a new list. I can't wait to see your fair and balanced list Your NPOV!

Please start a new stub (a separate list) here ---> List of articles related to health fraud and skeptical medicine <---

Or you can choose any title you wish and add anything you want. Thanks for your agreement. --QuackGuru 21:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to return to Earth now. Levine2112 01:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to help you Mr. Levin. Please continue to comment on how to strengthen the list for the project. I'm still waiting for you to start the new stub too. We can work on something brand new in articlespace. I can't wait. --QuackGuru 01:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

This advice came from a very conventional science editor in an earlier RfC, "If people want the equivalent of a dartboard with their enemy's face on it, they can keep it at home."--I'clast 02:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Question for Qguru

I think you are confusing people with what you will allow and not allow on this list that they are afraid to add anything and are getting discouraged from Wikipedian collaboration and good fellowship. I am confused too, with what you allow here. I want to contribute, but maybe I should clear it with you first.

a) According to the article on Quackery, A "quack" is "a fraudulent or ignorant pretender to medical skill. A person who pretends, professionally or publicly, to have skill, knowledge, or qualifications he or she does not possess; a charlatan." Quackery So if, say, Stephen Barrett fails his psychiatrist boards and then represents himself as an expert witness in psychiatry and/or testifying as a legal expert with no legal training, and gets paid for this, is he a quack and can this be listed here? Is this considered skepticism or fraud or what?

b) If, let's say a dermatologist, and the country doesn't matter, like Canada or the US, has issues with women and badgers them relentlessly or assumes a women's identity for the purpose of subterfuge on the internet, should't this be listed here with the related links to confirm this? This is behaviour that is unprofessional, but I don't know, I am just trying to understand the criteria for inclusion in this controversial list. If you don't think these things should be included, then I am totally confused and perhaps you would consider just letting the list be deleted and be done with the whole bloody thing, eh?

Thanks and Goodwill towards you and all Wikipedians. My best to you! Steth 04:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

I have started the process of changing this list to better reflect the change of title and the change to Project space. Please help to continue doing this. --Bduke 04:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent change. Now we're talking. I am fine with that. --Dematt 04:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup? I took a "quick" run at the start of list for short, quick corrections,[4][5][6] skipping the longer entries with longer strings of references. Three pieces of dreck, still not "clean" or done with the "A"s. Augean task. Still think personal page or offsite best placement.--I'clast 10:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It is now a list in Project space. Why does it need references? Why does it need anything other than the article name in the list? Remove them would be my advice but I have done enough for today. It is late at night here. --Bduke 12:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed box for top of article

$\star$  This is a Project page, NOT an encyclopedia article  $\star$

This project page is a constantly changing workplace and source of reference for project members. It may not conform to all the standards expected of "articles-in-progress", such as NPOV, verifiability and no original research since that is not its purpose.

To use it as a Watchlist, just copy this link to your user space.

-- Fyslee 13:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't find anything about NPOV and Wikiproject policy being different. Do you have something along that line? --Dematt 18:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

As someone pointed out on Talk:Neutral point of view, Neutral point of view (redirecting to Objectivity (journalism) - in article space - has to be written from a neutral point of view, but "the one in the Wikipedia namespace is (rightly and necessarily) advocacy". In other works WP:NPOV does not follow the policy stated in itself. It is also clear that we do not have to have verifiable sources or references on project pages. Project pages, in the Wikipedia namespace, are more informal. They are there to help us do our job and we can mould them, by and large, as we like. More important points for project pages are WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. --Bduke 23:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I really wish I could find something that said they were not required. Mostly all that is out there is that it is required in wikipedia articles. I agree the requirements should be less, but it would be nice to find something that stated that specifically. Any problems with the addition of npov, v and or in the template above? --Dematt 01:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I prefer we do not drop the standards for this list. An inch equals a mile. I propose we maintain the course and uphold the strictest standards. I added the "watchlist box" at the top of the intro. It is not centered. It is at the left hand side. If anyone knows how to center it in the middle, then feel free to give it a try. I do not know how to do that. Thanks. --QuackGuru 05:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

MBTI

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator could very well be on this list, but I'd especially like to make users here aware that that article is currently undergoing a substantial amount of editing by users who have deleted its "skepticism" section and seem to have declared that they will do the same to its "criticism" section, per Talk:Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Heads up. — coelacan talk — 23:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed Per Comments At AFD

I removed articles as suggested by many editors. Thanks. --QuackGuru 18:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The big issue with this article is that it treats scientific skepticism as a belief rather than a methodology of believing. Perhaps this is where QuackGuru is getting tripped up. By incorrectly holding scientific skepticism as a belief, he/she thinks there must be a group who subscribes to this belief known as "Scientific Skeptics". Thus, whatever this group deems to be quackery or pseudoscience or just plain bunk is thought to be "related to" scientific skepticism. Aside from this being highly POV, unencyclopaedic and perjorative in nature, it makes a false assumption that scientific skepticism can be reduced to "what" someone believes rather than the method by which someone arrives at their beliefs. Scientific skepticism is merely a way of thinking... about anything. If you think with scientific skepticism, then you approach everything with the need to have it explained rationally by the scientific method. It is the opposite of accepting something on faith (without scientific evidence). Therefore, there is nothing in the universe that can be more or less related to scientific skepticism; after all everything can be equally analyzed by the methodology of scientific skepicism ... an apple, a quasar, a theory, a thought, etc. "Is the apple real?" "Prove it." "Is the theory sound?" "Prove it." The list of articles related to scientific skepticism truly would be as long as n (where n represents the amount of articles in Wikipedia). In essence, this list is of no practical importance. Levine2112 19:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)