This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Quackwatch article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10,
11,
12,
13,
14,
15,
16,
17,
18,
19Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 27 August 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Please consider reading the information at Use of Quackwatch as a source before asking related questions or starting new RfCs. |
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
pseudoscience and
fringe science, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:
|
Re: [1] @ Bilby:, could you please demonstrate this summary is accurate and due by identifying the sources and quoting from each? -- Ronz ( talk) 17:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
There is a request for comment on whether Quackwatch is a self-published source. This RfC also concerns the application of WP:BLP § Avoid self-published sources ( WP:BLPSPS) to content from Quackwatch. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § RfC: Quackwatch. — Newslinger talk 00:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
The Portuguese language version of Quackwatch, linked in the article to [2] appears to have last been updated in 2004. With no updates in over 10 years, it is reasonable to assume that the Portuguese site is defunct. This article should clarify that the Portuguese site is not updated. Dialectric ( talk) 16:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
This edit by Bilby added a failed verification tag, in spite of the edit summary in my restoration of the deleted content immediately before the edit. I don't know why the tag was added.
Here are a couple of links to searches of the book showing that both Stephen Barrett and Quackwatch are used in the book:
The tag should be removed.
BTW (a bit of history here), this effort to delete content from the article is contrary to WP:PRESERVE. The reason that content is there is because of many attacks on the article and attempts to get it deleted. Keep in mind that enemies of QW still exist and will return at the first signs of weakness. That's why many editors had to "beef up" the RS content to prove notability. If this effort to delete legitimate and long-standing content continues, we'll end up with these problems again, and the last time someone tried to seriously attack QW, two editors got community banned and one changed their username, stopped their attempts, and stopped editing in the alternative medicine topic area. By flying under the radar and avoiding this minefield, they have succeeded in surviving here. Good for them.
Therefore, I suggest that deletions be very limited and first proposed on this talk page. They are VERY controversial. I AGF and do not think that current deletions are intended for the following purpose (although the effect is the same), but keep the following in mind: While killing this canary in the mine by an AfD, as previously attempted, is indeed dramatic, doing it in little bits, as is happening now, is insidious and contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. It invites attacks on the article, and we should avoid all the drama that would then ensue. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 17:54, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
I think it is better if we just remove the reference to the book - based on the links above, it is neither a recommendation nor is it independent, given that as far as I can tell the only references to or mention of Quackwatch is in a chapter authored by Barrett. I'll give it a night to see if I'm missing anything, though. - Bilby ( talk) 11:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Quackwatch article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10,
11,
12,
13,
14,
15,
16,
17,
18,
19Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 27 August 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Please consider reading the information at Use of Quackwatch as a source before asking related questions or starting new RfCs. |
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
pseudoscience and
fringe science, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:
|
Re: [1] @ Bilby:, could you please demonstrate this summary is accurate and due by identifying the sources and quoting from each? -- Ronz ( talk) 17:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
There is a request for comment on whether Quackwatch is a self-published source. This RfC also concerns the application of WP:BLP § Avoid self-published sources ( WP:BLPSPS) to content from Quackwatch. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § RfC: Quackwatch. — Newslinger talk 00:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
The Portuguese language version of Quackwatch, linked in the article to [2] appears to have last been updated in 2004. With no updates in over 10 years, it is reasonable to assume that the Portuguese site is defunct. This article should clarify that the Portuguese site is not updated. Dialectric ( talk) 16:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
This edit by Bilby added a failed verification tag, in spite of the edit summary in my restoration of the deleted content immediately before the edit. I don't know why the tag was added.
Here are a couple of links to searches of the book showing that both Stephen Barrett and Quackwatch are used in the book:
The tag should be removed.
BTW (a bit of history here), this effort to delete content from the article is contrary to WP:PRESERVE. The reason that content is there is because of many attacks on the article and attempts to get it deleted. Keep in mind that enemies of QW still exist and will return at the first signs of weakness. That's why many editors had to "beef up" the RS content to prove notability. If this effort to delete legitimate and long-standing content continues, we'll end up with these problems again, and the last time someone tried to seriously attack QW, two editors got community banned and one changed their username, stopped their attempts, and stopped editing in the alternative medicine topic area. By flying under the radar and avoiding this minefield, they have succeeded in surviving here. Good for them.
Therefore, I suggest that deletions be very limited and first proposed on this talk page. They are VERY controversial. I AGF and do not think that current deletions are intended for the following purpose (although the effect is the same), but keep the following in mind: While killing this canary in the mine by an AfD, as previously attempted, is indeed dramatic, doing it in little bits, as is happening now, is insidious and contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. It invites attacks on the article, and we should avoid all the drama that would then ensue. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 17:54, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
I think it is better if we just remove the reference to the book - based on the links above, it is neither a recommendation nor is it independent, given that as far as I can tell the only references to or mention of Quackwatch is in a chapter authored by Barrett. I'll give it a night to see if I'm missing anything, though. - Bilby ( talk) 11:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)