Talk:The National Council Against Health Fraud

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The National Council Against Health Fraud article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

An individual covered in this article, The National Council Against Health Fraud, has edited Wikipedia as Sbinfo (talk • contribs).

Archives /Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3

Contents 1 IRS Search 2 Missing Source 3 Interesting New Info on NCAHF 4 NCAHF claim that they accept tax deducible donations 5 The National Council Against Health Fraud is a US-based organization headquartered in Peabody, Massachusetts????? 5.1 Bravo 6 Problem with Curtis 7 King Bio 8 Quackpotwatch as a Jance's source and editorial commentary 9 NO HOTLINK IS REQUIRED 10 Reproducing NCAHF Website? 11 An example 12 Alleged Copyright Violation 13 Consensus 14 Proposed Section 15 NCAHF Positions 15.1 Acupuncture 15.2 Amalgam Fillings 15.3 Chiropractic 15.4 Diet Advice and Herbal Remedies 15.5 Diploma Mills 16 Inserted Text 16.1 Herbal Remedies 16.2 "a reductionist view" 17 Protected 17.1 Copyright concerns 18 Could someone add 19 Cannot verify: Waltzing with the 'Quackbusters' — To Whose Music? 20 neutral sources opinions about criticism 20.1 The criticism section is way too long. It is unjustified to have such a long length. It seems redundant. 21 Undue weight and fairness of tone 22 An article about an organization critical of alternative medicine, not an article on alternative medicine 23 Atkins is part of a minority view 24 "Quotes" 25 Organization ideas for criticism section 26 Tags 27 Criticism section is now readable 28 Aromatherapy Article 29 chiro criticism part

[edit] IRS Search

Jokestress added an interesting reference that doesn't work from any computer I've tried. [1] Can someone provide the search criteria? --Ronz 23:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure--

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

You should get one result: NCAHF.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then what does this mean?:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As far as a claim of a lapse, we need references to verify it per WP:V, preferably a secondary source [2]. --Ronz 23:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Missing Source

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

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

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

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

[edit] Interesting New Info on NCAHF

[3] In 2002 were using the Peabody, MA address. The older archives are a bit sketchy, so I can't tell when they began using MA. If you look at the archived membership solicitations from 2003 through 2006, they continued to claim to be a legal non-profit. [4][5] [6]

Also, notice here, current webpage of QW [7] ... ... Subscriptions: $20/yr. Send order to National Council Against Health Fraud, 119 Foster Street, Building R, Second Floor, Peabody, MA 01960. It's not clear where one begins and one ends is not clear. Barrett signs with both titles, and the two websites go back and forth and forth and back. Thank you and good nite. Ilena

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] NCAHF claim that they accept tax deducible donations

Please look at the archived membership solicitations from 2003 through 2006. NCAHF ontinued to claim to be a legal non-profit. [8][9] [10] All three of these links, after their supsension, include the statement that they accept tax deductible donations and claim to be a legal corporate entity.Thank you.Ilena 16:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Any with eyes to see, with all due respect, can look at the links from NCAHF official websites provided above, read the back of their brochure where they are claiming to be a legal non profit corporation and gives a place to enter donation amounts. These are from the years after the California suspension. [[11] If documents from their own website claiming to be a legal 501(c)3 (in 2006) isn't evidence that proves NCAHF solicits donations, I am unclear what would be. Thank you and have a lovely day.Ilena 16:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Bravo

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

[edit] Problem with Curtis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed,.

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

As I interpret it, NCAHF supports only "Reform chiropractors" [12]. It might be worth looking to see what publications reform chiropractors have and what they say about themselves vs other chiropractors. --Ronz 17:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] King Bio

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

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

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

Curtis, this is a PROPER citation:

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

Jance 06:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Quackpotwatch as a Jance's source and editorial commentary

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

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

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

[edit] NO HOTLINK IS REQUIRED

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Reproducing NCAHF Website?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] An example

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By the way, this is what I wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Alleged Copyright Violation

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your support. I also don't think the edit war will continue as Jance has reportedly left [13] and taken the edit warring with him. I hope now that we can get on with improving the article. --Curtis Bledsoe 21:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Consensus

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

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

[edit] Proposed Section

This is my proposal. I welcome respectful input:

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

[edit] NCAHF Positions

[edit] Acupuncture

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

[edit] Amalgam Fillings

There has long been controversy regarding the use of amalgam fillings by dentists,[14] because the amalgam contains mercury. Some forms of mercury are toxic to humans, but the NCAHF cites the CDC in stating that there is no evidence that "the health of the vast majority of people with amalgam is compromised" or that "removing amalgam fillings has a beneficial effect on health".[7] The NCAHF criticizes those who they believe exploit unfounded public fears for financial gain.[8] NCAHF asserts that breath, urine and blood testing for mercury are inaccurate. Other tests for mercury exposure described by the NCAHF as invalid can include skin testing, stool testing, hair analysis and electrodermal testing.[9]

[edit] Chiropractic

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

[edit] Diet Advice and Herbal Remedies

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

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

[edit] Diploma Mills

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Inserted Text

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

[edit] Herbal Remedies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: ^[1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jance (talk • contribs).

[edit] "a reductionist view"

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Protected

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strongly disagree. Curtis' stmt evinces no concept of encyclopedic summary & writing.--I'clast 00:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. Of course WP must be allowed to rephrase while still keep the meaning unchanged. MaxPont 15:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Your opinions are noted and incorrect. The article is reporting the fact of the position. This can only be done by reporting what the positions are and the best way to do that is to use the bullet points from the actual positions. Paraphrasing the position is simply unacceptable. --Curtis Bledsoe 20:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Curtis, paraphrasing is incorrect according to you. However, that is not according to Wikipedia consensus. Your objection is noted, in many different locations. Your objection does not affect the editing of this article. Jance 21:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Curtis, as a way forward, "bleh, that sucks!" is a good deal less productive than proposing alternate text. Guy (Help!) 20:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

What else can I say? The summary is accurate. It is even good grammar.  ;-) I suggest that Curtis start with what he considers inaccurate, and we can discuss it. Jance 21:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes that would be most helpful, a specific list of what he considers to be inaccurate. --Wildnox(talk) 21:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Also an item that is too complex, too opinionated and too long will probably suffer frequent, even worse "accuracy" problems as well as not be encyclopedic. Summarize with *appropriate* hotlinked references, can't beat the clarity on positions.--I'clast 00:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the summary's with the link referenced are wholly adequate to get the NCAHF's point across. We don't need to copy an entire website here. If curtis would just explain what he feels is missing, we can get past this.............--Hughgr 01:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

HAPPY NEW YEAR!!! It is very evident that Curtis is the only one that wants to recreate a website as a WIkipedia article. I think the matter is settled, especially since he is unwilling to discuss any summary. The only issues are what specifics might need 'tweaking'. For example, l'cast suggested a clear concise summary of "Diet Advice." I do not know how to prevent Curtis' reversion back to a version that is his own, and not the consensus. The article is protected now, but it also seems clear that Curtis is not willing to accept a consensus. Perhaps an admin can help us here. Jance 02:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what an admin could do, other than block Curtis. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

True. Jance 07:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I have two issues:

1. The first is that if we accept verbatim lengthy block quotes from the NCAHF website, then it either has to be fair use, or the owner of the copyright has to relinquish all copyright (or alternatively re-copyright it under GFDL). Fair use, in terms of encyclopedia articles, does not include full reproduction of copyrighted web pages when a summary would be adequate, and a readily available reference to the original is given. Publishing the original under GFDL means that this text can then be copied, changed, misformed, sold as a book, used in advertisements, (etc etc) by anyone, without NCAHF being able to do anything about it at all, i.e they then have practically no say in what happens to their writing. So just saying Wikipedia can use it is not sufficient, it has to be released under the same licence as wikipedia, the GFDL, or it has to be public domain (compare requirements for illustrations). I do not think that that was the intention of the NCAHF spokesperson who said it was OK for Wikipedia to use the text. Does he realise that that means anyone can do with their text what they want to, without the NCAHF's permission? If so, one wants the change of copyright confirmed in writing.
2. It is not, and has never been, standard practice for encyclopedias to quote the full policies or position statements of an organisation which is being described. I think one can take the article on the United States Constitution as a definitive example. If full text quotation were the normal standard, then I have little doubt that that article's succinct paraphrasing of every article would have incurred the wrath of the majority of the citizens of the USA. That has not happened, so by analogy it is not necessary to spell out verbatim the NCAHF position on anything, except where specific important words or phrases are quoted. Indeed, the extent to which the NCAHF position is being described in detail for every item seems to me already very close to advertisement or POV-pushing. An example is the paragraph long desciption of "huckster" chiropractic, with a list of all sorts of techniques, which gives me absolutely no (as in zero, nothing) information about the NCAHF itself. Had I written an article about the organisation, I would have abbreviated the summaries even more, since the originals are but a link away on the net. --Seejyb 09:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You know, when I read the article, it looks encyclopedic and doesn't read to badly. It could do with some pruning BUT it seems that editors have a blurred view of what is notable or not. Ie/ the critism section (not to mention the corporation status) are treated somewhat as a sacred cow rather than having the article holistically examined. My (late) take on all this, is that editors are principally offended with Curtis's taking it on himself to redo the article. Personally I think he has done an alright job....but again, it could do with some pruning (IMHO) however as the article stands it gives an excellent account of what, who, where and when the organisation is. So what if info is only a link away, people keep crowing for "facts" as it is an "encylopedia". And you cannot deny that they are now in there. Although I must admit, the copyvio and plagarism attacks were pretty good to overcome notability objections :-P Shot info 11:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Shot_info, could you pls give us a dif as to which recent version of the article you consider most encyclopedic?--I'clast 12:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright concerns

(I've moved this from the "Alleged Copyright Violation" section because it appears from Seejyb's post that this is an ongoing concern. Sarah 12:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC))

Non-commercial use is not acceptable and not compatible with Wikipedia licensing because Wikipedia articles can be used commercially. We cannot comply with "non-commercial" conditional use. The licensing needs to be public domain or GFDL. Sarah 02:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess this makes two reasons that these edits should not be included here. Thanks for clarifying.Jance 02:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

As it stands, the NCAHF website very clearly states, "All articles on this Web site except government reports are copyrighted". If the copyright holder wants to release this material for us to use, he/she needs to send an email from an address associated with the site the material has been copied from to permissions@wikimedia.org, stating that they give permission for the material to be used under the GFDL and that they understand that this means it may be freely copied, redistributed, edited and used commercially outside of Wikipedia. Or they need to place a note on the website stating that they agree to the material being used under the GFDL licence. An anon editing from an IP and signing as "Barrett" is simply not sufficient for permission. You may be able to quote small excerpts under fair use, but only under this guideline: "Under fair use guideline, brief selections of copyrighted text may be used, but only with full attribution and only when the purpose is to comment on or criticize the text quoted." Sarah 13:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Sarah. Does Curtis have anymore objections?--Hughgr 00:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No, that clearly allows me to quote portions of the individual documents in question in order to illustrate the positions of NCAHF with regard the the various issues on which they take positions. So now that we've gotten past this copyvio red-herring, can we FINALLY move on? --Curtis Bledsoe 03:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, Sarah. Hopefully when the protection lifts, there will be no reversion problems. The Wikipedia policy makes sense.. And, I am heartened that most editors are willing to work together to build consensus. Jance 04:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not resolved. Curtis ignores "brief" and "...only when the purpose is to comment on or criticize the text quoted." Illustrating NCAHF's position could equally be met by paraphrasing. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 04:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's resolved either. Curtis' participation in this "Protected" discussion completely ignores the group consensus and numerous discussions of why information absolutely must be abridged in an encyclopedia article. Perhaps I'm misreading his perspective? --Ronz 04:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

What can we do to find resolution? I seem only to antagonize Curtis, since I had first suggested the summary. Therefore, I thought it more productive to let others talk with him. I have a much better feeling about Wikipedia, after seeing people like Ronz, and I'cast, Arthur, and others focus on a content issue and come to agreement. Sarah has helped clairfy the Copyright policy, and most agree that more is not better. I guess the next step is to see if we can agree on a non-protected article. Consensus does not require 100% agreement. What to do you think we do from here?Jance 06:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Ask the admins to remove protection or at least update the "Positions" section, and if necessary, let the admins make the first move to solve Curtis' "hearing problem".--I'clast 07:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Would someone else like to do this (this might be better).Jance 19:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've asked him on his talk page,diff no answer yet but its only been a couple of days...I don't know how long we should wait. Or should we just request that the page get unlocked and see if he disrupts it again?--Hughgr 20:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he is ever going to concede. We might as well request the page be unlocked, and then if he reverts it, we can call in an admin. I don't know what else to do, do you? Jance 20:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Done, let the editing continue. :) --Hughgr 00:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Could someone add

the referrence to the herbal suppliments para. I'clast has it above. Thanks! I really should learn one of these days....... :)--Hughgr 01:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

And thanks, Hughgr. Unfortunately I know how to do it, but I dont know what website s//he sourced. Jance 01:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure whether "she" refers to MastCell or me, a "he". Anyway I have inserted the dreaded NCAHF ref, the original text for it was hidden under 1 "b" instead of the usual a. I am sure some will forgive me ;->--I'clast 14:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, l'clast! I will not make that mistake again. Clearly I wasn't thinking. And thank you!Jance 15:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cannot verify: Waltzing with the 'Quackbusters' — To Whose Music?

Anyone have a more complete reference? I was assuming it's a book by the page number, but maybe it's an essay inside a book? --Ronz 16:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

My bad. I left a vital part out of the reference... the magazine name from where it was taken - The Townsend Letter. There was an "Op. Cit." in the reference from which I was drawing it and it threw me off. Levine2112 18:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Indexed here. Waltzing...#117, p. 339--I'clast 22:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] neutral sources opinions about criticism

The OTA IIRC found general problems with the report in question that were not just purely the safety and efficacy matter. Furthermore, even if it hadn't, since the NCAHF's critiques are often about efficacy related issues, that the report ignored or downplayed matters related to that is highly relevant. In any event, that doesn't give a reason to take out the mention of the judge's opinion. If a criticism has been found by neutral sources to be weak or otherwise problematic of course that's relevant. This isn't a hack job. JoshuaZ 17:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you cite that OTA had issue with the report's treatment of its criticism of LVCAHF? Otherwise, it is speculation and WP:OR. How about the judge's opinion that the report was "unsatisfactory"? Unsatisfactory how? Just in general? Or something specific? Was it unsatisfactory in its treatment of its criticism of LVCAHF? Can you cite that she made this distinction? If so, fine. Include it and I have no issue. Otherwise we are turning this into a criticism of the criticism (and might I add, a criticism that seems unrelated to the original criticism). Can I then go find a criticism of the criticism of the criticism and include that here as well? Bottomline, let's not forget that this is an article about NCAHF (formerly LVCAHF)... let's try to keep focused here. Levine2112 17:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Levine, I agree with you a thousand percent. What in god's name does the OTA's problems with one part of the report have anything to do with the other? This is an attempt to disparage the criticism by trying to show someone's problem with another part of the the report. That is weak. IOW, you are not the only editor who thinks this "criticsm of the criticism" should go. TheDoctorIsIn 17:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Doc. I'm going to get on and look for a criticism of the OTA and of the judge. (Not anything to do with their opinions about this report of course. Maybe I'll find a criticism of the OTA's treatment of Eskimo Pie's and the criticism of the judge's fashion.) ;-) Levine2112 17:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The criticism section is way too long. It is unjustified to have such a long length. It seems redundant.

It should be shortened and tightened up without losing the meaning of the section. The long length is Undue weight when compared to the rest of the article. I see no reason to have an extra long criticism section. Who wrote this long criticism section? Lets bring the criticism section back to reality. GigiButterfly 17:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss what you suggest to change. If you would like it in a paragraph form, insert it here and we can all work on it. That way we can avoid an edit war. Thanks, --Hughgr 21:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest to remove the less notable critics. Criticism section is way too long. It is too long to read. It has too much redundant. Do you have any suggestions to bring it back to a normal reading. It should not be so long. The first move should be is to remove the less notable stuff. GigiButterfly 00:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Which critics do you feel are "less notible"? --Hughgr 01:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The last two I removed. They were listed last for a reason. It is redundant. Which critics do you feel are "less notable"? GigiButterfly 01:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I find them all informative. --Hughgr 02:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

But which ones do you feel are less notable. The section is way too long. Do you think it should be longer or shorter. GigiButterfly 02:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Considering the NCAHF as an action arm, at least its principals' legal activities (Herbert, et al), this may not be so unusual. I have seen articles on notable people in regional editions of Time where the list of groups of enemies was still longer than the rest of the article.--I'clast 05:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I find this irrelevant. This is an encyclopedia article, not Time. --Ronz 19:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

A specific question was asked of you or anyone. Which critics are less notable. I did not ask do you think are they informative. Please do not dodge my question again. That section is way too long. That section is written like an essay with too many quotes. I will start to tighten it up. Consider that you are wrong and start to listen to me. Any reader can tell the criticism section is way too long and should be shortened up. The tone is aggrasive using words like accused. GigiButterfly 15:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

LESS NOTABLE CRITICS:

According to Victor Penzer, MD, DMD, The 'quackbusters,' ... have shown themselves closedminded and irrational on many occasions, having practiced, at the same time, deception, distortion, and untruth in compulsive efforts to achieve their goals. Most objectional, the NCAHF, having vociferously denounced and valiantly persecuted any kind of natural healing, meritorious or not, at the same time raises no objections to so many instances of fraud on the part of the orthodox practitioners or institutions, unless publicly exposed by law enforcement agencies previously. The National Council Against Health Fraud has been clearly hypocritical, and demonstrated again and again that they were substantially against Health, rather than against Fraud.[27]

The Lehigh Valley Committee Against Health Fraud (LVCAHF), one of the three constituents that eventually formed the NCAHF, was discredited as a source for information on chiropractic in 1979. A report ordered by the New Zealand Governor General and presented to the New Zealand House of Representatives stated that, "nothing he [Stephen Barrett, then chairman of LVCAHF and current vice president of NCAHF] has written on chiropractic that we have considered can be relied on as balanced." The report went on to say, "It is clear that the enthusiasm of the Lehigh Valley Committee Against Health Fraud is greater than its respect for accuracy, at least in regard to facts concerning chiropractic. We are not prepared to place any reliance on material emanating from the Lehigh Valley Committee."[28]

27 ^ Victor Penzer, M.D., D.M.D., Re: Waltzing with the 'Quackbusters' — To Whose Music?, Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients, June 1993, p. 592.

28 ^ Inglis BD, Fraser B, Penfold BR. Chiropractic in New Zealand report: commission of inquiry into chiropractic. 1979; 105-106.

1. 27 is a townsletter and less notable.

1. 28 is a chiropractic report. The first criticism is that section is also a chiropractic. This is too much redundant. GigiButterfly 15:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

#27 isn't a "townletter"... it is from the Townsend Letter for Doctors ([16] and [17]). I suggest you look that up and check it's notability. #28 isn't redundant. Perhaps you may want to re-org it to be part of the first criticism or a lead in or a tie, but what it is saying surely isn't redundant. Levine2112 18:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Levine2112 is correct about the Townsend Letter for Doctors. It is notable enough for inclusion, but it should be noted (at least in our heads) that it is not a mainstream newsletter, but an alternative medicine newsletter, so its reliability (in the normal sense of the word) is suspect (from a mainstream POV). -- Fyslee 18:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[28] is a chiropractic report. The [17][18][19][20] criticism is that section is also a chiropractic. This is too much redundant. The less notable one is the #28.

The NCAHF has been accused by critics such as Robert Atkins MD, James Carter MD, and the American Chiropractic Association of being a front for corporate medical interests and of using the guise of consumer advocacy to present false indictments of complementary and alternative medicine techniques such as chiropractic, homeopathy, acupuncture, herbal remedies, and naturopathy.[17][18][19][20]

The Lehigh Valley Committee Against Health Fraud (LVCAHF), one of the three constituents that eventually formed the NCAHF, was discredited as a source for information on chiropractic in 1979. A report ordered by the New Zealand Governor General and presented to the New Zealand House of Representatives stated that, "nothing he [Stephen Barrett, then chairman of LVCAHF and current vice president of NCAHF] has written on chiropractic that we have considered can be relied on as balanced." The report went on to say, "It is clear that the enthusiasm of the Lehigh Valley Committee Against Health Fraud is greater than its respect for accuracy, at least in regard to facts concerning chiropractic. We are not prepared to place any reliance on material emanating from the Lehigh Valley Committee."[28]

No reason was given by anyone to have both chiropatric critcs. Too much redundant. GigiButterfly 20:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

THIS CRITICISM IS TOO LONG BUT WHAT SHOULD I REMOVE.

According to Victor Penzer, MD, DMD, The 'quackbusters,' ... have shown themselves closedminded and irrational on many occasions, having practiced, at the same time, deception, distortion, and untruth in compulsive efforts to achieve their goals. Most objectional, the NCAHF, having vociferously denounced and valiantly persecuted any kind of natural healing, meritorious or not, at the same time raises no objections to so many instances of fraud on the part of the orthodox practitioners or institutions, unless publicly exposed by law enforcement agencies previously. The National Council Against Health Fraud has been clearly hypocritical, and demonstrated again and again that they were substantially against Health, rather than against Fraud.[27]

WHAT IS THE BEST WAY TO SHORTEN THIS. GigiButterfly 23:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I've proposed elsewhere to find similar articles that are of highest quality and follow their example. Consumer protection lists companies that might be a good places to start. --Ronz 23:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The ACA is a chiropractic organization. The Governor General of New Zealand is not. The criticism from the governor general is much different that the ACA's. Both or notable and entirely relevant. Please avoid deleting this again. Levine2112 23:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The criticism section is way too long. Too much redundant. They are both chiro critics. I removed the less notable critic. Please avoid reverting (edit war) to a previous version. GigiButterfly 00:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

They are not both chiro critics. One is an American chiropractic organization; the other is a government agency in New Zealand. Please avoid reverting (edit war) to a previous (and inproper) version.

You are saying that the criticism section is too long. What is your basis for this assessment? By my eyeball estimation, if you take out the criticisms of the criticisms, the actual criticisms of NCAHF fill less that a quarter of article space.

This is a criticism of criticisms and shouldn't be included when esitmated how much of the article is dedicated to NCAHF criticism:

Burton, described by the New York Daily News as a "powerful friend" of the dietary supplement industry,[22] has received $79,249 in campaign contributions from the supplement industry since 1994[23] and has a "long history of supporting unorthodox treatments", going back to the now-discredited cancer treatment laetrile.

and so is this...

The NCAHF denies all of these charges, saying:

"Such charges are apparently designed to draw attention from the true issues. NCAHF believes that consumers have a right to the information they need to make proper decisions, and that those who supply health products and/or services have a moral obligation to be truthful, competent, and accountable. NCAHF does not take sides in turf battles; it believes in one standard for all. Other than the common bond among those who believe that medical care should be based on science, NCAHF has no organizational ties to either organized medicine or the pharmaceutical industry. Nor has it ever received financial support from them. In fact, NCAHF is openly critical of the failure of organized medicine to take a more proactive consumer protection role and believes that medical discipline needs strengthening. NCAHF is also very critical of drug companies that market supplements, homeopathic products, and herbal products that are worthless, questionable, and/or unsafe. When pharmaceutical companies have marketed these products deceptively, NCAHF has exposed such activities and incurring the wrath of vitamin trade groups."

Are there better source of NCAHF criticism out there? Perhaps. But until we find those and include them here, let's leave what we have as they are all notable and from well-qualified individuals and completely fullfill WP:RS and WP:V.

Levine2112 00:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

They are both debating the topic of chiropatric. There is way too many critics in this section. Please refrain from reverting (edit war) to a POV article. It is undue weight. GigiButterfly 00:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

No, they are both critiquing the NCAHF. Levine2112 01:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

At least don't delete it because of the assumption that the two organizations are highly similar. --Ronz 00:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The length of the criticism is Undue weight when compared to the rest of the article. Way too many critiquing. GigiButterfly 01:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

What part of "Undue weight" are you using to arrive at this conclusion? Please quote from Wikipedia policy. This will help. Levine2112 01:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I have read through this article and find it to be well delivered and essentially NPOV. NCAHF is obviously controversial so it is not going to sound like a fairy tale. Because it makes several allegations in the beginning that are basically opinions, they are later discussed well in the criticism sections. This is another example of NPOV being broken into two sections. If the criticism section is taken out, the discussion could go back into the upper sections that discuss, homeopathy, chiropractic, etc.. But overall the article is NPOV. No need for anything to be deleted. The lawsuit section colors the NCAHF in a more positive light than I think they probably deserved considering the reference given. This article does not need to change much unless someone has some new information. That's my 2 cents. --Dematt 01:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• "Undue weight"

Shortcut: WP:NPOV#Undue weight WP:Undue weight

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them. Wikipedia is not paper. But even on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it should not be represented as the truth.

From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the mailing list:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

In other words, views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all.

In particular, to elaborate on the last comment above, if you are able to prove something that nobody currently believes, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a proof. Once a proof has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be referenced. See: Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Maybe you should read the entire policy. The porportion of the critiquing is way too long. GigiButterfly 01:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I have read this... many times. I've been editing on Wikipedia for a long time! I want to know which part of this says to you that we are doing something wrong with the current critique section. Please be specific as possible.

I don't believe we are dealing with a tiny minority view here. So that part is irrelevant. The views that are presented are certainly from prominent adherents and are easy to substantiate. So I don't see the relevance of Undue Weight. Levine2112 01:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

We are dealing with a minority view of alternative medicine proponents. Critics who have a self-interest for their own profession. GigiButterfly 05:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Undue weight and fairness of tone

• Undue weight

The critiquing is mostly from a minority of alternative medicine proponents not the mainstream scientific consensus.

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. GigiButterfly 01:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Alt med (which not all of these represent) is a significant minority and we are representing those views with notable adherents perfectly. Levine2112 02:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Fairness of tone

If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section.

We should write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. We should present all significant, competing views sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a good idea, except that, in the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such a detail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Undue_weight#Fairness_of_tone The fairness of tone is not neutral. GigiButterfly 01:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The tone is completely fair are represents accurate and very plausible positions. Would you prefer that we should present these refuting views within the rest of the article rather than keeping them collected in this one section? That's fine too, as long as all of these critiques are represented in full. Levine2112 02:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Presenting the refuting views within the rest of the article is unacceptable, as far as I've seen from other Wiki articles. --Ronz 02:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree on this article. NCAHF would never get to say what it was about without being refuted every other sentence. --Dematt 03:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The tone is unfair. These are mostly critics from a minority of alternative medicine proponents not the mainstream scientific consensus. The critics are mostly detractors of scientific consensus. What positions are very plausible. Do you believe alternative medicine proponents is a minority view or a majority view in the real world. GigiButterfly 02:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what any of us believe. See WP:Verifiable and WP:RS. Also see weasel words. --Dematt 03:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It does matter what any of us believe. It is perception. The criticism section does not have fairness of tone. Just read it. Yuck. GigiButterfly 04:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An article about an organization critical of alternative medicine, not an article on alternative medicine

Slow down! It most certainly does matter what any of us believe. We are the editors. So ..

1. This is an article on an organization that criticises alternative medicine. So it is not only appropriate to have a complete 'criticism' section, it is necessary.
2. Whether or not alternative medicine is a minority view is irrelevant here. This is not an article on alternative medicine. Again, it is an article about an organization critical of alternative medicine. The judge was critical of NCAHF, but not because of its position on alternative medicine, but because of how the organization chose to litigate.
3. If there are questions about WP:Verifiable and WP:RS and weasel words, then raise the concern here. Point out which statement or resource you think falls into any of these categories. To broadly categorize a section as weasel words is rather weasely, in my opinion - no personal affront intended.
4. The "tone is unfair" does not help describe what needs to be changed. A criticism section is likely going to be critical. As stated above, this is not a parallel to an article on 'flat earth theory'. NCAHF is an organization that criticizes and litigates against alternative medicine practitioners. That those which it criticizes disagree is no surprise. Again, any article about the NCAHF would not be complete without the discussion of the 'other side'. If there were not a controversy, there would be no NCAHF, and no article.Jance 03:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

That said, the 'criticism' section does look rather like a laundry list. I am not suggesting that all or any of the content should be deleted, but it should be better organized.Jance 04:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I won't argue semantics because you essentially seem to be saying the same thing. I agree with your outline above. I would add to 2) that the choice the organization made can be considered a reflection of the organization itself. That also said, we just went through a similar transition on the Quackwatch page about the criticism section that we might consider evaluating before going too fast. --Dematt 04:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

What is the best way to better organize. GigiButterfly 05:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC) What should be done with the excessive in porportion list. GigiButterfly 06:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Do any of us believe this is fairness of tone number.[27]

This is not an issue of what is "fair" or "not fair". Jance 06:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

According to Victor Penzer, MD, DMD, The 'quackbusters,' ... have shown themselves closedminded and irrational on many occasions, having practiced, at the same time, deception, distortion, and untruth in compulsive efforts to achieve their goals. Most objectional, the NCAHF, having vociferously denounced and valiantly persecuted any kind of natural healing, meritorious or not, at the same time raises no objections to so many instances of fraud on the part of the orthodox practitioners or institutions, unless publicly exposed by law enforcement agencies previously. The National Council Against Health Fraud has been clearly hypocritical, and demonstrated again and again that they were substantially against Health, rather than against Fraud.[27] GigiButterfly 05:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Given the fact that this article is about an organization with a sole purpose of criticizing and suing "alternative" practitioners, yes, I think that some criticisms that reflect the response to the organization are in order. This particular quote does voice a certain type of criticism. Whether it is fair or not, I don't know. I don't have to know. It may not be fair at all. That is not the point. I don't know how else to state this.Jance 06:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Atkins is part of a minority view

Robert Coleman Atkins, MD (October 17, 1930 – April 17, 2003) was an American doctor and cardiologist, best known for the Atkins Nutritional Approach (or "Atkins Diet"), a popular but controversial way of dieting that entails eating low-carbohydrate, high-fat and high-protein foods. [18] Most people due not follow the low carb craze. I consider it a minority but well known. Like a grapefruit diet. GigiButterfly 05:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

References in the article don't state Atkins is a critic. Which reference should I read. GigiButterfly 03:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

heck I don't know. I didn't add this. I agree that Atkins is well-known. How much of a 'minority' the Atkins diet is, I have no idea. It isn't relevant, for the same reasons I discussed above. This is not an article on alternative medicine. It is an article on an organization (started by a medical doctor, I believe) that criticizes - and sues - alternative medical practitioners. Whether Atkins is a critic of that organization, I also have no idea. Let's keep this question on the talk page, and if nobody produces a reference, then delete it. Jance 03:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think a lot of people talk about, but do not follow, low carb 'crazes'. But that is purely my biased opinion, based on no supportive facts.  ;-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jance (talk • contribs) 03:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

I looked at the references. Under our noses someone put in a blunder. GigiButterfly 03:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_National_Council_Against_Health_Fraud&diff=prev&oldid=95797417 Did I found who put in the Atkins critic. Anyone, could you explain this to me. Was it original research under our noses? GigiButterfly 04:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's allow the editor who added this to comment. Maybe there is a reference we do not know about. If not, it goes.Jance 04:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Quotes"

The criticism section has an abnormal length and number of quotes. I believe this is unusual. This is WRONG for an encyclopedia. How many quote after quote after quote (attacks) does the criticism section need. GigiButterfly 05:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This is what I meant by the need for a reorganization of this section. Someone needs to analyze the quotes, and determine the nature of the criticism of each - then categorize them. For example, if chiropractors criticize NCAHF for a certain reason, that could be a paragraph, with a representative quote, or even two, if the quotes are short or substantially different in content. A long bullet pointed list of quotes is not readable. At all.Jance 06:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You are right. The quotes are long and unreadable. Very disorganized. The excessive in porportion list should be overhauled. GigiButterfly 06:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not necessarily the proportion, but the organization. The responses need to be discussed in some coherent order. Quotes are useful to highlight a point, or discussion. But not to string together without organization.Jance 06:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

And here is an example of a sentence that I find confusing:

" The NCAHF has been accused mostly by a minority of alternative medicine critics such as Robert Atkins MD, James Carter MD, and the [[American Chiropractic Association]". Um, are Atkins etc. alternative medicine practitioners or are they critics of alternative medicine? So a "minority of" what? And how do we know? It is better to describe the type of doctor and the criticism. For example, Atkins popularized the "Atkins diet" and is critical of NCAHF for (fill in the blank). James Carter - who is he and why do we care what he thinks of NCAHF? This is what I mean. Jance 07:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

A description is a better way. You are right again. I will listen to you. GigiButterfly 07:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I want to know if it has to be quotes. Could it be a generalization or summary or explanation. Long long quotes is boring to read. When I first read straight through the whole criticism section it felt like I was being yelled at. It is not fun to read this stuff. It would be hard pressed to find another criticism section like this one anywhere in any encyclopedia. GigiButterfly 07:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

A quote is a good way to illustrate a point. It should not be the point. The number of quotes will be dictated by what is written. It is likely that some quotes should be deleted. My suggestion is that someone who is interested in the criticism section write a paragraph without quotes, for purposes of discussion here. Then decide what quotes should be included. Some quotes may be necessary for presentation and balance - esp b/c of the subject matter of the article. I absolutely agree that long quotes don't help an encyclopedia article - the same issue arose earlier here, by another editor, regarding the section on NCAHF's position. It was awful, and the consensus (everyone except that editor) was that the quotes were too lengthy. Instead, the positions were parahprased, to be brief summaries - and the section is still very long. That said, the 'position' quotes were absurdly long and make this look concise and readable. But the principle is the same. Jance 18:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

An introduction paragraph is correct:

The NCAHF has been accused of using the appearance of consumer advocacy to present false indictments of complementary and alternative medicine professions such as chiropractic, homeopathy, acupuncture, herbal remedies, and naturopathy. Some outspoken critics state the NCAHF is a front for corporate medical interests. [3][4][5][6] A criticism of the NCAHF is that it is not in the public interest for a health fraud watch group to operate unrestrained and unendorsed by the government.[3][7]

Edit away and add more sentences. GigiButterfly 21:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

How is this?

The NCAHF has been accused of using the appearance of consumer advocacy to present false indictments of complementary and alternative medicine. Practitioners of chiropractic, homeopathy, acupuncture, herbal remedies, and naturopathy also claim the NCAHF is a front for corporate medical interests. [3][4][5][6] U.S. Representative Dan Burton, former Chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform, has stated that it is not in the public interest for a health fraud watch group such as NCAHF to operate unrestrained and unendorsed by the government.^[2][3] Burton, described by the New York Daily News as a "powerful friend" of the dietary supplement industry,^[4] has received $79,249 in campaign contributions from the supplement industry since 1994^[5] and has a "long history of supporting unorthodox treatments", going back to the now-discredited cancer treatment laetrile.^[6]

Jance 02:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I gave it a try in the article. GigiButterfly 03:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Organization ideas for criticism section

Suggestions below. Don't be shy now.

I wasn't shy, and I did change the section. I am open to criticism, from "pro" NCAHF to "anti" NCAHF. I know that I condensed this significantly, and deleted a number of the quotes. It may need exapansion, but this is a start. The idea is to not have a string of quotes.Jance 16:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tags

I removed the tags. Neither fit for this "criticism" section There are no weasel words, since specific speakers are mentioned. The tone is critical. That is why it is called "criticism". It is a much better idea to work on changing the organization, than to add tags that don't describe the problem.Jance 15:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section is now readable

The section should be readable. Great job Jance. GigiButterfly 18:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aromatherapy Article

The link is not to the court records, but to the plaintiff's biased website and his viewpoints about the case -- highly subjective and very unWiki. Thank you. Ilena 21:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The link is established as a good reference. Suggestion. Add an additional link for the article. It is very Wiki. GigiButterfly 21:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have provided a better one to the judgment itself.

Now the same objection applies even more to Bolen's site (King Bio case), where even the description (his own inflammatory one) is used in the reference. That should be fixed, and if possible a better source found, since his site has been found (some time ago when the Quackpot Watch article was deleted) to not be a V & RS. It not only does not qualify for inclusion as a reference, source, or even external link, it is actually expressly forbidden, since it's an attack site. But we have been generous and allowed (against policy) the link directly to the case itself. A better source should be found. In the mean time, maybe the reference description could be made more factual without Bolen's commentary. -- Fyslee 21:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I added the citation for the court case. There is not a hotlink for it, but Wiki does not require a hotlink. I had removed the Bolen website, but re-added it after Curtis screamed about there not being a hotlink. So if you want to remove the hotlink that is Bolen's site, go for it. The court case supports all that is written.Jance 04:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Who has decided that the plaintiff's website is unbiased and a factual one, please? It is discussing an important court decision of which Barrett himself was the plaintiff. His viewpoints. If this is allowed, why not the defendants? What is, and what isn't an "attack site" is apparently in the eyes of the beholder. So is who is ... and who is not a "quack." I find Barrett's links to various court cases totally lacking in perspective and attacking those he is suing. I hope that the administrators watching these cases now will notice this lack of balance ... plaintiff's websites are being linked ... but defendants (such as myself or Mr. Bolen's) ... not allowed. Just this morning, on the ongoing case of Barrett Vs Clark, a totally misleading link as to the facts of these case was edited into BvR. [[19]] It is not about BvR, but BvC, and is discussing only one part of many related sub-cases (by some strange coicidence, it's the one subcase of all that is at all favorable to Barrett). Barrett v Rosenthal is separate from the the link of Barrett's added to that article Opinion on Case I still believe that Wiki is about neutrality and balance. Shalom. Ilena 22:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Editing an article which is in some sense about you - in which you have a significant personal interest - must be very difficult to do within the canons of WP. The convention is not to, on the basis that if changes need to be made, someone else who is demonstrably not involved will do so, sooner or later. Midgley 23:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand that. How do you understand the policy on subjects using publicists on Wiki? Wasn't there a recent article about Microsoft hiring a publicist for Wiki work? Thanks. Ilena 23:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the comment that was on BvR was not appropriate. BvR is fine as it is now, however. The lower court cases & holdings were discussed, as related to BvR. Jance 05:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

There is undercurrents here I do not understand. But I have looked at the history of this article. Ilena has added a link that is wrong for this article. VANITY LINKS ARE WRONG I hope you are not trying to stir things up here again. The quackpotwatch attack site link is in other articles. It does bring a balance to those articles but it is a violation of policy. You can't have it one way here and the opposite way at other articles. Don't rock the kettle to prove a point. Please stop right now. GigiButterfly 01:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ilena raised a valid point about an edit added to BvR that was not pertinent to that article. I also understand Ilena's feeling that plaintiff's links are acceptable while defendant's are not. But I believe the issue is that a Barrett website link is allowable in an article about Barrett. Otherwise, it does not make sense to nix an unreliable source while allowing an equally unreliable (but opposing PVP) source to stand. Can anyone else shed light on this? Also, while there may have been a valid reason for a previous block, I do not think Ilena should be required to walk on eggshells now. I do not see that she said anything out of line here. Jance 05:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] chiro criticism part

I moved this to the talk page mostly because I don't see it as really relevant for this article the way it is written. Unless it can be greatly improved, I suggest that we scrap this one;

• Criticism of chiropactric benefits aired on US national television in June of 2002, triggered an uproar from the chriopactric profession.^[7] Daryl D. Wills, D.C., president of the American Chiropractic Association (ACA) complained about the broadcast in a letter.^[7] The International Chiropractors Association (ICA) announced for a swift response from the chiropractic community to protest for the distortion of the practice of chiropractic.^[7] The producers of the program responded in a letter to ACA.^[7] The NCAHF responsed in a letter on their website about the complaints from the ACA as well as the ICA.^[7][8] --Dematt 22:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Critiqueing is good. The section is called criticism. I will add it back in. Someone can rewrite it now or any time. Give it a try. No reason has been made not to include. GigiButterfly 22:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Critiqueing is good... writing is bad. I thought you didn't want too much critiqueing? We need to rewrite to make it good;) --Dematt 23:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Critiqueing is good... but writing is bad? Give it a try at rewrite. Be bold. ACA and the ICA are both involved in the uproar. This is really relevant. The most relevant critique. GigiButterfly 23:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Much better... rewrite good. Still not relevant.. more critiqueing of chiropractic than NCAHF, but I might have a WP:COI so I will leave it. So much for boldness, huh. --Dematt 03:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Still relevant. I might take a wikibreak and leave everything as it is. I was bold with the critiqueing. Now I will flutter away. I did all that I wanted in a week. I may be back someday. GigiButterfly 03:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Awe, just when you were getting good. You and SA should have a good time! --Dematt 03:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)