Talk:Candida hypersensitivity

Stephen Barrett and Steven Novella cites require attribution
Barrett of Quackwatch requires attribution, and so also does Novella of Science-Based Medicine, per the numerous discussions on QW. Pretty much they always need inline attribution, or removed. I would make the change, but they are leaned on very heavily, almost entirely, and also some of the citing in this article is really weird. For example, in the opening sentence, cite one is to Crook's own book, but the sentence is Candida hypersensitivity is a pseudoscientific syndrome promoted by William G. Crook, M.D. Surely, Crook does not call his own efforts "pseudoscientific", so I wonder what is the purpose of this cite? A lot of them are like this on this article. 76.178.169.118 (talk) 19:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Which discussions say they require attribution? WP:RSP says they don't. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It says exactly the opposite:
 * "Articles written by Stephen Barrett on Quackwatch are considered generally reliable (as Barrett is a subject-matter expert) and self-published (as there is disagreement on the comprehensiveness of Quackwatch's editorial process); Barrett's articles should not be used as a source of information on other living persons. Articles written by other authors on Quackwatch are not considered self-published. Many editors believe uses of Quackwatch should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and some editors say its statements should be attributed. It may be preferable to use the sources cited by Quackwatch instead of Quackwatch itself."
 * Numerous RfCs and other discussions have discussed QW. It is definitely not a consensus RS, which is why it is highlighted in yellow. "Wikivoice" cannot be justified by these sources. Yes, "require" was not the right word here, as in "the policy doesn't require it", but my point is that this article does need it. I am on the side of this dispute that says QW citations should be attributed. I go even further, that if the article is written by Barrett, then attribute to Barrett as well.
 * I'm not aware of any discussions on Novella and his site, because I haven't looked, but they appear like exactly the same category of things. He is just a newer version of Barrett. In fact, it was just last night, a writer on SBM (not Novella) appeared to lift almost wholesale the arguments and flow of a Barrett article for the first half of their own article. 76.178.169.118 (talk) 17:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * So you are "some editors" and you think they should be attributed in this case. That's quite different from what you implied, which is that Quackwatch is somehow unreliable. SBM is considered a reliable source per RSP. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 13:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Can previous editors please explain this weird usage of some of the citations?
From the lede:

"Candida hypersensitivity is a pseudoscientific syndrome promoted by William G. Crook, M.D."

William Crook's own book is the citation. That doesn't make sense, since the claim is that it is a pseudoscience, which of course Crook disagrees. If the point is to show where Crook made this claim, that should just be stated somewhere.

In the Symptoms section:

"After reading publications by C. Orian Truss, M.D.,"

Again, citing Truss rather than just pointing to the person or book with an actual sentence. The actual claim itself here is uncited entirely. Was Crook actually influenced by Truss? Say's who? I am not actually calling for a cite of this particular claim, I'm just pointing out this strange citation habit.

Same section:

"Many patients presenting with symptoms of environmental sensitivity claim to suffer from multiple 'fashionable' syndromes."

Not so much strange as a policy violation. This is a WP:Primary source, but we aim for secondary. It also appears to be WP:Synth.

- 76.178.169.118 (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)