Talk:Commission E

The huge extract from Jonathon Treasure's book seems highly inappropriate, and the page as whole seems to take a single opinionated stance on the value of Commission E rather than providing descriptive information about it. Danja 07:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "Huge" is way too strong to describe four paragraphs of a 31K free download. Huge would be more than half. The extract also meets all the copyright fair use rules. Fair use is easy to decide when there is no effect on the market for the work. J. Treasure is not only not selling the work, but actively inviting people to make personal copies.
 * Commission E is controversial, and Wikipedia is supposed to describe controveries. Ok, that part is done.
 * The problem is, what is there good to say about a book that seems to be something that it is not, because it has been removed from its proper context in a way that its foreign government authors never intended? Perhaps that it earns money for its sponsor and publisher? How many people should Wikipedia persuade to buy it for that reason by rewriting the publishing blurb here? Somewhere in the Wikiguides, it says that one need not try to find good things to say about things that aren't good. Milo 09:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Danja, that the article needs to be descriptive and that the quote was way, way too long. Also, per Quote, "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited."
 * It sounds like the book is really lacking citations, which is really, really bad. In that case, it may be more a work of bureaucracy for Germany, than a scientific work, but we need to try to be as objective as possible when writing the article.
 * WriterHound (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm familiar with the technical details of the field and its historic players including Tyler. Since you described the carefully considered and vetted quote as "crazy", I'll describe its simplistically dismissive removal as "ignorant".
 * "try to be as objective as possible" Objective means the book gets trashed as it logically and scientifically should. That's exactly what Treasure does that no WP editor can do. No editor can do that without casually seeming unobjective, since most stories have two or more sides. This one doesn't.
 * This is the most deceptive book in its class published in English. By removing the Treasure quote, you've also removed Treasure's independent interview evidence of its regulatory bias of science. Because of its faux imprimatur, and outrageously untrustable endorsement by the long-questionable Tyler, it is difficult or impossible to describe the book objectively in an article – without quoting the exacting scientific-legal-technical language signed by the sovereign-licensed medical herbalist authority of J. Treasure.
 * WP:QUOTE:"Extensive quotation" "Extensive" is a non-quantifiable subjective opinion. My opinion is as good as yours (or better if you don't understand the issues), and compared to the original at 31k, four paragraphs is not extensive.
 * WP:QUOTE: "...editors should avoid long quotations if they can keep them short" Those four paragraphs are the shortest that authoritatively summarizes what is multiply and critically wrong with the book:
 * Abstract (warns healthcare professionals against the claims of the publisher!)
 * Lack of references (not just missing – legally secret!)
 * Lack of scientific authority (inexpert authors of scientific administrative law!)
 * Lack of cross-referenced dosages (misleading of safety and effectiveness!)
 * Ordinarily, a book with so much wrong under color of so much false authority would never be published. But it was, and only counter-authoritative quotes can counteract the deception visited on allopathic dupes, who know even less about effective use of herbs than Tyler did. Your deletion of Treasure combined with your quote of JAMA's embarrassingly unauthoritative review created a textbook example of why Wikipedia's knowledge model is not trusted by academia.
 * Since you've totally removed the evidence supporting this unique quotation circumstance, I've reproduced the Treasure quotation here:


 * Milo 08:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

JAMA Citation
I was unable to find "Journal of the American Medical Association. 1999;281:1852-1853.". http://jama.jamanetwork.com/advancedSearchResults.aspx?journalID=67&y=1999&v=281 does not show anything that I could identify as the cited content. Does anyone remember the title or authors or whatever? Richiez (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)