Talk:Joseph Mercola/Archive 2

References that have nothing to do with the Subject
I removed a ref (and am looking at the others), to ensure they are related to the article.

Recent revert
I've reverted a series of changes which I think are problematic. I'll elaborate my concerns here. I'm open to feedback on these concerns. MastCell Talk 20:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Inappropriate sourcing. LinkedIn profiles and whatismtt.com are not encyclopedic sources, and I don't think they meet the bar for use here.
 * Likewise, I don't think that a webpage from baumancollege.org is an appropriate source here, per our sourcing guidelines.
 * I restored the paragraph sourced to BusinessWeek. As far as I'm aware, this is a respectable publication, and a reasonable although not definitive source even for a biographical article. The mere fact that an outlet has printed something negative does not qualify the material for removal. If there is a serious concern that the material published by BusinessWeek is defamatory, then I would think that should be taken up with BusinessWeek.

Hi, thanks for the clarification. I'll try to check if I can get other sources. By the way, I'm still a newbie editing here at wikipedia, with regards to the infobox of Joseph Mercola, some of the info are already obsolete, how do I change them? do I need to cite sources as well? Thank you for your patience. --Nuikotan (talk) 03:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to completely rewrite this piece which is totally biased and more like propaganda than an objective account which gives both sides of the issue. You can't rely on one-sided sources with profit-making agendas, which totally pervert truth, to provide an objective account.

Inaccurate information
I'm not sure who decided that Joseph Mercola's claim that his books made it to the New York Times bestsellers list was false. A quick search of the NY Times archives brought up this page:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/18/books/paperback-best-sellers-may-18-2003.html?scp=3&sq=mercola&st=nyt&pagewanted=2

Showing his book "the no grain diet" on the best seller list. I haven't even looked for the other book yet, or checked how long this one was on the best seller list for. I'm just surprised that the statement that his books do not appear on the list is made when it's so easy to corroborate that his books did indeed make the best seller list. Evelyn miles (talk) 08:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding the link, I've now updated the article and found a reference for the second book.--Salix (talk): 09:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Can someone discuss the accuracies of his claim on unferemented soy products like soy milk being harfmul? Is there any double blind test to prove the validity of that claim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.172.16.102 (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Article is tagged with "alumni of University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign" but article text says he attended the University of Illinois at Chicago, a different institution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.96.39.43 (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Reference no. 14
I'd just like to point out that the article cited at 14 is a comparison of whole-grain foods versus "white" bread. Its basic point is that a diet which includes whole grains is healthier than a diet which includes white flour products in their place. The idea of excluding grains from the diet altogether receives no mention at all. I hardly think it justifies the blanket statement that grains = good, particularly in this context.

You may read the whole article (or even just the abstract) here: http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v58/n11/full/1601995a.html

146.96.34.107 (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Ref removed. Lambanog (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Lead does not follow WP:Lead
Information in lead should be included in the body of the article. Lambanog (talk) 13:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

"Controversial"
If the adjective "controversial" is going to be included as the first to describe Mercola, it should probably come from better sources and be more explicitly stated. Many notable people can be called controversial but putting that in the first description with relatively poor sourcing seems inappropriate. Please find better more explicit source for the description or drop it altogether and let the presentation of facts speak for itself. Lambanog (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * While I think it is self-evident that he is controversial, it might be more neutral to say he is an advocate of controversial positions, and list a few of them. That way we avoid the WP:BLP issues involved. Yobol (talk) 16:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason for his notability needs to be stated and I don't think it is currently. He isn't primarily notable because he has unconventional positions; many other people have such views but do not merit an article. Lambanog (talk) 16:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, he is known for his controversial views, and his website which promotes them. This article, like the Enig article used to, relies too much on primary sources rather than secondary sources. Yobol (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps but that is still secondary to his website apparently being the leading natural health website. Lambanog (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That he is good at making his views popular doesn't make them any less controversial or incorrect. Yobol (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Rather than stating someone is controversial, it's better practice in my experience to simply state what they've done, and if appropriate (as in this case) the mainstream medical opinion. This applies even in the lead in my opinion.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 02:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I added "controversial" back as the subject of the BLP himself embraced that he was causing numerous controversies, which should satisfy BLP. Yobol (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's a pretty good source on his being "controversial": http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/February-2012/Dr-Joseph-Mercola-Visionary-or-Quack/ . --Blogjack (talk) 08:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Whoa, wait a sec. The word "controversial" is over-used.--Young Naturopath 01 (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed
There seem to be many slanted claims made in the article supported by references that fail to verify them properly. Half the lead is devoted to what appear to be criminal allegations but do not appear in the body with as much detail. Reads like an attack article that does not reflect Mercola's notability. Lambanog (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It might help to bring some independent, reliable sources to the table. They are conspicuously lacking from the article. Mercola's own website is not exactly the best source for claims about his prominence and notability. The few independent, reliable sources we have - such as the BusinessWeek article and the FDA, tend to be somewhat critical. But the article needs to reflect the best available sources - it would be non-neutral to pretend that these sources don't exist, or to fail to convey their content. The article suffers from an extreme case of bloat - most of it basically rehashes claims made on Mercola's website, in clear violation of this site's sourcing policies which prioritize independent, reliable sources. Again, if you think the article fails to reflect Mercola's notability, then the solution is to bring forward independent, reliable sources demonstrating his notability. MastCell Talk 16:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Current problem that has led me to make comments here are sources that do not support contentions made against him adopting a particular slant. That is sufficient for NPOV concerns especially since this is a BLP article. Lambanog (talk) 17:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * How have you tried to resolve this dispute before placing the tag? You didn't even wait for any discussion, which I think is an inappropriate use of the tag, but I'm not going to edit-war over it. Which statements do you believe are incorrectly sourced? MastCell Talk 19:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This is about 75% insults towards Dr. Mercola, so I agree with Lambanog here. --Young Naturopath 01 (talk) 14:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't be silly, that was four years ago. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Repetition
I noticed that there is repetition in the article regarding the 2005, 2006 and 2011 warnings from the USFDA:


 * (in the introductory section) "Mercola has also received three warning letters from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for violations of U.S. marketing laws. The first two letters, dated 2005 and 2006,[4][5] charged Mercola with making false and misleading claims regarding the marketing of several natural supplemental products, which violated the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act.[6] In the most recent letter, sent in March 2011,[7] Mercola was again found to be violating federal law, by making claims about the efficacy of certain uses of a telethermographic camera exceeding those approved by the FDA concerning the diagnostic and therapeutic potential of the device (regulation of such claims being within the purview of the FDA)."


 * (in the "Views and controversy" section) "In 2005, 2006 and 2011 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned Mercola and his company to stop making illegal claims regarding his products' ability to detect, prevent and treat disease.[6]"

I tried to remove the second of these but my changes were reverted, as I had removed sourced material.Jimjamjak (talk) 10:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The WP:LEAD is supposed to summarize what's in the body of the article. Everything in the lead should be mentioned in the body of the article. Yobol (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is actually upside-down, in that there's more information in the lead about the warnings than in the article body. I agree it belongs in both places, but this is the opposite of "summary style."--~TPW 17:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the switch you made makes things more appropriate. Yobol (talk) 17:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

HIV and AIDS
articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/01/02/azt.aspx This article], from 2008, is clearly listed as authored by "Dr. Mercola". It runs through the standard AIDS-denialist talking points, disparaging the entire medical literature on antiretrovirals and claiming that Peter Duesberg has offered a "thorough and devastating critique" of antiretroviral therapy. The article asserts, in the author's voice, that HIV "does not destroy T-cells in test tubes and has never been shown to destroy them in humans, either" (which is both a falsehood and a common AIDS-denialist claim). Mercola states his belief that HIV "does not affect T-cells, at all." He goes on to argue that AIDS is actually caused not by HIV, but by "the severe, acute psychological stress of being diagnosed 'HIV Positive'". He then tries to explain away the fact that people with HIV/AIDS obviously improve on antiretroviral therapy. All of this clearly supports our language in the article, which was removed by and which I have now restored with minor alterations. MastCell Talk 19:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * He appears to be removing the articles that we post as references. Maybe it makes sense to use archive.org? Is that against Wikipedia rules? I found this other article with similar claims as above including a reference to a doctor saying that "HIV is harmless [sic] virus" 70.194.70.35 (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you explain further? Are you saying that the links to his website that we are currently using as references references are being pulled from his website, making the links bad? Web archive links are fine. We should have enough source information that the link itself shouldn't be essential. --Ronz (talk) 01:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Mercola's views have changed. His advice has changed. So his pages need to change. I once read how he explained he had tried every diet under the sun and decided the early advice he had been giving was wrong. He learns. Please keep up with his current advice and help with that.

People also bend the old stuff. http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/February-2012/Dr-Joseph-Mercola-Visionary-or-Quack/ is fabricating: “For example, his site includes an article by a California doctor titled “HIV Does Not Cause AIDS.” Mercola posted a comment at the end of the article: “Exposure to steroids and the chemicals in our environment, the drugs used to treat AIDS, stress, and poor nutrition are possibly the real causes.””

I cannot find it on Mercola’s site, but read it here:

http://aids-science.blogspot.co.nz/ “Comment by Dr. Joseph Mercola:

‘For many this will be new information, although Dr. Duesberg and Dr. Horowitz have been taking similar positions for many years. Dr. Al-Bayati provides a solid piece of scientific support for the position that HIV does not cause AIDS. Exposure to steroids and the chemicals in our environment, the drugs used to treat AIDS, stress and poor nutrition are the real causes.'”

He is not saying it is conclusive. He says it is a position, and he is reporting what Dr Al-Bayati forwards. It is not his theory which chigomag makes out it is.

(And the chicagomag has much other troublesome stuff not really relevant here in this paragraph, but such as labelling Mercola's UVB sunbed of the time as just a sunbed, which are usually UVA only and destroy vitamin D - not help create it.)

If the Al-Bayati article still exists the title on Mercola's site has a question after it. It poses the same problem as the New Zealand Medsafe about AIDS drugs side effects being hard to distinguish from AIDS itself. It says a patient may be HIV positive still, but recover from AIDS when attention is given to the T cells. Mercola has put the question up, now here may be one recent reply from some researchers for his courage, who may or may not have seen his work: http://www.atsjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1164/rccm.201501-0011ED?journalCode=ajrccm#.VPQ1duErIoE

Mercola has been active against HIV AIDS for a long time. He may be one of the early workers to help prevent the spread of the disease. There may be some over-estimation in this letter on the future of pediatrics to JAMA in 1987: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=369482 but sometimes overestimation is needed to avoid trouble. (Note the case with the worry about year 2000 causing computer programs not to work, which got people to work against it.) From his website on Dec 9, 2013. “In the US, more than one million people are living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).1 The virus causes serious damage to your immune system, which leaves you vulnerable to disease-causing organisms, and may progress into AIDS (acquired immune deficiency syndrome).”

Soundhill (talk) 14:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC) Brian Sandle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soundhill (talk • contribs)
 * We're not here to promote his current views, nor erase his past views that received notable coverage. --Ronz (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Due weight of criticism in lede
Given the large number and quality of sources with criticisms, to follow NPOV we should have a substantial summary of those criticisms in the lede, per NPOV and LEDE. --Ronz (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I did add back an acknowledgement of those criticisms and left a note inviting the editor who removed them to discuss it here; feel free to expand the lead beyond my initial attempt.--~TPW 17:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

- I would respectfully like to ask why the entire details regarding the FDA and Quackwatch need to be included in the lede when there is a section dedicated to controversy. A summary of the criticisms should be just that, a summary (which was briefly edited today in the lede in a way that was fair) while the details should be put in the section dedicated to controversy. --EmperorCaligula —Preceding undated comment added 18:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC).
 * Because we summarize articles in the lede section per WP:LEDE, giving due weight to information from the article per WP:NPOV. It comes down to properly summarizing the information in the article. The entire details are not in the lede, but in the body of the article, as is appropriate. --Ronz (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Source
"Dr. Mercola: Visionary or Quack?" Perhaps should be incorporated? MastCell Talk 22:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like a good source to fill out the non-MEDRS portions of this article. Yobol (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, a valuable article. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Article presents information in a one-sided fashion, definitely not neutral
This article seems to be purposefully crafted to present criticism of Dr. Mercola's views by neglecting to include important information. For instance, the thimerosal part neglects to mention that thimerosal is a mercury compound. Mercury is toxic, so the statement that "Dr. Mercola alleges that thimerosal is toxic" followed by information saying it's safe is misleading. Thimerosal is toxic. The question is not whether or not it's toxic. The question is to what degree does its toxicity affect vaccination.

One-sided articles are so typical for Wikipedia. It's why I haven't contributed in recent years. I got tired of trying to bring balance only to see the changes reverted, no matter how many citations I included. Personally, I think some of what Mercola says is correct and some of it is utter rubbish. But, this article has the responsibility to not just pile on him without taking into account factors that support his side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.99.216 (talk) 00:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not a forum for editors to present their personal opinions, nor do we use personal opinions to decide what is and is not neutral. Instead we follow WP:NPOV, and in this case because they are relevant, WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS. --Ronz (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

One-sided is an understatement in describing this article about Mercola. It is actually an attack and sounds like something written by an official from the FDA or one of its mercenaries they hire to slander those in the alternative health field. I know he markets heavily but he also does his homework and all of his writing and commentary is thoroughly researched. He is not alone in many of the criticisms he has of established medical care, and very few doctors are as well-informed about the issues that he comments upon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomcalwriter (talk • contribs) 10:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Doctor
He describes himself throughout his website as Dr Mercola. What is he a doctor of, and what kind of doctorate does he hold? The article mentions that he graduated from an Osteopathy college, but is he a general practitioner, a doctor of science, or something else? How much would a typical osteopath learn about (for example) skin cancer during his training? 31.185.191.117 (talk) 18:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The above comment is laughable. A doctor's training does not end after medical school, nor does any professional's training. It is only the beginning, a time when you are exposed to the tools that will enable you to begin to learn the truths about your subject matter. The problem with medical schools today is that their philosophy is so saturated with the bias of Big Pharma that many doctors have become legalized drug dealers and know little more about how to treat illness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomcalwriter (talk • contribs) 11:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Reference Number 48
This link is broken, I am new to editing on Wikipedia so I am not sure how to repair it. Armstrong3j (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2014
Under biography please change:

"Mercola is a 1976 graduate of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"

to

"Mercola is a 1976 graduate of the University of Illinois at Chicago"

This change will bring his education in line with the reference cited within the current document. Thanks.

66.66.231.41 (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done: see Cheers,  Nici  Vampire  Heart  16:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2014
I just would like to know the author of said page, in order to find out his/hers credential as well. In a world where the most important thing is to follow the money trail, the same way that is important to know the credential of people that the author of this page claims is a charlatan, why not have the name of the author of the page in order to verify if he is not a charlatan also?

205.250.41.30 (talk) 13:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi! Please read WP:BLP and note that it applies to this talk page as well as to article pages. (In other words, please be careful of implying that people may be charlatans.) You can find the editing history of this article here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

One sided lead?
Hey everyone, as I was reading through this article, I noticed some things that may or may not violate the rules WP:LEAD, WP:BLP, and WP:NPOV. I have some suggestions on how to fix them!

I feel as though this lead is one sided, particularly in the second paragraph. While I understand that it is important to include controversies, I think it’s imperative to include Mercola’s responses to these claims. This would make the lead a bit too long though, so could we possibly make the criticisms in the second paragraph more concise in order to fit in both sides of the controversy, and then delve more in depth later on in the article.

This article, which was used as source [11] in the page, has a number of statements from Mercola himself that could be included. Many of the other sources are from websites that clearly are editorialized against him; this is one of the few articles that quote him. If we included some of his responses to the negative claims, it would balance out this page and make it much more credible, I think. 206.144.187.169 Adamh4 (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We don't choose ways to "balance" articles arbitrarily, much less to give undue treatment to fringe ideas. --Ronz (talk) 23:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Ronz (talk) 23:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC) --
 * I don’t find anything arbitrary about a lead that focuses on his criticisms but not how he responds to them, nor do I find anything arbitrary about the rules that this lead violates. WP:UNDUE states “Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources.” Notice how it says “ALL significant viewpoints.” This includes the viewpoint of Joseph Mercola, which is crucial to have in the lead on his page.


 * And in regards to WP:FRINGE, while it does say we should not make fringe theories seem more notable than they are, we also should not bash them. It’s not making it seem more notable if we minimize the bias, its making it more fair. The reader can decide for themselves how they feel about the topic, as opposed to the article lashing out criticism and influencing their opinions. Adamh4 (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Our task is to represent what the reliable sources say, and on health topics, what the MEDRS say. The encyclopaedia is not meant to be "fair" or to give equal time to all parties. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * But don’t you think that the response of the one who the article is about would be valuable information that adds to the page? Learning about the person includes every spectrum, not just specific ones that we choose.
 * Additionally, is Quackwatch considered a reliable source for medicine? Regardless who is behind the website, it’s notorious for being biased and negative. Adamh4 (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "But don’t you think..." Not if we have to ignore or violate policies to do so.
 * Quackwatch is a reliable source for skeptical viewpoints, especially about medical quackery. --Ronz (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Are we not violating WP:BLP by leaving out that type of information though? It states “We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources.” And under the “tone” section of WP:BLP, states “BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement.”

This article is certainly not following these guidelines. The entirety of the second paragraph is listing criticisms against him. Yes, I am aware that controversy is meant to be put in the leads, but the extent of how much has been included, and the level of one sidedness is anything but responsible, cautious, or in a dispassionate tone. It needs to be reduced, and then the detains can be placed in the other sections of the articles.

It seems like Quackwatch is being used purely to support negative viewpoints, which I think should be considered a problem. As far as WP:FRINGE, a balanced article is not an article that is favoring a fringe idea; its merely listing facts from both perspectives. Adamh4 (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia presents the view of the reliable sources, not all possible views. If the reliable sources are overwhelmingly critical, or, as you put it, negative, then the article will be overwhelmingly critical or negative. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I understand that Wikipedia presents the views of reliable sources, but if all the “reliable” sources are negative, it creates a bias in the article. It should contain either a balance of negative and positive sources, or purely neutral sources.


 * The bottom line is that the amount of criticism in the lead is excessive. I’m not saying the criticism should be removed, because I understand that it is valid, but the fact that so much of it is stuffed into the lead is a violation of WP:NPOV and it needs to be fixed. Adamh4 (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Let's see if I understand: the more unanimous the reliable sources, the less weight we should give them and the more we should balance them out with OR and personal opinions? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Balance is always something that should be achieved, regardless of how many sources you find on one particular side. Its not hard to find endless amounts of sources that are against a specific topic, that by no means verifies their views.


 * Also, I'd like to point out that a few comments ago you said "Wikipedia presents the view of reliable sources, not all possible views. That is a direct violation of WP:UNDUE, as I clearly stated earlier. It says “Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources.” All significant viewpoints are not being displayed, therefore this article is not at a neutral point of view. Adamh4 (talk) 20:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The neutrality of this article has been examined rather closely, as this talk page and the archived discussion show.
 * We don't arbitrarily decide what is and what is not a significant viewpoint. Nor do we "balance" viewpoints because an editor feels that sources/viewpoints are "negative", "positive", or "neutral".
 * NPOV is an extremely complicated policy, made more complicated when information about science and medicine is involved. Wikipedia gives significantly more weight to science and medical consensus than any alternative viewpoints. --Ronz (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the clarification, I'm a new user and still learning. I'll definitely keep all these things in mind when editing future articles. I appreciate all the help! Adamh4 (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Unbalanced
This article appears very biased. It reads as if the goal was to present this man as a complete quack, and with that goal in mind, only sources which supported that viewpoint were sought out. More concerning are the instances of improperly referenced content. Only had time to look at refs from opening paragraph, but already found multiple examples of content not supported by the refs attached to it. It was claimed Mercola is an “alternative medicine proponent”, but reference only briefly mentions that Mercola was involved in a lawsuit with someone who apparently happens to be a critic of alternative medicine. This doesn’t exactly make Mercola an “alternative medicine proponent”. The alternative medicine WP says alt medicine is not based on evidence or scientific method. Mercola is an osteopathic physician which is research based field requiring training similar to that of MD’s. In the first paragraph, it was also claimed he was a member of several alternative medicine organizations, with no reference supporting this claim. Deleted because BLP says unsourced or improperly sourced content should be removed immediately especially if potentially libelous. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * See previous discussion. --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Noticed that previous discussion shows concerns article not balanced brought up repeatedly.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with anything? Alternative medicine has lots of proponents. Here at Wikipedia where we're writing an encyclopedia, proponents of alternative medicine find frustration in that here they cannot ignore the science. They bring up the same old concerns over and over - concerns without merit in the face of FRINGE and MEDRS. --Ronz (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of neutrality here on WP, based on WP:NPOV. Neutrality is derived from independent reliable sources. If the majority of such sources describe Mercola in an unflattering light, then we would too. We do not artificially "balance" the article or remove negative information because of what editors feel; we follow the sources. I support removal of the tag. Yobol (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Also support removal of tag, as per Yobol and Ronz. Jytdog (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Brought up concerns regarding previously deleted but restored content which appears potentially libelous and not properly sourced on  --BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Please be specific about which content "appears potentially libelous." "Negative", and to some degree even "untrue", does not equal "libelous". If there is anything untrue or libelous, please list it here, and tell why you believe it is untrue or libelous. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out in my edit summaries, we can easily add more references for the material that was removed that caused concerns, but do we need to?
 * He's most definitely a proponent of alternative medicine. Just because he is a DO doesn't somehow mean that all that he promotes is backed by medical evidence, much less medical consensus.
 * He's a member of many alternative medicine organizations, often in high-level positions. An independently written biography would help, but would one with a pro-alt-med bias be acceptable if treated as a primary source? --Ronz (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Please see BLP noticeboard for lengthy discussion. In a nutshell, calling Dr. Mercola an "alternate medicine proponent" and "member of several alternate medicine organizations", along with link to wiki page which defines alternative medicine specifically as medicine not based on evidence and medicine not based on scientific method seems problematic without references which show Mercola promotes medicine not based on evidence or scientific method. Going against consensus, being out of the mainstream etc does not equal not basing claims on evidence or scientific method.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 12:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm curious Bobo. Have you seen Mercola's website? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 13:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes. The guy is out there. Definitely out of the mainstream.  But as far as I can see he always includes references for his claims and presents his arguments as at least somewhat plausible based on scientific reasoning.  Which obviously doesn't make what he claims correct, but it seems a neutral and well referenced way to address this would be to point out that Dr. Mercola is out of the mainstream.  State what he promotes honestly and neutrally, and then use solid WP:MEDRS sources to show how Mercola's claims differ from standard medical practice/advice.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

we already do this in the View and controversies section.Jytdog (talk) 13:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If Jytdog hadn't pointed this out, I would have. I've already used the term "Flogging a dead horse" on another Talk page this week, but it certainly applies. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 14:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

BoboMeowCat, this is a forum discuss matters related to improving this article. Any other use of this page is inappropriate.

I've added additional sources regarding your concerns. Do they suffice? Is there other information in the article that needs additional sources? --Ronz (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Noticed this ref was added to statement Mercola is member of several "alternative medicine organizations".
 * www.mercola.com/forms/background.htm #org Which of these are medical organizations which promote medicine not based on evidence or promote medicine not based on scientific method?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * At least three of them, and all are full of woo. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 16:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep. Weston A. Price Foundation and Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation are notable enough alt-med advocacy organizations to have their own articles. --Ronz (talk) 17:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Neither of those are medical organizations which promote medicine not based on evidence or medicine not based on scientific method. It appears none of the organizations on that list do. Seems part of the problem here is that many people use the phrase "alternative medicine" to mean anything outside of mainstream medical practice, while on WP it's defined specifically as medicine not based on evidence or medicine not based on scientific method. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alternative_medicine&oldid=598490686--BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * If it works, it is medicine. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 14:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "while on WP it's defined specifically as" No, it is not.
 * See WP:IDHT and WP:DTS. --Ronz (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * User:BoboMeowCat - the basic principle on Wikipedia that you are not hearing, and that you appear to be trying wikilawyer around, is that what matters with regard to WP:FRINGE, is where the individual stands with regard to the scientific consensus. If you are outside the consensus, you are by definition WP:FRINGE.  As you have already agreed and as the sources show, Mercola is admittedly and aggressively outside the consensus.  Please understand this basic principle, and please stop making wikilawyering arguments around it.  It is not relevant if someone cites some scientific publications to support their position - many folks on the FRINGE do that.   Your failure to recognize this thus far, is why we are saying that you are in territory of WP:IDHT. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 12:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it is proper to give his views. I do not think it proper to editorialize on them, for example, in
 * Mercola has questioned whether HIV is the cause of AIDS. He says that the manifestations of AIDS (including opportunistic infections and death) may be the result of "psychological stress" brought on by the belief that HIV is harmful.[31] Mercola.com has featured positive presentations of the claims of AIDS denialists, a fringe group which denies the existence of AIDS and/or the role of HIV in causing it.[1][31][32]


 * The scientific community considers the evidence that HIV causes AIDS to be conclusive[33][34] and rejects AIDS-denialist claims as pseudoscience based on conspiracy theories,[35] faulty reasoning, cherry picking, and misrepresentation of mainly outdated scientific data.[33][34][36]


 * I think the 2nd paragraph is editorializing. We are discussing him, not AIDS or what other AIDS denialists claim or what their views are based on, or the consensus about them. On the other hand, the last phrase of the first paragraph is appropriate for context, and quite sufficient.  Overkill like this does give the impression of non-negative POV. (As most of you know, I have such a strong negative POV about AIDS denialism,  that I do not edit articles in this field.)  DGG ( talk ) 21:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey, you know that as per WP:FRINGE, when we present FRINGE views, "reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner." The 2nd paragraph is not editorializing, it is following FRINGE. Would appreciate if you would address that. Jytdog (talk) 02:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said, the last phrase of the first paragraph is sufficient. Beyond that is advocacy. Advocacy for the obviously correct position, but still propaganda. This is particularly important because the statement about his views is rather mild, as AIDS denialism goes, and does not give evidence that he is  associated with some of the extreme positions. (e.g., if he does support a conspiracy theory, this needs to be said , with a good reference.) The way it is worded is guilt by association.(When I said I did not edit in this field, it was not because of difficulty in dealing with the supporters of dangerous views; it is because of the difficulty in dealing with some supporters of my own SPOV, who characteristically word their arguments so strong;y that anyone unacquainted with the issue would suspect not that they were right, but that they were prejudiced.).  DGG ( talk ) 20:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No need to state your view, DGG, it is clear where you are coming from. I made an edit to try to address your concerns; namely: 1) moved the statement of fact required by FRINGE directly after the statement of his own views; 2) shortened the statement so it is less heavy-handed. I think having the "hosting" sentence between his views and the statement-of-fact kind made the need for the clear statement that his views on AIDS are indeed fringe less clear.  OK now? Jytdog (talk) 03:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Natural Health Center
Added proper citation going to actual site of Dr. Mercola's Natural Health Center indicating that it closed on 2013. Also removed previous citation going to Businessweek since confirmation that Mercola operated the "Dr. Mercola Natural Health Center" in Schaumburg, Illinois can already be seen on actual Natural Health Center website, which is a better reference. --Charhenderton (talk) 11:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding that. It is good to finally have some source that says the place closed, but this is a suboptimal source as it is WP:SPS and it fails Independent sources.  But it is better than nothing.  I have looked a couple of times now for sources for the place closing and found none.  It is remarkable to me that there is not a single independent report of the closing - how notable was it?  I restored the businessweek source for verification that the place existed and that Mercola ran it, and moved the official website source to just after the statement that the center closed in 2013 - that is all the source is good for.  If there is ever an independent report of the closing, we should replace it.Jytdog (talk) 12:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the edits Jytdog! However, I think that the BusinessWeek article is focusing more on Mercola's controversies, it's an inapproriate reference just to indicate that Mercola operated Natural Health Center/Optimal Wellness. I propose it to be replaced with either http://www.yelp.com/biz/joseph-mercola-do-hoffman-estates or http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mercola/. Both indicates that Mercola operated Natural Health Center/Optimal Wellness. Charhenderton (talk) 11:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * please stop adding content to the lead, without first adding it to the body.  the lead is just a summary of the body.  would you please add content to the body that you added to the lead today?  thxJytdog (talk) 11:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Biography
Inserted "and to draw attention away from the real public health and safety issues they perpetuate." to add more information about Dr. Mercola's stance on bird flu. CharhendertonCharhenderton (talk) 10:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * thank you for Talking instead of edit warring further.  as per my note when I reverted the addition, it is not clear what this means - what is the antecedent of they?  and it is not clear what the "real issues" are.   also, you added this in the biography section but if this is something that is going to stay, this probably should go in the vaccinations section where his views on vaccines and avian influenza are discussed. Jytdog (talk) 11:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2014
The following sentence appears to be inaccurate and prejudicial.

"who markets a variety of controversial dietary supplements and medical devices through his website, mercola.com."

I would like the person who wrote this sentence to acknowledge that most of the "controversial" dietary supplements are available at Rite Aid, Kroeger, etc. If a person comparison shops, she finds that generally Mercola's site offers documentation on product quality that is not available elsewhere at a competitive price. Also, the term "medical devices" is ambiguous. He sells products such as a juicer or an air purifier. A "medical device" could include oxygen delivery systems, respirators, blood pressure monitoring devices, blood sugar meters, etc., the kind of things one finds at a medical supply company. The sentence needs to provide evidence that there are controversial "medical devices" on the site as per the usual use of "medical devices." I don't know the site exhaustively, but I've never seen anything listed that would be in the inventory of a medical supply company.

Here are some alternatives:

"who markets a variety of common dietary supplements and health related devices such as juicers and air purifiers."

Then, the writer could note some specific controversial supplements that people can't buy at major outlets.

"Some of the supplements on the site are controversial according to (either AMA or FDA) and not available through major retail outlets. For example, the (either AMA or FDA) say about supplement x that . . . . "

"In addition, Dr. Mercola's website offers medical devices that do not meet the standards set by the AMA (or other relevant source), such as device X." A statement from the AMA (or other relevant source) about this item says that. . ..

Fair is fair. Wikipedia should have a higher standard of accuracy for this sentence.

7meta7 (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your remarks, but anything that goes into Wikipedia must be based on reliable sources, and not original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Please see WP:OR and WP:VERIFY which both discuss this.  Your personal status as a professor is irrelevant here.  What matters is the quality of the sources you bring, and how well the content that you want to generate based on them complies with Wikipedia's mission.  I'll place a note on your Talk page about this. Jytdog (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * quick note to make sense of this. 7meta7 is a new user, and in response to my comments and at their talk page, they deleted reference to their profession, without leaving edit marks.  no big, deal, but wanted this to make sense. it is in the history, to which I am not linking in order to respect 7meta7's desire to not-have-said it. Jytdog (talk) 01:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2014
A bit more concern about Mercola. I am puzzled by the opening of the article.

Two points:  First, we need to look at the FDA page for medical devices. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/default.htm. Then we need to go to Mercola's site and see what FDA referenced "medical devices": A) are on Mercola's site and B) are controversial by reasonable and documented standards. The Mercola site doesn't have a category for "medical devices" but perhaps there are some under other categories. I've only ever seen one item that might be a medical device, a test kit for Vitamin D deficiency as part of a national project, a rather mainline topic these days. Unless the kit was defective, I cannot see it as controversial.

Second, Dr. Mercola has full credentials to practice medicine, as noted below. If anything he did was seriously below acceptable licensed medical standards then he would have had his license suspended or revoked. A biographical piece needs to show respect for a subject's professional credentials.

Suggestions

"Dr. Mercola is a graduate of the Chicago College of Osteopathic Medicine, a licensed physician and surgeon in Illinois, who was chief resident at the Chicago Osteopathic Hospital and Board Certified by the American College Osteopathic General Practitioners. He also runs a website, Mercola.com, that offers free researched health information, as well as selling common supplements and health-related products and devices such as fermented vegetables starter kits, juicers and air purifiers. Dr. Mercola, along with other licensed doctors, health care providers and researchers, is part the many on-going controversies about current medical issues such as nutrition, supplementation, water quality, environmental toxicity,  vaccines etc.

Then the article could introduce and substantiate some of the controversies about supplements and "medical devices." "His website has provoked some medical controversies about its supplements. For example (list the supplement and a medical problem with it using medically-based research). Also, although his website does not advertise medical devices, it does offer a medical device (or devices) __________________ that according to ____________ is/are medically controversial or unsound.

Then the article could introduce problems with business practices. "Also, ____________ (reliable business source) has called into questions certain business and marketing practices on the website, such as _____________________. On he other hand, _____________________(reliable source with positive comments about Mercola.com).

Wikipedia :) No doubt there is a great deal of controversy these days about health/medical issues. Raise the biographical standards here and play fair. P.S. We can check the original sources for his medical certification, but however people might disagree with Mercola about his positions, as I do with some myself, he would not fabricate his public professional credentials.


 * ) And again for a reality check--go to Rite Aid, Walgreens, Kroeger's etc and look at their supplement shelves and see the products themselves and what research is attached them. Then go to Mercola and check his research citations calling his common supplements "controversial."

•	University of Illinois at Chicago – (UIC) 1972-1976 •	Chicago College of Osteopathic Medicine 1978-1982 •	Chicago Osteopathic Hospital 1982-1985 Family Practice Residency. Chief resident 1984-1985 •	Board Certified American College Osteopathic General Practitioners July 1985 •	State of Illinois Licensed Physician and Surgeon Affiliations: •	Chairman, Department of Family Practice at St. Alexius Medical Center, Hoffman Estates, IL 1988-1993

7meta7 (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As above, thanks for your remarks, but anything that goes into Wikipedia must be based on reliable sources, and not original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Please see WP:OR and WP:VERIFY which both discuss this.  Your personal status as a professor is irrelevant here.  What matters is the quality of the sources you bring, and how well the content that you want to generate based on them complies with Wikipedia's mission.  I'll place a note on your Talk page about this. Jytdog (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

suggestion for source about vaccines
A suggestion for a reliable source about the current discussion of vaccinations from the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/10/magazine/the-not-so-crackpot-autism-theory.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7meta7 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 28 June 2014‎ (UTC)


 * From 2002 - You must be joking. Roxy the dog (talk) 00:10, 29 June 2014‎ (UTC)
 * Two things - what content would you want to support with that, ? And in any case, besides that article being outdated, the NY Times is not a reliable source for health-related content as per WP:MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 00:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

HIV/AIDS links
It looks like many of the HIV/AIDS links to his site have been redirected to a different article. Are their alternate sources of documentation for his beliefs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.61.200 (talk) 05:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean by "redirected to a different article." Are you addressing the same problem mentioned above? If so, which links are dead? -- Brangifer (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, it appears to be that same issue. In the refs to the article, ref [31] points to an article but the Mercola website is showing a different one than intended by our reference. Likewise ref [36]. I suspect that mercola's web team don't like us pointing it out, and have used some trick to redirect both links to the same piece called "Ignored Since the 1950s - Is Spirulina Now a 'Miracle' High-Protein Super Food?" I will investigate further. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm. Actually, I am incorrect above. Ref [36] leads to an article called "Just 1 TBSP of Spirulina a Day: An Easy Way to Lower Your Cholesterol, Blood Pressure and... " and neither of the original articles exist on mercola dot com any more. They probably exist on "the wayback machine" but I'm pretty useless at using that. I'll try. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Now all we need is for some RS to expose this deceptive practice! Oh, that can be arranged... -- Brangifer (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The page is actually visible at the Internet Archive (scroll up and down and look carefully), but a message partially covers it. There is articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2001/07/11/aids-part-one.aspx  another article by the same author] which can be viewed on the Mercola website. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

About the NPOV.
I suggest you remove the text that says that Thimerosal is safe, because the wiki page for Thimerosal shows that its health code is 3, It's reactivity is 1, and flammability is 1. --Young Naturopath 01 (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, and its LD50 is 75 mg/kg in oral form for rats. It is ALSO metabolized into ethylmercury, which is highly poisonous.--Young Naturopath 01 (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you familiar with Paracelsus, and his relation to that topic? -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Now, yes. He was born several centuries ago. But that is kinda off topic. What we are talking about here is about these MD-promoting users that are wrecking the naturopathy-related articles' NPOV. --Young Naturopath 01 (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, and also, there is too much libellous content in the article. Young Naturopath 01 (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I mentioned Paracelsus because you don't seem to be familiar with his axiom "the dose makes the poison." In small enough doses, many otherwise poisonous substances are of no concern to humans. Our bodies can handle them quite well. Since the doses of Thimerosal used in vaccines pose no proven danger, we don't consider Thimerosal unsafe in those doses. That's what the statement means. Without reliable sources to the contrary, that content is proper. BTW, Thimerosal has been removed from most vaccines (but autism rates continued to rise), but since that increases the cost of vaccines considerably, plans are in the works to reintroduce Thimerosal to vaccines. It's an excellent product and was never removed because of any proven danger, so its removal was never a good idea.

"Libellous content"? Properly sourced negative content and criticism is proper (and required by NPOV) content at Wikipedia. Do you have evidence of a policy violation? Please specify which content is problematic.

When you talk about "wrecking...NPOV", you again reveal that you do not understand our NPOV policy. You're a newbie here and must learn from more experienced editors. When we say you're wrong, you need to learn and accept that you are wrong, and we shouldn't have to keep telling you. You need to show a positive learning curve. If you're not learning our ways here, then you should disengage and find another hobby. You need to stop making complaints about a policy you don't understand. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Really?! Are you kidding me? Remember what the NVICstandup channel says,

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth, no matter what the majority says.


 * --Young Naturopath 01 (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The NVIC is a fringe, private, anti-vax organization, and not a reliable source for anything but their own opinions, and definitely not about vaccines. What does your comment have to do with our discussion? Nothing. Keep in mind that we are more concerned with verifiability than truth, since "truth" is a very slippery subject. Now try answering my query for information above. Anything less is a violation of our talk page guidelines. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Why would you threaten an anti-vaccination organisation when 1 in 6 children have learning disabilities, 1 in 9 have asthma, 1 in 50 have autism, 1 in 450 have diabetes, lots of kids have allergies, and all of these have been linked to vaccines according to these kids' parents.

Oh, and by the way, usually the smartest parents are the biggest anti-vaccination activists in the parenting community.

--Young Naturopath 01 (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, ethyl mercury is not "highly poisonous" and neither is thimerosal. On the other hand, methylmercury is pretty bad. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

is ozone therapy safe
dr. MERCOLA I WANT TO KNOW IF OZONE THERAPY IS SAFE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.32.56 (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to address Dr. Mercola (he won't see your question) and you won't get medical advice here. --Neil N  talk to me 19:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Concerns over neutrality?
With all due respect and in all seriousness, this article should be retitled "Criticisms of Joseph Mercola".  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   02:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not a "serious" suggestion but trolling. Please be aware this article is subject to discretionary sanction and so disruptive editing is particularly unwelcome. Alexbrn (talk) 05:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't talk about editors on article talk pages. Content only. My changes to the Lede are far from disruptive, in fact you did not restore the OR sentence that was my primary complaint. Claiming that I am simply trolling is not accurate, and I'd appreciate you refrain from calling me a liar from now on.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   04:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You mean you are seriously proposing to rename this article to "Criticism of Joseph Mercola"? I await the RfC. Alexbrn (talk) 04:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * They really seem to mean it! Pretty incredible. I don't see Petrarchan47 being called a liar anywhere. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed. NPOV requires that criticisms found in RS be included, and WP:WEIGHT requires that the mainstream view gets its due weight. Sources which criticize Mercola's fringe views are more reliable anyway, and those that support him are fringe sources, often so bad that we can't use them at all, and in some cases they are so full of error and deception that they are outright blacklisted. It all comes down to how reliable a source is. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not a huge fan of the QuackWatch movement and what is happening to WP as a result of the teamwork and strong POV. I know how RS and WEIGHT issues work. If there are truly (and there may well be) no sources that provide anything except criticism, that's fine, but I think the article title should reflect this. Otherwise this is nothing more than a hit piece (non-neutral).   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   04:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You just don't understand NPOV. NPOV means that EDITORS remain neutral and not exercise censorship of RS or insert their unsourced personal POV. They are required to include what RS say, if that means the mainstream criticism is obvious, then so be it. Articles are not supposed to use a false balance. Mercola is a wealthy commercial pusher of unscientific and fringe POV, and RS document that, so we must let the article present that picture. That you don't like it is your problem, not Wikipedia's. We don't split biographies so one article is a nice sales brochure and another contains the criticism. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We're not going to change the name of the article. To do so would be a huge violation of NPOV, NOT, and BLP. Anyone seeking such a change in good faith should stay away from articles falling under WP:ARB/PS and BLPs in general, until they understand why such suggestions are grossly inappropriate. --Ronz (talk) 16:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting a split, and don't see how my suggestion for a more appropriate title is being misconstrued as a request to remove RS, censor content, or insert a personal POV, let alone how it justifies calls to stay away from all articles in this category. I never suggested that there are RS to support a flowery bio for Mercola either. But if all that exists are criticisms, it seems the title should reflect that.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   17:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please stop wasting our time as you work your way toward a ban. --Ronz (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * petrarchan47, I agree with what you are saying in just about every way. I am going against your advice and I'm going to stick it out for a bit. Your suggestion of the article be renamed to "Criticisms of Joseph Mercola" is a valid one. I've been in touch with a friend who has some history here and has observed the working. He's seen what I had to endure when I was trying to expand the Essiac article and one or two others. The question now rears its head like a 2,000 ft monolith. Who's and what interests are being served by the control of articles here? Are we the people subject to the dictation of an elite group who have the power over us to decide what we are allowed to know? If anyone were to say that there are no editors working in Wikipedia to serve big business interests then they are a fool or a liar. I'll say this here and now. There is no amount of money or promise on this earth that will allow me to betray my fellow man. One day I will have to stand before God and guess what ...  so will the others 13:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Bill Truth (talk • contribs)
 * If you think it follows our policies to change the title of this article, then you too are on your way to a ban because you are attempting to undermine our policies with what appears to be a WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:RGW mentality. Please take a break and consider how to best contribute to Wikipedia in a manner that follows our policies. --Ronz (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * A word to the wise here. Cyber bullying will not be tolerated. I'm not one that takes this type of intimidation lightly. I can tell you now that petrarchan47 is in no way "trying to change the title of this article" as you put it and it's a totally incorrect thing to say "you too are on your way to a ban because you are attempting to undermine our policies with what appears to be a WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:RGW mentality.". Come off it! I'm well aware of the rules of Wikipedia and I'm also very aware of certain people on wikipedia who bully others when there are edits made to articles that they don't want made. I can honestly say from my observations petrarchan47 is not trying anything on and neither am I. Neither one of us has any intention of undermining any policies. To even suggest such a thing is uncalled for. I can say that when petrarchan47 said "this article should be retitled "Criticisms of Joseph Mercola" that this was borne out of frustration at seeing the article turn bad. It's obvious that petrarchan47 has picked up on it and so have I!!!!! I ask you all to please exercise honesty and integrity. Please. I'm here to improve articles and expand the info and guess what, if an article is improved in a credible way and in a way that keeps the article neutral then that's a good thing. If the article happens to have information that makes people question things, look to elsewhere for help, advice, treatment etc then that's the right of the people to have this. I realise that this may not sit well with certain people, organizations, industries etc but as long as the article is neutral and unbiased then that's the way it has to be. Sorry folks but I have to say that some of you know that this hasn't been happening. What petrarchan47 has said is a cry of disgust and frustration which is shared by many. And many of the many no longer contribute to Wikipedia because of this. Please consider what I say. Thanks 08:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Bill Truth (talk • contribs)
 * People who wish to emit "cries of disgust and frustration" about Wikipedia policy need to do so elsewhere. Here, the requirement is to keep the article neutral and - since discretionary sanctions apply, to keep disruption to an absolute minimum. Editors who are persistently disruptive will be sanctioned for the good of the Project. Please ensure comments focus on making proposals for improving the article in line with our WP:PAGs. Alexbrn (talk) 09:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's what I intend doing. I hope others do so with integrity. I was trying to point out that petrarchan47 is an editor of solid integrity and I can relate to the frustration. I can truthfully say that petrarchan47 disgust is not at all at Wikipedia policy. It's at something else and I see this member as a credit to our community of editors. Thankyou. Mr Bill Truth (talk) 11:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:FOC. Alexbrn (talk) 11:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Stop wasting our time, Bill, and learn to sign your posts, then learn to focus on content, per Alex. Your whining does not belong here. -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 12:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Can someone with more expertise than me take a glance at Bill's talk page and see if it's appropriate for him to be hosting that previously deleted article about Monsanto/Mercola/etc.? Thanks in advance. Zarcusian (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If he's allowed to keep it, it would be wise for him to keep it on a subpage, not on his talk page. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

BLP violation

 * I have just discovered this amazing article, which is written from a POV that is out to "get" it's subject. The lede is an out-and-out hatchet job if I have ever seen one. And the hostility on this Talk page is a deep concern.  Jus  da  fax   17:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Howso? You may want to review the history of the talk page when making a case. --Ronz (talk) 14:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please be more specific. I suspect you're seeing the results when a fringe personality is described by RS in one way, and nearly all the fringe sources which defend them (except for their own website) are not allowable because they are not RS, or even blacklisted because they are so deceptive. We end up showing the mainstream view about that person. Wikipedia content is based on RS. Unreliable sources are not allowed to whitewash negative people as positive ones. Negative people are supposed to be described as negative. Look at the articles about any famous dictators, scammers, and criminals, and you'll see that their articles are biased toward describing them as the jerks they were, simply because RS describe them that way. NPOV does not mean an article is neutral or has no bias. I means that editors do not introduce their own bias in their editing. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In spite of that, this article is a huge showcase for Mercola's views and talking points. Most of the article is devoted to presenting his bollocks POV, but that's because the subject's own website and writings are considered allowable RS for documenting their own POV in their own biography. His supporters have exploited this fact to a degree not seen in any other alternative medicine personality's article. The only way for us to deal with that is to include what mainstream RS say in the way of criticism, so some of that is included. Since he's very fringe, mainstream science generally ignores him and his views. He knows the law well and skirts the edges so successfully that he has become enormously wealthy. Fortunately the law and regulatory agencies (FDA and FTC) have paid a little bit of attention to him, although he hasn't ended up in jail yet, as far as I know. He has many allies and fellow travelers: Kevin Trudeau is a convicted felon, and is serving jail time, but Mercola, Mike Adams, Gary Null, and many others are still free. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion
I watchlist the talk pages of some of the editors involved in the talk sections just above, and that is how I became aware of this page. I've read the most recent talk here, and I read the page, and I would like to make a suggestion. I think that it's very clear that the page must, indeed, present the subject's views as WP:FRINGE, per the discretionary sanctions imposed by the Pseudoscience ArbCom case, and that doing so does not, in itself, violate WP:BLP. On the other hand, when I read the page, it does indeed come across like a sort of jeremiad against Mercola.

I think that a big part of the problem lies in the length of the "Views and controversy" section. It's like each subsection says something like: "Mercola says this, and lots of other people say he's wrong." And it goes like that over and over again. It sound to me like this arose from Mercola-sympathetic editors adding every subsection to present every view that he has, and then other editors trying to balance the POV. But I think you could shorten that section by something like 75%. Do away with the subsections, and cover the information in a single, shorter section. Do that, and maybe soften the language in the lead a bit too, and I think that concerns over BLP would no longer be valid. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Some people also aren't aware of WP:FRINGEBLP, which is policy, so just tossing that out there. I'm sure what happened (as we see in many other controversial fringe topics) is as you described that editors really pushing for inclusion of fringe material were a bit overwhelming, so others just relented and found material to dispel the claim per NPOV. It's a lot easier than going through cycles of the content constantly being readded every few months.
 * That all being said, I think summarizing the controversies section could be helpful, but other editors having issues with this article do need to be aware that such content will still need to have an overall negative tone as valid criticism per FRINGE and the ArbCom case. I've got some ideas for maybe collapsing the controversies section into just simply Psuedoscientific views (or something similar) and having a much more condensed bullet point notation for each item. I won't get to it right away if no one else has other edits to propose, but I'll definitely start tinkering with it by this weekend. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That sounds helpful, but I would suggest not using anything "Pseudo" in the section header. "Views and controversies" would still be fine as a section header. My point is primarily about reducing the massive amount of repetition. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought about why you might have considered calling the section "Pseudoscientific views", and something else occurred to me. The goal in writing this page should be to inform readers, not to persuade them. I think the lead section also suffers from this. The page often sounds as though it's saying, "hey reader, make sure that you get the message of how fringe-y this stuff is." That ends up in an over-the-top tone. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, my reasoning at least was to remove all the rebuttal comments and just say person X is known for psuedoscientific views, here's a quick bulleted list of of them. I was going for being concise as pretty much all of the views are described as pseudoscientific already. That being said, I'm perfectly fine calling it controversies, etc. and a section header as long as we are pointing out sources have specifically called at least some views in general pseudoscientific in the intro of the section. The main first step I'm looking at is just cutting the amount of text down and figure out what to do from there if needed. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm still not seeing the problem, but these suggestions seem to run afoul of NPOV, BLP, and FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ronz, I think I don't understand what you said. Are you saying that my suggestion to shorten that section is the problem, or are you referring to some of the specifics of what Kingofaces43 said? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Shortening the section, especially as a whole, sounds like it would cause problems, while I'm not clear what would be fixed in the process. --Ronz (talk) 22:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Is it that you don't agree with what I said the reasons are, or that you need me to clarify what the reasons are? If the latter, what specifically is unclear? And what are the specific problems that you are envisioning? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that the suggestion that I made remains a valid one. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing anything concretely brought up yet that would be problematic, but I am interested in what Ronz is specifically concerned about. In the meantime, I'll start providing an example edit on Saturday on what I'm thinking and we can treat it as a work in progress from there. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, but it might help if we saw an actual example presented here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I've made a stab at this, purely as an aid to people who actually have some writing talent, as Kingsofaces and Tryptofish seem to be onto something, imho. I have kept the intro to the "Views and Controversies" section, and replacing the rest, as follows ...

Other areas where Dr. Mercola expresses views, and gives advice at odds with the mainstream scientific view include -

Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 13:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Food consumption
 * GM food
 * Food preparation
 * HIV and AIDS
 * Drugs and supplements
 * Cellphones
 * Sunscreen
 * Vaccinations - (Please note that I am undecided on this one. I would prefer to see this section remain, perhaps underneath the first few paragraphs before starting the bullet list, as the effects of vaccinations generally has brought so much benefit to humanity, it serves as a good illustration of either the ignorance of the man, or as a superb illustration of his actual ignorance ... or perhaps something else?)


 * Thanks everyone. I don't have specific text in mind, myself, but I agree that it is a good idea to present starting points here in talk, and then we can implement something on the page itself if and when there is consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I went and made a first stab at it. This is really just an attempt to make some existing text more concise that should help with some issues above. Hopefully this is a small but overall improvement for everyone that we can work forward from. I kept the vaccine section separate for now as a work in progress. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. In my opinion, it's a good first step. I made some very minor fixes, and now I'd like to find out what other editors think. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that if you guys are holding off improving the vaccination bit for fear of offending my doggy sensibilities, um, don't. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 22:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I just held off because it was a bigger section that wasn't easily bulletified. I'll probably take a crack at things again in the morning after I get some editing done in other topics. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Roxy, not at all. In fact, for me it's much more about it being a holiday weekend in the US. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Bingo on that as well. I looked things over and probably won't make any more edits today on it. In the meantime though, what do people think about structure? Are we ok with having one or two named controversies (e.g., vaccines) with other less noteworthy ones (though still enough for inclusion) in the other views section? I might be able to parse down the vaccines section and main section summary a bit more, but it will be tougher, so I just wanted to see if people prefer the current layout or if it might cause issues just having an "other" category. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I pulled the bold edit apart so we can see all that was done. I think it an improvement. Nice work. I disagree the deletion of the information on the FDA letters, so I've left that paragraph in. Maybe trim it down and combine with the FDA Warning Letters section? --Ronz (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The only new sources are quackwatch, which is only currently rehashing what the FDA letter says, but there's no original content sourced to it. I integrated the content for the third letter with the Chicago tribune. However, with WP:FRINGE in mind, any ideas on why Mercola's response has been included? We generally wouldn't dispute a source like the FDA with this kind of source, but I can see showing some of the absurdity of the claims. I'm not sure it's really needed though, so any thoughts on that? Otherwise, I'm at a point where I'm comfortable for now, but we are set up to make more improvements. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing, but the FDA response bit looks suspiciously like an attempt to assuage a fringe supporting editor around that subject, particularly as the Mercola verbatim response is quoted, so it isn't said in wiki's voice. I'm probably wrong though? -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 08:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like it was an SPA [], but it was added awhile ago. I never like tit for tat quotes in articles, but let them slide when it's just two individuals in a dispute. I don't think we can contradict a reliable source like the FDA with a low quality source like this, so I just removed the quote. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)