Talk:National Council Against Health Fraud/Archive 4

IRS Search
Jokestress added an interesting reference that doesn't work from any computer I've tried. Can someone provide the search criteria? --Ronz 23:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure--
 * Go to http://apps.irs.gov/portal/site/pub78/
 * At Name, choose Includes
 * Type in National Council Against Health Fraud
 * 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&#39;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 . --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&#39;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&#39;clast 05:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is we have no secondary sources. --Ronz 05:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

Interesting New Info on NCAHF
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. 

Also, notice here, current webpage of QW  ... ... ''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)


 * 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.)
 * 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.
 * 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 :) &mdash; 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)

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. 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. [ 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.[[User:Ilena|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)

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&#39;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)

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

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&#39;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". 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)

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)

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)

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.  &mdash; 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)

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)

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)

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  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 WP:NOT Wp:or 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 that has gathered Wikipedia unfavorable attention. Again I agree with Ronz (!!) on "unencyclopedic" here.--I&#39;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)

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)