Talk:National Council Against Health Fraud/Archive 5

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

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

Amalgam Fillings
There has long 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.[8] NCAHF asserts that breath, urine and blood testing for mercury are inaccurate. Other tests for mercury exposure described by the NCAHF as invalid can include skin testing, stool testing, hair analysis and electrodermal testing.[9]

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

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

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

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


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


 * They're absolutely unacceptable as they lack critical information about the NCAHF positions on these issues - which was the entire reason these sections of the article were written in the first place. Can we please get past Jance's attempts to censor valid information from the article?  --Curtis Bledsoe 04:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Hughgr. I think we need additional input, from Ronz, maybe others.Jance 04:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


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


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


 * --Ronz 04:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


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


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


 * I don't dislike your perspective - how quick some people here are in assigning personal motive to dispassionate and constructive criticism. However, you're still incorrect.  The question is not the validity or notability of the positions but what those positions are.  To answer that question, primary sources are the only suitable means for determining the positions.  If you wanted to know what Al Franken's position on an issue is, you wouldn't ask Rush Limbaugh, would you?  No, you'd ask Al Franken, or, if he had a web site you would quote from his positions as expressed on that web site in order to ensure both accuracy and objectivity in reporting those positions.  It wouldn't be fair to Mr. Franken if some wiki editor paraphased the details of his positions, possibly omitting some key detail dear to Mr. Franken's heart, would it?  No, of course not.  The only fair and accurate method would be to list Franken's positions on issues.  Then, in the criticism section, people like Rush Limbaugh could be quoted, along with, say, Janeane Garafalo to provide some balance.  Don't take this personally.  Just because I'm telling you that you're wrong that doesn't mean I don't like you.  In fact, if you think about it, it actually means the opposite.  My taking time to point these things out to you is a gesture of respect.  Someone less patient and understanding than myself probably wouldn't bother.  --Curtis Bledsoe 05:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Did you acutally say this? Someone less patient and understanding than myself probably wouldn't bother.  Now I have seen everything.  By the way, since you are such a stickler on "accuacy" and "correctness", I will observe that your grammar is incorrect.  The word "myself" is reflexive.  Jance 06:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Is there a reason your're inserting your incivil conduct into a conversation that doesn't concern you? BTW, you're wrong about reflexive pronouns.  My usage in this case was correct as the subject and object of the sentence are the same.  --Curtis Bledsoe 17:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This is the sentence you wrote, " Someone less patient and understanding than myself probably wouldn't bother." Here, "myself" is not the same as "Someone."  Eg, "myself" is not a predicate nominative.  Also, "myself" is not an object.  Therefore, you are incorrect.  So you don't know everything.  Amazing.Jance 02:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


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


 * I have not asked that you be banned. --Curtis Bledsoe 04:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Correction, blocked. (Another dangerous paraphrase)    ;-)  Jance 04:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well done. The first step to solving a problem is to admit the problem exists. ;-)  --Curtis Bledsoe 05:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

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


 * What they need is what was taken out - key information in the form of bullet-points quoted (not paraphased) from the original source. Without this, the summaries are worthless.  --Curtis Bledsoe 06:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * in other words, he wants the entire sections that he added, copied directly from the website. This is WP:OWN and it is bad writing.  If that is at all relevant in Wikipedia.  Jance 06:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Clearly it isn't WP:OWN and I'm not sure you're in a position to comment on "bad writing" either way - even if you did it civilly, which you don't seem capable of doing. --Curtis Bledsoe 17:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Glad you agree about WP:OWN! Now we can move on.Jance 17:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Since you didn't understand the first time I said it, perhaps I should (though perhaps I shouldn't bother) repeat myself. Clearly it isn't (note additional emphasis) WP:OWN.  --Curtis Bledsoe 17:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Curtis stop being so goddamn abusive. You are wrong,. Period,  You tell me what one single editor agrees with you here.  Anyone, except maybe Barrett (if he is that egomaniacal, then I have second thoughts about him).  What you are doing is WP:OWN and abusive. Jance 20:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I now understand your incivility. You were reportedly blocked for it before but now you've come back under a pseudonym and it has multiplied.  So my question is why do you continue to be incivil?  --Curtis Bledsoe 20:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You have to have the last word, is that it? Are you having fun  yet?  Or are you always this abusive?Jance 21:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And I have no pseudonym. So your attempts at bullying won't work with me, Curtis.  There is a reason I do the work I do.Jance 02:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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


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

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


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

Traditional Herbal Remedy, a special category of medicines not required to meet the full stipulations of the U.S. Food, Drug, & Cosmetic Act which are applied to standard medications." "The active ingredient in this product is valerian. Traditional folk medicinal uses for this substance include: as a sleep aid, and a relaxant. Valerian has been shown to depress the central nervous system at the doses indicated." "Adverse reactions associated with the use of this products should be reported to 1-800-638-6725." Caution: Self-treatment may delay proper health care. See a medical doctor if health problems persist. Source:  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jance (talk • contribs)
 * Limit THR products to those with properties sufficiently documented in the pharmacognosy literature to assure an acceptable measure of safety and efficacy.
 * Limit herbal remedy products to those known not to have lethal or damaging side-effects when taken in overdose, or over an extended time period.
 * Limit THRs to the treatment of nonserious, self-limiting ailments.
 * Require THRs remedies to meet the same labeling standards for all drug products.
 * Require plant sources to be identified by their scientific names.
 * Require that all active ingredients (items that cause an effect) be quantitatively and qualitatively identified on the label.
 * Require herbal remedy products to contain sufficient amounts of pharmacologically active substances for the product to perform as expected. Only those expectations that can be supported by science should be permitted on labels. The FDA should develop a set of acceptable claims just as it has with health claims for food products.
 * Require labels to inform consumers about what effects they should expect. Suggested wording: (eg, valerian)
 * Require a highly visible, easily accessible postmarketing surveillance system for tracking unanticipated adverse reactions. The system must enable consumers as well as health professionals to report, and regulators to gather and disseminate information on adverse effects. A good candidate for the agency to receive reports is the U.S. Pharmacopeia Practitioner Reporting System which passes reports on to the FDA and Poison Control Centers. Suggested wording:
 * Require manufacturers to mark product batches for identification, testing, and tracking.
 * Require warnings about dangers of self-treatment on labels and/or package inserts. Suggested wording:
 * Require substantial representation from outside of the herbal industry to assure sufficient skepticism in herbal regulation.
 * Impose strong penalties for adulterating herbal products with potentially dangerous substances.

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

NCAHF also questions the health claims, marketing, safety, efficacy and lableling of herbal supplements. Currently, herbal preparations are not regulated as drugs. The NCAHF advocates regulations for a special OTC category called "Traditional Herbal Remedies" (THRs) with an adverse reaction surveillence program, product batches marked for identification and tracking, package label warnings about proposed dangers of self-treatment, oversight requirements from outside of the herbal industry, and strong penalties for unapproved changes in herbal product formulations. --I&#39;clast 23:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


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


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

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


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


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


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


 * Strongly disagree. No Wikipedia policy demands exact quotes in this situation, and there are many circumstances (much legal and medical writing, for example) where paraphrases are an improvement. Furthermore, this article links NCAHF position papers as references.
 * It may be helpful (though not entirely necessary) to include short-but-relevant quotes in the footnotes for the NCAHF in-line references. Many of the Citation templates contain a parameter for this. (I'm not certain what the fair use limits are on this sort of thing, but it shouldn't be a problem in this article.) / edgarde 21:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongly disagree. I guess this means the consensus thus far is to not have the excessively long quotes - even if it is not a copyright violation.Jance 00:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strongly disagree. Curtis' stmt evinces no concept of encyclopedic summary & writing.--I&#39;clast 00:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strongly disagree. Of course WP must be allowed to rephrase while still keep the meaning unchanged. MaxPont 15:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Your opinions are noted and incorrect. The article is reporting the fact of the position.  This can only be done by reporting what the positions are and the best way to do that is to use the bullet points from the actual positions.  Paraphrasing the position is simply unacceptable.  --Curtis Bledsoe 20:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, Curtis, paraphrasing is incorrect according to you. However, that is not according to Wikipedia consensus.  Your objection is noted, in many different locations.  Your objection does not affect the editing of this article. Jance 21:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Curtis, as a way forward, "bleh, that sucks!" is a good deal less productive than proposing alternate text. Guy (Help!) 20:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What else can I say? The summary is accurate.  It is even good grammar.  ;-)   I suggest that Curtis start with what he considers inaccurate, and we can discuss it. Jance 21:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes that would be most helpful, a specific list of what he considers to be inaccurate. --Wildnox(talk) 21:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree. Also an item that is too complex, too opinionated and too long will probably suffer frequent, even worse "accuracy" problems as well as not be encyclopedic. Summarize with *appropriate* hotlinked references, can't beat the clarity on positions.--I&#39;clast 00:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


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


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


 * I'm not sure what an admin could do, other than block Curtis. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 06:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * True. Jance 07:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have two issues:
 * The first is that if we accept verbatim lengthy block quotes from the NCAHF website, then it either has to be fair use, or the owner of the copyright has to relinquish all copyright (or alternatively re-copyright it under GFDL). Fair use, in terms of encyclopedia articles, does not include full reproduction of copyrighted web pages when a summary would be adequate, and a readily available reference to the original is given. Publishing the original under GFDL means that this text can then be copied, changed, misformed, sold as a book, used in advertisements, (etc etc) by anyone, without NCAHF being able to do anything about it at all, i.e they then have practically no say in what happens to their writing. So just saying Wikipedia can use it is not sufficient, it has to be released under the same licence as wikipedia, the GFDL, or it has to be public domain (compare requirements for illustrations). I do not think that that was the intention of the NCAHF spokesperson who said it was OK for Wikipedia to use the text. Does he realise that that means anyone can do with their text what they want to, without the NCAHF's permission? If so, one wants the change of copyright confirmed in writing.
 * It is not, and has never been, standard practice for encyclopedias to quote the full policies or position statements of an organisation which is being described. I think one can take the article on the United States Constitution as a definitive example. If full text quotation were the normal standard, then I have little doubt that that article's succinct paraphrasing of every article would have incurred the wrath of the majority of the citizens of the USA. That has not happened, so by analogy it is not necessary to spell out verbatim the NCAHF position on anything, except where specific important words or phrases are quoted. Indeed, the extent to which the NCAHF position is being described in detail for every item seems to me already very close to advertisement or POV-pushing. An example is the paragraph long desciption of "huckster" chiropractic, with a list of all sorts of techniques, which gives me absolutely no (as in zero, nothing) information about the NCAHF itself. Had I written an article about the organisation, I would have abbreviated the summaries even more, since the originals are but a link away on the net. --Seejyb 09:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


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


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

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

Non-commercial use is not acceptable and not compatible with Wikipedia licensing because Wikipedia articles can be used commercially. We cannot comply with "non-commercial" conditional use. The licensing needs to be public domain or GFDL. Sarah 02:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess this makes two reasons that these edits should not be included here. Thanks for clarifying.Jance 02:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As it stands, the NCAHF website very clearly states, "All articles on this Web site except government reports are copyrighted". If the copyright holder wants to release this material for us to use, he/she needs to send an email from an address associated with the site the material has been copied from to permissions@wikimedia.org, stating that they give permission for the material to be used under the GFDL and that they understand that this means it may be freely copied, redistributed, edited and used commercially outside of Wikipedia. Or they need to place a note on the website stating that they agree to the material being used under the GFDL licence. An anon editing from an IP and signing as "Barrett" is simply not sufficient for permission. You may be able to quote small excerpts under fair use, but only under this guideline: "Under fair use guideline, brief selections of copyrighted text may be used, but only with full attribution and only when the purpose is to comment on or criticize the text quoted." Sarah 13:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


 * I don't think it's resolved either. Curtis' participation in this "Protected" discussion completely ignores the group consensus and numerous discussions of why information absolutely must be abridged in an encyclopedia article.  Perhaps I'm misreading his perspective? --Ronz 04:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What can we do to find resolution? I seem only to antagonize Curtis, since I had first suggested the summary.  Therefore, I thought it more productive to let others talk with him.  I have a much better feeling about Wikipedia, after seeing people like Ronz, and I'cast, Arthur, and others focus on a content issue and come to agreement.  Sarah has helped clairfy the Copyright policy, and most agree that more is not better.  I guess the next step is to see if we can agree on a non-protected article.  Consensus does not require 100% agreement.  What to do you think we do from here?Jance 06:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ask the admins to remove protection or at least update the "Positions" section, and if necessary, let the admins make the first move to solve Curtis' "hearing problem".--I&#39;clast 07:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Would someone else like to do this (this might be better).Jance 19:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've asked him on his talk page,diff no answer yet but its only been a couple of days...I don't know how long we should wait. Or should we just request that the page get unlocked and see if he disrupts it again?--Hughgr 20:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think he is ever going to concede. We might as well request the page be unlocked, and then if he reverts it, we can call in an admin.  I don't know what else to do, do you? Jance 20:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


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

Could someone add
the referrence to the herbal suppliments para. I'clast has it above. Thanks! I really should learn one of these days....... :)--Hughgr 01:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And thanks, Hughgr. Unfortunately I know how to do it, but I dont know what website s//he sourced.  Jance 01:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not sure whether "she" refers to MastCell or me, a "he". Anyway I have inserted the dreaded NCAHF ref, the original text for it was hidden under 1 "b" instead of the usual a. I am sure some will forgive me ;->--I&#39;clast 14:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, l'clast! I will not make that mistake again.  Clearly I wasn't thinking.  And thank you!Jance 15:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Cannot verify: Waltzing with the 'Quackbusters' — To Whose Music?
Anyone have a more complete reference? I was assuming it's a book by the page number, but maybe it's an essay inside a book? --Ronz 16:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My bad. I left a vital part out of the reference... the magazine name from where it was taken - The Townsend Letter. There was an "Op. Cit." in the reference from which I was drawing it and it threw me off. Levine2112 18:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Indexed here. Waltzing...#117, p. 339--I&#39;clast 22:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

neutral sources opinions about criticism
The OTA IIRC found general problems with the report in question that were not just purely the safety and efficacy matter. Furthermore, even if it hadn't, since the NCAHF's critiques are often about efficacy related issues, that the report ignored or downplayed matters related to that is highly relevant. In any event, that doesn't give a reason to take out the mention of the judge's opinion. If a criticism has been found by neutral sources to be weak or otherwise problematic of course that's relevant. This isn't a hack job. JoshuaZ 17:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you cite that OTA had issue with the report's treatment of its criticism of LVCAHF? Otherwise, it is speculation and WP:OR. How about the judge's opinion that the report was "unsatisfactory"? Unsatisfactory how? Just in general? Or something specific? Was it unsatisfactory in its treatment of its criticism of LVCAHF? Can you cite that she made this distinction? If so, fine. Include it and I have no issue. Otherwise we are turning this into a criticism of the criticism (and might I add, a criticism that seems unrelated to the original criticism). Can I then go find a criticism of the criticism of the criticism and include that here as well? Bottomline, let's not forget that this is an article about NCAHF (formerly LVCAHF)... let's try to keep focused here. Levine2112 17:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Levine, I agree with you a thousand percent. What in god's name does the OTA's problems with one part of the report have anything to do with the other? This is an attempt to disparage the criticism by trying to show someone's problem with another part of the the report. That is weak. IOW, you are not the only editor who thinks this "criticsm of the criticism" should go. TheDoctorIsIn 17:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Doc. I'm going to get on and look for a criticism of the OTA and of the judge. (Not anything to do with their opinions about this report of course. Maybe I'll find a criticism of the OTA's treatment of Eskimo Pie's and the criticism of the judge's fashion.) ;-) Levine2112 17:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The criticism section is way too long. It is unjustified to have such a long length. It seems redundant.
It should be shortened and tightened up without losing the meaning of the section. The long length is Undue weight when compared to the rest of the article. I see no reason to have an extra long criticism section. Who wrote this long criticism section? Lets bring the criticism section back to reality. GigiButterfly 17:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please discuss what you suggest to change. If you would like it in a paragraph form, insert it here and we can all work on it. That way we can avoid an edit war. Thanks, --Hughgr 21:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

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


 * Considering the NCAHF as an action arm, at least its principals' legal activities (Herbert, et al), this may not be so unusual. I have seen articles on notable people in regional editions of Time where the list of groups of enemies was still longer than the rest of the article.--I&#39;clast 05:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I find this irrelevant. This is an encyclopedia article, not Time. --Ronz 19:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

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

LESS NOTABLE CRITICS:

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

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

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

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


 * 1) 27 is a townsletter and less notable.


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

THIS CRITICISM IS TOO LONG BUT WHAT SHOULD I REMOVE.

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

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


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


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

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


 * They are not both chiro critics. One is an American chiropractic organization; the other is a government agency in New Zealand. Please avoid reverting (edit war) to a previous (and inproper) version.
 * You are saying that the criticism section is too long. What is your basis for this assessment? By my eyeball estimation, if you take out the criticisms of the criticisms, the actual criticisms of NCAHF fill less that a quarter of article space.
 * This is a criticism of criticisms and shouldn't be included when esitmated how much of the article is dedicated to NCAHF criticism:


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


 * and so is this...


 * The NCAHF denies all of these charges, saying:


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


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


 * Levine2112 00:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

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


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


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

The length of the criticism is Undue weight when compared to the rest of the article. Way too many critiquing. GigiButterfly 01:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What part of "Undue weight" are you using to arrive at this conclusion? Please quote from Wikipedia policy. This will help. Levine2112 01:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


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


 * "Undue weight"

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

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

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


 * From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the mailing list:
 * If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
 * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
 * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

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

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

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


 * I have read this... many times. I've been editing on Wikipedia for a long time! I want to know which part of this says to you that we are doing something wrong with the current critique section. Please be specific as possible.
 * I don't believe we are dealing with a tiny minority view here. So that part is irrelevant. The views that are presented are certainly from prominent adherents and are easy to substantiate. So I don't see the relevance of Undue Weight. Levine2112 01:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

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

The criticism section wreaks of socks! This article should be reduced to what NCAHF is and does.Periksson28 (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight and fairness of tone

 * Undue weight

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

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


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


 * Fairness of tone

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Undue_weight#Fairness_of_tone The fairness of tone is not neutral. GigiButterfly 01:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The tone is completely fair are represents accurate and very plausible positions. Would you prefer that we should present these refuting views within the rest of the article rather than keeping them collected in this one section? That's fine too, as long as all of these critiques are represented in full. Levine2112 02:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Presenting the refuting views within the rest of the article is unacceptable, as far as I've seen from other Wiki articles. --Ronz 02:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree on this article. NCAHF would never get to say what it was about without being refuted every other sentence. --Dematt 03:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

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


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

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

An article about an organization critical of alternative medicine, not an article on alternative medicine
Slow down! It most certainly does matter what any of us believe. We are the editors. So ..
 * 1) This is an article on an organization that criticises alternative medicine.  So it is not only appropriate to have a complete 'criticism' section, it is necessary.
 * 2) Whether or not alternative medicine is a minority view is irrelevant here.  This is not an article on alternative medicine.  Again, it is an article about an organization critical of alternative medicine.  The judge was critical of NCAHF, but not because of its position on alternative medicine, but because of how the organization chose to litigate.
 * 3) If there are questions about WP:Verifiable and WP:RS and weasel words, then raise the concern here.   Point out which statement or resource you think falls into any of these categories. To broadly categorize a section as weasel words is rather weasely, in my opinion - no personal affront intended.
 * 4) The "tone is unfair" does not help describe what needs to be changed.  A criticism section is likely going to be critical.  As stated above, this is not a parallel to an article on 'flat earth theory'.   NCAHF is an organization that criticizes and litigates against alternative medicine practitioners.  That those which it criticizes disagree is no surprise.  Again, any article about the NCAHF would not be complete without the discussion of the 'other side'.  If there were not a controversy, there would be no NCAHF, and no article.Jance 03:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That said, the 'criticism' section does look rather like a laundry list. I am not suggesting that all or any of the content should be deleted, but it should be better organized.Jance 04:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


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

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

Do any of us believe this is fairness of tone number.[27]
 * This is not an issue of what is "fair" or "not fair". Jance 06:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

According to Victor Penzer, MD, DMD, The 'quackbusters,' ... have shown themselves closedminded and irrational on many occasions, having practiced, at the same time, deception, distortion, and untruth in compulsive efforts to achieve their goals. Most objectional, the NCAHF, having vociferously denounced and valiantly persecuted any kind of natural healing, meritorious or not, at the same time raises no objections to so many instances of fraud on the part of the orthodox practitioners or institutions, unless publicly exposed by law enforcement agencies previously. The National Council Against Health Fraud has been clearly hypocritical, and demonstrated again and again that they were substantially against Health, rather than against Fraud.[27] GigiButterfly 05:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Given the fact that this article is about an organization with a sole purpose of criticizing and suing "alternative" practitioners, yes, I think that some criticisms that reflect the response to the organization are in order.  This particular quote does voice a certain type of criticism.  Whether it is fair or not, I don't know.  I don't have to know.  It may not be fair at all.  That is not the point.  I don't know how else to state this.Jance 06:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

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

References in the article don't state Atkins is a critic. Which reference should I read. GigiButterfly 03:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * heck I don't know. I didn't add this.  I agree that Atkins is well-known.  How much of a 'minority' the Atkins diet is, I have no idea.  It isn't relevant, for the same reasons I discussed above.  This is not an article on alternative medicine.  It is an article on an organization (started by a medical doctor, I believe) that criticizes - and sues - alternative medical practitioners.   Whether Atkins is a critic of that organization, I also have no idea.  Let's keep this question on the talk page, and if nobody produces a reference, then delete it.  Jance 03:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think a lot of people talk about, but do not follow, low carb 'crazes'. But that is purely my biased opinion, based on no supportive facts.  ;-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jance (talk • contribs) 03:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_National_Council_Against_Health_Fraud&diff=prev&oldid=95797417 Did I found who put in the Atkins critic. Anyone, could you explain this to me. Was it original research under our noses? GigiButterfly 04:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's allow the editor who added this to comment. Maybe there is a reference we do not know about.  If not, it goes.Jance 04:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

"Quotes"
The criticism section has an abnormal length and number of quotes. I believe this is unusual. This is WRONG for an encyclopedia. How many quote after quote after quote (attacks) does the criticism section need. GigiButterfly 05:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. This is what I meant by the need for a reorganization of this section.   Someone needs to analyze the quotes, and determine the nature of the criticism of each - then categorize them.  For example, if chiropractors criticize NCAHF for a certain reason, that could be a paragraph, with a representative quote, or even two, if the quotes are short or substantially different in content.  A long bullet pointed list of quotes is not readable.   At all.Jance 06:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You are right. The quotes are long and unreadable. Very disorganized. The excessive in porportion list should be overhauled. GigiButterfly 06:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not necessarily the proportion, but the organization. The responses need to be discussed in some coherent order.  Quotes are useful to highlight a point, or discussion.  But not to string together without organization.Jance 06:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And here is an example of a sentence that I find confusing:
 * " The NCAHF has been accused mostly by a minority of alternative medicine critics such as Robert Atkins MD, James Carter MD, and the Jance 07:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

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

I want to know if it has to be quotes. Could it be a generalization or summary or explanation. Long long quotes is boring to read. When I first read straight through the whole criticism section it felt like I was being yelled at. It is not fun to read this stuff. It would be hard pressed to find another criticism section like this one anywhere in any encyclopedia. GigiButterfly 07:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A quote is a good way to illustrate a point. It should not be the point.  The number of quotes will be dictated by what is written.  It is likely that some quotes should be deleted.  My suggestion is that someone who is interested in the criticism section write a paragraph without quotes, for purposes of discussion here.  Then decide what quotes should be included.  Some quotes may be necessary for presentation and balance - esp b/c of the subject matter of the article.  I absolutely agree that long quotes don't help an encyclopedia article - the same issue arose earlier here, by another editor, regarding the section on NCAHF's position.  It was awful, and the consensus (everyone except that editor) was that the quotes were too lengthy.  Instead, the positions were parahprased, to be brief summaries - and the section is still very long.  That said, the 'position' quotes were absurdly long and make this look concise and readable.  But the principle is the same. Jance 18:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

An introduction paragraph is correct:

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

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

How is this?

"The NCAHF has been accused of using the appearance of consumer advocacy to present false indictments of complementary and alternative medicine. Practitioners of  chiropractic, homeopathy, acupuncture, herbal remedies, and naturopathy also claim the NCAHF is a front for corporate medical interests. [3][4][5][6] U.S. Representative Dan Burton, former Chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform, has stated that it is not in the public interest for a health fraud watch group such as NCAHF to operate unrestrained and unendorsed by the government.  Burton, described by the New York Daily News as a 'powerful friend' of the dietary supplement industry, has received $79,249 in campaign contributions from the supplement industry since 1994 and has a 'long history of supporting unorthodox treatments', going back to the now-discredited cancer treatment laetrile." Jance 02:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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


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


 * I have provided a better one to the judgment itself.


 * Now the same objection applies even more to Bolen's site (King Bio case), where even the description (his own inflammatory one) is used in the reference. That should be fixed, and if possible a better source found, since his site has been found (some time ago when the Quackpot Watch article was deleted) to not be a V & RS. It not only does not qualify for inclusion as a reference, source, or even external link, it is actually expressly forbidden, since it's an attack site. But we have been generous and allowed (against policy) the link directly to the case itself. A better source should be found. In the mean time, maybe the reference description could be made more factual without Bolen's commentary. -- Fyslee 21:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I added the citation for the court case. There is not a hotlink for it, but Wiki does not require a hotlink.  I had removed the Bolen website, but re-added it after Curtis screamed about there not being a hotlink.  So if you want to remove the hotlink that is Bolen's site, go for it.  The court case supports all that is written.Jance 04:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments. Who has decided that the plaintiff's website is unbiased and a factual one, please? It is discussing an important court decision of which Barrett himself was the plaintiff. His viewpoints. If this is allowed, why not the defendants? What is, and what isn't an "attack site" is apparently in the eyes of the beholder. So is who is ... and who is not a "quack." I find Barrett's links to various court cases totally lacking in perspective and attacking those he is suing. I hope that the administrators watching these cases now will notice this lack of balance ... plaintiff's websites are being linked ... but defendants (such as myself or Mr. Bolen's) ... not allowed. Just this morning, on the ongoing case of Barrett Vs Clark, a totally misleading link as to the facts of these case was edited into BvR. [] It is not about BvR, but BvC, and is discussing only one part of many related sub-cases (by some strange coicidence, it's the one subcase of all that is at all favorable to Barrett). Barrett v Rosenthal is separate from the the link of Barrett's added to that article Opinion on Case I still believe that Wiki is about neutrality and balance. Shalom. Ilena 22:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Editing an article which is in some sense about you - in which you have a significant personal interest - must be very difficult to do within the canons of WP. The convention is not to, on the basis that if changes need to be made, someone else who is demonstrably not involved will do so, sooner or later.  Midgley 23:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I understand that. How do you understand the policy on subjects using publicists on Wiki? Wasn't there a recent article about Microsoft hiring a publicist for Wiki work? Thanks. Ilena 23:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that the comment that was on BvR was not appropriate. BvR is fine as it is now, however.  The lower court cases & holdings were discussed, as related to BvR. Jance 05:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

There is undercurrents here I do not understand. But I have looked at the history of this article. Ilena has added a link that is wrong for this article. VANITY LINKS ARE WRONG I hope you are not trying to stir things up here again. The quackpotwatch attack site link is in other articles. It does bring a balance to those articles but it is a violation of policy. You can't have it one way here and the opposite way at other articles. Don't rock the kettle to prove a point. Please stop right now. GigiButterfly 01:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ilena raised a valid point about an edit added to BvR that was not pertinent to that article. I also understand Ilena's feeling that plaintiff's links are acceptable while defendant's are not.  But I believe the issue is that a Barrett website link is allowable in an article about Barrett.  Otherwise, it does not make sense to nix an unreliable source while allowing an equally unreliable (but opposing PVP) source to stand. Can anyone else shed light on this?  Also, while there may have been a valid reason for a previous block, I do not think Ilena should be required to walk on eggshells now.  I do not see that she said anything out of line here. Jance 05:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

Criticism section - npov dispute
The section contains poor sources, unreliable sources, and there has been little or no effort to balance the material per WP:NPOV. There also appears to be some WP:OR here as well. Should we start by going over the sources? --Ronz 18:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Usefulness as a source
I started a new section. Please help expand it and share your ideas. Thanks. Mr.Guru talk  05:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

RfC alert
I figure a number of editors here might be interested in this: -- Fyslee / talk 19:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Link to RfC at alternative medicine.

History section
This article would benefit from a bit of historical information about this non-profit. See http://www.ncahf.org/about/history.html ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

ACA criticism
Adam has reverted an edit which I believe made the ACA's criticism more on point. His edit summary seems to suggest that I am POV-pushing. Nothing could be further from the truth. Again, I was only bettering the article by making the ACA's criticism more relevant to the article at hand. If this was the PBS article of the Scientific Frontiers article, the criticism which Adam reverted back to would be appropriate. But this is the NCAHF article. The criticism should be about the NCAHF or not be there at all. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Adam has restored a portion of my edit and I thank him. But I ask, what does the show producer's rebuttal have to do with the use of the NCAHF? Nothing. As such, it should be excised. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid it suggests that the producer's rebuttal of one part of the complaint suggests they find the other part not worthy of discussion. It seems to me to be required for context.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * But the part of the quote that the producer is rebutting is has nothing to do with the NCAHF. That's why I think we should just limit this to be just about the NCAHF involvement in the program. With regard to this article, who cares what the producer's take on chiropractic is? This is about the NCAHF. If the producer's have some defense to their use of the NCAHF, then we should quote it here. But why should we include anything else? The TV show has a nice link in the criticism section of Chiropractic, where it is appropriate. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I would think the only way to avoid WP:UNDUE weight is to drop the quote entirely. We disagree as to whether the producer does disagree with the criticism.  The criticism appears real, but the producer's rebuttal to ACA's criticism of the publisher leaves open the question of whether they disagree with the criticism of NCAHF.  If we can't tell, the entire material is needed for context.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it would be clear in the producer's rebuttal if the were defending their usage of the NCAHF specifically. Certainly they would mention the organization by name. Or, I would even accept a quote from their rebuttal defending the ACA's claim that they mainly used anti-chiropractic sources such as NCAHF (but not necessarily mentioning NCAHF specifically). But what we are using now from their rebuttal has nothing to do with the article. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The producer's rebuttal shows that they consider the ACA's criticism as incorrect and that the producer is defending the position advanced by the NCAHF, hence it is quite relevant on both counts. It would be relevant on the ACA article, the chiropractic article, the PBS article, and certainly on this one. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 02:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It isn't relevant - at least the passage currently being used - because it has nothing to do with the NCAHF. If there is a passage from the rebuttal which defends the NCAHF then that would make sense here. But what is here now is irrelevant. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 07:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

NCAHF article: chiro criticism of PBS
Levine2112 objects to this version in the NCAHF article:


 * The American Chiropractic Association (ACA) criticised the NCAHF for its involvement in the PBS broadcast of a 2002 episode on chiropractic. Daryl D. Wills, D.C.(ACA president) responded to PBS officials stating (in part): "I find it ironic that a program titled 'Scientific American Frontiers' would completely ignore the scientific foundation of the chiropractic profession. The chiropractic portion of the June 4 episode titled 'A Different Way to Heal?' irresponsibly characterized chiropractic care -- a legitimate, research-based form of health care -- as a fraudulent hoax." and that "[t]he producers of your program could not have expected objectivity" from the NCAHF. The producer of the program replied in detail and explicitly denied these allegations: "The segment did not claim that chiropractic is fraudulent and did not attempt to prove or disprove that chiropractic "works," but it does state that chiropractic has no basis in science. This conclusion is entirely justified by both current research and generally accepted views of human anatomy."

My attempt to create a version that doesn't swamp the whole article with the many criticisms and their very successful rebuttals, but still allows readers to read the sources for themselves:


 * In 2002, the president of the NCAHF was one of the participants in a PBS broadcast of Scientific American Frontiers  that was critical of chiropractic. The American Chiropractic Association (ACA) wrote to PBS and criticized PBS for the views presented in the show and complained about the use of the NCAHF. Both the producer of the show and the NCAHF  responded to the criticisms with rebuttals.

I hope that this version is sufficiently NPOV and still provides pretty complete coverage of the situation, leaving it up to the readers to read the gory details if they wish to do so. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 15:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Almost there, but we need to say what the complaint was (and hence the criticism of NCAHF - this is for the criticism section of the NCAHF article after all):


 * In 2002, the president of the NCAHF was one of the participants in a PBS broadcast of Scientific American Frontiers that was critical of chiropractic. In a letter to PBS, the American Chiropractic Association (ACA) criticized them for the views presented in the show and for the show producer's use of the NCAHF, which the ACA described as lacking objectivity in terms of chiropractic. Both the producer of the show and the NCAHF responded to the criticisms with rebuttals.


 * Does that seem reasonable? -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 16:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I can buy that. Give it a couple hours for others to comment. If no serious objections are forthcoming, place it in the article. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 16:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * OK with me. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that having 6 citations in the paragraph, 3 to PBS, one to the show producer, 2 to the NCAHF, and 0 to the views of the Chiropractic Association, is unbalanced coverage of the dispute. Wanderer57 17:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Good call Wanderer. The lack of a direct link to the ACA letter was a definite mistake. Include it, but keep all the rest as it provides complete coverage. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 18:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That seems like a reasonable point. I have added a ref to the ACA letter (taking away the NCAHF version with their commentary). I also took away additional links to the PBS program and just kept the one to the actual Watch Online page. Let me know if that is satisfactory to you Wanderer57. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 17:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I think it would be a good idea to post your proposed revised version here (so I and the others in this conversation can see the references in context.)  Wanderer57 17:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed version
In 2002, the president of the NCAHF was one of the participants in a PBS broadcast of Scientific American Frontiers that was critical of chiropractic. In a letter to PBS, the American Chiropractic Association (ACA) criticized them for the views presented in the show and for the show producer's use of the NCAHF, which the ACA described as lacking objectivity in terms of chiropractic. Both the producer of the show and the NCAHF responded to the criticisms with rebuttals.

Please let us know if there are any other changes which you would like to see before we implement this. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 17:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The lack of a direct link to the ACA letter was a definite mistake. Include it, but keep all the rest as it provides complete coverage. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 18:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The links provided should be sufficient. We have the actual program, the ACA letter to PBS, PBS's response, and the NCAHF's (Baratz's) response. Anything more and I agree with Wanderer above - we shift towards unbalanced coverage. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 18:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. Not that we need to include them (because they don't deal with the NCAHF specifically) but I did find follow up letters to PBS from the ACA. I don't know whatever came of this though. and . One of the letters linked to here reveals that the PBS show was sponsored by a major pharmaceutical company. Interesting. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss  18:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * (I hate it when something I agree with is edited significantly afterwards.) Looks OK.  Actual program, ACA letter to PBS, PBS response, and NCAHF (Baratz) response.  Although some consider NCAHF to be Barrett to be his (Barrett's) reponse doesn't seem to be necessary in addition.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Sorry for the edit, but we are trying to please everyone. In terms of Barrett, know that Baratz was the representative from NCAHF involved with the PBS show. (I think Wallace Sampson is also involved with NCAHF.) Anyhow, Baratz's response is being hosted on Barrett's ChiroBase site and not his NCAHF site. I am not sure if Baratz is part of ChiroBase too or if they are all apples from the same tree or what. So many sites on Barrett's network so it is often difficult to discern who is being represented where. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 18:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If this ref is included I'll be satisfied. It is to the whole segment, not just the video. Here's how it would look (and I've given the ACA ref a name):


 * In 2002, the president of the NCAHF was one of the participants in a PBS broadcast of Scientific American Frontiers that was critical of chiropractic. In a letter to PBS, the American Chiropractic Association (ACA) criticized them for the views presented in the show and for the show producer's use of the NCAHF, which the ACA described as lacking objectivity in terms of chiropractic. Both the producer of the show and the NCAHF responded to the criticisms with rebuttals.

How's that version? -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 19:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem with that ref is that it doesn't make any mention of the article subject - NCAHF. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 19:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I actually think as an alternative, it would be better to use ref 11 in place of the video ref. Ref 11 talks about Baratz and NCAHF. Sound reasonable? -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 19:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The edited version sounds good to me. Adam Cuerden talk 19:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The NCAHF doesn't need to be referred to in each link dealing with the same subject and conflict since the ACA complaint was primarily against PBS and the whole show, and only peripherally against the NCAHF. It's one package deal and for readers to really understand what was going on it needs to all be referenced. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 19:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course it has to be referred to. What article are we editing here? If the ACA's complaint in only peripherally against the NCAHF, then we should set the stage but then only include the ACA's criticism on NCAHF specifically:


 * (this is quick and poorly written, but states the essentials of what needs to be said) PBS produced a show in which a representative of the NCAHF spoke badly about chiropractic. The ACA sent a letter of complaint to PBS which included criticism of NCAHF, describing the organization as lacking objectivity in terms of chiropractic, etc.


 * Everything else technically is peripheral to this article. Yes? -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 22:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I’m with Arthur Rubin on this – once I agree with something, why would anyone change it. ;o)

Getting “balance” in a paragraph such as this is complicated as there are at least three considerations. 1) the actual wording of the paragraph. 2) the number of references given for different points of view. 3) the nature and quality of the material in the references.

1) actual wording is relevant so the paragraph itself is not “slanted” one way or another. Many readers will only read the paragraph.

The above paragraph closes with “responded to the criticisms with rebuttals”. This discounts the ACA criticism since the closing thought is that it was “rebutted”.

The word “rebuttals” is itself a problem. Rebut has two meanings: to claim or to prove that an accusation is false. We might intend it in the first sense, but “rebuttals” can equally well be taken to mean that the producer and the NCAHF demolished the ACA criticism.

2) the number of references. For some people, a statement supported by 3 references is more convincing than a statement with one (whether or not the references are looked at.)

I haven't followed all the above discussion of references, but I think the number of references used is relevant.

3) the nature and quality of the references. For example, to me the ACA letter reads as at least somewhat factual and it is supported by references.  The Baratz letter (again, IMHO) takes the low road.  It is prefaced with a paragraph with the assertion: “chiropractic's basic theory is nonsense”.  It reprints the ACA letter and selectively responds (in red for emphasis, I suppose) to the points Baratz found easiest to attack.  It uses inflammatory words such as scams, absurd, senseless, unethical, preposterous, catastrophic, without supporting them.  It gives no references.  I think this means Baratz is a better propagandist.  I realize we have to use the material at hand.

How about this:

In 2002, the president of the NCAHF was one of the participants in a PBS broadcast of Scientific American Frontiers that was critical of chiropractic. In a letter to PBS, the American Chiropractic Association (ACA) criticized them for the views presented in the show and for the show producer's use of the NCAHF, "admitted chiropractic antagonists", as "expert" health care sources. The producer of the show and the NCAHF replied to this criticism.

Wanderer57 20:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean about using the word "rebutted". The PBS and NCAHF responses do rebutt it well, pointing out factual errors and false statements, but we need to keep it neutral, so just ending with "responded to the criticisms" should do the job. The other wording changes open a can of worms by introducing statements that require rebuttal to maintain balance. What we have done is simply state that there was a disagreement and provided the sources so readers can investigate and decide for themselves. The removal of the PBS reference is unnecessary, as it also provides important context.


 * Basically the only change needed is to the ending, as mentioned above. Another good call by Wanderer57.


 * Baratz' response is a quick treatment that assumes some knowledge of the scientific literature and of skeptical literature, hence he doesn't write a dissertation on each point. They already exist in abundance. Such debates are often quite polemical and terse....;-) Just for your information, he has three legitimate doctorates (MD, PhD, DDS) and sometimes has little patience in such debates, but if someone has serious questions he can quickly write pages of detailed and very informative material that is easily understandable to the layman. Also keep in mind who he was writing to. He knows the ACA president is familiar with these things, even if he doesn't agree. The PBS response backs up Baratz' conclusions regarding the key disagreement - that the foundational vertebral subluxation theory is nonsensical, unproven, and not accepted by mainstream medicine at all. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 21:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's not turn this into a who-is-right-and-who-is-wrong discussion on the article. All we are trying to do is present some criticism of the article topic (NCAHF). As I mention above, all we should do here is set the stage but then only include the ACA's criticism on NCAHF specifically:


 * (this is quick and poorly written, but states the essentials of what needs to be said) PBS produced a show in which a representative of the NCAHF spoke badly about chiropractic. The ACA sent a letter of complaint to PBS which included criticism of NCAHF, describing the organization as lacking objectivity in terms of chiropractic, etc.


 * Clearly this could be better written, but we'll work on the prose once we hammer down what needs to be included here and what is only tangential. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 22:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Fyslee, thank you for your kind words about my input.


 * Personally, I didn't think much of the PBS response either, but didn't mention that in the interest of brevity. Our views on the merits of the ACA, show producers, and NCAHF positions are probably irrelevant to the article under the OR rule.


 * I would like to pick up on Fyslee's last point: "the foundational vertebral subluxation theory is nonsensical, unproven, and not accepted by mainstream medicine at all".  Without disagreeing with that statement, I think subluxation theory is used regularly as a straw man for attacks on modern chiropractic, not all of which depends on that theory.  I would be interested in people's thoughts on this specific point. Wanderer57 22:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think that this is the right forum for such a discussion. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 22:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you are right on this forum business. I asked out of personal interest, not because it affects this article.  I'll move the question to my talk page and hope to have answers follow.  User talk:Wanderer57


 * Wanderer57 23:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Levine. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 02:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not certain whether you mean agree WRT the paragraph under discussion or WRT my question being in the wrong forum. I agree with Levine in regard to both of these.

In the words of W. S. Gilbert: "Never knew such unanimity on a point of law in my life!" ;o)

How is this:

In 2002, the president of the NCAHF was one of the participants in a PBS broadcast of Scientific American Frontiers that was critical of chiropractic. In a letter to PBS, the American Chiropractic Association (ACA) criticized them for the views presented in the show and for the show producer's use of the NCAHF, which the ACA described as lacking objectivity. The producer of the show and the NCAHF replied to this criticism.

As I noted above, I didn't follow all the discussion of references. Please check the coding of references. Thanks. Wanderer57 03:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I was agreeing that this was the wrong forum. While it would be a logical continuation of the subject we were touching on, since this is Wikipedia and not a normal discussion list we just have to stick to the topic at hand (NCAHF) without wandering too far off base, and that one could have led us on a long, wild, and very interesting goose chase.-- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 04:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

US-based organization registered in California
We had a reference for this, but I can't find it. Perhaps it didn't get archived? --Ronz (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Some question about the format or method of using this information in the lead has been questioned on my talk page. I tend to agree. I suggest we reword it slightly by taking a few words and putting them in the refs, instead of in the lead. That way no information is lost. It just isn't important enough to have in the lead and it reads awkwardly. I'll take a shot at it here:


 * The National Council Against Health Fraud describes itself as a "private nonprofit, voluntary health agency that focuses upon health misinformation, fraud, and quackery as public health problems."  The NCAHF and its co-founder Stephen Barrett have occasionally litigated against practitioners of alternative medicine and producers of products they believe to be in violation of the organization's governing principles. The litigation has had mixed results.


 * I hope this version reads better. All the information and references have been preserved. I have removed the word "whom" as ungrammatical and unnecessary. What think ye? -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 04:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've tweaked the lead for a better wikilink for the 501 status, and placed in the ref tag that log-in to Guidestar is required. I think a better first sentence could be:


 * The National Council Against Health Fraud is a private, nonprofit health agency staffed by volunteers, whose goal is to identify, discuss and debunk practices that it considers health-related quackery, misinformation and fraud.


 * I like this sentece better because a) it avoids a quote, b) rather than saying it 'describes itself' (which invites the reader to think the description is not accurate), it places emphasis on the perceptions of the agency guiding the targetting of it's efforts. Otherwise it reads like the agency says it does one thing, while doing another.  I would guess that it's more a factor of the agency genuinely attempting to do good, while opposing and being opposed by groups who disagree with their analysis and goals.  I also personally prefer the references in the body, where they can be discussed or elaborated on if need be, rather than the lead.  WLU (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Guidestar ref
Registering is easy and free, and reveals the following information:

NATIONAL COUNCIL AGAINST HEALTH FRAUD INC

119 FOSTER ST BLDG R 2ND FLR

PEABODY, MA 01960

GENERAL INFORMATION

Who We Are

PUBLIC CONSUMER HEALTH EDUCATION


 * This organization is a 501(c)(3) Public Charity.


 * This organization is not required to file an annual return with the IRS because its income is less than $25,000.


 * Contributions are deductible, as provided by law.

NTEE Code

W90—Consumer Protection and Safety Source -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 04:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

PBS
Regarding this edit - there really isn't much to discuss. The material removed is not about NCAHF (the subject of this article). Any objections to re-removing it? -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 01:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the entire section should be removed, but it doesn't seem that Chirobase accusing NCAHF makes sense without context. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually it was the ACA criticizing the NCAHF for its involvement in a PBS show. (Chirobase has nothing to do with this other than that it is just another arm of NCAHF and thus the self-published source being used here.) What doesn't make sense is including information unrelated to NCAHF. For instance, what we are quoting of PBS's reply says nothing about NCAHF. So why use it? -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 03:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I read that it's about the ACA criticising PBS about something attributed to the NCAHF. So yes, while it isn't about the NCAHF, it merely expands on what the ACA is commenting on what appeared on PBS wrt the subject of the article.   The bit that should change is the "The American Chiropractic Association (ACA) criticised the NCAHF for its involvement in the PBS broadcast of a 2002 episode on chiropractic" which is inaccurate.  It should read "The American Chiropractic Association (ACA) criticised the PBS broadcast of a 2002 episode on chiropractic in which NCAHF was involved".  Mind you, it's probably a long stretch for inclusion, but I don't personally mind the criticism (as poor as it is) staying in.  Shot info (talk) 04:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Shot info has a good point about rewording it. Another factor is that we have always had problems with finding criticism that wasn't frivolous, totally way off base, just plain hatred, or otherwise unusable. Here we do have a criticism from a very notable and major player, one which has been the victim of criticism (chiropractic is often criticized by skeptics, including the NCAHF) from the NCAHF, and it is an example of where the ACA got a chance to voice its irritation with the NCAHF, one of its myriad notable critics. (It has criticized the NCAHF many times.) It looks like a prime example of the type of criticism that this notable source makes about the NCAHF. It just needs rewording and then let's keep it as is. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that Shot info is correct about the rewording. However, the second half and the response from PBS still have nothing to do with NCAHF and thus should be excluded. (Just as the information I removed here had nothing to do with NCAHF.) -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 05:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably should stay in for context, otherwise it just doesn't make a terrible lot of sense to include any of it really. Shot info (talk) 10:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it will make sense if we word it properly, plus it will trim off a lot of the unrelated fat. I'll give it a try and you let me know if it makes sense to you. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 21:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It makes sense with the added context. The response is part of the context. QuackGuru (talk) 22:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

My main concern here is that the criticism which ACA offers about NCAHF is that they lack objectivity in terms of chiropractic. However, the portion of the response from the PBS producer says nothing about NCAHF, much less defends NCAHF's objectivity.


 * "The segment did not claim that chiropractic is fraudulent and did not attempt to prove or disprove that chiropractic "works," but it does state that chiropractic has no basis in science. This conclusion is entirely justified by both current research and generally accepted views of human anatomy."

It would be one thing if the producer defended NCAHF's objectivity. But he did not - at least not in the portion which we are quoting. This is an article about NCAHF. Not about chiropractic. Not about PBS. And not about the Scientific Frontiers tv program. Should we not limit this to be about NCAHF specifically? -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 22:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be one thing if the attack on the PBS program really had something to do with NCAHF. There's no evidence that NCAHF actually had something to do with the part of the program that was attacked, or that the Chiropractic group cared whether they had something to do with.  If we're going to treat the criticism as having substance, the question of whether the substance has reality is relevant, and the producer's comment relates to that.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's why I am suggesting that the only relevant substance to the ACA's criticism is that for their program, PBS shouldn't have expected objectivity from NCAHF with regards to chiropractic. Honestly, that's all we have to include in this article. That's the only portion of it that directly relates to NCAHF. Essentially, the ACA has made the criticism that the NCAHF lacks objetivity. That's really all we have to say here. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 22:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As an aside, "I read that it's about the ACA criticising PBS about something attributed to the NCAHF" seems to be incorrect. It's about the ACA criticising PBS about something which ACA attributed to the NCAHF, which is something completely different.  NCAHF was not specifically credited for that section of the program....  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * NCAHF was involved in the PBS program. The National Council Against Health Fraud also responded to the criticism. The additional context is related. QuackGuru (talk) 22:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, QG. To me that makes sense. Let's say that ACA criticized NCAHF for lacking objectivity (in context of the PBS program) and then include NCAHF direct response to said criticism:
 * The National Council Against Health Fraud is a consumer protection group which tries to provide reliable information on health care methods and practices. NCAHF is not a group of "chiropractic antagonists." We are skeptics whose views are based on scientific evidence. Our position paper on chiropractic acknowledges that appropriate chiropractic care can be helpful. But it also notes that chiropractic's basic theory is absurd and that many things chiropractors do are senseless.
 * This is in response to the ACA full criticism of NCAHF which reads:
 * I am also disappointed that you chose a group of admitted chiropractic antagonists, representatives of the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF), as your "expert" health care sources. The NCAHF Web site describes chiropractic as "America's homegrown health care cult." The producers of your program could not have expected objectivity from this organization. And as a viewer of public television, I expect more reliable information than what the program offered.
 * I guess I feel that PBS's response is not germane unless they were defending their use of NCAHF in association with their program. Make sense? -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 23:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If editors feel that PBS's response is not germane then the attack by the AMA against PBS would also not be germane. We should include both sides of the story or we should remove that entire paragraph. QuackGuru (talk) 05:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The AMA?! :-) I think you meant the ACA. Anyhow, yes, you are right, we should limit this to be just the ACA's criticism of the NCAHF (lack of objectivity, chiropractic antagonists) and NCAHF response to this ciriticism (not chiropractic antagonists, scientific skeptics). Sound fair? -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 08:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * When the ACA made the mistake of criticizing PBS and the NCAHF members (and a NACM member) who were involved in the program, it opened the door for the rebuttals to be aired. Actually we are only airing the PBS and NCAHF response, but there was no other response by the NACM that I know of, other than Badanes' comments on the page devoted to him at PBS, which is an interesting read. It's really rather simple. All sides get to be heard. If the ACA hadn't criticized, and even falsely criticized at that(!), there would be no justification for airing the rebuttals. It's a package deal, as any judge would say. When caught lying, the ACA stuck it's neck out too far to be ignored, and PBS nailed them on it.


 * To QuackGuru, be careful what you say ("or we should remove that entire paragraph"), or you risk getting taken at your word ;-) Given the option of telling the whole truth or no truth, a certain editor will usually opt for no truth if it keeps chiropractic from being mentoned in a negative light. That's borne out by that editor's editing history at Wikipedia. Stick to your first part ("we should include both sides of the story"), as I'm sure you and the rest of us would prefer. You are entirely correct that the rebuttals are legitimate content. -- Fyslee (talk) 09:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That seemed a bit rude for no reason, Fyslee. Please reword for civility.
 * Which bits exactly? I personally don't have a problem with Fyslee's edit for civility. But then again, I don't have a thin skin?  Shot info (talk) 01:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * On your substantive point - this article isn't about PBS, Chiropractic, the ACA, of Scientific Frontiers. It is only appropriate to include information which pertains directly to the subject of this article: NCAHF. This is why I am suggesting we only include the portion of the ACA's criticism which deals directly with the NCAHF. And only include rebuttals which directly defend/deal with the NCAHF. Everything else is extraneous. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 14:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

←All the information is relevant as providing information in part or out of context can be misleading. In this case I agree with Fyslee, et al. It is not extraneous, it is relevant and gives the complete picture. Verbal  chat  14:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)