Talk:National Council Against Health Fraud/Archive 6

Concerns
Using with primary sources does not pass weight. Do not restore with primary sources so many sections about a non-notable subject. Using primary sources that do not show WP:WEIGHT could be construed as WP:LIBEL. QuackGuru (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I share the concern over the sourcing here. We should not be sourcing material on lawsuits solely to court records. If these lawsuits are truly notable on an encyclopedic level, then we should be able to find some independent, secondary-source coverage of them. If such coverage doesn't exist, then a logical conclusion would be that these lawsuits just aren't that notable. If no reputable, independent sources have bothered to cover the suits, then why should we? And dynamicchiropractic.com is not an appropriate encyclopedic source, so let's put that aside. MastCell Talk 18:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:V: While primary sources are normally welcome, there are dangers in relying on them.
 * WP:PSTS: All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source,

wp policies say those should not be used when they can be misinterpreted. they can be used when they are about the source itself, as well as when they are clear and reliable. court decisions are both clear and reliable, furthermore, it is also written about on the organization founder's site. 188.2.165.138 (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * if court related info is removed, i suggest also removing all other information sourced solely from non-independent sources: quackwatch and ncahf sites. 188.2.165.138 (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you're missing a couple of key points that inform the policy. The problem with citing a court record is that we, as editors, have to select what to emphasize. Two editors could look at the same court record and produce sourced content that is diametrically opposite in import. We as editors should not be in the business of parsing court judgments, deciding what we think is important, and then highlighting it. The job of parsing primary sources should be done by independent, reliable secondary sources, not by us. WP:PSTS warns against basing material solely on primary sources, and as best I can tell, the "lawsuits" section is based entirely on primary sources. As to the second part of your comment, there is a clear distinction between what organizations have to say about themselves vs. what they have to say about others. Self-published material is acceptable, with certain caveats, in articles about the organization in question. Thus, I don't think your backup plan of claiming equivalence between dynamicchiropractic.com and the NCAHF is going to fly on a policy level, as far as this article is concerned. MastCell Talk 19:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * here you have a summary of the court decision so wikipedia editors don't need to make selections. 188.2.165.138 (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * this is a double standard, there are several sections talking about other organizations/people that are based solely on primary sources of ncahf site! they should also be removed per above reasoning. 188.2.165.138 (talk) 20:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No, the article must document the positions of the NCAHF. That's what's being done. BTW, create an account and edit only from it. Hopping from one IP to another isn't a good thing here. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the article should document notable positions of the NCAHF that have received attention in secondary sources. the article should not document libelous positions which have not received mention elsewhere. Notability of XYZ does not imply every statement by them should find its way into wikipedia. also, i see that my contribution here is a very good thing. (also, i can find no word hopping here) 188.2.172.107 (talk) 01:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * @IP: I think you're a little confused. Court documents are primary sources. The NCAHF website is a secondary source. It's not necessarily a good secondary source for articles in general, but it arguably has a place in this particular article, which is about the NCAHF.

MastCell Talk 23:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * in some instances in this article NCAHF is a primary source, not secondary. 188.2.172.107 (talk) 01:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Ocaasi's response to MastCell, QG
MastCell, you removed the lawsuit information with this edit, and requested secondary sources to back up the narrative. I provided two sources, one from the NCAHF and the other from Dynamic Chiropractic. That change was reverted on additional Weight and Libel grounds. So, the issues.


 * Is primary sourcing from US court rulings sufficient for factual details about a lawsuit?

Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care...Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source...A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. The narrative which you requested support for is pulled directly from the court documents. You are using a very broad definition of 'interpretation' to include any selective summary or excerpting.

Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. No such claims are made, only paraphrasing of the judge's ruling which includes an authoritative and presumably reliable timeline of events, as well as the judge's verdict and reasoning itself. There are were no synthetic claims or interpretation, and the 'explanatory', 'evaluative' aspects came from the Judge's mouth, not ours.

Do not base articles entirely on primary sources. These two lawsuits are respectively supported by the secondary sources mentioned in this thread.

I would hope so. Which means the first lawsuit can stay as it was.
 * Is the NCAHF a reliable secondary source for reporting its own lawsuits?

Dynamic Chiropractic is a trade journal with a long history of publication. Various conversations have given it consideration for being reliable as a source for news related to Chiropractic but not necessarily for other situations or subjects. (see: RSN 52, RSN 53, Mediation 2007)
 * Is Dynamic Chiropractic a reliable secondary source for covering lawsuits in its subject area?

Assuming we can get past the mere corroboration of Primary sourcing, there is a question of whether the secondary RS's merit Weight sufficient for inclusion. First off, there is a continuum here, and a smaller mention may be appropriate rather than a large one or none at all. Second, the NCAHF is engaged prominently in litigation. While RS's should pick up on this, it seems almost inherently related to the subject's domain.
 * Are there other relevant sources? Are the RSs sufficient to merit inclusion per Weight, with either basic or more comprehensive description?

It would be easy to show that NCAHF lawsuits have been discussed extensively in Chiropractic and Alt.Med circles, and this would require merely a collection of website, blog posts, and trade articles. The case also received attention for its contribution to legal precedent.

Comments

 * I don't really care if the cases have been "discussed" on various websites that self-evidently fail WP:RS. Moreoever, some of your links are outright WP:BLP violations, which isn't helping your case. Can you restrict yourself to independent, reliable sources? It will make the discussion much more useful. There's no point in discussing patently unreliable sources, and the volume of such sources that you've cited above makes me question your understanding of this site's sourcing requirements. MastCell Talk 23:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The websites establish at least that the King Bio case received significant attention among the chiropractic/naturalhealth/health freedom community. Additionally, the legal discussion listed show that the King Bio case had significance beyond the single lawsuit which was noted in legal commentary and subsequent rulings.  You can question whatever you like, and remove links that are BLP violations.  My point was: do none of those sources listed provide necessary corroboration to use the reliable court documents; do none of those sources establish notability which would justify some Weight in the article for a mention of the cases? Ocaasi (talk) 23:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me turn your question around (the right way around, from my perspective). Which of those sources do you think meet this site's sourcing requirements, as spelled out in WP:V, WP:RS, and (as applicable) WP:BLP? MastCell Talk 02:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * MastCell, you asked for more sources, and I attempted to provide two of them. You declared them insufficient, so I offered eight more.  You have called all of these self-evidently unreliable and now want me to assert which ones meet the policy.  I'm about to discuss how I think they satisfy the concerns raised, but I would first ask, have you read them?  They are not all independent, but I think the majority of them are reliable enough in this context, at least in concert with the official court rulings.


 * There are different issues here which the sources must meet. First of all, the official US District and Appellate court rulings can be considered reliable, although they are primary sources in instances where they explain legal findings (as opposed to providing history, in which case they are secondary sources).  Where the Court documents merely addresses the timeline of events and provide a rote index of prior or current findings, I consider it primary and reliable.


 * The initial bar for the secondary sources is corroboration of the court's narrative and its verbatim ruling. I consider sources (1), (2), (3), (6) and (8) sufficient to do so.  Second is to determine which aspects of the narrative are notable enough to include.  I consider sources (2), (6), (7), (8), (9), and (10) to variously emphasize the significant aspects of the ruling.  Third is to determine whether this case has established sufficient Weight for inclusion in the article.  I consider sources 1-6 sufficient to note that the case received attention in natural health/health freedom circles.  I consider (8), (9), and (10) particularly relevant to note the lawsuit's legal significance as part of case law.  I consider (10) particularly noteworthy, since it involves a Quackwatch discussion of the impact which the case had on the burden of proof and subsequent lawsuits from consumer advocates.


 * Finally, there is the issue of BLP violations, and though this case involves a living person, as many civil suits inevitably do, I don't find the specific findings of the court to be primarily concerned with any individual. The plaintiff is the NCAHF, and I have no problem excluding specific mention of Barrett in his capacity as an expert witness, although the NCAHF as plaintiff is presumably not considered a 'living person' in this instance.  Whether citing a US District or Appellate court ruling which renders a specific finding about a public figure, expert witness, or legal claimant is prohibited by BLP under 'misuse of primary sources' is something I'm looking into further.  My hunch is that Judicial Decisions are not considered mere 'court documents' like trial transcripts; they set precedent, have the weight of law, and are reliable when used not to assert (John is an x) but to verify (The court ruled that John is an x). Ocaasi (talk) 05:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Ocaasi, I see you've done quite a bit of footwork here and commend you for it. It's not always easy gathering evidence and references! I am wondering about one source you use, one which we have always thrown out as unreliable, and that is Hulda Clark's attorney Carlos Negrete's website www.healthfreedomlaw.com/. I'm rather surprised it hasn't been blacklisted, but apparently not. Can you find that court document on a neutral website? Negrete isn't one who can be trusted, as can be seen from the way his website's information is presented. It's very twisted and one sided. If it were sourced to a neutral website, that would be one less argument against using that document, and I'm sure you'd like to disarm as many objections as possible. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * BullRangifer, I appreciate the response to the sources. I did make an effort to provide them, though I see that not all of them are equally reliable.  As for Negrete, he was, as you may know, a participant on the Defendant's side in the King Bio case.  Similarly, I listed court documents hosted at NCAHF.com and QuackWatch.com.  Not to equivocate (I see neither as independent, though the latter two may be considered more reliable for Wikipedia's purposes), but I should probably find unrelated hosts for all of the legal documents.  I just want to be clear, you object to a link to the court document itself with no interpretation if it is hosted on a partisan site (or an unreliable partisan site, etc.)? Ocaasi (talk) 01:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm just trying to ensure that no objections can be raised over linking to a website with known issues related to honesty. He is known to host documents and court cases favoring his clients, placing them very prominently, documents that have later been superseded by court cases that overturned them, and not showing those cases because the final outcome no longer favored his clients. All those documents are real court cases, but his way of featuring them is deceptive. That's why it would be preferable to find a neutral source for the documents. Those who use our link to go to his site would be exposed to this type of unreliable use of otherwise legitimate documents and the associated propaganda one finds there. So far his website has been judged unreliable here, IIRC. I'm not saying using his site in this case would be a problem, but it could be. That's all. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. I'll try and resist a similar criticism of QuackWatch here, but I see what you're saying about Negrete.  He is partisan here, and though I can't confirm his misuse of court documents, it's not really necessary.  If we can find neutral, uninvolved sites which host the rulings that's much easier.  I'll look; if you see one, go ahead and change the link.  Ocaasi (talk) 10:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

QuackGuru's response re:WP:BLP

 * Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material

Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to comply with Verifiability. Note: although the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on the exemption.

Administrators may enforce the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection or blocking the violator(s), even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved. In less clear cases they should request the attention of an uninvolved administrator at Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents.


 * Misuse of primary sources

Exercise caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies. QuackGuru (talk) 22:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * QG, would you identify which specific claims were either BLP violations or 'libelous'. As you know, BLP does not exclude accurate and verifiable claims about living people, only un-reliably sourced (and especially un-reliably sourced negative) information. {comment removed by author} WP:Libel should only be brought up if you are going to seek legal action through the Foundation.  Do you intend to pursue such a claim? Ocaasi (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What part of "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." do you not understand? — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I like how Ocaasi is starting up the whole "are you Stephen Barrett" meme again :-) [psst Ocaasi, note the key word - again, your not the first to try this silliness on for size :-)] Shot info (talk) 00:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * @Arthur, re: the NCAHF v. King Bio. I listed several sources above that show the case received attention among natural health circles as well as in legal commentary and subsequent rulings. Do you think that none of those secondary sources qualifies to corroborate and establish notability for the court cases?  Just because there can be libel doesn't mean there is in this case, and just because court documents have been used to support unfounded assertions about a living person does not mean they are being so in this case.  I'm willing to revise the case descriptions so that they are less detailed in certain areas, however, I don't see how the official ruling of the court, commented on and summarized by a variety of secondary sources results in a 'don't touch this' conclusion.  Is it possible that you don't favor the particular finding of the case? Ocaasi (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * @Shot info. {comment removed by author} After [QuackGuru's] repeated warnings about BLP violations and Libel, I asked him if he had personal involvement in this area.  That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.  What bothers you about it? Ocaasi (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually it is a tactic and it's something that editors shouldn't do to other editors. I note that editors aren't questioning your position in real life.  Who cares about their motives?  The reason why I point it out is a friendly reminder that the last time editor(s) tried your "tactic" on for size, they had their editing privleges removed.  You might like to remember this rather than trying on your "he's going to sue me" defence at AN/I too (BTW).  Why does it bother me - because it does, just like it bothers you that somebody may (or may not be) Stephen Barrett.  Shot info (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't care about anyone's motives unless it biases their editing and leads them to do things which are against policy or which disrupt the editing environment. Trying to reasonably ascertain if editors have a COI which would bias a specific editing behavior is not a tactic.  Since QG's Libel accusation struck me as particularly off-base, I inquired if he had a closer connection to this case that would help explain his overt concern.  If an editor wants to ask me a question about my COI or particular affiliation with an individual or organization, they are free to do so, as a way to clarify a discussion not as a way to curtail it.


 * I have engaged with QG in a variety of fora and never questioned his background until he raised the spectre of libel. As WP:LEGAL clearly explains, legal threats are serious and using legal language in a normal conversation makes editing much more loaded and contentious than necessary.  BLP violations are a reasonable concern, but libel is an actual crime.  If QG wants to raise that issue, I have full right to ask him whether he intends to pursue it formally.  I never said QG was going to sue me; I said that he was suggesting I not edit the article with the implied threat that doing so would result in either legal or administrative consequences.  Would you not respond similarly to find out which was intended, and if either was justified?


 * Would you please identify the editor who had their privileges removed for asking if someone had a conflict of interest? I don't take your insinuation lightly either, that my question is breaching policy.  If you think it does, please explain why so that I can understand the specific issue. Ocaasi (talk) 01:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Given that your whole LIBEL argument has all but collapsed over at AN/I (save for Griswaldo egging you on), I'm not going to bother with that furphy; but your last paragraph reads of somebody who is too busy to understand the function of the archives ? Can I recommend that you do so to save your efforts being reverted without comment by editors who have been there/done that?  And the answer is "no" to whatever question you will now ask - the archives are thataway... Shot info (talk) 01:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Shot info, I'm not sure what you're getting at here.  The AN/I had editors suggest that Libel claims should be handled through the foundation, that Libel was mentioned but not alleged, and that the issue be moved to BLP/N if necessary.  If you are going to suggest someone is at risk of losing their account over asking a COI question as you say happened before, it seems that providing a link or a diff is about commensurate with that.  If you don't want to do so, that's up to you.  Otherwise, the relevant sources are in the above section, and I think this general thread about editors rather than sources has been misdirected.  So, do you think there's a BLP issue here?  j/k.Ocaasi (talk) 02:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * All the answers to your questions... Shot info (talk) 02:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Take this question to the BLP/N. This current discussion strikes me as completely unproductive, and unnecessarily aggressive.Griswaldo (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

notability
if links from ncahf and quackwatch are removed, as well as 'useful links' listings, this areticle is left with almost no reliable source that would warrant its notability, and therefore justify inclusion here. 188.2.48.67 (talk) 17:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Your removal of sourcing has been reverted. We're trying to build an encyclopedia here, not destroy it. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * i won't comment on your nonsense. anyhow, notability question still remains. previous discussion gave unsatisfactory answer "Because of it's association with Quackwatch and Stephen Barrett." Association with notable subject or person doesn't make it notable. 188.2.48.67 (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Truth be told - I kinda agree with the IP Shot info (talk) 06:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Shot info, do a Google books search, loads of references to this organisation. Dougweller (talk) 13:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * thanks for that note - those seem like real references, and should be used instead of 'useful links' and others. :) cheers 188.2.49.99 (talk) 17:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)