Talk:Quackery/Archive 1

definition
Quackery has existed all throughout human history, and probably pre-dates the emergence of effective medicine.

I don't think you can have quackery without effective medicine. It seems to me that quackery is not merely useless but also presented as an alternative to something that actually works. When the mainstream witch doctor offers me willowbark tea for pain and the alternative witch doctor says I should turn around three times and spit, the alternative witch doctor is a quack. When the only witch doctor tells me to turn around three times and spit, he isn't -- although sooner or later someone's going to try those willows. --Calieber 16:24, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I second Calieber's opinion. -- Khym Chanur 09:17, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

Absolutely. Refer to 'history of medicine.'

POV
The terms "quack" and "quackery" seem rather informal and pejoritive to me, thus making a "Quckery" article POV. Also, there seems to be a great deal of overlap between what is described in the article, and alternative medicine. If there is a difference between quackery and alternative medicine, it should be described clearly at the begining of the article. -- Khym Chanur 09:17, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)
 * This article bothers me too, for reasons I can't quite put my finger on. -- Viajero 10:07, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * There are many articles, such as 'ambulance chaser', that are perjorative, however, they seem to be acceptable for Wikipedia encyclopedic entries.


 * One thing I noticed entirely missing is the other use of the term 'quackery'. It is not just a phrase for overpromising of medicalbenefit, but also a perjorative term used for an incompetent health professional.  jgwlaw 02:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Those making money out of quackery call it alternative medicine; those losing money to alternative medicine call it quackery. :-D


 * I started this article ages ago when I first discovered Wikipedia. It was on the requested articles page and I thought I could write something about it.


 * Quackery implies the quack is ripping off the customer, like the "snake oil sellers" of the past (patent medicine). This article should be about this practice, and the people involved. It's not a discussion of herbal medicines or anything, it's about the scams.


 * EXACTLY!  Quackwatch is hardly the definitive source for a dfinition of quack or quackery.  It is about scams, and scammers, or incompetent medical professionals.jgwlaw 03:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You need to examine Quackwatch more carefully. Many if not most of the scammers and quacks listed there are MDs. It matters not the profession, it's their actions that get them listed there. The definition used there is the best one available, since it doesn't even focus on the thing or action, but the claims made for that thing or action. (See the bottom of this page. ) False claims are the defining factor. --- Fyslee 07:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The first line does say "unproven, ineffective" "to make money", and i'm not really sure whether the distinction to alternative medicine needs to be made. The article no longer implies much connection between the two. It may have been originally (and still be) slightly POV, in terms of what it calls quackery, but that's potentially fixable. Tristanb 11:31, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Well, if it's about scams, then wouldn't the difference between quackery and alternative medicine be that the quack doesn't believe what he practices, while a practicioner of alterative medicine does? If someone selling snake oil actually believes in it, I couldn't consider that a scam.


 * If we made that sort of distinction, then "psychic surgery" would always be quackery, since the "psychic" surgeon has to use sleight of hand, while accupuncture wouldn't be, since most accupuncturists believe in what they're doing. -- Khym Chanur 12:06, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)


 * Well it is a common knowledge that some shamans and healers in other cultures did made those "psychic" surgery and yet did believe in what they were doing. The fact that the recipient of the treatment believes in one thing and the person who applys it know the "truth" does not make the applier a charlatan in the definition above, sometimes the deception is part of the treatment. Even modern medicine does use placebos from time to time, witch implyes the sane trickery, but instead of chicken guts the doctor gives the pacient a real looking pill that contains nothing. Victor Bogado 12:20, Jan 10, 2006


 * Is accupuncture considered quackery? I suppose it has been. Maybe my definition of quackery is wrong/imprecise; "scam" may not have been the best word to use. BTW Is psychic surgery ever not quackery?


 * Is "deceit" a word to use? Are accupuncturists deceiving their clients, even if they believe the process is effective? Deception implies a deliberateness. I should get a dictionary :-) But if deceit can happen without the deceiver knowing it, then that's a word i'd use. Tristanb 00:08, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * &ldquo;Is accupuncture considered quackery?&rdquo;
 * See Quackwatch and Google

"Some studies show up to 80% of people will report an improvement in their condition after taking a sugar pill. " It seems that on a page concerning quackery a reference would be appropriate of such a vauge statement.


 * I have to say, this article troubles me deeply. It is not just POV, it's a diatribe. As User:Khym Chanur said, even the title is a perjorative term. IMO, the article needs to be rewritten from scratch (And I say this as someone who personally shares the sentiments expressed in the article). RMoloney 16:13, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Just like there are pious frauds, there are undoubtedly people who believe they are practicing efficacious medicine but are deluding themselves as well as their patients. Whether that amounts to quackery may be a semantic question: in any event, it is not accurate to label anything the AMA doesn't wholeheartedly endorse as "quackery," any more than it would be accurate to label everything the AMA does a result of conflict of interest.  There appears to be a group of editors who have found a mission in demonizing everything that doesn't fit into their definition of "science."  --Leifern 16:27, May 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm very upset with this article, it is not only very opinionated it is providing a lot of misinformation. For example I was under the impression that Chiropractic care was no longer considered Quackery.  As others have stated I do not believe it is possible for an article on Quackery to be NPOV unless it is written like a dictionary definition and does not seek to label things as Quackeries, seeing as that would be an opinion rather than a fact.  Also, don’t alternative medicine and pseudoscience cover similar topics already?  I was thinking doesn’t the AMA also have a conflict of interest when determining if something is Quackery?  I would like to move for this article to be completely rewritten as RMoloney previously suggested. --Ariad o ss 02:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Just as with any fringe science article, the fact that prevailing scientific opinion holds certain treatments to be ineffective is encyclopedic and not a violation of NPOV. I think the article does an admirable job in presenting history. If you dispute a specific section, perhaps the "See also" section, then perhaps you can label that rather than the entire article. --DocJohnny 04:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

- The definition of quackery suggests that there are con men deliberately deceiving other people. This is often not the case. Generally the quack sincerely believes in his own quackery. But the quack fails apply a scientific method to evaluate his own 'cure' and is very unopen for any suggestion that he may be wrong. Good doctors can believe false things too but they have studied the scientific literature and are open to evidence that they are wrong. Andries

---

Calieber is right, but not quite on the mark. The necessary requirement for the defintion of "quackery" is an established profession, a guild, of physicians or chemists (who sell medicine). The first mentioning of quackery in Swedish law dates back to 1675, and is a protection for the profession of chemists against competition from amateur practitioners of their trade, i.e. from non-members of their guild. The idea that concern for the public health would be a motive for such laws sounds right to the general public and has therefore been a useful argument, but is merely propaganda from members of the trade, who want to regulate against competition. -- LA2, August 25, 2004

Interesting. Dunno if it's so. Several sites are claiming "quack" came from "quacksalver", supposedly the Germanic "quicksilver", back in the time of the battle of the fillings: "quacks" used mercury amalgams, which were not only poisonous but swelled and split teeth (eventually a bit of tin was added to rememdy that). The original quacks? The American Dental Association. (The American Society of Dental Surgeons faded away because their superior fillings were too expensive.)

The present German for mercury is Quecksilber...but spellings change, and the phonetics are the real point.

Orthodoxy holds it comes directly from Dutch, "quacking salver". Perhaps it's a Dutch pun on mercury pedllers - i unnerstan the Dutch love punning - but it makes the ADA/ASDS story less likely.

It'd be nice to confirm or refute the ADA/ASDS part, in any case. 142.177.169.163 00:02, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * The ADA confirms fragments of it:
 * 1833-1850 The Crawcours (two brothers from France) introduce amalgam filling material in the United States under the name Royal Mineral Succedaneum. The brothers are charlatans whose unscrupulous methods spark the "amalgam wars," a bitter controversy within the dental profession over the use of amalgam fillings.
 * 1840 The American Society of Dental Surgeons, the world's first national dental organization, is founded. (The organization dissolves in 1856.)
 * but the two organisations were not contemporary:
 * 1859 Twenty-six dentists meet in Niagara Falls, New York, and form the American Dental Association. 142.177.169.163 00:10, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

''Re. placebo: There is now lots of research targeting at the immune system which can be condtioned, thereby establishing a link between the body and the mind. A link we have known for many years without really knowing how it worked. Eg. mice were given a medium strong poison in a sugar solution upon which they felt strong nausea and lost their fur. Six months later they were given just the sugar solution upon which they reacted likewise. /Sigvard Lingh''
 * I found the above text posted by someone who also deleted the See also section. While this study may be true, I'm not sure it belongs in this article. I'm putting it here in case anyone wants deal with it. -Willmcw 00:23, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

--- I think there may be a misinterpretation of the word 'con' when applied to 'quackery'. 'Con' can be traced to an Indo-European word meaning 'know'. Many 'con men' know the 'cure' is ineffective, but they 'believe' in it, nevertheless. Many 'faith' healers do nothing more than placate or reassure their patients. The 'quack' ministers to the 'sick', but what is offered is known to the quack to have no actual effect on whatever is causing the problems or anxiety. The 'placebo' effect can therefore be detrimental, like suggesting to a patient that he can walk on a broken leg. He may be able to stand and move, but the bone will not mend properly.24.168.232.218 15:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-neutral tone of the article
The article reads like a diatribe against what the author perceives to be "quackery". Whilst I agree with most of the assertions about what is quakery, the tone of the language makes the article seem less informative and more pointlessly emotional.

This article should be rendered into a more encyclopedic language and into a NPOV piece. Evidence of why various things are generally perceived by medical professionals to be quackery would be useful to this end.

However, I must admit my fascination for this topic and that I believe there is potential for something very interesting.

Rintrah 13:58, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. Let's see what we can do. Edwardian 2 July 2005 06:44 (UTC)


 * I agree also. The points made are difficult to contradict (although I believe that a complete lack of bias is impossible for such an inherently opinionated creature as a human) but the manner in which they are phrased implies quite a distinct dislike for so-called "Quackery" (not sure I agree with the use of this word as the main identifier)which is perhaps inappropriate to an encyclopedia. This is especially true of the opening statements, and the "Modern Quackery" part. There is also an implication (although perhaps my own perception is flawed) throughout the article that a victim of such ineffective/alternate medicine is stupid, that it is their own fault- the point that many arguments made by the purveyors of such treatments can be very convincing needs to be enforced. Similarly, although there is an attempt made at giving arguments for the benefits of so-called Quackery it seems somewhat atrophied in comparison to the majority of the article... to me, anyway. Nevethless, I felt that on the whole it was a well-written article- don't allow my comments (mere opinion, after all) to detract from your acheivement! I just felt that the overall tone is more suited to that of an editorial. 7Munkys 11:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I think your observations are spot on and agree there is much still to be changed... in tone and content. I don't think victims of quackery are necessarily stupid, nor do I think quacks are necessarily malevolent (as the original author suggested). Edwardian 22:17, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I attempted to fix some of the NPOV violations on this page. The page still needs a lot of work, but I think this is at least a step in the right direction... Pikhq 06:22:22, 2005-09-11 (UTC)
 * It is. Good work! Edwardian 17:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I do not feel this article conforms to NPOV standards. Who has the right to label something as "quackery," perhaps we should list the other articles as "possible forms of quackery." --Ariad o ss 01:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Introduction
The last part of the Introduction states: "In libel cases in US courts against people who accused others of being guilty of quackery, the courts have ruled that accusing someone of quackery or calling him a quack is not equal to calling him a fraud — that in order to be both a quack and a fraud, the quack has to know that the medical services provided are unproven and ineffective." I don't understand the relevance. It's already clear that "it is often difficult to distinguish between those who knowingly promote unproven medical therapies and those who are mistaken as to their effectiveness", so can we get rid of this? Or can we at least have a couple references for the statement so it can be cleaned up a bit? Edwardian 2 July 2005 08:06 (UTC)

History
The first paragraph of the History section states: "This is not to imply that all shamanism is quackery. The differentiation is real healing versus false hope, regardless of the medical tradition. Often it is difficult to tell the difference." Again, I don't understand the relevance...or even what this means. This article is about what quackery IS, not what shamanism is NOT. Can we get rid of this, or improve the message here? Edwardian 2 July 2005 08:16 (UTC)

do some entries belong?
Going down the list, some of the entries have (at a minimum) a few solid mainstream studies showing that *some* of their claims are correct to *some* extent. Mind you, I'm not talking about their theoretical explanation of how they're supposed to work, just the practical effects. I would put Chiropractic, EMDR, Magnet therapy and Reflexology in this category. I'm not sure that they should be entirely removed from the list since they are definitely controversial, but I don't think it's fair to simply describe them as quackery either. Perhaps a subdivision to the list as "other controversial"? Any thoughts? I'd be happy to dig up some references if there is interest. ObsidianOrder 4 July 2005 16:37 (UTC)
 * I don't think the incorporating some mainstream ideas entitles the quackery label to be removed for most of the examples, however, I understand the point you are trying to make. The list is currently entitled "See also", but it could be changed to "Other controversial topics" or "Questionable methods" or something similar so that the reader can decide whether or not something is quackery after reading more about it.  I did change "Eye related quackery" to "Eye related". Edwardian 4 July 2005 17:12 (UTC)

Chiropractic and the others definitely deserve listing. In fact, a lot more could be added with reference to wiki articles: acupuncture, applied kinesiology, and naturopathy to name a few. JM


 * I strongly disagree that Chiropractic should be included in this Quackery category. Chiropractic is backed by proven science. Levine2112 03:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess it depends on what you consider "proven science," because I don't believe that it's backed by any science other than pseudoscience. --CDN99 14:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * There are a number of scientific articles referenced in this discussion. They are experiments conducted following the scientific method. Control groups, placebos, random sampling and what-not. This is science. Not magic. Not a religion. Not pseudoscience. Science. Levine2112 20:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It depends on what kind of chiropractor. The reformist chiropractors who acknowledge chiropractic to only address musculoskeletal issues do practice evidence based chiropractic. They disavoy the claims of their brethren.--DocJohnny 00:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No. YOu are still ignoring the research that demonstrates chiropractic's effectiveness in promoting general health. Check the links on this page. Levine2112 23:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I respect the reform movement in chiropractic, as all medical practitioners should. I think they practice effective evidence based treatments. If you actually have any studies that prove chiropractic is "effective in promoting general health" other than in improving musculoskeletal function, please share. I am sure the reformist chiropractors would love to hear it. Which links should I look at? I don't see any research revealing this effectiveness. And you have? If you have, point them out in pubmed. Regardless, the fact remains that some chiropractors have been and still are involved in well known quackery as I mentioned above.--DocJohnny 00:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's some research that a quick Google search uncovered: Chiropractic manipulation affects the difference between arterial systolic blood pressures on the left and right in normotensive subjects.. Oh and here's something else: Surrogate Indication of DNA Repair in Serum After Long Term Chiropractic Intervention – A Retrospective Study Do you want more? Oh, and I read this. You said: "A little perspective on pseudoscience and origins. For what it's worth, keep in mind that at the time of the founding of osteopathy, scientific medicine had not quite developed yet. There were no vaccines, no antibiotics. Phlebotomy was still practiced by MD's therapeutically. So it was pseudoscience vs. pseudoscience." Isn't it fair to consider that if MD were practicing what you call "pseudoscience" then and now they are not, then the same could hold true for chiropractors? Oh, and yes some chiropractors may practice what you deem quackery, but the same can be said about MDs. You know, I was sick last year and because of insurance reasons I had to go to an internist. First, he determined that I didn't have a bacterial infection but then prescribed antibiotics nonetheless. Quack! Then he told me that my electrolytes were low and that I should be drinking Coke. Quack! Quack! I told the doctor about SmartWater, a water that can be bought in most grocery stores that has salts added for electrolytes. He said that if he told his patients to drink that, they wouldn't follow his advice. Come on! What a quack! Oh, an incidentally, after the required visit to the MD, I went to my chiropractor and what do you know? I was better the next day. Hmm. Funny how that always seems to work for me. Levine2112 03:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Neither of your articles come close to proving chiropractic improves general health. And as for your quote of my post on someone else's talk page? Of course some chiropractors are no longer practicing pseudoscience. We call them reformists. They even have an [association. As for MD's practicing quackery, we know some do. Attacking MD's is not a defense of chiropractic. --[[User:DocJohnny|DocJohnny]] 04:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact is, there is scientific research supports the claim that chiropractic promotes general health. I have presented only a fraction of it. Please check Journal of Vertebral Subluxation Research for more and more peer-reviewed SCIENTIFIC research. Science, not fantasy. Not magic. Not religion. And certainly not quackery. Levine2112 04:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * And your examples were of 1) affecting blood pressure for an unspecified time period, which does not necessarily correlate with health and 2) an unproven blood test. There are good evidence based chiropractors out there. That doesn't change the proveable fact that a lot of them are engaged in quackery. --DocJohnny 06:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sure we can reach a reasonable understanding. I think the article just needs to be made NPOV, even if there is some sort of official source that considers something a quakcery we should say "Acording to [insert official source here] [insert name of quackery] is considered to be a quackery." Or something else to that effect. My main concern is according to *who*? Virtually every source will be opionated, that is my problem with this article. --Ariad o ss 09:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Like I have stated earlier, if anyone is arguing for removing the "See also" section entirely as POV, perhaps that should be discussed. --DocJohnny 12:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes! Remove the "See Also" section. And remove any reference to an existing profession from the body of the article as well. As "Quackery" is an aspersion, anything associated with it will consider the association an attack... will consider it unfair... will consider biased. This would be like creating an article called "Idiot" and putting "George W. Bush" and "Dan Quayle" in there. This is all just opinion and conjecture. I would even got so far as saying that the "Quackery" article is inherently a bad article because it leads to juvenile finger-pointing and name-calling. But if it must remain, it should only provide a definition of the word and the history behind it, making no reference to opinions of what some people think is quackery. I think everything there is could be and probably is considered quackery by at least one person in the world. All religions, all political parties, all diets, and yes all healthcare. Show me a belief and I'm sure we can find people who hold that belief to be nonsense. Associating professions with quackery, or making quackery a category with professional subcategories beneath it will only lead to an endless cycle of NPOV disputes (as demonstrated here in this discussion about chiropractic). I propose that we strip down this article to the bare minimum. Define the word. Give it some background. Then move on. Clearly, this article was only created to promote hatred (and that it is doing). The same goes for "Pseudoscience". The term is inherently an attack. It's a biased, opinionate label that is just plain slanderous. It is calling something "fake science". Again, it's like having a category called "Bad" and putting all the things that you think are bad in there. It's all opinion and conjecture and there's no way of controlling NPOV. Levine2112 20:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the article should be written more like a definition to maintain objectivity. Some of these things labelled as Quakery are not researched thuroughly enough, for example now Chiropractors are considered legal Doctors when before they were not. Also, anyone can argue the placebo effect (another article with POV issues) even for conventional medicine.--Ariad o ss 05:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much everything in the "pseudoscience" and "alternative medicine" categories is likely to be reasonably called quackery. --StoatBringer 19:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Exactly! JM

definition
I just want to get some discussion about the definition, which I don't think is really well covered in the article. Perhaps armed with that we can better determine what belongs or doesn't. From several dictionary definitions, it seems to me that there are two components to something being quackery: (1) it is not effective as a medical treatment and (2) it is falsely represented as effective. Specifically, the definitions I'm working from are: None of the definitions in any way depend on the theory behind a treatment (e.g. whether it is correct, scientific or supported by evidence), or whether the practitioner believes the treatment to be effective (except the first one which says "deliberate"); they only depend on the treatment's actual effectiveness. Moreover, it is not reasonable to expect that any treatment be effective 100% of the time; therefore to be a "misrepresentation of effectiveness" a supposed quackery practice has to either be very close in effectiveness to placebo, and/or its claimed effectiveness has to be very different from its actual effectiveness, and/or it has to be represented as an equally effective alternative to a treatment which is in fact substantially more effective. Does that sound like a reasonable definition? ObsidianOrder 01:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * "Deliberate misrepresentation of the ability of a substance or device for the prevention or treatment of disease" CancerWeb
 * "a pretender to medical skill; of, relating to, or characteristic of a quack; especially : pretending to cure diseases" Merriam-Webster
 * "An untrained person who pretends to be a physician and dispenses medical advice and treatment.; A charlatan; a mountebank." American Heritage

Based on that, what fits and what doesn't? Anything which has never been demonstrated to be effective despite considerable study (homeopathy, ...) automatically fits. Practices which have been demonstrated to be effective for some conditions (acupuncture, chiropractic, ...) may fit depending on whether or not they make exaggerated claims. (Note: a claim which is not supported by sufficient evidence is not necessarily quackery, it has to be falsified by evidence in order to be definite quackery.) Granted, practitioners in those fields sometimes do make exaggerated claims and even claims which have been shown to be wrong. However, you have to consider that on a case-by-case basis. Some practitioners which misrepresent the effectiveness of their treatments may be quacks, and others which don't may be legitimate healers. That doesn't mean the field as a whole can be described as quackery. ObsidianOrder 02:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Chiropractic has not been demonstrated effective for some conditions. Spinal manipulation by a masseur, physical therapist, osteopath, chiropractor, relative or friend is 'probably' effective for alleviating low back pain of short duration. Claims of efficacy for acupuncture are shaky. My opinion is that when the overwhelming majority of claims is unsupported, the whole thing is quackery. If any claim is supported, that claim becomes ordinary medicine. JM


 * JM - "chiropractic has not been demonstrated effective" and "claims of efficacy for acupuncture are shaky" - you are simply wrong. Please read up on this (PubMed links: chiropractic - 3300 articles, acupuncture - 9700 articles) before making such claims.  They are not effective for everything that is claimed, and perhaps not as effective in general as some people claim, but they are very effective for some conditions based on considerable peer-reviewed research (which you can find in PubMed, for example).   ObsidianOrder 23:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

It is not sufficient to count articles, one must be able to evaluate them. When a quack submits a paper, guess who the "peer reviewers" are. That's right- other quacks! I have examined quack literature, it has the sophistication of a middle-school science project. I stand by my statement and challenge anyone else to study the science and then move any practice from quackery to mainstream (where proven methods exist). JM


 * JM - yes, I have indeed read a number of these articles. You're right that it is not the article numbers alone.  You may not like studies published in "Zhongguo Zhong Xi Yi Jie He Za Zhi" but I wonder what your objection would be to ones in "Pain" (e.g.   ) . "Anaesthesia", "Anesthesiology" , all highly reputable journals?  (There are lots more, I'm just picking a few to illustrate here).  I don't know what you have examined, because you haven't cited anything specific, you're just throwing around wild accusations.  How do you know who the peer reviewers are anyway?  (That is generally kept secret by journals.) Also, the opposite of quackery is not "mainstream", it is "effective".  Whether something is widely used and accepted has no bearing on whether it is quackery or not.  ObsidianOrder 23:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Great, you have read articles. Now, are you able to evaluate them? Even "reputable" journals publish nonsense; but scientists evaluate and reject those articles. (I am waiting for the demonstration that chiropractors and acupuncturists can cure multiple sclerosis, as many of them claim). Of course I don't know the individual reviewers of quack articles. That point is merely silly. I can judge the quality of the reviewers who approve the articles, and they are in keeping with the sophistry of the "research."

Depending on his/her particular superstition, an acupuncturist may claim knowledge of more than 2,000 needling locations. How many of those have been adequately established as effective? JM


 * "are you able to evaluate them?" - yes, as it happens I can. "I can judge the quality of the reviewers who approve the articles" - only if you've read them, which I don't think you have.  "How many of those have been adequately established as effective?" - 20-100 depending on your definition of "adequately". However that is for modern studies only; the people who originally discovered these points were (naive) empiricists who kept extensive records, going back a thousand years or so.  Traditionally there are only ~400 points, by the way.  "sophistry of the "research."" - sophistry of your continued wild accusations, perhaps.  You still have to cite a single specific study.  Let me help you out there: Acupuncture. NIH Consensus Statement 1997 Nov 3-5; 15(5):1-34 (see the bibliography); and Acupuncture: Review And Analysis Of Reports On Controlled Clinical Trials, World Health Organization, 2002.   ObsidianOrder 11:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The NIH panel was an assembly of advocates and the resulting consensus was a foregone conclusion that was widely castigated by real health professionals. The WHO often supports folk remedies out of sensitivity for local customs, not evidence of effectiveness. I cannot prove the negative, that quack articles do not adequately support quack remedies. You have been challenged to show the positive- that some claim of acupuncture is supported to the extent that it can be called "medicine." By the way, it is no accident that acupuncture originally featured 365 points. It made sense to the original "empiricists" to match the number of days in a year.

Consider that auriculotherapists make the same claims as acupuncturists; but all the points are in the ear. Acupressurists make the same claims as acupuncturists; but do not use needles. Reflexologists make the same claims as acupressurists; but all the points are on the foot. Therapeutic Touch matches all those claims; but does not require contact. The list goes on a lot longer. Is there anything imaginable that does not work? Or does it make more sense to conclude that these are all merely products of fertile imaginations?

Think about it- 200 years ago all healthcare was quackery and a person's expected lifespan (35 years) was the same whether one subsribed to leeches or homeopathy or acupuncture. Today, you can expect to be healthy past the age of 70. Acupuncture and homeopathy have played no part in those advances. If there were anything to "alternative medicine" (AM) there has been plenty of time to demonstrate it and convert it to "plain medicine." That is why all of AM should be labeled quackery. As we say: AM that works is called "medicine." JM


 * "widely castigated by real health professionals" - apparently the definition of a quack is "anyone that JM disagrees with". "I cannot prove the negative" - you can start by offering a detailed critique of one of the studies i cited, for example.  "You have been challenged to show the positive" - and I have produced a very large body of evidence that shows that.  "make the same claims as acupuncturists" - irrelevant to acupuncture itself.  "Is there anything imaginable that does not work" - since how acupuncture works is not well understood, there is no a priori reason to assume anything else will not work.  any such claims can be tested (and sometimes they have been), and discussed on their own merits.  "200 years ago all healthcare was quackery" - riiight.  which is why now we look for new drugs isolated from traditional herbal remedies.  you may note that there is excellent correlation between what herbs were traditionally thought to be good for and what we think they are good for based on their chemical composition today (in cases where we know what the components are and what they do).  you may remember what the traditional remedy for headache was (hint: you probably have some in your medicine cabinet).  "expected lifespan (35 years)" - that is a misleading average produced by very high infant and early childhood mortality.  the upper quartile was not that different from today's, for example.   "Acupuncture and homeopathy" - apples and oranges.  one is supported by tons of evidence, the other by next to none.  "all of AM should be labeled quackery" - if mainstream medicine were actually willing to use techniques from AM that work, there would be no need for AM.  however often they are not, regardless of the evidence, and so we have the current situation.  AM is medicine that works but mainstream medicine stubbornly refuses to acknowledge, plus a number of frauds.  ObsidianOrder 01:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * JM - i have produced hundreds of peer-reviewed studies in reputable publications; you have yet to cite a single specific piece of evidence. obviously you believe what you believe for reasons that don't have anything to do with the facts.  further conversation on this basis is pointless.  ObsidianOrder 01:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Clearly, I am overmatched by your intellect and education. I leave the field in your possession. JM

Iatrogenic deaths
It is very intereting to see what is labeled as a quackery. Some mainstream providers use their power of being mainstream to label with "Quackery" many treatments that are far more efficient. For all of those that label acupuncture, homeopathy, herbalisam and many other great therapies as quackery, I would love to chellenge them to provide a nice label for the fact that "Orthodox therapies now kill over 250,000 hospital patients a year, ranking 3rd as a leading cause of death in the U.S." What is a quackery nowdays? Here is some interesting reading for those that are quackery labelers http://drtong.com/problem.html www.mercola.com/2004/jul/7/healthcare_death.htm Enjoy your reading Karen Lee


 * Actually, the claim that "orthodox therapies now kill over 250,000 hospital patients a year" is not a fact. That smug claim has spread like a virus from one alternative medicine website to another (as demonstrated above), but its origins are merely a context-dropping distortion of figures cited in Dr. Barabara Starfield's commentary in JAMA, "Is US Health Really the Best in the World" in which she estimates that there are "225,000 deaths per year from iatrogenic causes". Although that terrible figure indicates much needs to be done to improve healthcare in the United States, those who toss it around without full understanding should realize that "orthodox therapies" and "iatrogenic causes" are not one and the same. Edwardian 20:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * that was 780,000 allopathic iatrogenic deaths by that article, and 120,000 is the lowest I have come across. You only have to ask how many would be killed by Naturopathic herbalism, or Orthomolecular medicine (a proven replacement for drug medicine)---a handful or none from a proper qualified doctor of those therapies. And when you know cancer chemo is only effective for 5% of patients but given to 50%, you don't have to be a genius to do the maths.  john 19:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Edwardian - I understand your point that iatrogenic causes is not literally the same as "orthodox therapies", but I'm not sure why the distinction is significant. Perhaps you can elaborate?  One of the key elements of the definition of quackery is misrepresentation. Do "orthodox therapies" misrepresent their risks?  Arguably, in light of that number, yes.  ObsidianOrder 23:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Regarding: "I understand your point that iatrogenic causes is not literally the same as 'orthodox therapies', but I'm not sure why the distinction is significant. Perhaps you can elaborate?" The distinction is very significant because of this: "Orthodox therapies now kill over 250,000 hospital patients a year" implies that the deaths are primarily due to the proper adminstration of those therapies, whereas "225,000 deaths per year from iatrogenic causes" implies that the deaths are primarily due to other factors including errors or the improper administration of those therapies. Regarding: "One of the key elements of the definition of quackery is misrepresentation. Do 'orthodox therapies' misrepresent their risks?  Arguably, in light of that number, yes." Are you able to offer specific evidence to support that claim because I don't interpret those numbers the same way? Risk need not be misrepresented for an iatrogenic injury or death to occur. If patients are being lied to about the efficacy or risks of a specific therapy, perhaps it should be listed in this article. Edwardian 05:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply, I see what you mean. I guess it depends on how much of that total comes from proper administration and how much from improper, doesn't it?  I would also argue that even if most of this comes from improper treatment, a certain level of human error (and treatment that can be seen as improper only in hindsight) is inevitable, but how serious the results of such errors are depends to some extent on whether that treatment is inherently risky or prone to risky mistakes.  "specific evidence" - I'll dig for that when I have some free time.  I do remember a study that correlated several statistics with negative iatrogenic results and also with overall outcomes - the conclusion was that there is an optimum level of treatment (i.e. length of hospital stay, volume of drug prescriptions) that maximizes positive effects but minimizes iatrogenic negative effects, and that level is considerably lower than the typical level in most areas in the US.  I'll see if I can find that study.  ObsidianOrder 07:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Misdiagnosis, or application of the wrong treatment, can cause iatrogenic harm without being unorthodox. However, if a doctor eschews proven therapy and kills you by treating Hodgkins lymphoma with laetrile, that is iatrogenic, it is also malpractice. If a naturopath does the same, it is business as usual. Perhaps that is a subtle difference. JM


 * Give the naturopath some credit first. Allow the profession the respect it deserves. Accredidate universities that teach it. Allow it to be recognized federally, licensed and sanctioned. Allow insurance companies to pay for homeopathic treatments. Call it medicine, not quackery. After that, you can put it on the same legal ballpark as an MD. Levine2112 05:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Definition?
The introductory sentence is illogical:
 * Quackery, is the practice of producing medicine which may lack any commonly respected evidence of their effectiveness.

If that's the true definition, then "Homeopathy is quackery" is true and NPOV! Using the definition above, "Homeopathy is quackery" translates to "Homeopathy may lack any commonly respected evidence of their effectiveness", which is true and NPOV. QED. But this is backwards. Shouldn't it be the other way around? Does not the "maybe" or the "scientists think" part belong in the connection between treatments and quackery, instead of the quackery definition? Like this:
 * Quackery, is the practice of producing medicine which lacks any evidence of effectiveness.
 * Homeopathy is held to be quackery by most scientists.

This article is about quackery! It's about something that does not have an effect beyond placebo! There is no question of whether quackery works. The question is whether the label "quackery" is applicable to something. I'll change the sentence. --Hob Gadling 09:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * As ObsidianOrder suggested at the beginning of the previous section, falsely representing an ineffective remedy as effective is also part of the definition. Indeed "boaster" is part of the original translation. I'm going to update the definition from: "Quackery is the practice of producing medicine which lacks any evidence of effectiveness." to "Quackery is the practice of promoting medicine which lacks any evidence of effectiveness." Edwardian 20:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Definition 2
Practitioners of alternative medicine (defined as non-allopathic medicine) say the term is used to persecute doctors practicing alternative medicine, as this quote points out:

"The War Against Quackery is a carefully orchestrated, heavily endowed campaign sponsored by extremists holding positions of power in the orthodox hierarchy.....The mutimillion-dollar campaign against quackery was never meant to root out incompetent doctors; it was, and is, designed specifically to destroy alternative medicine...The millions were raised and spent because orthodox medicine sees alternative, drugless medicine as a real threat to its economic power. And right they are...the majority of the drug houses will not survive."--Dr Robert Atkins, M.D.

Gerson
Followers of this kind of topic might like to check put Max Gerson and Gerson therapy. I don't know enough about the topic to edit them, but I can see at least that they're blatantly POV, being primarily written by a proponent of the therapy. Tearlach 13:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * At least he knows what he is talking about, Gerson was curing 50% of terminal cancers according to the research available. To call Gerson a quack is to buy into the Medical Industry propaganda.  john 19:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * A naturopath did a followup study on people who received this miracle 50% cure. At 5 years, out of 21 patients, only 1 was alive and the survivor still had cancer. Austin S, Dale EB, DeKadt S. Long-term follow-up of cancer patients using Contreras, Hoxsey and Gerson therapies. Journal of Naturopathic Medicine 5(1):74-76, 1994.--DocJohnny 20:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Civility
I have been reading through the above discussions and am quite shocked at the abbrasive behaviour of a/some user/s. Please bear in mind that personal attacks are not allowed and you must try and be civil at all times. Please can all parties taking part in the above discussions (not arguments - try and keep calm) take a step back and calm down before admins get involved and start blocking people -localzuk 13:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The very nature of the article "quackery" is uncivil as it is a pejorative label. Assigning that label to any group is most certainly an attack and will typically result in an equal but opposite recourse. I think the best things we can do is remove all mention of any groups (religious, professional, political) that some people feel deserve the derisive "quackery" label, because name-calling always results in NPOV (and bitterness and anger). Let's define "quackery", give its history and move on. Levine2112 00:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand your comment but have to say that in this case I feel you are slightly wrong. If an article is npov, the best way to fix it is to discuss calmly with people - a comment about a profession is not a personal attack and should not be treated as such. I would suggest that launching into a name calling agument is not constructive and that the time could be better suited by re-writing the article as a temporary version and directing the viewers of the talk page to it for comment.
 * Remember, just because one user did something wrong does not give another user the right to become uncivil and launch personal attacks. -localzuk 00:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely right. Attacking an entire profession, religion, or political view is not personal. It's bigger than one person. And name-calling - like "quackery" - is not constructive. So please let me know if you are in favor of:
 * Removing any accusations that a particular group has been deemed as "quacks"
 * Defining "Quackery" with unbiased terms
 * Including a factual history of the term "quackery"
 * I believe that as the article stands right now, would be satisfactory in doing all three of these (now that references to specific professions have been removed as well as the "See Also" category.
 * Levine2112 00:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * And will you be removing the personal attacks above? --DocJohnny 02:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure. Should I remove yours while I'm at it? Levine2112 02:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Levine2112 03:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I am in favour of the article not attacking a profession. However, this isn't a 'carte blanche' to remove all criticisms from the article. If the term is used commonly to describe a profession - it should be included and reliable references given (ie. not competitors of that industry but independant organisations). If these cannot be found (which I believe will be the case) then they should not be included.
 * I also would like to say that your response did not cover a large chunk of my comment - still focusing on the specifics of the article rather than the overriding fact that being uncivil and personally attacking people is not good. -localzuk 09:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, I agree with you. Being uncivil and personally attacking people is not good. That's why we walk on a slippery slope when we have articles about pejorative terms. That's also why I went back and cleaned up all of the personal attacks made by myself and user DocJohnny in the discussion above. As far as including professions that are commonly described as quackery - I think that's too difficult to determine. For instance, there are a lot of organizations out there that claim to be independent and bash chiropractic, when in actuality they are all part of a anti-chiropractic network run by a biased MD (Stephen Barrett) and his cronies. It is rumored that they secretly get funding from the AMA to bash chiropractic and other medicines that threaten the income of MDs and pharmaceutical companies. Whether this is true or not, I cannot say for sure, but it is evident that are gunning to bring down chiropractic using clever and not so clever tactics all over the web (including Wikipedia). Levine2112 18:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As is apparent in the history, none of my comments which were removed without permission were personal attacks, but rather statements of opinion regarding certain professions, objections to attacks, and some completely innocuous comments. There is a huge difference between stating an opinion on broad subjects and attacking another user personally. --DocJohnny 07:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Definition problems
To the extent that this article is intended to inform the public about a) the existence of quackery, and b) enable them to make informed decisions about the kind of medical care they seek, we have to be pretty precise. If we are to define quackery as treatments (never mind whether they are medical or not), the efficacy of which are "unproven," we are treading in tricky waters. Pharmaceutical companies and others who one would not typically characterize with "quacks" are very careful about stating their claims, typically by saying "in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 40 of 60 study patients reported relief in their headache symptoms within 3 hours of taking the medicine, compared with 10 out of 50 control patients. This study was corrected for blah blah blah." In other words, the efficacy is always claimed very narrowly to make it clear what is proven and what isn't. As it turns out, the knowledge of medicine is constantly evolving for broader or narrower claims as evidence to support those claims becomes available. My point is that "proven" or "unproven" is not a binary condition - those who advocate, let's say, distilled water as treatment for warts (to state what I would imagine is an absurd example), may claim that their treatment is proven because in their experience distilled water works in this way. They would further say that just because they can't afford a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study doesn't mean that their observations are false or invalid. (This, incidentally, is why off-label prescriptions are not automatically labelled "quackery.")

The distinctions we are struggling with are those between:
 * Proven - and if so, precisely what has been proven.
 * Unconvincingly asserted - might be true, but hasn't been tested with a gold standard trial.
 * As yet unproven - assumed to be true, but not fully tested
 * Unlikely, given efforts to prove - efforts have been made to prove using gold standard trials, but there is no evidence to support the hypothesis
 * Unlikely to be proven - the most problematic category, because who is to know?

Which of these constitutes quackery? --Leifern 16:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, since quackery is defined rather vaguely, any or all of those can be defined as quackery. Although there are formalized levels of evidence in medicine:


 * Ia Evidence from meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
 * Ib Evidence from at least one randomised controlled trial
 * IIa Evidence from at least one controlled study without randomisation
 * IIb Evidence from at least one other type of quasi-experimental study
 * III Evidence from descriptive studies, such as comparative studies, correlation studies and case-control studies
 * IV Evidence from expert committee reports or opinions, or clinical experience of respected authority or both.
 * These are the levels of positive evidence, I don't think you can really grade negative evidence. However quackery usually has connotations of intention and financial gain. But that may be regional.-- John DO | Speak your mind  17:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * My personal view is that quackery involves some level of misrepresentation. The worst case of this would be if a practitioner suggests a treatment that he/she knows won't work, which is hard to prove. But it would also include exaggerating the extent to which efficacy has been proven. --Leifern 19:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * May I suggest that we get away from attempting to define "what" is quackery? Any thing or practice can be considered quackery, if false claims are being made for its use in a given situation. In another situation the same thing or practice can be perfectly legitimate.


 * To illustrate the point I'll use "massage":


 * Claim: Massage is effective for the relief of tense and sore muscles in the neck and shoulder regions, and thereby is useful for the relief of tension headaches.


 * Claim: Massage is effective as a cure for cancer and AIDS.


 * The same method, but the "quackery" verdict is quite different.


 * This is why Barrett's definition is so useful, since it avoids these pitfalls:


 * To avoid semantic problems, quackery could be broadly defined as "anything involving overpromotion in the field of health." This definition would include questionable ideas as well as questionable products and services, regardless of the sincerity of their promoters. In line with this definition, the word "fraud" would be reserved only for situations in which deliberate deception is involved.
 * Quackery is more about false claims (overpromotion), than it is about things. If the whole "definitions" section concentrates on this point, I think it will save much grief. -- Fyslee 22:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Examples
Is there any use in adding the example of laetrile (sp?)? That immediately comes to mind when I think of quackery. jgwlaw 03:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes indeed. In fact, the whole Mexican quack clinics thing could also be dealt with. -- Fyslee 04:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not very knowledgeable about this. Perhaps you, or someone more familiar with all this, could help add this?  I only know generally about the bogus cancer 'treatment' laetrile and how people flocked to it out of desperation, risking their lives.  I really don't know any more than that, about the Mexican quack clinics etc.  jawesq 02:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I found an article on laetrile at Quackwatch.org that looks interesting. I also found a page from National Cancer Institute on it. I added an external link to the NCI page, since Quackwatch is already referenced.  The NCI article is interesting.  It appears that very little study was done on this drug, and what clinical studies were done did not have a control group!  This is bizarre.  One would think that a proper study would have been done on this - I assumed it had, and found laetrile ineffective.  Of course, it was never shown to be effective, either.jawesq 02:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Bingo! You've pointed out the key issue - the burden of proof is on the claimant. Skeptics and scientists are under no burden to prove Laetrile (or any other method or claim) ineffective. Its proponents just have to prove it works and it'll get accepted. It's a matter of risk/benefit ratio. -- Fyslee 16:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That is certainly true in a court. And, it is true with the FDA, as well - for approval, the drug/product/device must be proven safe and effective, not the converse.  The problem with this, then, gets into funding and who is willing to fund research.  Generally, it is manufacturers who stand to make a profit (patent) such products.  Recent articles in the New York Times have discussed various conflicts of interest that government scientists have had, as well.  And that is a problem.  But that is another discussion.jawesq 16:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Main stream medicines is quackery
"Quackery is a derogatory term used to describe the unethical practice of promising health-related benefits for which there is little or no basis"; Definition on top of page, this is what the header proves. I'll continue to put it there because is seems the attributers on this page take the right to criticize every alternative health subject, but seem intolerant of critics when "science" is criticized. Again unless there is some acknowleddgement of this FACT, I'll put it there without discussion. --Homy 07:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have removed the section "When mainstream medicines becomes quackery" as frank disinformation. DMP is not relevant to quackery, this doesn't refer to any medicine or treatment but to the efficiency of a delivery system. The section on antidepressants starts with a wholly false (and potentially dangerously irresponsible) assertion that "In general antidepressants fail to give meaningful advantages." supported by a non-peer reviewed non RS source. Disputes about the relative efficacy of some medicines do not make these quack remedies; medicines are regularly replaced as more effective specific treatments are introduced; their introduction is carefully regulated and they are evaluated on the basis of controlled trials. Gleng 16:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I fear that Homy misunderstands the subject at hand. Scientific disputes and uncertainties, the failings of physicians, malpractice, substandard practice, etc.., are not themselves quackery, although they may lend themselves to it and often are involved in it. They are important concerns, just as iatrogenesis is a legitimate concern. They can be described in detail in appropriate articles, but they aren't quackery. -- Fyslee 23:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

WHO: "Therefore, in considering DMPs as a strategy to improve quality of care and to tackle unacceptable variations in practice, such programmes should be introduced only in controlled settings where it is possible to evaluate their costs and benefits". unacceptable variations in practice fits the definition of quackery. health fraude by manifacturers fits the definition. The application of SSRIs and Paxil without proper guidance fits the definition. Suicites after using the drug, is not curing, fits the definition. I'm sorry if I attact the holy cow named: "Medical science". --Quasarq 16:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is the relation of this User:Quasarq to User:Homy? Are we talking to one person here or two? Either way, a DMP is a disease management programme - i.e. it is a protocol for delivery of health care to a community; this is an issue of how best to deliver health care and has nothing to do with the efficacy of the treatments themselves, only about the varying efficacy and diffences in cost-effectiveness of different management approaches. It has absolutely no point of contact with quackery whatsoever. Drugs that have side effects are not quackery either; they are effective drugs with side effects. It is often to be expected that a drug which is effective will also have side effects; generally, only drugs that are wholly ineffective have no side effects.Gleng 16:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The definition of quackery is good. The interpretation who or what is involved will always be a point of difference and I think this discussion is senseless because there is no concede whatsoever. By the why, the citations are better than the whole article. --Quasarq 16:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Definition of quackery and quack
The definitions provided by online dictionaries are actually very good and have the advantage of being independant sources. More NPOV. NATTO 03:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Questionable references
I removed the paragraph about "health fraud" usually being used. I have never seen that in articles, newspapers, insurances releases about MDs who rip people off and exhibit bad behaviour. It always says that so-and-so MD has committed fraud and is being sent to prison.

Also, the reference was to a site called Quackwatch, and the article was written by an ex-psychiatrist, Stephen Barrett, who, according to the talk pages on an article about him, he failed his psychiatric boards, yet failed to mention this "minor detail" while being paid as an expert witness in psychiatric matters in the legal arena. According to the WP article on Quackery, this falls under the definition of Quackery: "A "quack" is "a fraudulent or ignorant pretender to medical skill. A person who pretends, professionally or publicly, to have skill, knowledge, or qualifications he or she does not possess; a charlatan." Quackery So it begs the question, if he was engaged in quackery, how could his viewpoint be considered reliable?  Of course, it could be argued that if he practiced quackery, then he certainly could be considered having some degree of expertise in it! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steth (talk • contribs) 10:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

(Sorry, forgot to sign, I'm tired) Steth 10:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I did a revert to the vandal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.85.160.11 (talk)


 * I got a message on my talk. Someone left me a message to support vandalism. It may be what is called a sockpuppet. Who in their right mind would support vadalism. A sockpuppet. Someone should put a block on both accounts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.85.160.11 (talk)


 * I am asking you not to claim vandalism without just cause. User:Steth gave cause for making the edit which you reverted. May I suggest that you read up on WP:VAN and learn Wikipedia's definition of vandalism. Levine2112 03:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The vandal supporter is back. What a jerk. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.85.160.11 (talk) 03:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC).


 * Please avoid ad hominem attacks. Comment on the edits and not on the editor. Thank you. Levine2112 03:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you Levine. I thought my reasons were perfectly legitmate and need to be discussed.  Perhaps 69.85.160.11 doesn't understand that nightmares are not a reliable source.  Steth 12:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * One man's "nightmare".... is your POV. Fine. Just don't push it onto Wikipedia. NPOV requres that all significant POV be presented. Just because you don't like Barrett (you're not the only one), doesn't negate the fact that he's considered to be a top expert on the subject by many others (most notably among the mainstream scientific and medical world, as well as consumer protection organizations), so your nightmare is not the only POV, nor is it shared by all others. POV suppression is not allowed here. Be an inclusionist. -- Fyslee (First law) 12:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * wikipedia talk pages fail WP:RS.Geni 13:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Now I'm quite confused. Fyslee claims that "POV suppression is not allowed here." I had understood that Wikipedia was not about POV but verifiable facts. The term "quackery" is totally subjective, pejorative, and who is and who is not a "quack" is just one's opinion. I don't believe these non objective quackery discussions belong on Wikipedia at all since it's so subjective. So someone please, is Fyslee being correct in his claim? Thank you. Ilena 20:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the POV being pushed here about Barrett via various comments and his vanity links being edited into articles. The courts have clearly found him to be "biased and unworthy of credibility" despite his publicists claiming otherwise. They continue to advertise him and post his vanity links and their POV that he is a "top expert." That's just a silly notion that keeps getting edited into Wikipedia. Thank you. Ilena 20:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Barret and his website have been regarded as experts by numerous scientists and a variety of scientific and medical organizations. The relevant citations are on Quackwatch. JoshuaZ 21:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC


 * Is there any better expert on quackery, the topic of this article, than Barrett? If he's not the top expert then who is? -Will Beback · † · 21:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In a recent case Barrett lost to me, he sued me in part (and tried to get $2000 out of me) for calling him a "quack." He, who has labeled thousands of fine scientists and doctors "quacks" and who (over) promotes himself by websites, blogs, lists, and webrings, he who had made a career out of this pejorative labeling of others, misguidedly claimed it was "defamatory" to call him one. It seemed absurd to me and I fully discussed this in my declarations which led to his defeat.  The Judges agreed with me ... what is ... and what is not a "quack" is an opinion, subjective -- not a fact, and not who Barrett says it is.  Barrett and others in his group here may claim dominion over this term, but it is not theirs to claim, regardless of the enormous amount of time they spend labeling those with whom they disagree, with this pejorative and subjective insult which continue to promote here. Ilena 22:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * With all due respect you do not appear to be in a position to offer a neutral opinion. I've asked if there is a more notable expert on "quackery". An assertion that he himself is a "quack" does not automatially prevent him from being an expert on the topic. -Will Beback · † · 23:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I don't see where the justices agreed that you didn't defame Barrett. I see the Caliornia Supreme Court wrote:
 * ''Plaintiffs argue that Barrett, as well as Polevoy, was defamed in the Bolen article. We need not address this claim, given our conclusion that Rosenthal is immune from liability under section 230.
 * That is neither an endorsement nor a condemnation. They simply say it doesn't matter. As for the Superior Court decision, it says your calling Barrett "quack" was a statement of your opinion, not of fact. Further, your pleadings apparently made the argument that doing so was "constitutionally-protected rhetorical hyperbole". So your assertion here that he is a quack is perhaps more rhetorical hyperbole. You're welcome to your opinions, but they shouldn't affect this article. -Will Beback · † · 23:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Plaintiffs argue alot of things that are not true. People here continually repeat falsehoods about this case on his behalf. For example, here is a direct quote from page 39 of the Supreme Court Decision, "As the lower courts correctly concluded, however, none of the hostile comments against Dr. Barrett alleged in the complaint are defamatory."" See, three courts ruled this, and yet the shot down arguments from his losing case are still being repeated as if they were true. Ilena 23:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW, your quote is not from the decision of seven justices, it's from the concurring opinion of one justice. In any case, so far as I can tell they all agree that the hyperbolic rhetoric is not defamatory because it is an opinion. I don't see how any of that really affects the issue of whether Barrett is a noteworthy commentator on quackery. -Will Beback · † · 00:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Judge Moreno concurred with the Superior Court and the Appeals Court, and the seven justices decided to use this quote as the final one of their 39 page decision. This indicates to me that it is highly relevant ... especially when I see throughout blogs, Wikipedia, and various lists, comments such as yours, that are repetitions of the losing plaintiffs, attempting to sway the facts of this case. It is one piece of the puzzle of why Barrett is no expert on anything but promotion and losing lawsuits. Anyone can see how this all relates to his hyperbolic promotion of himself and the multiple links he has posted here to his questionable opinions. He operations public relations groups or "media" promoting himself and his opinions. Thank you and have a lovely starry nite. Ilena 00:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Concurring and dissenting opinions always come after the majority opinion. But again, simply finding that the name calling was opinion rather than fact does not impact our decision here. Barrett was also called a Nazi, but that does not make him one. -Will Beback · † · 02:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting comments. I certainly find the Superior Court, the Appeals Court and the Supreme Court's opinions of whether or not he was defamed (as he claims repeatedly and has others claim for him) far more reliable than the rants of a SLAPP happy plaintiff, with large judgements against himself and his suspended non-profit NCAHF, together who have lost several cases. 02:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

<-- Nothing in the court cases you've provided goes to the point we're addressing here. The courts merely said that the opinions of some people are only opinion, and that opinions alone are not defamatory. Likewise I could call George Bush a "bully" and it wouldn't be defamatory. That doesn't make it true. -Will Beback · † · 04:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay. It doesn't make it not true either, of course. Nor does calling Barrett an expert make it true. Especially in light of courts calling him "biased and unworthy of credibility." Often what Barrett (and his publicists) call defamatory, is in actuality accurate yet unflattering opinions. Good nite. Ilena 04:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Where was he called that? -Will Beback · † · 05:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It was a stunning defeat in NCAHF Vs KingBio. NCAHF (Barrett is one of the founders & is VP & Head of Internet Activities) hired Barrett as an "expert." Here is the direct quote: "The trial court concluded NCAHF failed to prove a false or misleading statement.King Bio’s expert testified the products were safe and effective. The products were included in the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia and complied with FDA guidelines.NCAHF presented no evidence that King Bio’s products were not safe and effective,relying instead on a general attack on homeopathy, made by witnesses who had no knowledge of, or experience with, King Bio’s products, and who were found to be biased and unworthy of credibility." After this loss, Barrett and his publicists tried to portray themselves as victims ... claiming it wasn't them but the lawyer's fault for the suit. Very typical of them to blame others for their disasters. They also lost to BOTANICAL LABORATORIES, INC and got a judgement of over $100K against them. That's when they got NCAHF suspended from the State of California, which many feel was a ploy so they couldn't get sued nor have to pay the judgement. Gotta run. Thanks for asking. Ilena 14:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If you actually read the court decision, you'll see that the judge believed that Barrett (acting as NCAHF) paid Barrett's (acting as an individual) expert witness fees, which might be improper. (Barrett claims the judge was in error, but I have no idea whether he presented that argument to the judge.)  The judge made no discussion of "expert" qualifications as an expert on quackery, because that was not an issue in the case.  If anyone here can name a person more qualified to be an expert on quackery, let's see his or her opinion in the article.  (And you don't know why NCAHF was suspended in California.  The only credible reason presented is that the agent-of-process left the state.  If you can provide even credible, if not reliable sources of another reasons for the suspension, I'd like to see it.  Careful analysis of the timeline shows that they were suspended before they lost the appeal, which may explain why they lost.)  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, Arthur, but that is laughable. The only expertise that Barrett has in quackery is from himself being a quack... by definition. He purports to have expert knowledge in many subjects in whcih he is not qualified or hasn't studied. He even goes as far as making up his own definition of "quackery" which is completely different from what is in the dictionary... so yes, he is an expert in what he considers to be quackery and that is to say he is a legend in his own mind. Bottomline, Barrett is not an expert in quackery and is an unreliable source for the subject. Levine2112 19:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So let me ask the question again - who is the leading expert on quackery? -Will Beback · † · 19:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the very term is very un-Wiki. It is totally and utterly subjective and pejorative ... all the things I thought Wiki was not. Best from Ilena Ilena 02:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know. All I am saying is that it certainly isn't Barrett. By definition, he is a quack - a pretender of medical skill or knowledge. Levine2112 19:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So Barrett may well be the top expert on quackery, seeing as there doesn't appear to be any other contender. Being a quack doesn't prevent one from knowing about quacks. By analogy, Harry Houdini couldn't perform real magic, just tricks. Yet he used his knowledge to uncover fraudulent mystics and was an expert on that topic. -Will Beback · † · 19:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean that Barrett is the top expert. In fact, his expertise is quite askew - creating his own definition, does not make him an expert. He is an attack dog for mainstream medicine against alternative medicine. He never questions mainstream medicine and the pervasive quackery there. Sorry, he is too biased and has too many political and economical agendas to be considered an expert or even a reliable source here. Levine2112 19:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is a California Superior Court judge's assessment of Barrett in one of his many bouts with suing others:


 * Dr. Barrett was offered on several issues by the Plaintiff, but the Court found that there was substantial overlap on the issues that he and Dr. Sampson were asked to address. Thus, in order to avoid duplicative or cumulative evidence (see Cal. Evidence Code �� 352, 411, 723), Dr. Barrett�s testimony was limited by the Court to the sole issue of FDA treatment of homeopathic drugs. The relevancy of this issue was questionable at best, since the Plaintiff had previously asserted that its case did not depend on or seek to establish any violation of federal food and drug laws or regulations. Nevertheless, Plaintiff elicited testimony from Dr. Barrett on his experience with the FDA as it relates to regulation of homeopathic drugs.


 * Dr. Barrett was a psychiatrist who retired in or about 1993, at which point he contends he allowed his medical license to lapse. Like Dr. Sampson, he has no formal training in homeopathic medicine or drugs, although he claims to have read and written extensively on homeopathy and other forms of alternative medicine. Dr. Barrett�s claim to expertise on FDA issues arises from his conversations with FDA agents, his review of professional literature on the subject and certain continuing education activities.


 * As for his credential as an expert on FDA regulation of homeopathic drugs, the Court finds that Dr. Barrett lacks sufficient qualifications in this area. Expertise in FDA regulation suggests a knowledge of how the agency enforces federal statutes and the agency's own regulations. Dr. Barrett's purported legal and regulatory knowledge is not apparent. He is not a lawyer, although he claims he attended several semesters of correspondence law school. While Dr. Barrett appears to have had several past conversations with FDA representatives, these appear to have been sporadic, mainly at his own instigation, and principally for the purpose of gathering information for his various articles and Internet web-sites. He has never testified before any governmental panel or agency on issues relating to FDA regulation of drugs. Presumably his professional continuing education experiences are outdated given that he has not had a current medical licence in over seven years. For these reasons, there is no sound basis on which to consider Dr. Barrett qualified as an expert on the issues he was offered to address. Moreover, there was no real focus to his testimony with respect to any of the issues in this case associated with Defendants' products.

Enough said? Levine2112 20:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. We'll make sure not to use him as a source for the issues he addressed in court, which were very limited. -Will Beback · † · 20:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe the judge's statement so to be symptomatic of a larger problem with Barrett. Here is more about Barrett from a fellow MD:


 * Is Stephen Barrett, M.D. a Quack?
 * According to the Quackwatch website, Stephen Barrett, M.D. says this about quackery: Dictionaries define quack as "a pretender to medical skill; a charlatan" and "one who talks pretentiously without sound knowledge of the subject discussed."


 * Stephen Barrett, M.D. does not have a degree in nutrition science. He has been trained in psychiatry but has not practiced psychiatry for many, many years and has, to the best of my understanding, never practiced nutritional medicine. In my opinion, Stephen Barrett, M.D., when it comes to the field of nutritional supplements, can be easily defined as a Quack since he pretends to "have skills or knowledge in supplements and talks pretentiously" without actually having clinical expertise or sound knowledge of herbal and nutritional medicine.


 * A person can't be an expert at a topic if they have not had hands-on experience. Would you feel comfortable having heart surgery by a doctor who has read all the medical books on how to surgically replace a heart valve but has never performed an actual surgical procedure in an operating room? Would you feel comfortable relying on nutritional advice from a retired psychiatrist, Stephen Barrett, M.D. of Quackwatch, even though he has not had hands-on experience using supplements with patients and does not have a degree in nutrition science?


 * Need more? Levine2112 20:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Compiling information on quacks isn't heart surgery. Even as a lapsed physician Barrett still probably has more training in medicine and the scientific procedure than most of the people he reports on. To the best of my knowledge, there are no degrees available in the study of quackery, so an expert would necessarily be self-taught. -Will Beback · † · 20:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "Barrett still probably has more training in medicine and the scientific procedure than most of the people he reports on." This is conjecture and doubtful at that.


 * From a lawyer regarding Barrett:


 * "Stephen Barrett is part of a group of intolerant individuals that have labeled chiropractic as 'Quackery.' Even though they purport to be 'experts,' they generally have no training or even understanding of chiropractic. Ultimately, there is a danger that the 'big lie' that they spread could potentially be misinterpreted by the consumer and those that could benefit from treatment. Barrett is, perhaps, the most visible nemesis of chiropractic in this country. He is media savvy and has been regarded as the voice of anti-chiropractic advocacy."


 * As far as education and schooling goes, one equalizer in medicine is Board Certification. It should be noted that Barrett is not Board Certified (a distignuished characteristic of an "expert"). Barrett did take the board certification exams but failed the neurological portion. Still think he is an expert?


 * BTW, what I have heard purported about Barrett is that he is an "expert" in medical communication and the media. I would certainly be willing to accept that.


 * Levine2112 20:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * And who was paying this lawyer? "Who pays the piper calls the tune". -Will Beback · † · 20:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * And who pays Barrett? (Aside from the time he paid himself to act as an "expert" witness for something for which he was not a qualified expert.) Levine2112 21:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I dunno. Do you? -Will Beback · † · 21:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That's just it. Nobody does and his filings for some of his "non-profits" are certainly suspect. For instance, we know that Barrett used "non-profit" money to pay himself from the NCAHF funds. We also know that NCAHF currently has an suspending business license in California where it has been with that status for nearly 4 years. There are just too many questions. Too many things that don't add up. The organizations are questionable just as is Stephen Barrett's expertise in the field of Quackery. We are dealing with a uncertain character here with very clear motivations.


 * "Twenty years ago, I had trouble getting my ideas through to the media, today I am the media." - Stephen Barrett


 * Levine2112 22:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * With regards to chiropractic, it should be noted that Barrett concedes that he is not an expert. From and ACA Journal interview:


 * JOURNAL: In that regard, you consider yourself an expert on chiropractic?


 * BARRETT: No, I'm a collector of information.


 * Levine2112 22:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately he doesn't work alone, and has plenty of advisors and chiropractors who help him. --  Fyslee  ( First law ) 23:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, lynch mobs long ago discovered the principle of safety in numbers.--I&#39;clast 01:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, they did didn't they, as they still do. Shot info 05:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

very questionable
A number of Quackwatch pages contain persistent errors and bias that used to (were supposed to) get one fired in academia and corporate research. Kauffman's statement "Watching the Watchdogs at Quackwatch" is very cautious, "...contaminated with incomplete data, obsolete data, technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo". Amazing that Kauffman had this much temerity, given the propensity towards lawsuits of certain parties.

There are serious mistakes where QW et al have had over a decade to get their story straight on simple inequalities and reckless sweeping statements where known literature (published in the mainstream) for decades lays out the protocols i.e. QW categorically: X doesn't work, citing numerous tests of X at <1 - 6% of the proponents' least effective currently recommended protocols with X (rather than the most aggressive delivery protocols and much less than 1% of a physiological therapeutic limit). Certain Wiki editors relentlessly promote these articles anyway despite being repeatedly informed. This situation makes the "expertise" claims laughable, and IMHO, corrupt.--I&#39;clast 22:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Articles from Quackwatch should be judged for suitability here on a case by case basis. Some are extremely suitable as internal references of the highest quality. Others are good as opinion (which is what Wikipedia is all about), others as external links, and some not suitable at all. The inclusion criteria here are different for each of those types of links. Since there are so many different types of articles and resources at Quackwatch, one must judge them differently, depending on the application.


 * So far we seem to be seeing too much "shoot-on-sight" POV suppression directed at any Quackwatch link. That is very unwikipedian POV suppression of opposing POV, a practice that is in conflict with NPOV policy. Editors should ensure and enable all POV to be represented. They must not suppress them. I shudder to think of what would happen if skeptics started doing that with alt med sources, with mere anecdotes are used as proof. Wikipedia is full of them. We allow them all the time, as long as it is clear that they are opinion, presented in an NPOV manner. The same applies to Quackwatch links. At the very least, they can be presented as opinion, which is the function of Wikipedia -- to present POV from all significant opinions. --  Fyslee  ( First law ) 23:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If anyone adopted "shoot-on-site" tactics, you would have seen links drop near zero overnight outside the trifecta (QW, SB, NCAHF). Although I have agreed (and operated) in principle that QW is sometimes a claimed majority opinion and sentiment, it is not a license for promotion & derogation nor do I see evidence that QW's opinion reflects a current majority on several subjects. I am not worried about unencyclopedic pov suppression, I am finding inferior, redundant, spammy QW links frequently referenced by serious POV problems and, on belated review, that WP appears to be a major, if not the major, QW link farm on the search engines where QW demonstrates substantial web saavy resources. hmmm.


 * Lest others think that I am single sided about this, they may not have seen what I politely do with some unscientific alternatives promoter type editors at Wiki (possibly considered worse than article deletion).--I&#39;clast 01:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Shoot-on-sight is Barrett's trademark methodology
 * Given the certain 'dubious' aspects of ex-psychiatrist Barrett's history and his failure to disclose that he failed his psychiatric boards in legal proceedings before he testified as an expert witness for payments, seems to be enough reason to view him with much skepticism.  Should, God forbid, anyone else have this in their background, they are drawn and quartered on his numerous hate-sites and their "expertise" would never be allowed on WP by the Barrett ministers.  And, just what does he do with the increase in donations he gladly accepts from the hundreds of new links on Wikipedia?


 * His only training is psychiatry, nothing else. His websites are filled with his bigoted jargon and not remotely peer-reviewed.  So why does his disciples plant his seeds of hate all over Wikipedia and defend them to the death with POV hard-fisting? That is very un-Wikipedian. These motives should be questioned. Steth 00:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

If Barrett is majority POV, shouldn't there be other sites that concur with them. Maybe we can use some of them instead. -- Dēmatt (chat)  03:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that is a fantastic idea but in the case of this article we are dealing with Barrett's own made-up definition of "quackery:


 * To avoid semantic problems, quackery could be broadly defined as "anything involving overpromotion in the field of health." This definition would include questionable ideas as well as questionable products and services, regardless of the sincerity of their promoters.


 * This is completely made-up to serve his own purposes and why is he notable enough to have his fictional definition included here. By his definition, any doctor who advertises is a quack. This is ridiculous. Quackery (with regardes to medicine and health) is defined as such: "medical practice and advice based on observation and experience in ignorance of scientific findings" or "an untrained person who pretends to be a physician and dispenses medical advice and treatment". There is nothing about overpromotion in any definition of quackery other than Barrett's. Whatever Barrett claims to be an expert in, by definition it isn't quackery. Maybe he is an expert in health marketing and media? Levine2112 05:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If he is the only one saying it then wouldn't it be minority opinion? -- Dēmatt (chat)  12:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Not only minority, but tiny fraction of a minority. I don't think it is notable enough to include, plus it is misleading to the reader (it would have the reader assume that this fiction definition is an acceptable one). Levine2112 17:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Factual accuracy tag placed
I placed the factual accuracy on this article because as I look through other sources for this information, I do seem to get the impression that we may be going over the top relying on Barrett as the expert on quackery for a term that has been around since at least the 18th century. Maybe we should get some other sources for some of this information to get a more objective view of this concept. -- Dēmatt (chat)  15:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have made some changes mostly to format and structure to make this flow better (I hope). The sections starting a Quackery Today are probably going to need some extensive rewrite and I see a lot of  notations.  I will look through them and see what I can find, but if it is something that you really want in, maybe a source would be nice to have real soon.  Otherwise, I'm going to try and do a major overhaul to clean it up after lunch (for me:) -- Dēmatt  (chat)  16:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, went through Quackery today section. Lots of POV stuff was here (both ways), but I think I got the jist of it.  I have ignored specific claims against specific products, groups, etc., mostly because I don't think they added any real value for the reader and only seemed to be one sided arguments that were obvious and covered in the more general statements. Let me know what you think.  Work on the next section later, unless someone wants me to stop. -- Dēmatt  (chat)  18:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. I basically cleaned all of the Quackery defintion section out less one sentence, which was mostly because it was all apparently added piecemeal without references.  I was concerned about verifiability of the info, being POVish and all. Hope ya like it! I will remove the tag now. -- Dēmatt  (chat)  19:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent work. I think the last part would be cleaning up the external links section to only list highly reliable and quackery relevant resources. I'm sure that will be a discussion first though. Levine2112 19:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent edit
"White House Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medicine Policy" was the Commission extended in 2002 or allowed to lapse. In either case, what was the result(s) of the Commission relating to Quackery? Shot info 05:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm struggling with this one, too. I think the commission continues.  I'm pretty sure there is controversy surrounding it, too.  But don't know any real details.  Is this the one that Dr Kats  Dr. Katz was made a part of? Nope, he's not on any of the lists. -- <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b>  (chat)  15:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I found this though. I'll see if it says anything we can use. -- <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b> (chat)  15:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's the executive summary. It is pretty long and talks about all the aspects of safety, need for research, need to define each CAM according to safety and effectiveness (quit using blanket CAM for all methods), need for education, need to include in insurance programs, etc.  Pretty comprehensive. -- <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b>  (chat)  15:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * When I read what you wrote here, something inside said Bingo ... I believe you've hit the nail on the head. What insurers pay for ... and do not, is a multi-billion dollar a year business. They have a lot to lose by accepting many of the treatments (mis)labeled quackery. I know, for example, many people who feel their lives have been enriched and lengthened by chelation ... one of the targets of the Barrett's various operations. His teams (mis) label CAM "SCAM" and have filled various internet medium with this campaign. Thanks for edifying what the Commission wrote. Ilena 22:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Definitely looking better
Thanks to all who contributed. However, in reading the 'reasons' ... it seems very POV. We still need some work on these. Ilena 21:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think there is an unfair level of association on quackery with alternative medicine. Quackery is not limited to just what some people define as complemenarty or alternative medicines. Quackery exists just the same in mainstream medicines. This article shouldn't confuse the issue or lead the reader to believe that quackery is only found in the alternative realm. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99;">discuss 21:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactamundo! My feelings precisely. Thank you for saying it so well. Ilena 22:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Edit conflict... Levine, what you say is very true when you say it's not limited to alt med. Quackery has really nothing to do with origins or the methods themselves. It's all about false advertising, and that can happen anywhere.


 * Let me use "massage" as a simple example. If someone advertises that massage can relieve tensed up neck muscles and relieve tension headaches, we'd agree that was common sense. If someone advertised massage as able to cure Parkinsons or cancer, we'd scream "quack", and rightly so. It's the claim, not the method, that's the problem. Quacks don't just quack loudly, they quack their false claims loudly. The loudness of legitimate claims may be distasteful, but its not quackery. It's the falsity of the claim that makes the difference.


 * This quote, by the then-editor of the NEJM, Marcia Angell, MD, contains two key phrases, which I will highlight differently:


 * "There cannot be two kinds of medicine - conventional and alternative. There is only medicine that has been adequately tested and medicine that has not, medicine that works and medicine that may or may not work. Once a treatment has been tested rigorously, it no longer matters whether it was considered alternative at the outset. If it is found to be reasonably safe and effective, it will be accepted." - Angell M, Kassirer JP, "Alternative medicine--the risks of untested and unregulated remedies." N Engl J Med 1998;339:839.


 * Marcia Angell is a clear thinker, and she doesn't hesitate to criticize the abuses of the pharmaceutical industry, and that's great.


 * For more on terminology, here's a beginning. It needs a lot of work:


 * Definitions for non evidence-based methods in the health care field.


 * -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee's</b> (<b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">First law</b>) 23:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * All good points. I'll keep that in mind. We should try to keep all methods "under the same roof" to keep from discriminating. A rose by any other name is still a rose. -- <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b>  (chat)  23:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That's pretty much my point. We should try to keep from mentioning specific methods as quackery in this article. (There may be exceptions, since some methods are never anything but quackery, in any guise they may appear. They are false and promoted using false claims, and have no legitimacy in any situation.) We present POV opinions from V and RS here, and present all sides, making it clear -- through the use of NPOV language -- that they are opinions from each side of the controversy. That's what Wikipedia is all about.


 * That's what's so great about Barrett's definition of quackery -- it doesn't focus on a method, but on its promotion, which results in him mostly attacking authorized MDs and other mainstream practitioners who promote and use legitimate methods in illegitimate ways, or who use illegitimate methods. It's the claim, and not necessarily the method, that's the problem. Quacks don't just quack loudly, they quack their false claims and/or illegitimate uses loudly. The loudness of legitimate claims may be distasteful, but the loudness itself is not enough to level charges of "quackery". It's the falsity of the claim, or the illegitmate use, that makes the difference.


 * We should concentrate on false claims (false advertising) as the key feature of this subject, and avoid the mention of specific methods (although there should be exceptions, since classic examples need to be provided). ANYONE can be guilty of quackery, regardless of their credentials (or lack thereof), and regardless of their past or present fame for good things. We should also be able to provide a few classic examples of people accused of being quacks, presented from V and RS in an NPOV manner. Such examples of accusations are numerous. The first part of the article should deal with definitional aspects, then historical, and later a few examples of methods and people, with clear explanations of why the method of promotion (from the definitional principles in the article's beginning) enables anyone to accurately "pin the tail on the donkey." It should then be clear to anyone that those particular accusations against methods or people are accurate, except to those who have their ulterior motives for seeking to deny that quackery exists at all (except among MDs, the FDA, etc..) Those people reveal that they wish to protect the finger pointing at their mainstream foes, and hide the fact that their other fingers point at their own beliefs and practices. To them quackery can't apply to ANYONE, as Barrett suggests, so they use ad hominem and straw man tactics in their criticisms of Barrett and the mainstream. They are not equal opportunity skeptics. Legitimate critics do as Dr. Marcia Angell does by leveling well-documented criticisms against mainstream abuses, without using those illegitimate tactics. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee's</b> (<b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">First law</b>) 10:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

"Placebo" and "Placebo Effect"
I notice that in the "Reasons quackery persists" heading, both "Placebo" and "Placebo Effect" are included. Perhaps I don't understand the difference between the two, but it seems rather redundant.Siroo 22:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Repititiously redundant. lol. Good catch. Thank you. Ilena 22:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that I reinserted it. The anon who deleted it seemed to be vandalising, but I see I was wrong.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 22:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Conventional medicine and quacks
Some editors have been putting in phrases implying that certain "conventional" medical treatments may be quackery. Let's just come right out and say that (if we can find a reference), rather than adding unsourced (but probably sourcable) innuendos. &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point, either that or try to make it generic as in all forms of treatment, because if we think of quackery, it happens in all forms. -- <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b> (chat)  00:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I sincerely believe that many pharmaceuticals have had scientists paid by industry sway the science and there are countless examples that fit the example under "fraud" in this article. I have a list of articles on this very topic that I'll post them when I catch a moment. Some exciting happenings on Barrett Vs Rosenthal right now and don't have as much Wiki time.  I'm also learning more about the case against Quackwatch and Barrett and the elusive Allen Botnick. More soon. <b style="color:#999900;"> Ilena <</b>  (chat)
 * Lucrative Drug, Danger Signals and the F.D.A. Good example of what I'm discussing. <b style="color:#999900;"> Ilena <</b> (chat)


 * Wow, I do think that is the kind of thing that is a problem. Is it quackery?  Or is it fraud?  Or is it a much bigger thing than both.  IOWs, maybe that is more an example of corruption, greed? Which I suppose is one reason to promote quackery.. but is it something that we want to include in this article? -- <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b>  (chat)  02:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Take your pick of possible descriptions for this. Fraud, bad communication, false advertising, etc.. I'm not sure it's exactly "quackery" though. It's much more complicated by human errors, greed, experimentation, learning from mistakes, etc.. Hmmm..... -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee's</b> (<b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">First law</b>) 11:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * From that list, I would have to go with Scam (with the big S), I suppose. But, we have to consider if we have all the facts or just a POV. -- <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b>  (chat)  13:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Breasts Implants Belong in Quackery Museum - Dr. Joseph Mercola This link does not work on the article. I guess this wikilink below is what needs to be there. I haven't gotten brave enough to edit an article but I did want to let someone know. Thanks! "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quackery''" --Crohnie 19:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Museum of quackery link
Hello all. I havn't added or restored it, but I think the link to Bob McCoy's quackery museum increases the interest level of the article. It does show quite a few concrete examples of quackery in an interesting way and I believe anyone interested in knowing more about quackery would probably like to visit the museum. Its also worth knowing that there are such museums of quackery. I believe the museum or exhibition is of a standard acceptable to an encyclopedia. In fact judging by the exhibits, it seems the expertise level is high and the exhibits and information are of encyclopedic standards. Here are the links for your perusal. It may even be worth describing it briefly within the article rather than just having a link, together with any other museums of quackery that may exist. . Docleaf 02:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Actual Definition
This article is not only a ranting diatribe, it is completely false. I have been attempting to insert the historical interpretation of the definition of the word "quack": - 	"The modern use of the word "quack" traces its roots back to the early days of American dentistry. In the 1830's there were two distinct groups that dentists fell into, those who were in favor of mercury amalgams and those opposed. Those who opposed its use formed their own society called the American Society of Dental Surgeons, while the amalgam supporters formed the American Dental Association. Dentists who belonged to the Society referred to their peers who used mercury as "quacks", which is short for quackenslaver the Germanic word for mercury. The historical origin of this derogatory medical term is commonly overlooked."

This is a fact whether or not it is appreciated, and whether or not it serves the purposes of whoever wrote this particular diatribe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.220.49.194 (talk • contribs) 19:37, May 16, 2007 (UTC)


 * You haven't provided a source for your statement. Online dictionaries seem to support the consensus statement in the article, more or less, quack is short for quacksalver which is an archaic Dutch word for charlatan  .  Present German for mercury is Quecksilber, which may have derived from quacksilber or quackslaver, but almost certainly not quackenslaver. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 22:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * How many sources would you like? The original use of the word is tied to Paracelsus who used mercury (quacksalber or quicksilver) to cure conditions like syphilis. It is well established that the German word for mercury, quacksalber, was used as a derogatory term that described the healer's medium of choice, which was then shortened into 'quack'.  This medieval usage was borrowed by the American Society of Dental Surgeons to describe their mercury happy peers, which is what brought the term into its modern use.  In its modern usage, it is essentially a description revived solely for the ADA. Now can you see why the correct history and usage is so obscured?


 * I think this guy gives a pretty adequate summary:
 * "Quack is from the German word for mercury or quicksilver — quacksalber. The term was applied to Paracelsus and his followers because of their extensive use of this metal. Originally the word quack was applied to those who poisoned their patients with mercury. Now it is falsely applied to all who refuse to poison their patients. Every intelligent reader will readily recognize to whom the term really belongs."
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.215.233.58 (talk)


 * You are just parroting modern, deceptive, historical revisionism commonly used among promoters of anti-vaccination and anti-mercury viewpoints. You really don't have to believe their propaganda. It is not true. There is no question that there are people who make that false claim, but to change the definition you're going to have to provide historically accurate sources. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b>/<b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 13:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please remember to log-in instead of using at least these three IPs to make tag-team nonsensical edits:


 * -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b>/<b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 13:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b>/<b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 13:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b>/<b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 13:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b>/<b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 13:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b>/<b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 13:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * With the possible exception of the 1861 book in German referenced by one of the references the rotating anon provided, these are all alternative medicine articles, some clearly self-published. Why wouldn't an alt-med journal have an alt-derivation for the words.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

That thought could be developed into an article if enough V & RS are available. If any anti-vaxers think they can then (mis)use Wikipedia to rewrite history, they will find that Wikipedia's law of unintended consequences" applies:


 * "If you write in Wikipedia about yourself, your group, [your pet idea] or your company, once the article is created, you have no right to control its content, and no right to delete it outside our normal channels; we will not delete it simply because you don't like it. Any editor may add material to it within the terms of our content policies. If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want included in an article, it will probably find its way there eventually; more than one user has created an article only to find himself presented in a poor light long-term by other editors. Therefore, don't create promotional or other articles lightly, especially on subjects you care about. Either edit neutrally or don't edit at all. NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable." -- ["pet idea" added by Fyslee...;-)]

They will find that the Wikipedia article will then become a huge exposé of the deceptive historical revisionism practiced by anti-vaccinationists. Once the article has been started, its fate will be out of their hands. It would contain old definitions, dictionary definitions, modern revisionistic and propagandistic definitions, and definitions adapted to our modern cyberage situation. I can imagine that "Quackery definitions throughout history" might be an interesting article. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b>/<b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 15:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Go to Google and enter the phrase "history of quackery", then go to the very first link in the results which will presumably still be this one then read and (if you can) learn. I especially like this part:

"Some dictionaries tell us that a quack was someone who applied a salve (from quacksalver) and boasted (quacked) about it. This is the sort of thing that happens when high school dropouts write dictionaries." 


 * "Some dictionaries" such as OED, perhaps? See what happens when you let the quacks write the definition of "quack".  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

So, what about the fact that the article is a NPOV nightmare? Every word in this article is directly inspired from the "rational to the point of irrational" school of thought. Where is the neutral explanation of the other side? It only seems fair to explain that some people think 'quacksalber' is the Dutch word for 'quicksilver', which makes "quack" a term that refers to those who use quicksilver aka mercury in their practice of medicine. Or is it beyond the scope of the author(s) to explain the p.o.v. of those who disagree with you, without being derisive or condescending? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.215.253.20 (talk)


 * Sure, from a verifiable and reliable source without giving overiding regard to the "other side". Just because there is a POV that people have who wish to argue here, Wikipedia is not the place for it.  Shot info 06:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * While discussions (even in the electronic BMJ bulletin board) are hardly reliable sources, there is an interesting exchange here. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b>/<b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 10:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You guys have a great little game of "move the goal posts" going here. So, here's yet another incongruency; your basic etymological argument doesn't hold water. I'd like to hear the rationalization for how exactly the word "salve" came into germanic language and usage? It's gotta be interesting, especially since just about every use of the word has its roots in various romance languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)


 * The burden of proof is on the claimant. If you come here with the claim that "Quack" came from this dentistry episode, it's your responsibility to provide a verifiable source confirming this. It is not our responsibility to provide a source saying the opposite, and certainly not our responsibility to provide a source countering tangential subjects. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 21:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Might want to double check your sources as most linguists would tell you "salve" is a germanic word ultimately derived from Greek (ie/ not romance). In fact "salve" in Latin means something completely different ('salute' nominally).   Shot info  23:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Add historical quacks
In a historical section the UK quack Samuel Solomon with his "balm of gilead" should be added. This is one ref: maybe there are other refs that are better. MaxPont 21:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Another 19th century person from the UK that probably was a quack is Thomas Holloway. If more refs can be found about him the info can be added to the article. MaxPont 21:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Scientology in the See Also section
I'm not sure why this should be here. As far as I can guess, Scientology claims that psychiatrists are quacks. I would expect to see some reliably sourced statements about this Scientology vs psychiatry dispute in the main body of the text before including Scientology in the See Also section. The reason medicine/alternative medicine/evidence-based medicine are there is because they are discussed in the main text. 62.31.67.29 13:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think the purpose of the See Also section is to link to subjects which are related but weren't mentioned in the main text. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 18:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you would agree that the entries in See Also have to bear some relation to the current topic. As can be seen in the section above about Medicine/Alternative Medicine/EBM, see-also entries which aren't obviously and self-evidently related to the topic need a little clarification or explanation, and I think this is best placed in the main text. 62.31.67.29 13:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Carl Baugh
While I'm no fan of Mr. Baugh's research, I don't think his name has any purpose in this article. He may be a pseudoscientist, but he doesn't really qualify as a quack. Especially with plenty of historical quacks which would make more informative links. This looks thrown in as a dig on creationism, not a valid illustration of the topic. I'd advise removing it and overhauling the section.

Famous Quacks
Good point that this is (as it was up there), a WP:BLP violation. However, I don't think it's impossible to have a section such as this at all. What we need to do is properly source it. Although "Quack" is derogatory, it also has a clear definition and it's possible to make a legitimate case that someone is a quack. This is much the same as the case with List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts‎, where "pseudoscience" is derogatory but has a clear definition, so we can put subjects in the list as long as it's well-sourced. (Of course, we didn't have sources in there before, so let's not add it back in until we do.) --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 19:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The entire section was removed by User:Arthur_Rubin citing WP:BLP. I'm a little new to Wikipedia and editing, but it looks like this policy more pertains to an article about the actual person, not references to a person in another article.  The edit summary also states that the entire section is POV.  It is POV in as much as the mainstream medical community has the point of view that these people are quacks. According to WP:POV  POV is not necessarily against the guidelines as long as “Who advocates the point of view and what there arguments are (supporting evidence, reasoning, ect)" are included in the article.  The only problem would be is if having this section could be considered biased.  I don’t believe having this section with these people listed is biased in the spirit of the article.  I do agree with what user:Infophile has stated above so I'm ok with leaving this section out until sources are found and cited for it.  My question is as far as sources go, would sources that state the beliefs of these people be up to snuff.  This would show what there beliefs are and since there beliefs clearly fit within the accepted definition of quackery I believe this would suffice IMO.  I also believe cited legitimate references would also satisfy what I stated above as far as WP:POV.  Does anyone else have any thoughts?  I'll hold off on any editing while waiting to see if anyone objects.  Thanks! Elhector 20:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP applies to any article which names a living person, not only their own articles. That being said, if, for each "quack", we could find a WP:RS stating that he/she is/was a "quack", it might be allowable.  Looking at their beliefs and determining whether they fall under "quackery" is clearly WP:OR.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 22:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As long as we stay away from calling them quacks and stick to documenting when a V & RS does it, then we're OK. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b>/<b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 22:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You both make good points here. I guess it's best just to leave that section out.  I would think that listing examples of people that meet the defintion of the word that the article is about would be helpful to show the reader exactly what is meant by "quackery", but this being Wikipedia I doubt there is a way to do that without violating at least one of the wiki editing guidlines.  Thanks again! Elhector 23:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The safest way to do it is to start with each one of their articles. Document with good sources that they are accused of quackery and get consensus to keep the edits stable. Then use those same sources here to justify inclusion in a section dealing with people who have been accused of practicing quackery. That way NPOV and sourcing are in harmony with the inclusion criteria. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b>/<b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 08:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * One other thing we might be able to get away with a bit more easily is, instead of using examples of living quacks, we could use dead ones. This lightens up the requirements a bit, plus it's easier to find consensus that they were indeed quacks if they aren't still around and have supporters. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 12:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Very true. Who was the biggest quack - Rife, Abrams, Palmer, Hahnemann, Kellogg, etc..? -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b>/<b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 15:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Why bother ranking, let's just add them all (assuming we can source it). --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 15:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of using dead people as the example. I had totally forgotten about Kellogg, that one at least should be citable.  I'll take a look at finding good references for some of the dead people accused of quackery.  I imagine a better heading for the section would be "People accused of Quackery" or maybe even something a little less strongly worded than that.  I think this would be preferable to just naming the section "Famous Quacks" or "Notable Quacks".  I think this would make it look less like someone is interjecting there personal feelings on the subject.  I'll do some digging around to see if I can find some reliable sources and put something together.  I'll post it here for everyone to take a look at before I put it in the main article to get some consensus. Elhector 17:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * My question about ranking was purely rhetorical humor (and sarcasm!). The heading and wording are indeed very important. We only document opinions here, IOW we document that someone has called the person a quack (or their primary idea or method quackery). Quacks are those who practice quackery. Needless to say we can expect expert wikilawyering obstructionism as a response to this. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b>/<b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 19:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is what I've come up with so far:

Notable People Accused of Quackery

 * John Harvey Kellogg


 * L Ron Hubbard


 * Albert Abrams

A lot of these sources are from respected educational institutuions web pages. I think this should negate any WP:POV arguments. Also I made the heading read "Notable People Accused of Quackery" as this is a statment of fact, these people have been accused of it. I think this also helps settle any WP:POV arguments. Lastly, all of the examples listed above are all deceased so we're not running into any trouble with WP:BLP. Let me know what you guys think. Elhector 20:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Good work. How about Beck, Rife, Palmer, Hahnemann? -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b>/<b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 21:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I had a little bit of trouble finding good sources for them, but if you have some feel free to add them to the list above. I'm going to leave it here for a bit long to see if anyone has any complaints.  If not then I'll move it to the main article  Elhector 21:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have improved the formatting of the references. Excellent resources! -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b>/<b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 15:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice work. For comparison, you might want to look at the types of sources allowed for the List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts page, as it's a similar situation. There, we've limited it to words from a mainstream scientific body or notable skeptic/skeptical group. In this case, we might want to open it up to words from respected doctors and medical associations as well.


 * Certainly, if we can source it well enough, it should be alright to contain even living quacks. However, it's not strictly necessary for the article. This list's primary purpose here would be to give the reader some examples of quacks. Until List of quacks exists, we don't need to worry about mentioning absolutely everyone. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 12:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, this section has been removed several times over the last few days by a few different editors. The most common reason given for the removal is violation of NPOV. I believe the discussions held above demonstrate that this section does not violate any Wikipedia editing guidelines because none of the people in the list are living, the section is called "Notable People Accused of Quackery" and not just "People who are Quacks" or something to that effect, and because all of the sources used are from major medical associations, colleges, respected news publications, and government documents. We're not actually saying these people are quacks in the article so I believe there are no NPOV concerns here. Not being able to include a list of people "accused" of quackery is like saying it is not appropriate to include the information that OJ Simpson was "accused" of murder in his article on Wikipedia. I understand the editors reasoning behind removing the section, but I feel like the ability to present good, useful, and well cited info in the article is losing out to guidelines being followed to closely or not in there original spirit out of fear that someone might be offended. Basically the fact is these people have been accused of quackery by the general academic and medical communities and having this list serves to show exactly what is meant by the definitions and information in the article. I don't think we should ever hesitate to present information that is well cited and helps to inform the reader on the subject they are researching, regardless of how controversial that information is. Let’s have a discussion here to try and sort this issue out. I believe the article is much more informative and useful with this section left in. Thanks! Elhector 20:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with pretty much all Elhector is saying, and I'd also like to point out precedent: List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. There was controversy about this article, yes, but the ultimate decision was that since you actually could make a legitimate case that something was pseudoscience, we could label appropriate subjects as such if and only if a reputable authority said so. (Holy run-on sentence, Batman!) Note that in that case, we don't even have to add in an "accused of" modifier; we just say they're pseudoscience. In essence, the label of quackery isn't much different. Maybe it's a little harsher, and maybe a little more of a POV. However, there are legal definitions of quackery (even if they don't all use that word), so it's something that can be defined and thus declared.


 * Also, on NPOV concerns: While it might be POV to simply call them quacks in the article, it's perfectly NPOV to report that they've been accused of quackery. We're not saying they are, we're just saying they've notably been accused of it. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 21:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I just don't see a need for this list. Lets say I start a list of people who have been called "stupid" in the stupid article. I could dig out references and say only people who are dead and have been called stupid should go in this list. What would be the point of that list? I just don't see any value to a list like that, or this one. And what does the List of pseudosciences have to do with the list your proposing? I don't get it--Hughgr 23:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "Stupid" is an overly broad concept when best defined, and usually is simply an epithet, while quackery is clearly defined. It's also a big deal if someone is accused of quackery, even more so if it's by a reputable organization. On the other hand, absolutely no one cares if you've been called "stupid" by anyone.
 * (Sorry, I mistyped the link and didn't preview. Fixed now.) The point of this list is to illustrate the concept to the reader by providing real-world examples. We could go on describing quacks all day, but nothing illustrates it better than an example.
 * "Pseudoscience" is also a clearly-defined concept, and it's derogatory. The case there is an obvious parallel to Quackery, and we can learn from the example. You want a closer parallel? How about Fraud? Huge "Notable fraudsters" section, and it doesn't even bother with the "accused" label. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 00:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the difference would be that the term "stupid" is not an actual legal term and it's not dealing with something as important as medicine. I highly doubt you would be able to find a source from any legitimate medical or educational resource citing someone as "stupid".  One could pick any term such as idiot, dumb, stupid, psychotic, ect and make the same argument against this section using anyone of those.  The difference is none of those terms carry the same weight as this one and those terms paint with a much much broader brush.  Let's just take a look at this in the context of this article and the term "quackery" specifically.  Quackery has a very specific definition. Someone who would be using this article for any type of research I'm sure would find actual examples of historical figures that have been labeled with this term useful.  Imagine you're writing a paper on quacks and quackery, I'm sure it would be helpful to have the ability to include in the paper the fact that persons X, Y, and Z have been accused of precisely the topic you're writing about.  If Wikipedia is to be any sort of a research tool I think sections like this are very helpful in researching a particular subject.  That being said, I don't think this list needs to get any longer then it already is. 3 to 4 examples should be enough for anyone, and the examples listed are among the most notable and historical. Basically what I'm saying Hughgr is that I understand where you're coming from, but in this particular situation I don't think the section is quite presenting the problems you feel that it is.  Also I just wanted to let you know I'm not trying to come off as rude, disrespectful, or anything of the sort.  I know my entries on talk pages can get rather lengthy sometimes.  Just trying to get a healthy debate going about this subject as I feel it's important :-) Let me know what you think, Thanks! Elhector 00:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * So why doesn't the crank page list people who have been called cranks? And, when your criteria are "notable people who...", who decides that they're notable? I'm heading outta town but I think we need to get more peoples input on this matter via an RfC.--Hughgr 01:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The crank page does not have a list of people probably because crank still doesn't carry the same weight as the term quack. Also, I haven't been to that article yet, so it might wind up with a list... I'm kidding :-).  These people are notable because the very same medical associations, places of education, and federal government documents we spoke of above considers them notable.  I suppose we could list more sources, but nobody really wants 27 links in superscript next to each person's name on the list.  I think putting up an RfC on this one would be a good idea.  I know how they work but I've never really set one up before so I don't know what exactly is supposed to go into the "statements by editors previously involved in dispute" part.  Also I'm not sure if User:Infophile wants to be involved.  If you want to set it up that's cool or you could tell me how much info should go into the "statements by editors previously involved in dispute" part exactly and I could get it going. Elhector 02:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I just had another thought about the question of what makes these people notable. They're notable enough to each have there own page on Wikipedia.  Also one of them founded a religion that has millions of members and another one is one of the founders of the Kellogg Company.  Those to are notable for sure. Elhector 06:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about the notability issue as it is clearly established. These people were extremely notable people and were also very, very, very controversial, in fact they still are controversial, as the very existence of objections (without legitimate arguments) demonstrate. No Wikipedia-valid reasons are given for exclusion, just "I don't like this," which doesn't fly here. The more objections that come in, the more evidence will pile up for the notability and legitimacy of their inclusion. An RfC will bring even more advertising to their notability and the legitimacy of continuing to say they were quacks. There are loads of sources that could be added, and if objections make it necessary they can be added. These kinds of situations have nearly always ended up in a Pyrrhic victory with the objectors wishing they had never uttered a word. One can only wonder why anyone would object and try to bury historical facts. While a few examples should suffice, if necessary we can also add more examples with very good sources, thus making an even stronger case. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b>/<b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 08:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I really don't think this issue is worth an RfC. Precedent is clearly established; it's clear how having it in adds value to the encyclopedia; no guidelines are being violated. It's just one user who doesn't like it. However, if an RfC is created, I will participate. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 17:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

David Colquhoun external link
It has been argued that David Colquhoun's blog is okay for an external link per WP:EL because David Colquhoun is a professor of high reputation. However, per WP:EL, it says that this "blog" exception is made for recognized authorities in related field. Colquhoun was a professor at UCL's now defunct school of pharmacology. How do we know that he is a recognized authority in the subject at hand though: Quackery? -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99;">discuss 01:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am going to remove the external link until someone can help establish that Colquhoun is a recognized quackery authority. However, I do look forward to discussing this further if someone can provide such information. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99;">discuss 19:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The evidence is all over the source. Good references, very well versed science view, Royal Society member etc.Spoctacle 07:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Unreliable source removed
I have removed a reference to a source that is unreliable for a number of reasons:

a. The author is pseudonymous ("Anthony di Fabio" is the pen name of a science fiction writer). Thus it fails WP:V.

b. The author openly states in his writings that "I have not verified most of the materials referenced." Thus he fails as a WP:RS.

The author is known to write without regard for whether what he writes is true or not, often repeating lies and libelous assertions about individuals in his conspiracy theories. This attitude and carelessness with fact checking (lack of!) renders him a very bad source to use. We aren't in the business of simply repeating attacks here. This is not tabloid journalism. Fortunately there is still a source left to back up the statement in the article. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 20:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

A Different Perspective
Quackery was derived from the German word quecksalber. It came about in reference to the common medieval practice of using mercury (quecksilber) in topical healing unguents (salbe), particularly as a treatment for the widespread difficulties related to syphilis. It was a popular and fairly simple remedy that could be easily applied by practitioners of little or no medical skill, which explains the connection to those with a lack of formal medical education.

This has been documented in medical literature from as far back as the 1860's.

For instance:

Untersuchungen über den constitutionellen Mercurialismus und sein Verhältniss zur constitutionellen Syphilis

Dr. Adolf Kussmaul, 1861

And a more recent example can be found in:

SYPHILIS:Is it a Mischievous Myth or a Malignant Monster?

Dr. H.M. Shelton, 1962

So, what I wanna know is whether or not the author(s) of this article have a reference that pre-dates 1861? Let alone a reference prior to 1861 that was written in the language of origin? And, if there is no reference prior to 1861, shouldn't the article be seriously revised?

pixiequix (talk) 08:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Samuel Hahnemann
Whatever you may think of homeopathy he was a physician that did no harm to his patients unlike the people who called him a quack in his day. I think his inclusion here should be reconsidered. &mdash;Whig (talk) 07:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that Homeopathy and Reiki are usually considered the most evidence-free and improbable of the major types of alternate medicine. As such, it would be strange not to discuss at least homeopathy here. (Reiki has a very short history in the west) Adam Cuerden talk 13:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you would like to add some modern practitioner of homeopathy you consider a quack. However, that does not mean Samuel Hahnemann was a quack. Reiki is not relevant to this. &mdash;Whig (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I want to point out again that even if Hahnemann was wrong that does not make him a quack. His contemporaries were much more quackish, using calomel and bloodletting to cure disease. &mdash;Whig (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've done as you asked and checked out the entry on Samuel Hahnemann. I still don't see the POV being pushed.  The fact that some of his accusers were "much more quackish" then him is a non issue.  Also this article does not exist to list people in order of who is more "quackish".  Think of it this way, if a serial rapist calls a bank robber a criminal, the fact that the serial rapist is "more of a criminal" then the bank robber doesn't mean the serial rapist's description of the bank robber is inaccurate.  They're both still criminals.  Do you see the error in your logic?  I also noticed you made a suggestion to add some modern practitioner of homeopathy I consider a quack.  Firsty, Hahnemann is not on the list because we consider him a quack, he's on the list because he is an example of someone that has been accused of quackery and there are reliable sources to back that up.  Also, the fact that some of the accusations were made 200 years ago is also irrelevant.  This opinion of him is still held by modern practitioners of medicine as well.  His entry notes "Hahnemann believed that all diseases were caused by psora (itch), and that illnesses could be treated by substances that in a healthy person produced similar symptoms to the illness, in extremely low concentrations, with the therapeutic effect increasing with dilution."  This belief is just as flawed now as it was 200 years ago.  Secondly, adding a modern practitioner would run into problems with WP:BLP.  The entire article exists to define quackery.  Quackery does exist and is notable.  The list in this article serves to give some examples to further help the reader understand what is meant by the definition and descriptions in the article using historically notable figures.  IMO you are displaying a fundamental misunderstanding of the polices on NPOV and neutrality. Elhector (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Mesmer
Mesmer might fit better in the new section, though he wasn't entirely right, of course. Adam Cuerden talk 13:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Is the qualification for not being called a quack to be entirely right? Because nobody writing a hundred years or more ago about medicine or any scientific subject was entirely right from today's perspective, and nobody writing today is entirely right from the perspective of a hundred years from now. Accusations of quackery should be based on fraudulent medicine. &mdash;Whig (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Questionable, POV article
I think this might be appropriate for AfD. &mdash;Whig (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd have to completely disagree with you on this but If you feel that way you should nominate it. Can I ask why you believe this article should be deleted? Elhector (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please list your complaints with the article. Coming here and saying you think the article is appropriate for AfD and then placing a cleanup tag at the top of the article doesn't really help anything if don't actually let everyone know what exactly you believe is wrong with the article. How do we work to fix something when we don't know where it's broke? Elhector (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * (ec)I'd rather discuss before nominating. Perhaps I am unfamiliar with the reasons it should be kept and there is no reason to go seeking outside opinions. Your suggestion to strip out the list of historical "quacks" may resolve much of the problem but it seems inherently POV to say who is or who is not a quack at any time past or present, and moreover what is or is not quackery. It's just a term of derision, like having an article called Hucksters. &mdash;Whig (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You may want to take a look at some of the other discussions on this talk page. The term "Quack" has a very clear cut definition and is used regularly in the medical field and also the legal field.  Also, the section you're talking about is called "Notable people accused of quackery".  The article isn't calling anyone quacks, just showing people who have been accussed of it and why in the past.  I will agree with you that the section is too long.  Should be 3-4 examples tops.  But otherwise the article is well written, NPOV, and well sourced IMO.  I don't know that we want to throw the baby out with the bathwater because one section is a little bigger than it needs to be.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elhector (talk • contribs) 18:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I don't agree, Elhector. But rather than arguing with you I'd like to get more opinions. Perhaps I will nominate it for AfD. &mdash;Whig (talk) 19:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I wasn't really looking to argue. I was actually trying to explain to you why nominating it for AfD was a bad idea.  I think you're aware of that now though. Elhector (talk) 23:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Notable historical persons accused of quackery section getting out of control
IMO the Notable historical persons accused of quackery section is getting a little out of hand. There was a debate a while back (it's still above if anyone would like to read it) about even having this section in the article. The consensus was to keep it in (I was one of the editors pushing for this) but to limit it to a few examples for reference. We now have 12 people listed in that section. I think that is far to many and not necessary. I think 3-4 really notable examples should be enough. Anyone else have any thoughts? Elhector (talk) 18:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I personally don't mind that any person who has a Wikipedia article (and hence notable by definition) AND has been labelled a "quack" in a RS (shich should also be in their actual WP article) appear in the list. Shot info (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't mind the existance of the list in the article, as a matter of fact I think it's an important section. I don't think the list needs to be as big as it is though.  This is a article about quackery, not a list of quacks.  In my opinion a list of 3-4 really good example should be enough. Elhector (talk) 23:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The way I see it, if we're going to have a list of all quacks, we should put it at List of quacks or List of people accused of quackery, not this article. Here, we should get a few examples to get the point across. I'd recommend three people that are still considered quacks, and one that's been vindicated.


 * This is an issue that seems to come up a lot when there's a list of examples within a non-list article. People always want to go in and add their own examples, when this isn't supposed to be a comprehensive list. You just have to keep a firm hand on things, I think. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 23:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

POV #2
There is a previous thread also on POV.

I am concerned that this article is incapable of being other than a disparagement of certain people and practices which are simply unpopular. There is no standard of what is or is not quackery, at different times different practices and people have been disparaged. To the extent that this can be improved, we can describe very little without it being unfairly derogatory unless very carefully balanced in each case. I understand some editors are very committed to this article and a nomination for AfD was swiftly resolved to keep. Please also see the threads above, regarding Samuel Hahnemann, Mesmer and Questionable, POV article &mdash;Whig (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a standard of what is quackery, it's defined in the article. That's what the article is about.  Why else would we have an article about quackery other than to describe what quackery is in a NPOV and well cited and sourced manner using reliable sources.  This article accomplishes that.  I'm not sure where you're seeing a POV being pushed.  Could you possibly give some specific examples in the article so we know what exactly you're concerned with.  Using blanket terms and labeling the whole article "POV" really makes it impossible to ascertain what your issues with the article are and what your idea of correcting those issue would be.  All I can ascertain is that you don't like the article.  That's not enough to get anything changed.  Your AfD is a prime example.  It failed because your only reason for the AfD was "inherently POV".  No one else sees the POV because you've failed to actually point it out.  Elhector (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything that violates NPOV in this article. (Although it does have other problems.) The point of view tag should be removed. Rray (talk) 23:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec)Again, I note there is a previous POV thread, and several other editors have expressed similar NPOV concerns to my own. &mdash;Whig (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Elhector, since you ask for specific examples I would ask you to address the thread regarding Samuel Hahnemann and whether it is appropriate to note that he was called a quack by people who were giving calomel and bloodletting remedies without noting that. &mdash;Whig (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I know you didn't address this to question to me, but of course it's appropriate to call a quack a quack. :) Rray (talk) 00:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Whig - I've done as you asked and took a look at the thread thread regarding Samuel Hahnemann. I've replied above in that thread Elhector (talk) 19:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic. Are you saying that because someone called him a quack 200 years ago he should be listed here? What if we had an article on Shysters. Should we list everyone who was ever called that? &mdash;Whig (talk) 01:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You do understand the concept of reliable sources? Shot info (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I do understand the concept, yes. Do we have a reliable source calling Hahnemann a quack? &mdash;Whig (talk) 01:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks to me like we have two. Rray (talk) 02:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Source #1: The five editions of Organon that were published in Hahnemann's lifetime differ somewhat from each other the first edition is not as full as the fifth, but the teaching is the same that the duty of the physician is to cure the sick as easily and as speedily as possible.

The publication of this was the signal for the commencement of a violent warfare against Hahnemann. He was attacked in medical journals of the day, books and pamphlets were fulminated against him and his strange doctrines. He was called a charlatan, a quack, an ignoramus. His minute doses were declared to be impossible. Especially bitter in attack was one Dr. Hecker of Berlin. His reviews were so virulent that even Hahnemann's opponents condemned them. The books and pamphlets written against homoeopathy may be numbered by hundreds.

But a fitting answer was given to the jealous horde in the year 1811 by the publication of the first volume of "Materia Medica Pura". And during this period he also made many new converts to his mild and successful system of healing.


 * Source #2:

Berzelius, who, knowing well the value of Hahnemann’s services to his own science, is reported to have said, "This man would have been a great chemist, had he not turned a great quack.’’ We may take Berzelius’s opinion as to Hahnemann’s skill in chemistry; but try his physic by other than chemical tests.


 * Neither of these sources say that Samuel Hahnemann was a quack. It is not disputed that some of his contemporaries called him a quack, but as pointed out they were using calomel and bloodletting and he rightly condemned their practices as well. For Wikipedia to call Hahnemann "an accused quack" on this basis is not appropriate in my opinion. Is this Berzelius a reliable source? &mdash;Whig (talk) 03:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that if they called him a quack, and the article says that they called him a quack, then we don't have a problem, do we? Rray (talk) 03:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, we do have a problem, it's a very serious NPOV problem. &mdash;Whig (talk) 03:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The article relates a fact that's supported by a source. How is that an NPOV problem, much less a "very serious NPOV problem"? Rray (talk) 03:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is purely pejorative. Someone called him a name, and it wasn't someone reliable or verifiable, just a slur. Wikipedia does not need to repeat second- and third-hand insults. &mdash;Whig (talk) 04:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not "purely pejorative". The word "quack" has a specific meaning, just like the word "criminal" has a specific meaning. Just because it's negative doesn't mean that it can't be factual or accurate. Rray (talk) 04:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever it means these sources do not support any factual basis to believe that Hahnemann was a quack or a criminal or an ignoramus. &mdash;Whig (talk) 04:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But the article doesn't say he's a quack anyway. It just says he was accused of being a quack. Rray (talk) 04:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And an ignoramus. But that's POV. &mdash;Whig (talk) 04:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that's not POV. It's irrelevant. The article isn't about ignoramuses; it's about quacks. Rray (talk) 04:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I should make this clearer for you. It is POV whatever names they called him, because these are second- and third-hand slanders at best. &mdash;Whig (talk) 04:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And the second source is extremely suspect. Who is this Berzelius who is supposed to have said something sometime? It is not a reliable source at all for this purpose. It is certainly not verifiable either. &mdash;Whig (talk) 03:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Going back to the first source, he was also called an ignoramus. I would not suggest adding him to a list of prominent Ignorami. &mdash;Whig (talk) 03:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We don't have an article about ignoramuses, do we? You still haven't explained how this violates NPOV. Rray (talk) 03:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Since you deleted the section you thought was a point of view problem, are you going to remove the point of view tag from the article too? Do you agree that all the other people listed in that section are listed there legitimately? Was that the only person on the list of accused quacks who should have been deleted? Or should some of them have been deleted from the article also? Rray (talk) 04:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the entire list should be deleted. I have commented on this below. &mdash;Whig (talk) 04:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Why did you only delete one person from the list if you think the entire list should go? Rray (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Because that would be premature without further discussion which may require looking at more sources and considering how we might rephrase and salvage some content. &mdash;Whig (talk) 04:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Then why delete the content that we were in the middle of a discussion of here on the talk page? I don't see anything resembling a consensus regarding the change that you just made. Why does the rest of the list require further discussion, but not the one bullet point that you deleted? Rray (talk) 04:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Because I do not believe the sources could support that content, after full consideration. If you disagree you may revert me and justify. &mdash;Whig (talk) 05:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So you think that the entire list should be deleted, but it would be premature to delete it without further discussion. But we're in the middle of discussing a single bullet point, and it's appropriate to delete that bullet point while we're discussing it? That's very odd behavior. It almost seems as if you might have a bias toward the viewpoint of the individual in that particular bullet point. Rray (talk) 05:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, there is a historical source, and it's dismissed not because it's not verifible, but the source is considered POV....wha tha. You do realise that NPOV doesn't apply how you think? If you doubt me, please point out where in WP:NPOV it states that we cannot use biased sources? We can only regard them on their reliability, which you haven't argued. You may wish to check up on WP:UNDUE as well, and WP:FRINGE for that matter. Shot info (talk) 05:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think Hahnemann belongs here - he was a worthy doctor, not a charlatan. And homeopathy is still arguably mainstream - available in most pharmacies in the UK, used by the head-of-state, supported by the National Health Service.  Of course, it is controversial and seems to be losing ground but I don't think it belongs in an article on quacks - charlatans and mountebanks.  In one of the definitional articles used as a source, it says that the essence of a quack is that he quacks, i.e. engages in sales promotion for his supposed remedy.  Hahnemann wrote articles for medical journals and proper treatises - not the same thing.  Colonel Warden (talk) 09:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have attempted an edit to at least bring the text in line with the sources. It still needs to express that his critics were certainly more quackish than Hahnemann but that requires additional sources to be added. Or the statement can come out altogether because like Colonel Warden I don't think Hahnemann belongs here at all. &mdash;Whig (talk) 06:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have added a cite to Hahnemann's own words, criticising the establishment of his day in section 74. (That cite may need to be cleaned up to point readers to the correct section.) In effect he accuses the establishment of quackery. &mdash;Whig (talk) 06:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Whig, do you disagree that sources have labelled him a quack, and that homeopathy is widely considered quackery by mainstream medicine and science? Keep in mind that quackery doesn't necessarily involve fraud. If it involves fraud, we call it fraud. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 06:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree there are reliable sources that have called him a quack. &mdash;Whig (talk) 06:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, even if you choose to label modern practitioners of homeopathy in some derogatory fashion that does not mean the same label would apply to Samuel Hahnemann practicing in his time. &mdash;Whig (talk) 06:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If someone practiced blood letting and calomel today you would call that person a quack. But Samuel Hahnemann's contemporaries, you would not call quacks, though he did. &mdash;Whig (talk) 06:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to understand V & RS. Read them again. The sources clearly document that he was accused of quackery in his own lifetime. They declared war on the man! And the sources we have used are pro-homeopathy sources, so you can't claim we are using sources biased against homeopathy, although NPOV would also allow them. Your objections ring hollow and your editing pattern here seems to be a violation of your probation. Your ban can be reinstated immediately and without notice. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 06:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to remind all editors to participate in a congenial manner and refrain from ad hominem commentary. <small style="background:#fff;border:#191970 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">east<big style="color:#090">. 718 at 07:25, December 19, 2007


 * You are taking statements out of context from "pro-homeopathy" sources to make anti-homeopathy statements. By leaving the naked charge that he was called a quack (by people he called quacks in all but name, and who were practicing quackery by modern standards) without giving any indication of the provenance of those accusations, is pure name-calling and violates NPOV. The sources are second and third-hand gossip and not reliable sources for the purpose of establishing who may or may not have ever called him a quack. &mdash;Whig (talk) 07:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I would ask Fyslee or someone to name one reliable source which called Hahnemann a quack. Not merely which says some unreliable sources may have called him names. &mdash;Whig (talk) 07:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd also note that balancing context is given to the accusations against Pasteur. So Hahnemann is not to be afforded balance? &mdash;Whig (talk) 08:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Homeopathy was not vindicated. It is still considered quackery, and is still considered sciemtifically implausible. Adam Cuerden talk 09:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's no more a violation of NPOV to say that Hahnemann was accused of quackery than it is to say that OJ Simpson was accused of murder. Rray (talk) 14:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be an NPOV violation to say that OJ Simpson was accused of murder without also saying that he was acquitted of criminal charges, but found responsible in a civil wrongful death action. It would also be an NPOV violation to say that he was accused of murder if there was no formal accusation but only second- and third-hand sources saying that some people accused him informally, unless we made very clear that no formal charges were brought. In Hahnemann's case, there is no source that charges him with quackery. None. &mdash;Whig (talk) 17:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We don't need a source accusing him of being a quack or calling him a quack. We only need a source stating he was accussed of quackery, which the we do.  We're not calling anyone a quack here, we're only illustrating examples of people who have been accused of it.  See the difference?  Do you believe Hahnemann was not accused of being a quack?  If you can provide a reliable source stating that Hahnemann was never accused of quackery then you might have a valid point here. Elhector (talk) 18:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You ask for something impossible, no source can say that nobody ever said something. On the other hand you still have no reliable source calling Hahnemann a quack. &mdash;Whig (talk) 18:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Whig - I still don't think you understand why the points you raise are in valid. This is an article about the term quackery.  It describes what the definition is, where the term comes from, and how and why someone would be accused of it.  We then provide a few examples of historical figures who were accused of it per the defintions and reasons laid out in the article.  None of that is POV.  Hahnemann was accused of quackery per the information laid out in the article.  We have reliable source saying he was accused of quackery and why.  The only way there would be an issue with this is if this stuff never happened.  Do you believe the information in the article is inaccurate?  Also please see my reply above in the thread you created for Hahnemann.  If this article was calling Hahnemann a quack we'd have an issue.  But it's not so we don't. Elhector (talk) 17:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't believe the information in this article satisfies NPOV. Whether you can or cannot say that people insulted Hahnemann, we don't have any source calling him a quack, we only have second- or third-hand smears by people he rightly accused of quackery in all but name. &mdash;Whig (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Shall we take the question of whether or not we have reliable sources sufficient to claim that Hahnemann was accused of quackery to WP:RSN? &mdash;Whig (talk) 18:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that would be a fine idea if you would like to pursue it. It's obvious from above that your concerns are not shared by most of the editors here so maybe some outside perspective might help.  Anything to help prevent edit warring, that's what I always say :-) Elhector (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you think it is a good idea, I suggest in the interest of cordiality I should let you make the request. &mdash;Whig (talk) 19:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I said "I think that would be a fine idea if you would like to pursue it." I don't have an issue with the sources and I'm not really entirely sure what your issues are with http://www.homeopathyspace.com and http://www.hpathy.com.  As such I really wouldn't feel comfortable putting words in your mouth.  If you want to put something together and have me take a look at it before you post it I would be more than happy to.  I completely disagree with you on your opinion of the article obviously, but I don't have any personal issues with you that other editors here seem to have here so I'm sure I can take a look at it from a non-biased and objective standpoint.  I said before I think you may have a misunderstanding on some of the policies here but I do assume your edits are in good faith nonetheless :-) Thanks! Elhector (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have discussed my issues in detail above on this topic. I don't want to rehash it all again here except to say that I believe it is a violation of the core NPOV policy to take out of context second- and third-hand smears by critics which are not reliably reported -- no specific reliable source has called Hahnemann a quack and we don't know who they are specifically apart from someone who may have been named Berzelius (that we know of second-hand but don't know who he is), especially without even noting that his critics were quacks according to his own and our modern view. &mdash;Whig (talk) 20:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:RSN
A request has been made at the Reliable Sources noticeboard seeking editors' opinions. &mdash;Whig (talk) 07:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Both of the sources originally raised in this notice have now been removed and replaced with new sources. One of those sources is substantially the same (and is precisely the same relevant text) as one of the sources that was removed. Another is completely new and will have to be evaluated in depth, but as long as the inaccurate description of homeopathy is removed (and readers can see the homeopathy article if they wish), it may be satisfactory. &mdash;Whig (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The inaccurate statement of homeopathy has been restored. Nobody claims that potency increases with dilution without succussion. A fuller description of the method of potentization would be necessary to correct this statement. &mdash;Whig (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, you have to be joking. So you deleted an entire description over pedanticism? Adam Cuerden talk 22:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Inaccuracy, Adam. Without succussion homeopathic dynamization does not occur. Whether it occurs at all is another question and I know that you doubt it, but that is not relevant to this article. &mdash;Whig (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it is also inadequate to say that he believed all diseases were caused by psora (itch). To explain his theory of miasms would be complex here, and it would be more clear to paraphrase as "inflammation" instead of "psora (itch)". However that is hard to do with primary sources, as you know. It is the language that modern writers use however. &mdash;Whig (talk) 22:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's reasonable to correct it, but you didn't have to delete the whole sentence when you could have easily fixed it. Adam Cuerden talk 22:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't want to WP:SYNTH. Anyhow, I'm glad we're working constructively together now. &mdash;Whig (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, you've definitely got the priorities reversed. Homeopathy is first and foremost the treatment with the substance causing similar symptoms. &mdash;Whig (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have reordered them. I believe the second sentence can simply come out unless it is substantially reworded to not confuse readers with strange terms and concepts they can't be expected to understand. &mdash;Whig (talk) 23:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My edit was reverted by Orangemarlin. I have given my reasoning above. I ask Orangemarlin to justify here why he/she thinks my edit was a violation of NPOV. &mdash;Whig (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Reasons quackery persists
This section seems to be original research and has been tagged previously as requiring sources. I removed the entire section as it also seems whiny, tendentious and weakly argued. For example, it omits the obvious primary reason for quackery to persist - economic interest, i.e. money.

Another editor reverted my cleanup and asks that we discuss the matter here. So here we are.

Colonel Warden (talk) 00:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Your edit shouldn't have been reverted. Unsourced material is supposed to be removed from articles. Rray (talk) 00:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I deleted this material again, as it remains unsourced. It should not be re-added to the article unless it includes references to reliable sources. (Although I would support its reinclusion if sources were added.) Rray (talk) 00:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If you don't have a problem with it except it's not sourced, wouldn't it make more sense to tag it, find sources, and add it instead of just removing the whole section? Elhector (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Because I'm not interested in it enough to find sources for it. It's the responsibility of the person adding the material to the article to provide sourcing anyway. Unsourced material isn't supposed to be added in the first place, and deleting unsourced material is entirely appropriate. Re-adding it is appropriate too, if you add sources when you re-add it. Rray (talk) 01:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Formerly accused of quackery, but now considered mainstream
The examples listed here would need a source which supports what this section is saying about them - i.e. That they were once accused of quackery and now they are considered mainstream. It seems kind of like a loaded topic because there are quacks in mainstream. Quackery itself can be mainstream. Perhaps mainstream is not the best choice of words. -- <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 02:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is the edit which separated this section. Note that the creator of this section states that there is some sort of qualitative difference but did not present any source to note such a difference. -- <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 04:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I can see no merit in these lists of accuseds at all. It seems like we're just repeating old gossip. &mdash;Whig (talk) 04:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Look, I know you two are heavily into alt med, but do you really think that Germ theory and washing your hands before surgery aren't mainstream? That Pasteur and Semmelweis aren't mainstream? Adam Cuerden talk 11:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * We're not talking about individual quacks who operate under the guise of mainstream doctors here; we're talking scientists whose theories were once considered quackery, but are now accepted by mainstream science. That's the qualitative difference we have here: These people (assuming our modern assessment is right, though it could always be wrong) probably weren't quacks, as further research has shown them to be right. The others have not had such vindicating research (at least yet), so they probably were quacks.


 * As for references, that should be a trivial task for someone who has a little time to look for them. Instead of complaining, why not go to the articles on these people and find it yourselves? Who knows, it might be taken as a show of good faith that you're committed to improving the encyclopedia rather than pushing your POV. But if you don't have the time, I'll see if I can get around to it myself when I have some free time to go reference digging later this week. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 16:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * mentioning selected historical geniuses whose work was at first rejected in order to imply that the same might be the case for your own ideas qualifies for item 19 on the crackpot index, "10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a paradigm shift" and item 36 "40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)" dab (𒁳) 17:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I just took a look and entries for Pasteur and Semmelweis are sourced. It looks like the sources aren't available online though.  I haven't read the 2 sources listed but are they not enough?  Is the issue that we need to find readily available online sources? Elhector (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, otherwise this subsection in the article was created based solely on our own opinions, without any sources. This is inherently an NPOV violation and is a reason why the tag at the top of the article is necessitated. I will certainly take the time to look for sources which explicitly spell out that though X was once charged with Quackery, X is now considered mainstream. But again, I think it would be better phrasing to say that though X was once charged with Quackery, X is no longer considered so. Remember, just because someone is mainstream, doesn't mean they are not a quack. Check out Pemberton, for instance. What is more mainstream in the entire world than Coca Cola? Yet, do we look back and call him a quack? Or do we list him in this other category? Certainly he fits the description of: formerly accused of quackery, but now considered mainstream. What is mainstream? -- <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 17:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Just so I understand then, the 2 sources already there are not enough? To answer your question I would consider mainstream medicine to be anything that would be taught in a nationally accredited medical school.  Washing hands before surgery would be taught in medical school, so IMO that's mainstream.  Magnet therapy or blood letting is probably not taught to medical students, so I would consider that non-mainstream.  Seems fairly simple to define to me. Elhector (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sadly, the line is getting blurry. A skeptical blogger recently counted 12 accredited medical schools which offer courses in acupuncture and/or reiki, which are two of the most obvious non-"mainstream" medical practices. Perhaps "mainstream" isn't the word we should be using, or we should be describing it differently. Maybe we could call it "part of conventional medicine"? --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 19:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Per Elhector's definition of mainstream, chiropractic would certainly fit the mold as it is taught in a nationally accredited school. And, as it would seem per Infophile, so is acupuncture and Reiki (Really? Yikes!). However, I don't think Infophile's suggestion of "part of conventional medicine" because it creates an NPOV issue. The problem is that there is conventional medicine but everything that is not "conventional" is not, by definition, quackery. A quack (according to our article here) is a fraudulent or ignorant pretender to medical skill. Therefore, someone who pretends to be even a conventional doctor can be considered a quack. I think the mistake we are making here is that we are assuming that "mainstream medicine" and "quackery" are dichotomous; however they are apples and oranges and really can't be compared in such a way. If we got rid of the "Formerly accused of quackery, but now considered mainstream" or found some way to have inclusion criteria that makes sense and can be supported by reliable sources, then I would be more open to removing the NPOV violation tag at the top of this article. -- <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 22:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hrm... I think I see where you're coming from. Now that I'm thinking about it, what purpose is that section really serving in the article?  The list of notable figure accused of quackery makes sense because it's helpful to have a few historical and notable examples (I still think the list is a little long, but that's a different issue), but what help is the list of people who were accused but now are not?  Having pondered it a little more I'm not sure that section really does anything to help the reader understand quackery.  Maybe removing it might be a good idea.  Thoughts? Elhector (talk) 23:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * My recommendation is that we get rid of the section break, and narrow it down to just a handful of examples (also put in a "not a full list" note to editors). We can (and probably should) leave in one of the "vindicated" accusees; we should just make it clear that this is the case in the entry. That way we don't need to bother with describing the category; we just have to describe the history. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 23:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I like this idea. How about we pick 3 from the first list, and then put Pasteur at the end as the vindicated entry.  Also, I like the idea of the note to editors stating this is not a full list.  Elhector (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Screw it, I was bold and just went ahead and did it :-). There was already a note there, I just went ahead and added a little to it.  Let me know what you guys think. Elhector (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that's the right idea, though I'm not quite sure those are the best three examples. My problem is that, ironically, they're all too prominent. Hahnemann founded homeopathy, Hubbard started a religion, and Kellogg is a household name (though not tied to his possible quackery). I think it might serve the article better to list a more "run-of-the-mill" quack. Looking back at the previous version, I think Albert Abrams would be good, particularly as he was purposefully deceptive in his claims. I'd probably replace Hubbard with him, though I'll admit that's motivated partly by wanting to avoid the potential hassle we'd get from Scientologists claiming we're unfairly picking on them. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 05:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I chose those particular ones as they seemed the most notable to me. Who am I to judge notability though, right?  I really think Kellogg should stay for sure though.  I think since he is obviously a household name that more than vouches for his notability and people will most likely find the information interesting.  Also, I can't remember ever seeing a rabib pro-Kellogg person in here bitching about it, you know?  As far as Hubbard and Hahnemann go I think either one of them could be replaced by Abrams.  Hubbard has been on that list for sometime and no one has complained so I'm leaning more towards Hahnemann being replaced.  Removing Hahnemann might alleviate some issue that have already started.  Kind of nip them in the bud you know?  I'll leave it up to you though, just some suggestions.  I don't feel strongly one way or another as long as there are a few notable examples :-) Elhector (talk) 05:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding Louis Pasteur, our Wikipedia article on Salutogenesis has this deathbed attribution :
 * "Bernard is right; the pathogen is nothing; the terrain is everything."
 * &mdash;Whig (talk) 09:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing it out, time to finally see if there is a proper cite. Shot info (talk) 00:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It turns out also Stephen Barrett has been accused of quackery by Ray Sahelian, MD. :Stephen Barrett, M.D. does not have a degree in nutrition science. He has been trained in psychiatry but has not practiced psychiatry for many, many years and has, to the best of my understanding, never practiced nutritional medicine. In my opinion, Stephen Barrett, M.D., when it comes to the field of medicinal use of nutritional supplements, can be easily defined as a Quack since he pretends to "have skills or knowledge in supplements and talks pretentiously" without actually having clinical expertise or sound knowledge of herbal and nutritional medicine.&mdash;Whig (talk) 04:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, put it up there. Although Sahelian really is not saying he is a quack per se, just using Barrett's definition thereof in his arguements.  But heck, if you think Barrett is more notable than other people on the list, and we don't wish the list to be short (which seems to be the consensus) then go for it.  Shot info (talk) 04:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I put it here for discussion. I think there may be BLP issues with posting anything about this that need careful consideration. &mdash;Whig (talk) 05:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think he's a bad idea. We've stuck to dead people to so as to avoid WP:BLP issues altogether. Elhector (talk) 05:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think if we keep the list we should consider how he can be added if appropriate in accordance with the BLP policy. The purpose of that policy is not to compel Wikipedia to remain silent about living people. We must take great care however. &mdash;Whig (talk) 05:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And for the record my preference as I have stated is to delete this list altogether but I won't rehash arguments here. &mdash;Whig (talk) 05:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to remind you that all living people were recently deleted because of BLP issues. Adam Cuerden talk 21:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No reminder necessary, and I have already expressed my opinion that it is improper to smear people just because they are dead and cannot respond, and refuse even to provide their response when they were living for context. If it is proper to make such lists then it is not proper to exclude living people, it just requires more care in doing so. &mdash;Whig (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't a comprehensive list, it's just a handful of the best examples. Yes, we could use living people if we're sufficiently careful about sourcing, but there's always a little risk. You're a good example of how upset people can get when you're just reporting that someone was accused of quackery, even when everything we're saying is perfectly justified and in line with practice elsewhere in the encyclopedia. Now imagine that happening with a living person who decides to sue Wikipedia for libel. That's what we're trying to avoid. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 00:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see that we are selectively and in violation of NPOV choosing to smear those some editors want to smear. &mdash;Whig (talk) 01:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please explain how this is an NPOV violation. All we're saying is that Hahnemann was accused of quackery. We have sources from both sides of the fence saying that he was accused of quackery, including some reliable sources stating that this accusation was made. We make no judgment on whether he in fact was a quack, we simply report that he was accused of quackery. NPOV doesn't demand that we portray everyone in a positive light. On the contrary, it demands that we report what the sources say, whether this puts someone in a positive or negative light.


 * Whatever light the inclusion of Hahnemann puts on him, you can say the same for Louis Pasteur. I consider Pasteur to be an exemplary scientist, and yet I have no qualms about his inclusion here. The fact that he was accused of quackery is both true and notable. We don't make any judgment within the article of whether or not its valid; that's for the reader to decide on their own once they weigh all the evidence. I don't consider Pasteur's inclusion to be smearing him; I believe it to be simply reporting history and presenting an example of someone who was accused of quackery so the readers can better understand the subject. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 05:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:RSN where I have outlined the NPOV and sourcing issues already. &mdash;Whig (talk) 05:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed tag straw poll
This is a quick poll to see who believes this tag should remain on the article. I don't want to remove the tag without consensus first. Please vote by signing below.

I believe this article is not neutral and the tag should stay:
 * &mdash;Whig (talk) 18:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC) Please see POV #2 above, which is still unresolved, and problems are more severe than just one example.
 * Per my discussion above: If we got rid of the "Formerly accused of quackery, but now considered mainstream" or found some way to have inclusion criteria that makes sense and can be supported by reliable sources, then I would be more open to removing the NPOV violation tag at the top of this article. -- <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 22:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I just made a recent edit to the article that may address your concerns. Elhector (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I would like to give it a day and see if it sticks. Generally though, I like your boldness! -- <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 03:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems clear that the neutrality of the current article is disputed. My own opinion is that much of it is fine but there's too much extraneous and tendentious baggage for it to be considered NPOV.  I don't dispute the neutrality of the article now.  Colonel Warden (talk) 00:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you be specific and help me understand where you are coming from? -- <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 03:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The article seems to suffer from being a battleground between proponents of alternative medicine and activist sceptics - it is tagged by a project for each. The latter seem to push the examples of quackery further than seems wise.  The long list of examples at the end seems quite tendentious.  This includes items which seem quite irrelevant such as bigfoot and other topics such as cryonics which seem to be just unorthodox rather than quackery.  My impression is that the sceptics are overdoing it and this is giving the article an unnecessary POV tone.  Since the article is not trying to be a comprehensive list of every type of quackery, it would be better to stick to the most egregious examples which, would, I hope, not be contested.  If the article does continue to go after all types of unorthodox medicine then the article should be more even-handed by saying more about controversial aspects of orthodox medicine which some might characterise as quackery too - Psychiatry, Statins, HRT, MRSA etc. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see your point and would have to agree that the list at the bottom should be removed or pruned in order to satisfy NPOV. I am going to reinstate the tag which I believe was prematurely removed. This is a straw poll not a vote. -- <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 17:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have addressed my objections with some edits, as discussed below. The current version seems adequately NPOV now so the tag can go AFAIC.  Colonel Warden (talk) 11:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. -- <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 00:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Would you mind doing something similar to what Levine2112 did and move you're vote to the other section? I think that would be easier for the purposes of keeping track of where everyone stands on this issue :-) Elhector (talk) 19:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that my NPOV concerns are still not addressed and may take time for resolution since we are waiting on comments at RS/N. I don't think this tag should be removed until there is a consensus to do so. &mdash;Whig (talk) 19:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand. I'm not suggesting we remove the tag yet, I'm simply asking Colonel Warden if he would like to refactor his vote since he has stated his concerns have been addressed.  You're vote is still duly noted above :-) Elhector (talk) 19:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe this article is neutral and the tag should be removed:
 * Elhector (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 19:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that otters have the right to vote. Are you in the U.S.?  I believe the 9th circuit court of appeals has argued that animals should have the right to vote so maybe you could use that as justification? (the following was a joke, please don't call the talk page police :-) Elhector (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Adam Cuerden talk 21:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Rray (talk) 01:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it would be more accurate to have the It doesn't agree with my POV tag. Shot info (talk) 01:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The current version is satisfactory enough for me to be in favor of removing the tag. Let's give it a day and see if these edits stick or if there are any others opposed to removing the tag. -- <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 00:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: Thank you Levine2112 for adding the tag back to the article. I think we should let this poll run for a day or 2 longer.  There's obviously an editor or 2 that disputes the NPOV of this article so I'd like to give them some time to list there concerns about the article.  After that we can discuss how and if those concerns need to be addressed before the tag goes.  There's already been a few changes to the article to address some concerns so let's also give them a day or 2 to see if they stick.  Thanks! Elhector (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

List of quackery related concepts
Per Colonel Warden's grievance above, the section at the bottom of this article entitled "List of quackery related concepts" may prevent this article from being NPOV (and thus hinders us from removing the NPOV banner at the top). This section at the bottom seems like it is a project or category template by the appearance of it; however, it is not. It exists (as near as I can tell) only on this page. To keep this article neutral, we should not use it as a platform to name or associate specific people, professions or organizations with the topic of Quackery. Remove this section at the bottom of the article, and you have my vote to remove the NPOV banner at the top. -- <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 00:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I see nothing inherently wrong with having a list of related concepts in an article. If specific related concepts aren't really related, then that should be addressed, but just having a list of related concepts doesn't make the article not NPOV. Naming specific people, professions, and/or organizations is perfectly appropriate as long as they're being named accurately. Rray (talk) 03:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I hadn't really looked at that thing, I rarely pay attention to those footer templates. You guys are right though, that's not even really any sort of template.  And there is a lot of non-related things on there.  Magnetism theory, that's a prime example.  It's ok if we cite sources calling it quackery, but for a template to give that impression is a really bad idea.  That's kind of like Wikipedia itself declaring it quackery which is just bound to start POV arguments.  And then there's things like crop circles, big foot, and feng shui in there. How are those in any way related to quackery? Yes they're probably all crap too, but I fail to see how they're related.  That thing at the bottom doesn't really do the article any good in my opinion. Elhector (talk) 05:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Glad you agree. I wasn't too sure what all that stuff was technically but now we've established that it's just a rambling list in a deceptive format, I have removed it and put the relevant blue links into See also and Anti-Quackery organizations, which were already duplicating some of the entries.  Colonel Warden (talk) 09:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's cut all the non-medical things, then try to source the rest. Adam Cuerden talk 09:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be a good start! -- <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 20:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

References for this page
Please keep this heading and code at the bottom and don't archive it.

Globalise template
I've put on a globalise template - I think it's probably obvious why, given that thi s article only has a "History in the United states" section. Because, you know, Quackery only started in 1776, and nothing that happened elsewhere was notable... Adam Cuerden talk 17:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Category needed
I think we need a category for this, and we need to mark any articles that fit the category. I created the category but someone immediately removed it. This article is a good lead article to the category. Mike0001 (talk) 11:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

cool template
I will add a cool template to the bottom of this article. If there is a better article for it we can try another article too. QuackGuru (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Please follow WP:NAV and create a real template rather than a pseudo one. -- <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 22:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NAV: This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it. QuackGuru (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The advantages of having a real template are so great. Consider pasting yours into Template:Skepticism. -- <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 22:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In case anyone doesn't know the history here, see the discussions of this pseudotemplate at Talk:Quackwatch. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 22:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Reference for the history of Quackery
This article is avaliable in fulltext at PubMed from a respectable peer reviewed journal: "Health for sale: quackery in England, 1660–1850" Matthew Ramsey Medical History 1992 January; 36(1): 91–96. MaxPont (talk) 07:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)