User talk:Denton12

Your edits
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe our core policies. MastCell Talk 19:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia.  MastCell Talk 06:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear MastCell the comments made were to balance the argument regarding live blood analysis. It is supposed to be the policy of Wikipedia to be neutral. The article written about live blood analysis is far from neutral in fact it is highly malicious and offensive. Please review this article asap.


 * You may be misunderstanding Wikipedia's use of the term "neutral". If you haven't already, please see the neutral-point-of-view policy for a definition. "Neutral" does not mean that every negative view is balanced by a positive view. Nor does it mean that we present discredited claims uncritically, or with some sort of false equivalence which incorrectly implies active debate where there is none. The basis of our representations is reliable sources; the sources you continually add to live blood analysis are not reliable sources as Wikipedia defines the term, and are inappropriate for the encyclopedia. You're welcome to discuss this further at Talk:Live blood analysis, or to seek outside input as described in our dispute resolution pathway. MastCell Talk 21:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear MastCell the comments made by your article are not presented in a fair and balanced way. Readers of your article have been surprised by it because they have told me that Wiki makes it look as though live blood analysis is simply a fraud. A person who has never heard about LBA searching for the first time would be given a bad impression one could even say "slanderous" I have given you a website that has testimonials of real people and real experiences. This has got to be a more trusted and reliable source than anything else!!! I am etremely disturbed by this stance and urge you to change the current tone of the article because it is a heavily biased one!!!

By the way just to inform you that Stephen Barret over at Quackwatch has been successfully sued for his defamatory comments!! He sent me an e-mail begging for funds to pay his legal fees!! The comments here regarding LBA are both aggressive and defamatory. I urge you to change the tone of this article once again.


 * Well, it's not "my" article, though I have contributed to it. If you find we're not getting anywhere, then the next step would be to request additional input, via a third opinion or a request for comment. Alternately, you could raise the issue of sources at the reliable sources noticeboard. These avenues are all detailed in Wikipedia's dispute resolution policy. Wikipedia intends to be a serious and respectable reference work. In doing so, it seeks to accurately convey the state of expert opinion in a field. It seems that several expert sources have described live blood analysis as anything from scientifically unfounded to a "money-making scheme". Those are not my opinions, or those of "Wikipedia", but were expressed by reliable sources and are verifiably cited in the article text. If the reader came away with the impression that such sources have a negative opinion of live blood analysis, then the article is in fact accurate and neutral. Again, I'll refer you to our guidelines on appropriate sourcing. Even leaving aside commonsense on the value of testimonials and anecdotal evidence, such claims from marketers of a product cannot be accorded more weight than the opinions of experts expressed in reputable print sources such as the Guardian or Providence Journal. I have no connection to Stephen Barrett or Quackwatch. If you feel their content is legally actionable, then certainly you would be within your rights to pursue whatever you think appropriate. Please be very careful, though, because I interpret your comments as a veiled legal threat against myself - that is, if I don't change the article to be more "positive", I (or Wikipedia) will end up being sued for defamation. I think it's pretty clearly your intention to make such an implication. If so, please be aware that legal threats are unacceptable on Wikipedia; if you continue to make them, you may be blocked from editing. MastCell Talk 19:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Mastcell you say that your comments are unbiased and taken from reliable sources. How is it that favourable articles have been written in the Times newspaper etc but you have failed to use them???? These articles can be found very easily if one wants to find them —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denton12 (talk • contribs)


 * I'm using the best sources I can find. The Guardian article is by Edzard Ernst, a well-known academic and professor of complementary and alternative medicine. The other articles cite state medical boards and chiropractic examiners, also reputable and as close to experts-in-the-field as we'll get for this particular topic. The Times and Daily Mail articles you mention are low-quality promotions of a series of untested and unproven health claims, and appear to be authored by the papers' Style section staff. I don't see these sources as being of equivalent quality. I would add, editorially, that the Daily Mail is notoriously and widely criticized for its low quality of medical and health reporting. But that's actually secondary. In any case, this is probably better discussed at Talk:Live blood analysis. Feel free to solicit outside opinions if you feel I'm being unreasonable - that's how dispute resolution generally works here. MastCell Talk 21:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You are being unreasonable and your excuses for not adding the Times article is just laughable even biased.
 * Yes, I'm aware of your belief that I'm biased, which is why I've repeatedly suggested dispute resolution and outside input. MastCell Talk 20:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)