Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal

Statement by peripherally-involved Daniel

The above-linked current AN discussion by Wizardry Dragon demonstrates my feelings more adequately than I could do by rephrasing them here - context is a beautiful thing. For ease of identification, I provide the following diffs, which outline my participation in the discussion at WP:AN:

I initially opposed an indefinite block of Ilena, for a variety of reasons - see DB1 for my full opposal. I also respectfully request the Arbitration Committee read Sarah Ewart's initial objecton - 11:03, January 19, 2007 - on the issue, that were posted just before mine (and hence are just above it in the discussion). As such, I acknowledged at the time (and still do acknowledge - see DB2) that both users acted in a way which could only be described as deplorable, however to issue a community-based sanction of any sort on one user would be heavyhanded, unfair and not encompassing the situation fully. I suggested a firm, final warning citing precedents set both by this Committee and those established as a guideline on Wikipedia, namely WP:HA. I hinged a lot of hope on the fact that all parties would agree to formal mediation via the Mediation Committee, however unfortunately one user rejected this proposal.

As such, as I elaborated in DB2, I felt we were out of options short of blocking both users indefinitely, which I personally felt would be overkill given the situation. The only two options I thought were logically possible at 14:00 (UTC) January 20 were to file a RFC or else come here. The latter recieved the most favour amongst those involved, with a well-reasoned statement by Durova - 21:49, January 20, 2007 - highlighting the potential problems of an RFC.

As such, as I stated in DB3, I see no other solution to this mess. Reluctance has pushed this dispute here, and I hope the Committee accept this case to be the final determiner in a problem which has been compounded by numerous decisions by a couple ofthe named parties.

I wish to also acknowledge DB4. One of the parties listed has indicated that they believe this request should be rejected on the grounds that it is provocative. I would like to clarify that this user is the one who decided to stop the Mediation by rejecting it, leaving no alternative. I cite the ever-reliable Newyorkbrad - 03:13, January 21, 2007 - on this point also.

I am normally one to criticise about how this Committee takes on too many cases that could be resolved through the Mediation Committee and/or Requests for Comment, however I have no doubt that this case should be accepted on the grounds that all other means of resolution have been exhausted. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 04:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by peripherally involved I'clast

My involvement is as an editor in some BvR related articles (NCAHF, Quackwatch, Stephen Barrett). Ilena's situation raises several disquieting issues about Wikipedia, its accuracy and WP:BLP. What do we owe the living subjects of articles in terms of accuracy and fairness, in the face of significant systemic bias at WP when they have unique verifiable information or insight, even if they are not immediately well prepared for our culture and environment? Particularly where their real life adversaries are not only Wiki saavy, but so well integrated and dominant in the Wiki environment as to be so commonly accepted as to be cited as V RS fact sources for items they most certainly are not, that we collectively are blind to their biases and infuences? Even when this Wiki world directly & severely collides hard with the real world results and we still can't hear the question much less the answer accurately, even for fairly knowledgable independent editors (myself & a lawyer/editor)? I have been surprised how difficult accurately addressing these issues has been in the face of more numerous but oblivious or conflicted editors. I myself strain to hear Ilena accurately when she addresses systemic issues that drown her out, and do include Fyslee. Although I would recommend that they simply avoid each other, that has not been possible because both have great interests in the same articles where they can also provide special insight & questions but a large editorial imbalance exists.--I'clast 13:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by entirely uninvolved Fys

I should just like to point out that I am not Fyslee and have not had anything to do with him, not that having had anything to do with him would have been bad or anything. Just in case people were wondering. Fys. Ta fys aym. 16:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Steth

I am not a party to this action, but I felt compelled to comment. I have not had any interaction with Ilena, nor made any contributions to the article in question, but I have had some interaction with Fyslee, some of which have been less than productive, for which I take some responsibility as I could have handled it better.

A concern was raised by Jance (maybe others) that Ilena has revealed Real World information about Fyslee. I feel it should be pointed out that it was Fyslee who posted Real World information about himself on his talk page when he set it up. User page He posted his name, occupation and internet interests. It was up for some time before he removed it and is now asking that this information not be used, which he is entitled to do. So, IMO, he poisoned his own well.

Also, Ilena raised the issue that fyslee has posted numerous links at Wikipedia for websites privately owned and operated by an ex-psychiatrist with whom Fyslee has had a long-standing relationship. This relationship appears to be on a personal level as well as Fyslee serving as his assistant listmaster and possibly other direct Internet assistance and responsibilities, as stated on his User page. User page It was only a few weeks ago that he resigned from his job as Assistant Listmaster to this individual. Although not the issue at hand, these numerous sites, IMO, seem to be severely biased POV almost attacking respected individuals, hardly NPOV nor encyclopedic. There could be easily many dozens of these potential COI links, perhaps over 100 that could be viewed as link-spamming. The exact number would be very revealing, but not likely forthcoming. As indicated by Ilena, Fyslee has also placed links to his personally owned and operated websites in Wikipedia articles. IMO, this is not encyclopedic and is exploiting WP and subverting it’s intent and mission.

Either way, Ilena felt it was a Conflict of Interest for him to do this. I had agreed with Ilena on Fyslee’s talk page about this issue, having found it quite concerning. I had raised this issue myself several times in the past, as have others. I believe the offending links and number should be made known by Fyslee to the Wikipedian community in the interest of allowing Ilena to assist her in presenting her case here and allowing the admins to properly evaluate and weigh the evidence. If found in COI, removal might be considered an appropriate action.

Ilena was also concerned, and voiced this in several places, that these numerous links also requested donations, which IMO, is extremely self-serving. I have also raised this issue on several occaisions. After noting this on Fyslee’s talk page, which BTW, he invited other editors to comment, his response to this and the above concerns was to promptly remove my remarks from his talk page, claiming it was an attack by me See:. Comments removed While he is allowed to do this, to me, this action speaks volumes and I don’t feel was justified, not to mention that it is suppressive behaviour and destroys the enjoyment of community participation in Wikipedia.

So while Ilena is not without issues herself, and these two certainly seem to have a long history and dysfunctional relationship, I believe that there are POV, neutrality, COI, behavioural issues on Fyslee’s part as well and this must be considered and addressed. I feel that Ilena’s concerns must be given the proper attention, regardless of her past history. Thank you. Steth 00:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification (October 2007)

Certain editors are currently going around Wikipedia removing citations to quackwatch per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Barrett_v._Rosenthal#Use_of_unreliable_sources_by_Fyslee. Claiming that, for example, Quackwatch is an "an unreliable and partisan source". For example. Was it the intention of the arbitration committee to declare unequivocally that Stephen Barrett or Quackwatch were unreliable and partisan for articles on alternative medicine? This, to me, looks like Arbcom making a content decision if this is the case. ScienceApologist 21:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have observed the same. I do not believe this was the intention of the Arbcom ruling. I second SA's request for clarification since other editors seem to have a different opinion. Avb 22:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in that decision should be interpreted as a ban on the use of a particular source. The Committee does not rule on content, and findings of fact are generally limited in their applicability to the specific matter being considered in any case. Obviously there are a number of problematic aspects to the use of quackwatch as a source; but the final determination of whether it's suitable in a particular context must rest with the editors working on the article in question. Kirill 03:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So are we to understand that arbcomm did not declare quackwatch or Stephen Barrett an unreliable and partisan source? I just want it to be clear so that I can refer people to this comment when and if this claim is made in the future. ScienceApologist 18:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was the opinion of the Committee, in the context of that particular case, that they were unreliable; but we do not have the authority to prohibit their use. The choice of sources for an article is a matter of editorial judgement. Kirill 18:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I checked some of the pages that link to Quackwatch and followed the links to see what was being cited. What I found were well-written essays debunking or explaining the topic with appropriate references of their own. However, in general, it would be better to cite Barrett's writings from books and book chapters he has authored or co-authored, because there is a presumption of editorial oversight that a personal web site does not have, and because many of the chapters may be peer-reviewed and/or edited by independent and respected authorities. (For example, he has a chapter in Modern Nutrition in Health and Disease, whose editors have very respectable presence in PubMed and Google Scholar.) This means replacing the immediacy and convenience of a web link with the increased reliability of a third-party published reference, but would be the best way to demonstrate Barrett's views on the topics in question. Thatcher131 15:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems extremely reasonable and it pretty much reflects some of the clean-up work which I have been performing of late (i.e. replacing direct links to Quackwatch (and other Barrett run websites) to less partisan sites such as journals of good repute which host/publish the same content). My only caveat to Thatcher131 above is to be wary of Barrett's books which have been exclusively published by "Prometheus Books". Barrett is the medical editor of this publishing house (or at least he was when his books were published by this company), so we can't necessarily assume independent editorial oversight. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Levine2112's current rampage (one of several) against Barrett and Quackwatch is now going too far: Deletions of court records. He is even misusing the comments above to justify his deletion of perfectly good sources based on his well-established hatred of Barrett and Quackwatch as sources that expose his personal beliefs. His entire editing history needs to be examined, especially the current part, and examined for an anti-Barrett, anti-Quackwatch, pro-quackery agenda leading to a misuse of BLP and to shoddy wikilawyering as excuses for deleting what he doesn't like. -- Fyslee / talk 04:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this very RfA was supposed to curb this sort uncivil behavior on Fyslee's part. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes when you have the choice between the spade and the shovel, you have to choose the pick. Shot info 03:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Barrett_v._Rosenthal

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk · contribs)
Fyslee (talk · contribs) [1]

Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Barrett_v._Rosenthal#Use_of_unreliable_sources_by_Fyslee names Quackwatch as an unreliable source. Quackwatch has been recommended by major medical organisations (AMA, American Cancer Society) as well as numerous universities, newspapers, and journals (See article), and, furthermore, is used as a source in articles on the American Cancer Society website.[2] This finding should be simply thrown out. Although electronically published, it has reviewers, selectivity, and an advisory board. It is not merely a self-published source, it is a highly respected organisation, and thus a very, very useful source on some of the obscure fringe views it covers, but which other reliable sources are rare for. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Geoff: Can you point out the section on the evidence page where evidence was provided that it was not a reliable source? I see some people saying they dislike its point of view, or claiming that it is biased against alternative medicine and fringe topics, but no actual evidence. If such exist, please link. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Geoff:

If evidence was not presented during the case to support the finding, then your proposal, "Evidence has been presented that Quackwatch may be inadmissible as a source under policy", would, barring a very strong case for it being an unreliable source (which has not, nor really should be presented here [it should be presented to the community after this is dealt with]), make the Arbcom look bad, as it'd effectively be saying that a finding for which both sides agree no evidence was presented to justify was nonetheless right - despite such evidence still not having been presented. Better to remand it to the community, and the cases for and against can be presented at the appropriate venue: WP:RSN. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Coren:

The finding is entitled "Use of unreliable sources by Fyslee". If the committee did not intend to name Quackwatch as an unreliable source, then they did an appallingly bad job at getting their meaning across. As well,the committee has repeatedly found, in numerous cases, that encyclopaedias present science in line with mainstream thought. It's hard to see how this fits in with calling a widely-respected mainstream medical source "partisian" because it advocates for the mainstream scientific thought that the encyclopaedia should be using. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Fred Bauer

An Arbcom decision is not a place to advocate your point of view, particularly in the absence of strong, reliable sources that back it. There is no strong evidence for acupuncture: most studies with a positive result lack blinding, placebo, or large sample sizes, and large-scale studies tend to show random effects: a recent one, for instance, found sham acupuncture was better than real acupuncture - typical of statistical noise. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Carcharoth

I really don't think that "partisian" is appropriate either. It's a highly loaded term, and the change proposed does nothing to get at the heart of the problem: It would still be a decision that the mainstream medical view of Alternative medicine is "partisian". If the committee wants to focus on Fyslee's behaviour, it would have been possible to demonstrate a lack of NPOV in their edits at the time, at this late date, however, there doesn't seem much point to trying to reanalyse the situation and make a valid FoF; may as well just keep the caution to Fyslee to edit from NPOV in the remedies and consider that sufficient. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second response to Carcharoth

Be that as it may, I don't think that Arbcom should be ruling on it: The reliable sources noticeboard is perfectly capable of handling problems with specific Quackwatch articles or uses on a case-by-case basis. This is true for all sites, and there should be no need for the Arbcom to use loaded language to discuss one in particular. The simplest remedy, withdrawing the finding, does not mean that policies related to reliable sources are withdrawn; it's simply an acknowledgement that the Arbcom does not determine content, and that well-established community procedures could handle it instead. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals

The finding "Use of unreliable sources by Fyslee" is withdrawn, and no longer forms part of the findings of Barrett v. Rosenthal. This does not affect any other findings, nor does it affect the caution to Fyslee to edit according to NPOV, as all editors are expected to.

There doesn't appear to be very good evidence of Fyslee having problematic edits - notably, the evidence section of the case has one section pointing out that most additions of Quackwatch by Fyslee were, in fact, reversions of removal of content when seen in context. I don't think this is a particularly crucial finding, nor are any of the remedies explicitly based on it, so I think it could be excised without problem, and this would also expunge a content decision. The best way to note its being withdrawn is probably to simply put the finding in ~~strikeout tags~~ and add a note saying "Withdrawn by the Arbitration committee on [Date]", with a link to the section of the talk page where this RfCl is moved.

I don't see merit in revisiting the case long enough to revise the finding, if the Arbcom wishes to, I am certain you can come up with something. I simply ask that you make sure it is justified by the case's evidence. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the current proposals:

1 is appalling. The community is perfectly capable of handling Quackwatch on a case by case basis, but with a lengthy attack on it like that from the Arbcom, it may as well be banned. In the articles where Quackwatch tends to be used, the articles are describing the worst of alternative medicine: Scams and quackery, of only slight notability, but which have just enough notability that their supporters can keep them on Wikipedia, despite having few or no non-promotional sources discussing them. Quackwatch is almost necessary in these cases.

Should we really put at equal weight strong scientific evidence that a medical intervention not only doesn't work, but couldn't work, with... How about this? This is an extreme fringe journal's report on a rather poorly-done experiment that is claimed to prove pyramid power. Shall we say that this means that any website that's critical of pyramid power should be considered a questionable, biased source? Shall we give equal validity to the the view that the moon is made of green cheese, and thus point out NASA is a "partisian" source that should have equal validity?

1.1 is at least a step in the right direction, but does not go at all far enough. Arbcom, I beg you, get out of content decisions. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment

Furthermore, Proposal 1 misrepresents policy. The actual statement in WP:NPOV begins with the crucial qualifier "Neutrality weights viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence..."

We are discussing fringe medical theories. WP:UNDUE applies here, rather strongly. Leaving out the crucial qualifier misrepresents policy. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Flonight

I don't really understand why it's necessary to make a ruling on Fyslee's use of the source. It doesn't seem particularly relevant to the rest of the case, and the COI aspect, e.g. that Fyslee wrote for the site (insofar as it's accurate) seems quite sufficient to justify the remedies. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fyslee

archived bad start.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I just wish that some ArbCom members would review that particular "finding" and expunge it from public view. Even though it is blanked, the history is there. They should go to that "finding", write comments admitting it was baseless, and then blank it again. It was one of many disgraceful things that happened under that ArbCom, most performed by my now-banned opponent, her dishonorable mentor, and her major defender. Unfortunately this particular blunder was made by the ArbCom itself. "Findings" should be written based upon actual findings, proven facts, and evidence, not upon false charges brought by my cowardly attacker (other username), who has been silent since that time. He wrote the agenda for the ArbCom case and some ArbCom member just copied it and followed it without checking to see if the charges were true. You can't write a "finding" before something is actually proven to have been "found"! Upon examination, that charge, among several others, was never proven to be true at all, both as regards any misuse of Quackwatch, or of Quackwatch being unreliable. Wrong on both counts, and yet it still stands there and gets trotted out by fringe POV pushers regularly.

~~That finding was just plain wrong on both counts:~~

I did not use or abuse unreliable sources;

Quackwatch is not considered an unreliable source by the mainstream scientific and medical world, only by pushers of fringe POV, quacks, and known (and often convicted) healthfrauds.

~~-- Fyslee (talk) 15:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Revised/calmer version

I wish that some ArbCom members would review that particular "finding" and expunge it from public view. Even though it is blanked, the history is there. They should go to that "finding", write comments admitting it was baseless, and then blank it again. It was one of many disgraceful things that happened under that ArbCom.

"Findings" should be written based upon actual findings, proven facts, and evidence, that have been presented, not written before presentation of evidence. Nor should they be based upon false charges (they were shown to be false) brought by my attacker (other username), who has been silent since that time. He wrote the agenda for the ArbCom case and some ArbCom member just copied it and followed it without checking to see if the charges were true. One shouldn't write a "finding" before something is actually proven to have been "found"! Upon examination, that charge, among several others, was never proven to be true at all, both as regards any misuse of Quackwatch, or of Quackwatch being unreliable. Wrong on both counts, and yet it still stands there and gets trotted out by fringe POV pushers regularly.

That finding was just plain wrong on both counts:

I did not use or abuse unreliable sources;
Quackwatch is not considered an unreliable source by the mainstream scientific and medical world, only by pushers of fringe POV, quacks, and known (and often convicted) healthfrauds. A simple study of the many authoritative sources that recommend Quackwatch and Stephen Barrett (we only use a few in their articles) will give an idea of what mainstream science, medicine, universities, professors, librarians, consumer organizations, and governmental bodies, think of them, and it's very positive. They are considered authoritative and can be used as good opinions. Yes, attribution is a good idea, but don't give the impression that they shouldn't be used. For more comments on Quackwatch, I suggest reading the discussion at the other RfArb Workshop page.

-- Fyslee (talk) 02:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to DreamGuy: Thanks for pointing out my irritated tone. I basically copied it from another place and have now revised it to be more appropriate for this use. Thanks again. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to User:Backin72's many points

Of course there is "evidence that Barrett is biased against alternative medicine." He shares this bias with countless scientists and mainstream personages, many of them quite notable. Such a bias and vast experience as the world's foremost authority on quackery and healthfraud make him even more qualified to sift the chaff from the wheat when dealing with healthfraud and questionable claims. His bias and stance on evidence is the same (read here) as that held by many others, including Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM):

"It is time for the scientific community to stop giving alternative medicine a free ride. 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. But assertions, speculation, and testimonials do not substitute for evidence. Alternative treatments should be subjected to scientific testing no less rigorous than that required for conventional treatments."^[1]

He is a scientific skeptic, which means he holds extraordinary and fringe claims to a higher standard of evidence: "In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded." We follow the same verifiability principle here at Wikipedia. That is a legitimate and necessary form of "double standard", and it's one that is standard practice among scientists who possess critical thinking skills. You will always find Barrett in good company, along with other scientific skeptics, Nobel prize laureates, and notable authors. He was named as one of the top 20 scientific skeptics of the 20th century.^[2]^[3] He thinks like other skeptics.

The wording of the Village Voice article should not be taken in isolation from Barrett's actual practice. He recommends and supports chiropractic for the things it is proven to be good for, but still opposes the widespread quackery, scams, and pseudoscientific claims that still plague the profession, and especially the pseudoscientific and metaphysical basis for the whole profession (vertebral subluxations, Innate Intelligence, misuse of spinal manipulation, etc.). Likewise for acupuncture, where the claims are required to be backed up by good research. (There is plenty of disagreement about the quality of such research, and Barrett is far from alone in that matter.) We (and you especially) know that acupuncture is associated with many claims that are nonsense or not backed up by research. Barrett's actual practice is not as extreme as indicated by that old article. It is quite normal in medical and skeptical circles. He's just one of the most notable skeptics in that area.

Lest Barrett become a straw man diversion here, let's remember the subject is Quackwatch, not Barrett. He is the prime mover behind the website, but a whole host of others help in the endeavor. Most of the front page articles are written by him, with fact checking and research conducted by helpers, but even more material on the site is from other authors. The website is the largest database on such subjects on the internet, with a vast collection of articles, news reports, scientific research, government documents, and historical records, and as such it is often the only source for those references. When we reference Quackwatch for those types of sources, for example a Congressional report on quackery, the reference carries the same degree of reliability we would accord the Congressional record.

Of course Quackwatch should be used with discretion, and that's what we should do with all sources. That is a given with all our sources. No new rule or application of existing policies is required for a special case here. It is already covered by our V & RS policies. We should prefer better sources when available, and use attribution when necessary, but QW is often the only or best source available for many fringe subjects. It is often a notable, significant, controversial (among quacks), and highly respected opinion source, and should be used as such. We constantly use sources of far less quality without blinking, or with them being subjected to uninformed and deprecatory remarks in an ArbCom. Why? Because quacks' incomes aren't being threatened, and scammers aren't being named with backing from the FDA and FTC. Unlike many opinion articles we reference all the time, it provides its sources, and we can sometimes use them instead of, or in addition to, QW itself. When it is used as a source for a scientific article unavailable elsewhere, it is just as reliable as any scientific article, and for that type of use MEDRS would apply. Just use common sense in a case by case manner. -- Fyslee (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to John Vandenberg: I fully agree with you. The implication of the "finding" is that Quackwatch is always an inappropriate source, and that's very, very wrong. It can be used on a case by case basis, just like other sources. It is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal (websites are not "peer-reviewed"!), and thus scientific research would rate higher as a source, per MEDRS, for nitty gritty details of scientific matters, but can be used like any other source for matters of opinion related to those subjects. Like most of our other sources, it is a perfectly good source for certain purposes. In fact it is often a better source for articles related to fringe subjects, which alternative medicine subjects are by definition, where there is a dearth of scientific expression on the subject. Since scientific research isn't for opinions, you won't find scientific research that states a matter is nonsensical or quackery, because research doesn't deal with such matters. The same scientists will write such opinions, but they do it in other venues, such as articles and websites. -- Fyslee (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to other critics here

While I'm not surprised that believers in fringe POV would appear here with their attempts to smear Barrett and Quackwatch, please get your facts straight before making statements. I do appreciate that Geoff Plourde did recognize (in his "reponses") that his initial statement was way off base on a couple points. In fact most of his statement is quite inaccurate.

As I wrote elsewhere, I will even go so far as to point out a cardinal red flag of a fringe POV pusher - they attack Barrett and Quackwatch. Anyone who does that needs to be placed under observation, and a clue stick labelled "ban" held over them, ready for instant use if necessary. Attacking such reliable sources is a pretty obvious symptom that one's POV and ideologies are screwed up. Find anyone who is doing it, and you'll find such an editor....or someone who just doesn't have a clue, possibly because of ignorance of the issues regarding healthfraud, consumer fraud, and quackery. Please take this opportunity to understand the issues (by using Quackwatch) and become informed. That can only be done by studying both sides of an issue. Ignorance is no longer an excuse. -- Fyslee (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Backin72's response to John Nevard

Maybe you didn't read my comment above, but to trust a newspaper columnnist's editorializing based on one statement taken in isolation, without also looking at Barrett's actual practice is naive. Since his actual practice often deviates significantly from that one statement, it is obviously being misapplied and applied to broadly. The guy obviously has much more nuanced views than that! He obviously does follow along with the scientific evidence and when the evidence is strong enough, he has been known to change his position, which is the logical and proper thing to do. To top it off, his articles are reviewed by many experts in the field and thus go through a form of informal review process. He seeks advice and gets help when preparing articles, and if you find something outright inaccurate (not just a difference of opinion), then by all means email him and get it fixed.

The evidence for many of acupuncture's claims is far from a settled matter in the scientific community, and Barrett is one of many who are unconvinced by most of the studies - which happen to be of poor quality. There is no scientific consensus about acupuncture, so this is just a difference of opinion which exists in the scientific community. This is an ongoing process. As such it's also a content decision and the editors of the acupuncture articles are perfectly able to deal with it. The "double-standard" is the standard applied to all extraordinary claims. Unusual claims are subject to this standard rule: "the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded." Nothing new in that. If someone told you that one of the Moons of Pluto was made of cheese, you would likely adopt the same position as Barrett or any other person who possesses even a smidgin of critical thinking - you would consider it unworthy of investigation and would hold such claims to a much higher standard of evidence than other claims. There are many claims in alternative madicine, including some of them in acupuncture and chiropractic, that are unworthy of exploration by scientists. Let the ones making the claims provide their evidence. If they do so, it will be looked at, and if found worthy of consideration, THEN Barrett and others will certainly encourage investigation. It only makes common sense to say what Barrett said. His statement shouldn't be stretched too far, which is what you seem to be doing. That's certainly what Donna Ladd did in her article.

All this discussion about acupuncture would be fine for the acupuncture article's talk page, but it's not appropriate as the subject of an ArbCom or ArbCom decision. That is indeed a content matter. No one here has a right to deem Quackwatch or Barrett unfit as a RS because they share a common disagreement that exists in the scientific community. The next thing we'll be banning any source that has a POV at all. If Quackwatch stood on the opposite side of a fully uniform, existing scientific consensus, it would be another matter, but that is far from the case. All I'm hearing is the disgruntled complaints of believers in acupuncture, who are far from unbiased in this matter. You have a financial COI related to acupuncture, and Fred should have recused himself based on his preexisting bias against Barrett and for alternative medicine. I was tempted to point it out during the ArbCom, but was fearful of doing so. I had alread been the victim of my evidence being deleted and disallowed in the events leading up to the ArbCom, and was pretty much paralyzed and unable to effectively defend myself against the libels I encountered all the way through what often felt like a kangaroo court. For some reason, all our rules against personal attacks, BLP, etc. did not apply at that time. There was no due process, and no one jumped in and got critics to stick to the point. It was a free for all, with some of the worst perpetrators still editing here. Their lies were found to be just that, but nothing happened to them. The finding of fact had already been written before any evidence had been presented, and when the so-called evidence was shown to be without foundation, was it revised??? No, not at all. Instead ONE pitiful diff (the Clayton diff mentioned by Fred) that showed I had RESTORED (not ADDED, as claimed) an existing link (IOW a consensus of editors had found it worthy of existing) was used as evidence of my foul behavior. There was no finding of fact. It wasn't true, so I was judged using faulty evidence of something that isn't a crime at all. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Fred Bauder

Your statements aren't clear, since you have shown no wrongdoing, only that you don't like what you found. Are you claiming that Barrett is incorrect in his criticisms of the Clayton mail order diploma mill, one of several which the founder has established? Regarding your statement that you are more anti- than pro- alt med, your actions have spoken louder than your words. Even at the beginning of the ArbCom, I was aware of your biases. Whatever the case may be, you don't like Barrett or the POV at Quackwatch. Whatever. That's your right. Those who are anti-anti-quackery, are by definition for quackery, so please be more careful with your statements. Maybe that's not the case, but it could seem so. You really should have recused yourself, and now, with these comments of yours, ~~you should do it now.~~ You are a former lawyer and know that a judge with your POV would be disqualified in such a case. Claiming that this isn't a court of law (a claim I've heard before) doesn't free you from the obligation to provide a just forum for deciding cases here. Injustice mustn't be allowed. Recusing yourself isn't a dishonorable thing to do. In fact, not to do so would be dishonorable.

Regarding your citation from Quackwatch about "there is no alternative medicine." That is not Barrett, but George D. Lundberg, a physician, board-certified pathologist, and, since February 1999, editor of Medscape. For 17 years prior to joining Medscape Dr. Lundberg served as editor of the JAMA:

"There is no alternative medicine. There is only scientifically proven, evidence-based medicine supported by solid data or unproven medicine, for which scientific evidence is lacking. Whether a therapeutic practice is "Eastern" or "Western," is unconventional or mainstream, or involves mind-body techniques or molecular genetics is largely irrelevant except for historical purposes and cultural interest. We recognize that there are vastly different types of practitioners and proponents of the various forms of alternative medicine and conventional medicine, and that there are vast differences in the skills, capabilities, and beliefs of individuals within them and the nature of their actual practices. Moreover, the economic and political forces in these fields are large and increasingly complex and have the capability for being highly contentious. Nonetheless, as believers in science and evidence, we must focus on fundamental issues -- namely, the patient, the target disease or condition, the proposed or practiced treatment, and the need for convincing data on safety and therapeutic efficacy."^[4]

His idea is echoed by Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist and author known for promoting the gene-centric view (in his book The Selfish Gene), coining of the term meme, and atheist activism:^[2]^[3]

"There is no alternative medicine. There is only medicine that works and medicine that doesn't work."^[5]

"Either it is true that a medicine works or it isn't. It cannot be false in the ordinary sense but true in some 'alternative' sense."^[5]

You are welcome to disagree with all of them, but don't imply that Barrett is someone with an oddball belief. He is in very notable company.

As to your claim about him "blurring of the distinction between outright quackery and alternative procedures", he is very clear about the distinction. In fact the very citation you use makes it clear, almost as if you are quoting him! ("blurring distinctions"):

"To avoid confusion, "alternative" methods should be classified as genuine, experimental, or questionable. Genuine alternatives are comparable methods that have met science-based criteria for safety and effectiveness. Experimental alternatives are unproven but have a plausible rationale and are undergoing responsible investigation. The most noteworthy is use of a 10%-fat diet for treating coronary heart disease. Questionable alternatives are groundless and lack a scientifically plausible rationale. The archetype is homeopathy, which claims that "remedies" so dilute that they contain no active ingredient can exert powerful therapeutic effects. Some methods fit into more than one category, depending on the claims made for them. Blurring these distinctions enables promoters of quackery to argue that because some practices labeled "alternative" have merit, the rest deserve equal consideration and respect. Enough is known, however, to conclude that most questionable "alternatives" are worthless.^[6]

"Unproven methods are not necessarily quackery. Those consistent with established scientific concepts may be considered experimental. Legitimate researchers and practitioners do not promote unproven procedures in the marketplace but engage in responsible, properly-designed studies. Methods not compatible with established scientific concepts should be classified as nonsensical or disproven rather than experimental. Methods that sound scientific but are nonsensical can also be classified as pseudoscientific."^[7]

"Do you believe there are any valid "alternative" treatments?
This question is unanswerable because it contains an invalid assumption. "Alternative" is a slogan often used for promotional purposes, not a definable set of methods. Methods should be classified into three groups: (1) those that work, (2) those that don't work, and (3) those we are not sure about. Most described as "alternative" fall into the second group. But the only meaningful way to evaluate methods is to examine them individually, which we do. We discuss this subject fully in our article "Be Wary of "Alternative" Health Methods."[3]

Statement by DreamGuy (talk)

I would hope that ArbCom would look past the (understandably, I suppose, considering, but not very helpful) angry tone of the above and take steps to fix the very real problem. We've been discussing QuackWatch on the Workshop page of the Fringe Science workshop page, and we've pretty well established that it's nothing like an unreliable source. ArbCom typically doesn't rule out sources as unreliable just in general, but it's especially odd they'd do so on one that fits WP:RS so strongly, and it's mentioning as such is being used by civil POV-pushers to try to remove a well known, extremely well-regarded and important source critical of their beliefs in fringe topics. DreamGuy (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to User:Geoff Plourde's comment that "Medical school curriculum does not cover the core concepts of chiropractic, acupuncture, or other CAM techniques." -- of course it doesn't, because they are not considered real medicine by any accepted medical expert or authority. That's like trying to argue that no biologist can weigh in on how absurd the notion of Nessie or Bigfoot existing in the real world because university biology courses and DNA studies do not include dissection practice on cryptids. Medical studies have examined chiropractic, acupuncture and other techniques. The individual behind QuackWatch is aware of these studies. That's why he says what he says, not because he is ignorant and incapable of saying anything educated on the topic, but precisely because he is well versed on the fields from a medical and scientific viewpoint. It's absurd to try to use your own personal opinion to rule anyone who disagrees with you as a bad source and expect Wikipedia to just follow whatever you say. DreamGuy (talk) 17:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Durova

This finding attempted to rule upon a content issue outside the Committee's remit. Although a necessary part of arbitration does relate to obvious calls such as the unreliability of citations to non-notable blogs, this was not that type of obvious call. The evidence upon which the Committee passed this finding was more emotional than factual (one party had been in a protracted lawsuit with the owner of the Quackwatch site) and regardless of what POV is at stake that is not a good basis for arbitration findings. I have no opinion about the suitability or unsuitability of Quackwatch for encyclopedic citations. This is a matter for the community to determine. Durova^Charge! 19:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Geoff Plourde

While I have a COI in this area, I believe that the finding regarding Quackwatch was accurate, but nonetheless procedurally wrong. Quackwatch is as heavily biased as any other blog site. The articles are written by an ex psychiatrist with absolutely no training in the areas he professes to be an expert in. Medical school curriculum does not cover the core concepts of chiropractic, acupuncture, or other CAM techniques. This website has no peer review system and considers all topics as pseudoscience. It is clearly the work of someone with a vendetta against anything that is not mainstream medicine. Unfortunately, I must agree with my worthy colleagues that the scope of this body does not include content, and therefore content rulings are moot. However I advise amending the finding to a suggestive finding stating that "Evidence has been presented that Quackwatch may be inadmissible as a source under policy." This is simply a statement of fact and not a content ruling, satisfying both the need to note the error of Quackwatch and remove the content intrusion. Geoff Plourde (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Shoemaker's Holiday: Review of the case page did not turn up evidence to support my position. However I believe the finding about Quackwatch was based on behavior and not content. In no way does the Committee rule that Quackwatch is bad, simply that Fyslee has used it as a partisan source. this is supported by cursory review of Quackwatch and its purpose. Geoff Plourde (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Fyslee: I must respectfully disagree with as regards the accuracy of Quackwatch. I present a statement by Ray Sahelian, MD [5] Dr. Sahelian is a currently practicing board certified family practitioner who in this statement points out the errors of Quackwatch.

Second Response to Fyslee: I am highly disturbed by your divisive statement, "As I wrote elsewhere, I will even go so far as to point out a cardinal red flag of a fringe POV pusher - they attack Barrett and Quackwatch. Anyone who does that needs to be placed under observation, and a clue stick labelled "ban" held over them, ready for instant use if necessary. Attacking such reliable sources is a pretty obvious symptom that one's POV and ideologies are screwed up." This stone age method of thinking is harmful to Wikipedia as it actively prevents dissent, and would grant de facto ownership of all alternative medicine articles to pro Barrett editors, which would be a serious violation of OWN. Fyslee, I honestly believe that Quackwatch is a crock of shit written by a retired shrink with an box of axes to grind. His blog site is worthless for all intents and purposes and poses a clear and present danger to advancement in medicine. Regardless, I agree that the purpose of this Committee is not to make content judgements which should be addressed in other fora, hopefully without your attitude as a rule.

However, in this case, I believe that the original decision was correct in light of the circumstances. The finding was about the usage of partisan sites by Fyslee, which is a policy matter. Quackwatch was cited as an example in support, an application of policy. Is Quackwatch partisan? Yes and this is clearly established by cursory review of Quackwatch itself. Did Fyslee try to use Quackwatch? This case and relevant logs would appear to say yes also. The finding is a logical result of this reasoning.

Regardless of the reasoning, there is a more significant test of whether this was a content ruling. Does the finding prohibit the usage of Quackwatch? Nowhere in this finding am I able to find any provision that specifically says that Quackwatch is unusable. Without such a provision, Quackwatch is still utilizable. While I may be speculating, this appears to be more about one user's discomfort at having his hand smacked for his conduct. I would therefore reject this motion, as the evidence clearly shows that this is not a content ruling. Geoff Plourde (talk) 09:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Dreamguy: I don't think your example was particularly accurate in this context. A researcher who does not understand what he is researching cannot accurately research the subject. Judging from the articles written by Dr. Barrett, he has absolutely no idea what he is studying and is proceeding from a biased point of view. As to the statement that no authority recognizes chiropractic, that is patently false in the context of the USA. The Medicare program will pay for acute treatment of vertebral subluxations by chiropractors. If chiropractic was quackery, why would they pay for it? Geoff Plourde (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Enric Naval

ArbCom made a ruling on content, and a bad one at that. It's being discussed on the fringe science case here. My 2 cents:

Barret is a knowledgeable/notable source on health and nutrition issues, and in quackery. From his own bio:

a scientific advisor to the American Council on Science and Health, a CSICOP's Fellow, FDA Commissioner's Special Citation Award for Public Service in fighting nutrition quackery in 1984. Honorary membership in the American Dietetic Association in 1986. Two years teaching health education at The Pennsylvania State University. 2001 Distinguished Service to Health Education Award from the American Association for Health Education. [6](not a literal quote)

but we can't use him as source because "he's engaged in advocacy"? No. (not to mention that there are not defined criteria to determine advocacy, so all sources showing a fringe belief in a negative light will inevitabily be accused of advocacy)

This finding is being used as a sledgehammer to kill references to a source that, as Shoemaker points out, is recommended by reliable sources on the relevant fields.

Statement by User:Martinphi

"As a result, the ACSH has been accused of being more of a public relations firm, and less of a neutral council on Science. " [7]

Well, maybe the site is reliable and maybe not. Looks like it might have some wise council sometimes. But that does not mean we should not prefer better sources when available, nor does it mean we do not attribute statements. If it weren't purportedly defending the mainstream, it would be considered a very unreliable source. Its "reliability" comes totally from its POV, since few here would for example think that the Parapsychological Association is an RS, although it is far more RS per policy. As it is, Quackwatch and similar sources should never be used unattributed, and I'm guessing that is the major point of contention in articles, as it has been in the past. I mean, read WP:RS. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 08:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Backin72

There is some evidence that Barrett is biased against alternative medicine. Please note that this is not just another way of saying "he has a pro-science bias (chuckle, well, shouldn't we all)". I mean that he holds alt-med, which like conventional med ought to rise or fall based on evidence, to an overt double standard.

"I won't even look through that telescope"

For example, from a Village Voice article: "Barrett believes most alternative therapies simply should be disregarded without further research. "A lot of things don't need to be tested [because] they simply don't make any sense," he says, pointing specifically to homeopathy, chiropractic, and acupuncture.

Homeopathy, I can understand; extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the evidence to date is far from extraordinary. But chiropractic and acupuncture? Whether or not vertebral subluxation theory or qi and meridians strike you as bullshit, the practices of spinal manipulation and acupuncture (inserting needles at particular sites) are the subject of mainstream research, and show some promise in the treatment of pain (and nausea, in the case of acupuncture), according to the Cochrane Collaboration, a resource for evidence-based medicine. Cochrane, unlike Quackwatch, meets WP:MEDRS and takes the stance that more research is appropriate and necessary in these fields.

When Barrett refuses even to acknowledge that things like chiro or acu, which are physical procedures with plausible mechanisms, should even be studied before being dismissed, he's out on a bit of a limb. Dare I say, he's something of an extremist.

Quackwatch is "occasionally informative"

From the same Village Voice article, regarding Barrett's anti-evidence-gathering stance:

"He seems to be putting down trying to be objective," says Peter Barry Chowka, a former adviser to the National Institutes of Health's Office of Alternative Medicine. "Quackwatch.com is consistently provocative and entertaining and occasionally informative," Chowka added. "But I personally think he's running against the tide of history. But that's his problem, not ours."

Exactly. Barrett not only lacks objectivity, he derides it.

Ultra-mainstream IOM held to double-standard by... not-too-mainstream Dr. Barrett

The Institute of Medicine, one of the American Academies of Science and certainly one of the most prestigious and reliable English-language sources on medicine, conducted a study on alternative medicine ca. 2003-2005. Barrett criticized the panel for doing what any other panel on any other subject convened by the IOM would do: including members who had professional affiliations, sometimes including grant money, related to the study's subject area (here, alt-med). This is disingenuous and a flagrant double standard, since a panel on radiology would obviously include some radiologists (some of whom were academics and therefor getting grant money), and so forth.

Such a double standard is plainly indicative of bias.

Conclusion

This doesn't mean that Barrett a/o Quackwatch can't be used as sources at all, but we should be mindful of their biases. Quackwatch does not even come close to meeting WP:RS, particularly WP:MEDRS. In my view, it should be used in situations where WP:PARITY applies, i.e. as a counter to fringe, vanity-type claims. When it comes to more mainstream alt-meds, like chiro and acu, we have far better sources meeting WP:MEDRS; there, Barrett has amply demonstrated his bias and should never be considered a reliable source. --Backin72 (n.b.) 08:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to John Nevard: Do you think Barrett is a reliable source on his own views?

I'm not too worried about whether the journalist quoted in the Village Voice is much of an RS, because he's just giving voice to a conclusion that follows from Barrett's own words. When Barrett denies the need even to gather evidence, or uses flagrant double standards, he's providing all the evidence of his own bias that any fair-minded person needs. --Backin72 (n.b.) 11:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:John Nevard

It reflects very well on the quality of Quackwatch that the best critical quote Backin72 could come up with was from a Mr. Peter Barry Chowka in that well-known bastion of evidence-based medicine the Village Voice, and it reflects very poorly on the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine that he helped squander their tax dollars.

One simply has to examine his website.[8] The latest article is on "An International Story That Helped to Define 2008"- the terrible defeat of Thabo Mbeki, AIDS hero, and his anti-HIV treatment policies, which biased pro-science Western science found to have killed at least 330,000.[9] It namedrops fellow AIDS hero David Rasnick. And it shows up the mainstream scientific establishment, represented by Oprah Winfrey.

So there you are. If you accept the judgement of important public figuress like Chowka, Quackwatch is simply an entertainment site. Nevard (talk) 02:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fred Bauder

The evidence for the unreliability of Quackwatch is its outright rejection of all forms of alternative medicine, "There is no alternative medicine". This results in a blurring of the distinction between outright quackery and alternative procedures such as acupuncture with have some support, see 'Be Wary of Acupuncture, Qigong, and "Chinese Medicine"' by Stephen Barrett, M.D. This article, 'Be Wary of Acupuncture, Qigong, and "Chinese Medicine"' is a good example of how self-published material by Stephen Barrett, M.D. is featured on the site. Fred Talk 13:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fundamental principle which is being enforced by deprecating a blatantly partisan source such as Quackwatch is Wikipedia:Reliable sources. There is no reason to characterize such enforcement as a content decision, as, if verifiable, the information excluded from Quackwatch can be found in a reliable source. Take a look at 'Be Wary of Acupuncture, Qigong, and "Chinese Medicine"' by Stephen Barrett, M.D. One of his points of argument is "Falun gong, which China banned several years ago, is a Qigong varient claimed to be "a powerful mechanism for healing, stress relief and health improvements." That brings up the argument that aspects of alternative medicine, particularly acupuncture, have cultish aspects, but does not do so in a scientific way, but as guilt by association. The quote, "which China banned several years ago" is a good example of the type of irrational argument one encounters on the site; China banned Wikipedia. Fred Talk 13:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The material from Quackwatch cited in the founding of fact in dispute, "Clayton College of Natural Health: Be Wary of the School and Its Graduates" by Stephen Barrett, M.D. is a good example of the sort of self-published material to be found on the site. Fred Talk 13:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My personal point of view is more anti than pro alternative medicine, but I have no strong feelings which would have required recusal. Fred Talk 02:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Crohnie

When this finding was made and the arbitration was closed, editors used this finding to go to many articles to remove all mentions of QuackWatch from articles. They actually diffed to this finding saying that the arbs stated the QW was an unreliable source. Now this brings the questions, if the arbitrators didn't want to make a decision on content, then why did they? I have also seen attacks to Fyslee with this motion attached to prove that what he added was against the policies made by that decision. I believe that this does need to be rewritten so that it says that arbs do not make content decisions. Editors that go and remove all references to QW where it is being used appropriately should be warned if a new decision is written that this site is WP:Reliable source which from my readings here and at another arb case is being stated. I also agree that if another ref is available that should be used but it doesn't mean that QW has to be erased at the same time. This motion, in a nutshell, is used as battering ram to remove this source in WP:Fringe articles all to often. It is also used to debunk any editor who has placed the dif into an article. So in closing, I hope the arbitrators will either rewrite the section for clarity or do a new case to clarify this situation. Just a side note about this, Fyslee esp. has had to defend himself on many ocassions do to an editor warning him about using partisan sites against arbs ruling, this I also find to be a big problem for this editor to edit articles without the tensions that this motion has caused. Thank you for listening. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment & Question: If Fred Bauder wrote the motions why did he not recuse when he obviously has a very strong POV about all of this? This affects not only the use of the source but it affects the editor to whom he voted against. I am sorry but I think this is wrong. Just my opinion but I feel this is too personal for this arb to be making motions like this. --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion, Since Fred Bauder admits he wrote the finding and also admits he has a strong POV personally about it I suggest the whole thing should be erased. Since he is no longer an arbitrator and didn't recuse at the time, then the section he wrote should be cancelled by the arbitrators now sitting. I understand that he doesn't think he should have recused himself but it obvious from comments being made that he should have at the time. This can be fixed by removing the sections written by him that had no evidence to prove it. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say that I agree with what Tony Sidaway points are below. Clarification would be appreciated, thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:DGG

Everyone interested in this subject area has biases. Those of Quackwatch are declared, and the general view of the scientific and medical world is that overall they are sound, and based on evidence. To the extent the finding was written by Bauder, it represents his personal viewpoint, which is not sound in the view of most of those in the general subject field (or at least such is my own bias); he is entitled to it, and articles should take appropriate account of such fringe viewpoints, but it illustrates unmistakably why arb com should not be making such pronouncements. The decision that resulted from his view is harmful to the basic principle of NPOV and objectivity. No source can be used uncritically; the tradition Wikipedia dichotomy between reliable|unreliable is too crude to be helpful in many situations. The finding was both beyond he remit of arbcom, then and now, and in any case simply wrong. Not that arbcom should declare Qw legitimate. Its legitimacy is no concern of the committee. Its use in articles is to be determined,as with all sources, on a case-by-case basis. I suppose it would be correct & within its remit for arb com to confirm, as a general principle of editing behavior, that people should regard sources in a careful manner. DGG (talk) 06:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Tony Sidaway

Some of the wording of the first motion looks a little odd.

The problems with some of the Quackwatch content are well known and I've no intention of defending that site. However the reasoning given in the proposed new wording seems to send a couple of confusing messages that could end up being badly misinterpreted. From experience of previous misunderstandings, I think it's reasonable to expect that any infelicitous or insufficiently clear wording could come back to cause problems in future, so it's worth striving to get this right.

The proposed new wording is:

The use of Quackwatch as a source is not banned; however, all editors are reminded of the instruction in the policy page on Neutral point of view that they should "give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner", that Quackwatch is a site "whose purpose is to combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct", and is therefore explicitly not giving a balanced presentation. (emphasis mine).

The wording as it stands seems to imply two things:

that it is impossible to combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies and misconduct by giving a balanced presentation.
that giving a balanced presentation of the field of frauds, myths, etc implies refraining from criticising such practises.

The problems with these interpretations are as follows.

Nothing in a balanced presentation can say anything about fraud except that it is wrong. A presentation that purports to defend the right to defraud, even if "balanced" by the victim's point of view, would be a sham. "These fellows harm their customers by their actions, and they do not care about it. On the other hand they make a lot of money which they may spend on philanthropic works." Obviously that's a mockery of balance.

A balanced presentation of any field, moreover, would necessarily cover it reasonably comprehensively. If there are active fraudsters at work, a balanced presentation will say so in sufficient detail to enable the reader to recognise the kind of problems at work and how to avoid them.

If the proposed wording were interpreted in this way, it would tend to cause problems where any website explicitly states "we're here to provide you with the information you need to avoid the health frauds." I'm sure this applies to several very reputable and well balanced organisations in my own country, including statutory trading standards bodies. The wording could be read to imply that such bodies are intrinsically biased, which (except for being against fraud and other crimes) they are not.

Please consider taking the time to clarify what you mean. The meaning is not clear to me. --TS 05:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mihai cartoaje

Casliber should recuse because of his conflict of interest: Quackwatch has an attack page on Peter Breggin.

Clerk notes

Clerk note: 2 things: 1. Fred Bauder was the original author of this finding, and 2. there were multiple sections that had the same content in the original proposed decision page, see this and its subsections. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 13:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Side (i.e. non-clerk view): I think Fred meant this: Stephen Barrett's argument that China banned Falun Gong is irrational argument, as China also banned Wikipedia. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 14:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motion 1.1 Is passing, due to be enacted in barring 4 arbiters changing their votes, will be enacted when motion 1's fate is determined. Motion 1 is currently not passing, and is due to be archived in 24 hours unless there are signs of more voting.--Tznkai (talk) 05:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

I did not agree with several aspects of the ruling at the time. The type of content that Quackwatch has gives it a slant and makes lean toward being a partisan source more than other medical resources, but is not an unreliable source and to characterize it as such is wrong. FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The title and text of the finding could have been better phrased and better explained, because Quackwatch can in some circumstances be used as a source. As I understand this request for clarification, it is largely asking for a ban on Quackwatch to be lifted. That is not possible because there was no such ban: It is not the job of this committee to determine whether sources are reliable. The substance of the finding stands in relation to the original case: Quackwatch, as a campaigning site, should be deprecated in favour of sites which do not have a particular agenda to promote. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree in part with Sam above; I think more has been read into that ruling than was warranted. There is an observation that Quackwatch tends to be partisan, and should not be a preferred or exclusive source, but not that it is not a reliable source as is generally understood. — Coren ^(talk) 17:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We can and should revise the wording of this FoF. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest that we should revise the wording through issuing a clarification or correction, rather than changing the finding itself (which might have the effect of attempting to rewrite history). Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree with Sam. We should not be changing past rulings themselves. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Aye, that is what I meant. I would not be surprised if there is an appropriate FoF buried in the current wording, as there would be times when QuackWatch is an inappropriate source, however the current ruling implies that it is always an inappropriate source, which is wrong and needs to be corrected. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fred, China also banned Falun gong; could you clarify your point please? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deeming a source to be reliable or unreliable is almost always going to be a content decision and as such beyond our remit. However, as Sam says, the substance of the finding (that partisan sources should not be misused) stands; cf. this principle, for example. --bainer (talk) 02:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tentatively agree with several of the comments above, but could a clerk please advise the arbitrator who wrote the original decision of this thread, as I would like to get his input, if any. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I contacted Fred, who drafted that decision. Ex-clerk, — Rlevse • Talk • 00:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, the main contention comes from the wording of the header in the finding of fact: "Use of unreliable sources by Fyslee". Suggest that the simplest change (if a new finding of fact is needed) is to drop the word "unreliable" to leave: "Use of sources by Fyslee". That takes the focus away from the reliability of the source, and focuses on the behaviour of Fyslee. The actual wording of the finding of fact still uses the word "partisan", which I think is reasonable, and the associated remedy (which passed 7-0) should still be fit for purpose: "Fyslee is cautioned to use reliable sources and to edit from a NPOV. He is reminded that editors with a known partisan point of view should be careful to seek consensus on the talk page of articles to avoid the appearance of a COI if other editors question their edits." That all seems fine, so I think that all that needs doing here is some way of noting that the header of the original finding of fact should either have "unreliable" removed, or that this word be replaced with "partisan". Carcharoth (talk) 02:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fyslee has called for Fred Bauder to recuse himself "now". This misses the points that Fred Bauder is no longer an arbitrator and hasn't been since December 2007. The issue of recusal at the time is long gone and the focus here should be on what to do now, not what could or should have happened. Carcharoth (talk) 02:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Responding to Shoemaker's Holiday's comment on the word "partisan", several other arbitrators have used this term. FloNight said "...gives it a slant and makes [it] lean toward being a partisan source more than other medical resources..."; Sam said "Quackwatch, as a campaigning site, should be deprecated in favour of sites which do not have a particular agenda to promote."; Coren has said "There is an observation that Quackwatch tends to be partisan..."; Jayvdb has said "there would be times when QuackWatch is an inappropriate source"; bainer says "the substance of the finding (that partisan sources should not be misused) stands". Nearly every arbitrator so far has commented on the need to take care with the use of material on Quackwatch because of the nature of the site. Such sites can change over time, but the basic nature of the site, its raison d'etre, doesn't seem to be disputed. Carcharoth (talk) 04:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think people are missing the forest for the trees here. I am convinced the Quackwatch issue is a thin cover in many, but not all, cases for nettlesome conflict, winning battles, and slamming points. There is some good faith disagreement, but largely it's just a stone for people to grind the same old axes in the general subject area. Quackwatch is obviously a biased source. It is just as obviously as reliable source. It clearly evinces a strong point of view, which is in essence the sort of strong skepticism usually seen among secular humanists. It is also clearly regarded as a reliable source by reputable bodies and figures within the relevant field (medicine). We use such sources all the time without such great controversy and conflict following standard conventions (such as WP:UNDUE). Vassyana (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motion

There are 17 active arbitrators, so 9 votes are a majority. 14:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

1) In the finding "Use of unreliable sources by Fyslee" (3.2) in the Barrett v. Rosenthal case, the following additional finding is added:

The use of Quackwatch as a source is not banned; however, all editors are reminded of the instruction in the policy page on Neutral point of view that they should "give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner", that Quackwatch is a site "whose purpose is to combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct", and is therefore explicitly not giving a balanced presentation.

Support:

Proposed. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is helpful statement as an companion to the the proposal that I added about Fyslee. I see no way around the Committee making some type of a determination about the nature of this source if we are going to make a remedy about his use of the source. But I still think that labeling it an unreliable source is wrong and we need to backtrack on this aspect of the case ruling. FloNight ♥♥♥ 15:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support.~~ --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~— Coren ^(talk) 18:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
in the interests of expediency, though I agree with Vassyana that focus should be on conduct of editors nt use of sources, but if this is needed to clarify things and push forward, so be it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 17:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Second choice, prefer 1.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)~~ I misread 1 and 1.1 as alternatives; I think 1.1 suffices for now, and we can revisit sourcing issues if needed in the current Fringe science case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Worded in such a way as to create the impression the source should not be used. See my general comments. Vassyana (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still not comfortable with the direction of this finding of fact. Too much focus on judging the source, which can change over time and should be left to the editing community to judge. The original finding of fact was sufficient, and the header change below is all that is needed, in my opinion. As below, would prefer that the wording focus on the behaviour of editors, not judgment of content and sources. For example, the other side of the coin also needs to be addressed here, namely the behaviour of editors who used the previous finding of fact to target those using Quackwatch as a source. The degree and appropriateness of that sort of behaviour also need to come under scrutiny, I feel. Carcharoth (talk) 03:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In retrospect, I agree that the motion below is sufficient to address this finding being misused, and that the formulation here might cause further misinterpretation. — Coren ^(talk) 03:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Not sure about this. Would prefer that the wording focus on the behaviour of editors, not judgment of content and sources. For example, the other side of the coin also needs to be addressed here, namely the behaviour of editors who used the previous finding of fact to target those using Quackwatch as a source. The degree and appropriateness of that sort of behaviour also need to come under scrutiny, I feel. Carcharoth (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Switched to oppose. Carcharoth (talk) 03:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In retrospect, although Quackwatch is unashamedly partisan, that's not automatically a bad thing and I don't think it's necessary to focus this much on it. I can think of many instances in other areas were sources strongly advocate a position without distorting or cherry-picking information to advance it. Facts often speak for themselves. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comment above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse. Cool Hand Luke 22:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator Discussion of motion:

For me, a large part of the problem with the original Fof was the use of the term "unreliable source". FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1.1) That the header of the finding "Use of unreliable sources by Fyslee" (3.2) in the Barrett v. Rosenthal case be changed to "Sources used by Fyslee".

Support

Proposed. To supplement motion (1) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. I was getting ready to add this exact wording. :-) FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I actually feel the is the more important of the two— NPOV handles normally in this case, but the association of "unreliable" with "Quackwatch" because caused undue interpretation. — Coren ^(talk) 18:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as this was a suggestion I made. I think this alone may be enough, but see comments above. Carcharoth (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious correction. Vassyana (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per previous. We need neutral headings. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 17:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This should be sufficient. Risker (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Recuse. Cool Hand Luke 22:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator discussion of motion:

Motion 1.1 passes. Daniel (talk) 22:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Angell-1] Angell M, Kassirer JP (1998). "Alternative medicine--the risks of untested and unregulated remedies" (PDF). N. Engl. J. Med. 339 (12): 839–41. doi:10.1056/NEJM199809173391210. PMID 9738094. Retrieved 2007-12-28.

[csicop_outstanding_skeptics-2] Skeptical Inquirer Magazine Names the Ten Outstanding Skeptics of the Century.

[signers_SRAM-3] Signers of the statement "In Defence of Scientific Medicine" Signers of the statement "In Defence of Scientific Medicine", welcoming the founding of the Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine. It is a long list of notable individuals, including five Nobel laureates, all of whom are thus signalling their critical attitudes towards alternative medicine.

[Fontanarosa-4] Fontanarosa P.B., and Lundberg G.D. Alternative medicine meets science. JAMA. 1998; 280: 1618-1619.

[Dawkins-5] Richard Dawkins Dawkins, Richard (2003). A Devil's Chaplain. Weidenfeld & Nicolson. {{cite book}}: More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help)

[wary-6] Stephen Barrett. Be Wary of "Alternative" Health Methods

[quackery_defined-7] Stephen Barrett Quackery: How Should It Be Defined?

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]