Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:00, 28 February 2014

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. [REDACTED] Alternative views [REDACTED] This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

References that have nothing to do with the Subject

I removed a ref (and am looking at the others), to ensure they are related to the article.

1. Homeopathy advocacy

Recent revert

I've reverted a series of changes which I think are problematic. I'll elaborate my concerns here.

• Inappropriate sourcing. LinkedIn profiles and whatismtt.com are not encyclopedic sources, and I don't think they meet the bar for use here.
• Likewise, I don't think that a webpage from baumancollege.org is an appropriate source here, per our sourcing guidelines.
• I restored the paragraph sourced to BusinessWeek. As far as I'm aware, this is a respectable publication, and a reasonable although not definitive source even for a biographical article. The mere fact that an outlet has printed something negative does not qualify the material for removal. If there is a serious concern that the material published by BusinessWeek is defamatory, then I would think that should be taken up with BusinessWeek.

I'm open to feedback on these concerns. MastCell  20:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the clarification. I'll try to check if I can get other sources. By the way, I'm still a newbie editing here at wikipedia, with regards to the infobox of Joseph Mercola, some of the info are already obsolete, how do I change them? do I need to cite sources as well? Thank you for your patience. --Nuikotan (talk) 03:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to completely rewrite this piece which is totally biased and more like propaganda than an objective account which gives both sides of the issue. You can't rely on one-sided sources with profit-making agendas, which totally pervert truth, to provide an objective account.

Primary sources

This article has more than 30 links to mercola.com. It should have one (or at most a handful). There is an excessive reliance on primary sources directly associated with the article subject, when this article should instead be based on independent, reliable third-party sources. The overreliance on primary sources makes the article less encyclopedic. I would propose trimming material sourced from mercola.com, as the goal is to briefly summarize this material rather than present a combination autobiography/rehash of mercola.com. The meat of the article needs to be based on independent, reliable sources if the article is to be worthy of an encyclopedia. MastCell  01:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is a an independent source: Mercola voted top "Ultimate Game Changer" by Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/06/huffpost-game-changers-wh_n_347227.html MaxPont (talk) 08:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It's an online poll - that doesn't look like it meets WP:RS. For one thing, it measures popularity, which isn't the same as a reliable source. What's more, it's open to gaming - an organised attempt to skew the online poll can be effective in changing results.Autarch (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There are indeed a great many references here to mercola.com, and still more references that are to articles by Mercola himself. This whole article is severely unbalanced, because it consists almost entirely of Mercola's claims for Mercola's conclusions. That's not how an article that includes a great many statements about medicine and nutrition ought to be put together. Pechmerle (talk) 00:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources

  Who decided to use this as a source/argument backing up thimerosal containing vaccines? 

"Extensive evidence has accumulated since 1999 showing that this preservative is safe, with the World Health Organization stating in 2006 that "there is no evidence of toxicity in infants, children or adults exposed to thiomersal in vaccines"."

Extensive evidence has also accumulated to prove the exact opposite. Several physicians and researchers have discovered the same thing as Dr. Andrew Wakefield on the bowel disease caused by the MMR vaccine as well as a link to autism. The main stream media, WHO, CDC, our Federal Government, and Pharmaceutical industries are trying to cover it up. Why is that you can sue Pharmaceutical companies for a drug that damaged you, a.k.a. Celebrex and several others but Pharmaceutical companies are protected from vaccine lawsuits by law?

The World Health Organization is a joke and is not a reliable resource. There was a news report on them just today stating "The swine flu vaccine is causing narcolepsy in children, but continue to give it to them because the odds of them getting it are low and the benefits outweigh the risk." I guess if you believe that you should keep giving it to your kids, I have a bridge for you to buy. Several countries have had deaths from the flu vaccine and the swine flu vaccine and China and Australia both stopped giving it to them. Don't blatantly state that WITHOUT A DOUBT thimerosal (which was also spelled wrong in the article) has been proven to be safe when there are several cases of vaccines injuring children with febrile seizures, narcolepsy, gion-beret syndrome, and other issues. Why is it that the swine flu vaccine was offered with and without Thimerosal? If it was so good for you, wouldn't it only be offered with it? Why won't a vaccine study be done on vaccinated vs. non-vaccinated children to put an end to the autism debate? I think someone is scared of the outcome. Moral of the story, your evidence is only as good as your resources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.147.35 (talk) 21:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

See WP:MEDRS and WP:SOAP. --Ronz (talk) 21:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thimerosal (at the doses previously used in vaccines) turns out to be pretty safe. Concentrated ignorance, on the other hand, turns out to be deadly. Moral of the story. MastCell  05:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, Mr. Lockheed-Martin, whose products kill more human beings in an hour than all of the vaccines have in the last 60 years. A study of vaccinated vs. non-vaccinated children? So, you want to sacrifice children to the horrific diseases to prove that you are wrong? Unethical. Immoral. I think, as MastCell says, you might want to see what's happening at your own house. OrangeMarlin 00:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but both responses to the 'sources' section are pretty personal. Any chance that both of you can refrain from personal attacks and notifying the whole world of a persons potential work place, whether right or wrong? MrAnderson7 (talk) 01:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I guess you know more than all of the doctors and scientists who say the opposite. I guess you know more than all of the countries who have banned certain vaccines containing thimerosal, but yet the U.S. continues to use it because, as you say, it's 'pretty safe'. Maybe you should listen to your own advice since it appears you are fully concentrated with ignorance. If you have to use the word 'pretty' before the safe, then it's questionable. Try looking at the swine flu vaccine insert, then continue to write your ignorant comments. The moral of the story here is, one source from the WHO does not deem it a scientific fact and not should be used in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.173.36 (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Nothing is completely safe. Safety is relative; that's why I used the term "pretty safe". Think of it like this. Your IP address suggests you work for Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin probably discharges more mercury, heavy metals, perchlorate, etc into the environment in one minute than is contained in all the vaccines that were or ever will be manufactured. (See, for example, , or try Googling "lockheed martin superfund" sometime). If you're concerned about exposure to heavy metals and other potential neurotoxins, you might want to go where the money is. So to speak. MastCell  17:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Inaccurate information

I'm not sure who decided that Joseph Mercola's claim that his books made it to the New York Times bestsellers list was false. A quick search of the NY Times archives brought up this page:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/18/books/paperback-best-sellers-may-18-2003.html?scp=3&sq=mercola&st=nyt&pagewanted=2

Showing his book "the no grain diet" on the best seller list. I haven't even looked for the other book yet, or checked how long this one was on the best seller list for. I'm just surprised that the statement that his books do not appear on the list is made when it's so easy to corroborate that his books did indeed make the best seller list. Evelyn miles (talk) 08:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the link, I've now updated the article and found a reference for the second book.--Salix (talk): 09:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Can someone discuss the accuracies of his claim on unferemented soy products like soy milk being harfmul? Is there any double blind test to prove the validity of that claim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.172.16.102 (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Reference no. 14

I'd just like to point out that the article cited at 14 is a comparison of whole-grain foods versus "white" bread. Its basic point is that a diet which includes whole grains is healthier than a diet which includes white flour products in their place. The idea of excluding grains from the diet altogether receives no mention at all. I hardly think it justifies the blanket statement that grains = good, particularly in this context.

You may read the whole article (or even just the abstract) here: http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v58/n11/full/1601995a.html

146.96.34.107 (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Ref removed. Lambanog (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Lead does not follow WP:Lead

Information in lead should be included in the body of the article. Lambanog (talk) 13:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

"Controversial"

If the adjective "controversial" is going to be included as the first to describe Mercola, it should probably come from better sources and be more explicitly stated. Many notable people can be called controversial but putting that in the first description with relatively poor sourcing seems inappropriate. Please find better more explicit source for the description or drop it altogether and let the presentation of facts speak for itself. Lambanog (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

While I think it is self-evident that he is controversial, it might be more neutral to say he is an advocate of controversial positions, and list a few of them. That way we avoid the WP:BLP issues involved. Yobol (talk) 16:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The reason for his notability needs to be stated and I don't think it is currently. He isn't primarily notable because he has unconventional positions; many other people have such views but do not merit an article. Lambanog (talk) 16:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, he is known for his controversial views, and his website which promotes them. This article, like the Enig article used to, relies too much on primary sources rather than secondary sources. Yobol (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps but that is still secondary to his website apparently being the leading natural health website. Lambanog (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

That he is good at making his views popular doesn't make them any less controversial or incorrect. Yobol (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Rather than stating someone is controversial, it's better practice in my experience to simply state what they've done, and if appropriate (as in this case) the mainstream medical opinion. This applies even in the lead in my opinion. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 02:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I added "controversial" back as the subject of the BLP himself embraced that he was causing numerous controversies, which should satisfy BLP. Yobol (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's a pretty good source on his being "controversial": http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/February-2012/Dr-Joseph-Mercola-Visionary-or-Quack/ . --Blogjack (talk) 08:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed

There seem to be many slanted claims made in the article supported by references that fail to verify them properly. Half the lead is devoted to what appear to be criminal allegations but do not appear in the body with as much detail. Reads like an attack article that does not reflect Mercola's notability. Lambanog (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

It might help to bring some independent, reliable sources to the table. They are conspicuously lacking from the article. Mercola's own website is not exactly the best source for claims about his prominence and notability. The few independent, reliable sources we have - such as the BusinessWeek article and the FDA, tend to be somewhat critical. But the article needs to reflect the best available sources - it would be non-neutral to pretend that these sources don't exist, or to fail to convey their content.

The article suffers from an extreme case of bloat - most of it basically rehashes claims made on Mercola's website, in clear violation of this site's sourcing policies which prioritize independent, reliable sources. Again, if you think the article fails to reflect Mercola's notability, then the solution is to bring forward independent, reliable sources demonstrating his notability. MastCell  16:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Current problem that has led me to make comments here are sources that do not support contentions made against him adopting a particular slant. That is sufficient for NPOV concerns especially since this is a BLP article. Lambanog (talk) 17:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before placing the tag? You didn't even wait for any discussion, which I think is an inappropriate use of the tag, but I'm not going to edit-war over it. Which statements do you believe are incorrectly sourced? MastCell  19:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Repetition

I noticed that there is repetition in the article regarding the 2005, 2006 and 2011 warnings from the USFDA:

• (in the introductory section) "Mercola has also received three warning letters from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for violations of U.S. marketing laws. The first two letters, dated 2005 and 2006, charged Mercola with making false and misleading claims regarding the marketing of several natural supplemental products, which violated the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act. In the most recent letter, sent in March 2011, Mercola was again found to be violating federal law, by making claims about the efficacy of certain uses of a telethermographic camera exceeding those approved by the FDA concerning the diagnostic and therapeutic potential of the device (regulation of such claims being within the purview of the FDA)."

• (in the "Views and controversy" section) "In 2005, 2006 and 2011 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned Mercola and his company to stop making illegal claims regarding his products' ability to detect, prevent and treat disease."

I tried to remove the second of these but my changes were reverted, as I had removed sourced material.Jimjamjak (talk) 10:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD is supposed to summarize what's in the body of the article. Everything in the lead should be mentioned in the body of the article. Yobol (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The article is actually upside-down, in that there's more information in the lead about the warnings than in the article body. I agree it belongs in both places, but this is the opposite of "summary style."--~TPW 17:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, the switch you made makes things more appropriate. Yobol (talk) 17:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

HIV and AIDS

This article, from 2008, is clearly listed as authored by "Dr. Mercola". It runs through the standard AIDS-denialist talking points, disparaging the entire medical literature on antiretrovirals and claiming that Peter Duesberg has offered a "thorough and devastating critique" of antiretroviral therapy. The article asserts, in the author's voice, that HIV "does not destroy T-cells in test tubes and has never been shown to destroy them in humans, either" (which is both a falsehood and a common AIDS-denialist claim). Mercola states his belief that HIV "does not affect T-cells, at all." He goes on to argue that AIDS is actually caused not by HIV, but by "the severe, acute psychological stress of being diagnosed 'HIV Positive'". He then tries to explain away the fact that people with HIV/AIDS obviously improve on antiretroviral therapy. All of this clearly supports our language in the article, which was removed by EmperorCaligula (talk · contribs) and which I have now restored with minor alterations. MastCell  19:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

He appears to be removing the articles that we post as references. Maybe it makes sense to use archive.org? Is that against Misplaced Pages rules? I found this other article with similar claims as above including a reference to a doctor saying that "HIV is harmless virus" 70.194.70.35 (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Could you explain further? Are you saying that the links to his website that we are currently using as references references are being pulled from his website, making the links bad? Web archive links are fine. We should have enough source information that the link itself shouldn't be essential. --Ronz (talk) 01:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Drmercolabackstage.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Drmercolabackstage.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Misplaced Pages files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Due weight of criticism in lede

Given the large number and quality of sources with criticisms, to follow NPOV we should have a substantial summary of those criticisms in the lede, per NPOV and LEDE. --Ronz (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I did add back an acknowledgement of those criticisms and left a note inviting the editor who removed them to discuss it here; feel free to expand the lead beyond my initial attempt.--~TPW 17:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

- I would respectfully like to ask why the entire details regarding the FDA and Quackwatch need to be included in the lede when there is a section dedicated to controversy. A summary of the criticisms should be just that, a summary (which was briefly edited today in the lede in a way that was fair) while the details should be put in the section dedicated to controversy. --EmperorCaligula —Preceding undated comment added 18:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC).

Because we summarize articles in the lede section per WP:LEDE, giving due weight to information from the article per WP:NPOV. It comes down to properly summarizing the information in the article. The entire details are not in the lede, but in the body of the article, as is appropriate. --Ronz (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Source

"Dr. Mercola: Visionary or Quack?" Perhaps should be incorporated? MastCell  22:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a good source to fill out the non-MEDRS portions of this article. Yobol (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a valuable article. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Article presents information in a one-sided fashion, definitely not neutral

This article seems to be purposefully crafted to present criticism of Dr. Mercola's views by neglecting to include important information. For instance, the thimerosal part neglects to mention that thimerosal is a mercury compound. Mercury is toxic, so the statement that "Dr. Mercola alleges that thimerosal is toxic" followed by information saying it's safe is misleading. Thimerosal is toxic. The question is not whether or not it's toxic. The question is to what degree does its toxicity affect vaccination.

One-sided articles are so typical for Misplaced Pages. It's why I haven't contributed in recent years. I got tired of trying to bring balance only to see the changes reverted, no matter how many citations I included. Personally, I think some of what Mercola says is correct and some of it is utter rubbish. But, this article has the responsibility to not just pile on him without taking into account factors that support his side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.99.216 (talk) 00:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

This is not a forum for editors to present their personal opinions, nor do we use personal opinions to decide what is and is not neutral. Instead we follow WP:NPOV, and in this case because they are relevant, WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS. --Ronz (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

One-sided is an understatement in describing this article about Mercola. It is actually an attack and sounds like something written by an official from the FDA or one of its mercenaries they hire to slander those in the alternative health field. I know he markets heavily but he also does his homework and all of his writing and commentary is thoroughly researched. He is not alone in many of the criticisms he has of established medical care, and very few doctors are as well-informed about the issues that he comments upon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomcalwriter (talk • contribs) 10:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Doctor

He describes himself throughout his website as Dr Mercola. What is he a doctor of, and what kind of doctorate does he hold? The article mentions that he graduated from an Osteopathy college, but is he a general practitioner, a doctor of science, or something else? How much would a typical osteopath learn about (for example) skin cancer during his training? 31.185.191.117 (talk) 18:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The above comment is laughable. A doctor's training does not end after medical school, nor does any professional's training. It is only the beginning, a time when you are exposed to the tools that will enable you to begin to learn the truths about your subject matter. The problem with medical schools today is that their philosophy is so saturated with the bias of Big Pharma that many doctors have become legalized drug dealers and know little more about how to treat illness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomcalwriter (talk • contribs) 11:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Reference Number 48

This link is broken, I am new to editing on Misplaced Pages so I am not sure how to repair it. Armstrong3j (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under biography please change:

"Mercola is a 1976 graduate of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"

to

"Mercola is a 1976 graduate of the University of Illinois at Chicago"

This change will bring his education in line with the reference cited within the current document. Thanks. 66.66.231.41 (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Done: see Cheers, NiciVampireHeart 16:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I just would like to know the author of said page, in order to find out his/hers credential as well. In a world where the most important thing is to follow the money trail, the same way that is important to know the credential of people that the author of this page claims is a charlatan, why not have the name of the author of the page in order to verify if he is not a charlatan also?

205.250.41.30 (talk) 13:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Please read WP:BLP and note that it applies to this talk page as well as to article pages. (In other words, please be careful of implying that people may be charlatans.) You can find the editing history of this article here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

One sided lead?

Hey everyone, as I was reading through this article, I noticed some things that may or may not violate the rules WP:LEAD, WP:BLP, and WP:NPOV. I have some suggestions on how to fix them!

I feel as though this lead is one sided, particularly in the second paragraph. While I understand that it is important to include controversies, I think it’s imperative to include Mercola’s responses to these claims. This would make the lead a bit too long though, so could we possibly make the criticisms in the second paragraph more concise in order to fit in both sides of the controversy, and then delve more in depth later on in the article.

This article, which was used as source in the page, has a number of statements from Mercola himself that could be included. Many of the other sources are from websites that clearly are editorialized against him; this is one of the few articles that quote him. If we included some of his responses to the negative claims, it would balance out this page and make it much more credible, I think. 206.144.187.169 Adamh4 (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

We don't choose ways to "balance" articles arbitrarily, much less to give undue treatment to fringe ideas. --Ronz (talk) 23:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Ronz (talk) 23:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC) --

I don’t find anything arbitrary about a lead that focuses on his criticisms but not how he responds to them, nor do I find anything arbitrary about the rules that this lead violates. WP:UNDUE states “Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources.” Notice how it says “ALL significant viewpoints.” This includes the viewpoint of Joseph Mercola, which is crucial to have in the lead on his page.

And in regards to WP:FRINGE, while it does say we should not make fringe theories seem more notable than they are, we also should not bash them. It’s not making it seem more notable if we minimize the bias, its making it more fair. The reader can decide for themselves how they feel about the topic, as opposed to the article lashing out criticism and influencing their opinions. Adamh4 (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Our task is to represent what the reliable sources say, and on health topics, what the MEDRS say. The encyclopaedia is not meant to be "fair" or to give equal time to all parties. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

But don’t you think that the response of the one who the article is about would be valuable information that adds to the page? Learning about the person includes every spectrum, not just specific ones that we choose.

Additionally, is Quackwatch considered a reliable source for medicine? Regardless who is behind the website, it’s notorious for being biased and negative. Adamh4 (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

"But don’t you think..." Not if we have to ignore or violate policies to do so.

Quackwatch is a reliable source for skeptical viewpoints, especially about medical quackery. --Ronz (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Are we not violating WP:BLP by leaving out that type of information though? It states “We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources.” And under the “tone” section of WP:BLP, states “BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement.”

This article is certainly not following these guidelines. The entirety of the second paragraph is listing criticisms against him. Yes, I am aware that controversy is meant to be put in the leads, but the extent of how much has been included, and the level of one sidedness is anything but responsible, cautious, or in a dispassionate tone. It needs to be reduced, and then the detains can be placed in the other sections of the articles.

It seems like Quackwatch is being used purely to support negative viewpoints, which I think should be considered a problem. As far as WP:FRINGE, a balanced article is not an article that is favoring a fringe idea; its merely listing facts from both perspectives. Adamh4 (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages presents the view of the reliable sources, not all possible views. If the reliable sources are overwhelmingly critical, or, as you put it, negative, then the article will be overwhelmingly critical or negative. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand that Misplaced Pages presents the views of reliable sources, but if all the “reliable” sources are negative, it creates a bias in the article. It should contain either a balance of negative and positive sources, or purely neutral sources.

The bottom line is that the amount of criticism in the lead is excessive. I’m not saying the criticism should be removed, because I understand that it is valid, but the fact that so much of it is stuffed into the lead is a violation of WP:NPOV and it needs to be fixed. Adamh4 (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Skepticism articles
• Unknown-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• B-Class Alternative medicine articles
• B-Class Alternative views articles
• Unknown-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles