Jump to content

Talk:Gary Null: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 220: Line 220:
*Face palm..... oh man... usually I'm not this slow. Well played EEng....well played! [[User:Littleolive oil|Littleolive oil]] ([[User talk:Littleolive oil|talk]]) 18:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
*Face palm..... oh man... usually I'm not this slow. Well played EEng....well played! [[User:Littleolive oil|Littleolive oil]] ([[User talk:Littleolive oil|talk]]) 18:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
*:And to think my old college advisor says I'm wasting my talents. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color: red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b>]] 21:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
*:And to think my old college advisor says I'm wasting my talents. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color: red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b>]] 21:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

*::At least you don't have palm marks all over your face! In all seriousness, play on words intended, it's a relief to deal with someone on Wikipedia who has a sense of humor. [[User:Littleolive oil|Littleolive oil]] ([[User talk:Littleolive oil|talk]]) 02:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


== Critic ==
== Critic ==

Revision as of 02:11, 6 November 2019


Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

A good

image, please. Can anyone help? ∯WBGconverse 14:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You mean one, shall we say, less unflattering? I agree. Mr Null, if you could have someone upload a free content image on commons, it would be appreciated. The upload wizard will help you work through the details. ( I know he watches this page.)-- Deepfriedokra 14:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree but after my overhaul, I don't have much hopes :-( Will try to convince a few photographers to release their images on an appropriate license .... ∯WBGconverse 06:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For all the watchers ....

Any reliable source which is not yet present at the article? ∯WBGconverse 06:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Qualifications again

We previously had a discussion about this, now archived, but the issue has returned. Should we be saying that Union Institute was "subject to sanctions for failing to meet minimal academic standards" when that happened over a decade after he attended? We have no reason to believe that the issues that led to the sanctions were present at the time when Null was studying there, so it appears to be a case of WP:SYNTH.

As a second concern, currently we say that: "Edison State College was a non-traditional institute that had no campus and conferred degrees via mail, per "work or life experiences, self-study, college courses taken previously, industry-sponsored education programs, military instruction" etc". In a sense this is true, but it not the full story. By "degrees by mail" what is meant is "distance education" - they didn't simply mail out diplomas when you asked for one. And while they did provide credit for prior learning (as do most universities today), students still had to complete their degree in areas where they didn't have credit (again, as is normal in universities today). It seems more accurate to describe it as "Edison State College was a non-traditional institute that had no campus and conferred degrees via distance education, providing credit for "work or life experiences, self-study, college courses taken previously, industry-sponsored education programs, military instruction" and other prior learning." This isn't a diploma mill, but a fairly respected institution known for its work on distance education. [1] - Bilby (talk) 09:16, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter if most universities do it, do the top tier ones?Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It will differ as to how easy it is to get it and the standards required for prior learning, but it would be surprising if they didn't offer some pathway for credit. - Bilby (talk) 09:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"it would be surprising"? That does not read like a statment of fact, but of opinion. I think I need to see RS saying that credit is given for "life experiences, self-study,".11:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by "top tier". I know that all Australian universities - including group of eight - provide credit for prior learning. - Bilby (talk) 11:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "prior learning"? Does this include "self-study" or ""life experiences" "or does it mean "prior leaning at an academic institution"?Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It can mean both. For example, Deakin and Macquarie. That said, I don't want the reference to prior learning removed - just to state that what they were offering was credit based on prior learning towards a degree, rather than suggesting that degrees were handed out for prior learning. - Bilby (talk) 11:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Except that is what the source says, they awarded their degrees based upon this, that there was no college work (as such).Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There was college work. That's how they functioned - they provied (and provide) material over distance education which the students then complete and attend exams, but they also give credit for prior learning. Exactly as distance education degrees work today. - Bilby (talk) 12:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what the source implies (well I maybe erring to far on caution, it pretty much implicitly says it). In fact it says that at least one of them actually let students determine own doctoral committee. The implication is that these lacked the same academic rigor of "real" degrees. This will be my last word, we are just going over the same arguments.Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The description of the doctrate should stay - the only change is what we'd agreed to previously, to remove the synth regarding something that occured a decade after he left. THowever, we need wording to be accurate, and if the implication holds it will still be there when we use accurate wording. I need to emphasise - what we need is to describe the instutions accurately, not remove valid criticism. - Bilby (talk) 12:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Null seems extremely determined to whitewash all mention of the quality of his qualifications, and all criticism of his claims (see SBM). Wikipedia is currently Ground Zero for this (see Gorski). We should be careful that good faith of Wikipedia editors is not abused by this ongoing PR campaign: one can only assume that he has noticed some falloff in revenue as people have become aware, from reality-based commentary, that Null is not a reliable source of health advice, this is really not our problem to fix.
The source for the Union criticism specifically addresses Null's qualifications. There are no reliable sources presented which counter this narrative, and one additional RS supporting it. The source is one of the most prominent and respected investigators of alternative health claims. The only question, then, is whether mentioning the criticism of his qualifications by Barratt amounts to WP:UNDUE. I think it does not, because Null relies so heavily on his credential in his marketing that it is a legitimate focus of scrutiny. I can state from personal experience that his supporters obsessively use his doctoral title, including in legal threats. Guy (help!) 10:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not of the opinion that we should remove criticism, just that we should keep it NPOV. As per above, I have two problems - the synthesis of mentioning something that happed at a university a decade after Null left, suggesting that it was a concern when he was there when we have no evidence that this is the case; and the wording of a respected distance education university that makes it appear that it is a degree mill. We can criticise his degrees without engaging in synth or misrepresenting the institution - there are plenty of valid criticisms which we can and do make. - Bilby (talk) 10:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree the sources say at the time it was accredited. The sources also male clear its awarding of degrees was unusual. Thus the saem argument applies, we judge it as it was when the award was given, not as it is today.Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree - we should continue to make it clear that the degree program was unusual. I'd just like to describe the institution accurately, rather than incorrectly suggest that it was a degree mill by a poor description. - Bilby (talk) 11:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "we" here. It's WP:ATT to Barratt. We are reporting his criticism, without judgment. I know Bilby goes out of his way to be fair to antivaxers, but I don't think it's undfair or unreasonable to report the critique, since it's not our synthesis, it's Barratt's. Guy (help!) 13:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how we work. This is a BLP, and we need to maintain core standards as applied to all BLPs. - Bilby (talk)
Er, yes, it's exactly how we work. A reliable source discussing their area of expertise, reported without editorialisation but with attribution. Whereas deciding to censor parts of their argument because we decide based on our own opinions that they are wrong, is the exact opposite of how we work. And advancing the agenda of their off-wiki PR campaign isn't how we're supposed to work either. Guy (help!) 15:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We evaluate sources rather than blindly following them. Removing misleading statements is not following a PR campaign, but removing ammunition from one.- Bilby (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We evaluate them when deciding whether to include them. We don't then rewrite them according to our own interpretation of what they should have said. Barratt addresses the specifics, in detail. Does anyone else? (Probably not, as the reality-based community rarely comment on Null at all, hence the inability to source articles on his "films"). Guy (help!) 21:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We're not talking about Null, we're talking about two of the institutions that he studied at and how to word the issues there. And yes, sources discuss the degree program at Thomas Edison, and yes, we have sources that discuss the problems at Union 13 years later. I don't want to remove a single bit of criticism about Null - I just want to ensure that our descriptions of those institutions remains accurate, and that we don't fall prey to synth. - Bilby (talk) 22:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Read the above. "It says X", "that looks wrong", basically. We currently represent, accurately, Barratt's analysis. The Null social media campaign wants it removed. People are arguing to remove the specifics because "it doesn't look right". The conclusion: We are being asked to remove part of Barratt';s argument because Null's PR is saying that a subsequent restriction is irrelevant to Null's "doctorate", which they obsessively use in order to assert that his bogus advice is somehow not bogus. He's selling quack remedies, and he claims a PhD but it's in "Interdisciplinary Studies" (thesis title: "A Study of Psychological and Physiological Effects of Caffeine on Human Health") from a correspondence college whose accredited doctorate degrees specialise in education, leadership, humanities, and public policy.[1] Guy (help!) 22:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Union Institute & University, Ph.D. in Interdisciplinary Studies. myunion.edu. Retrieved 31 August 2015.
All of the stuff you are saying is stuff I want to keep. The only changes I'm asking for to accurately describe Thomas Edison's degree program, and to remove the synth of mentioning something unrelated to the time that Null was at Union. I have no problem with continuing to raise issues with his PHP, or describing the degree program at Thomas Edison as unusual. - Bilby (talk) 23:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're asking to replace the attributed description of it with your own analysis. Coincidentally, this aligns neatly with the off-wiki canvassing of Null's PR. Guy (help!) 10:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't even follow the source. Perhaps the reason for the "coincidience" is that Null happens to be right about something for a change? That's the problem - when we leave errors in articlea bout people like Null, especially when we make errors against our own policies, it gives them genuine ammunition with which to attack the article as a whole, even when the vast bulk of it is accurate. How about I just modify it to match the source - I'll try that and see how we go. - Bilby (talk) 10:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An attempt to “Null”-ify Wikipedia on science

On respectfulinsolence.com. --Skyfall (talk) 11:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is Quackwatch a reliable source for this BLP?

Per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources, "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." Gonna be bold and remove the content sourced to Quackwatch unless someone has an objection. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 09:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, per extensive prior discussion, QuackWatch is a reliable source for discussion of quacks. Guy (help!) 09:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But it's self-published, right? How are we able to use it as a third-party source about a living person, then? Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 09:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, not really. There's a fact-checking process and it's cited by reliable sources including government websites. Incidentally, why did you suddenly come here with this? I ask because Null is engaged in an off-wiki whitewashing campaign and is also issuing legal threats against reality-based editors of this article. Guy (help!) 10:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quackwatch's being cited by reliable sources has nothing to do with whether it's a self-published source, though. I came here via my research into anti-incumbency, which led me to Joel S. Hirschhorn's article, "Welcome to Your Delusional Democracy" which led me to Gary Null's Wicked Wikipedia articles. He may have some legit points about Wikipedia's coverage; often BLPs fall short of the stringent standards set forth in policy.
There are 15 citations to this article, which is written by Barrett, who operates Quackwatch. Who is reviewing Barrett's claims; isn't Barrett himself the reviewer of content on that website? Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 10:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so you came here based on an article on a conspiracist website which does not mention or link to this article. Interesting. Guy (help!) 10:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it complains extensively about this biography, including about the sourcing to the Barrett article. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 10:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Зенитная Самоходная Установка, I searched for the article title you name. The first his it on globalresearch.ca. The second is on PRN, which is Null's own website. Your statement indicates it's the latter you are referring to, so this is WP:MEAT and I think we're done here. Guy (help!) 11:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Previous discussions have come to the consensus that it is reliable. See also Quackwatch#Influence. Black Kite (talk) 10:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable enough to be used as a source for a BLP? Per Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Challenged_or_likely_to_be_challenged, "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable and whether it is in a biography or in some other article."
If there's even any question, it's gotta go. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 10:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. There's no question, it stays, per multiple prior discussions, including specifically about this article. Guy (help!) 10:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Without knowing which prior discussions you're talking about, I can't know whether my point above was addressed by them. But it looks to me like QuackWatch has been pretty controversial and that people have raised the issue of its being an SPS before. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 10:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Guy is correct of course, and by the same token, I restored the article following your changes. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So what about the points raised by User:Bilby and User:Deepfriedokra? If Barrett's article is so reliable, why hasn't it been published in, say, an academic journal? Why does he have to resort to self-publishing it? WP:BLPRS says, "When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." Why hasn't Barrett's information appeared in those sources? Maybe because it wasn't deemed verifiable or noteworthy. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 11:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Зенитная Самоходная Установка, it's controversial among quacks and those who support them. Among reality-based editor, not so much. Guy (help!) 11:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to this WP:RSPSOURCES its an SPS, period. If anyone wishes this to be changed it needs to be discussed at an appropriate venue, not here.Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven, it isn't, it already has been many times, and the OP is a True Believer solicited to come here by Nulls own website. Guy (help!) 11:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then why is it listed as one?Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Slatersteven, probably because it is on the cusp. There is review, but it's less formal than, say, Science Based Medicine. Guy (help!) 11:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant, its listed as an SPS and policy says that SPS cannot be used in BLPs. period. I see no policy exclusion for Quackewatch. At the end of the day why not just use a non SPS? Either we obey policy or we cannot complain when others do not.Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By having one rule for Mr Null and another for the rest of humanity undermines the credibility of the page and the project.Slatersteven (talk) 11:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven, the rule is that QuackWatch is reliable, per multiple prior discussions, based on the judgment of experts outside Wikipedia, and we have been resisting attempts by quacks to exclude it ever since I can remember. Guy (help!) 11:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Slatersteven, But it's not an SPS and it's not forbidden, so. Guy (help!) 07:46, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is according to wp:sources, you do not get to overturn what the community has decided as a whole. If it is not a this error needs adjusting, there not here.Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No one is saying it is not reliable, they are saying that SPS forbids its use in a BLP. We have polices, experts off Wikipedia do not get to overturn our polices. If it has been found to not be an SPS, this needs to be taken up are the sources page, it is is an SpS policy still applies. It is about us looking like we are playing fair.Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What Gary Null wants

This is a year old but not substantially different fomr the legal threats I was sent: [2] What Gary Null wants is either for this biography not to criticise him, or for it to be deleted. Specifically, he wants every source that is negative about him removed, he wants "valuable information" about his "achievements" included (though no reliable independent source for such information has ever been proposed here) and most especially he wants the Barrett source removed, for the same reason that homeopaths, acupuncturists, chiropractors and all manner of other charlatans want it removed: it's the best known and one of the most highkly cited sources for critique of quackery. I understand his perspective: His ability to make money depends on people not knowing that his advice is not worth listening to. I guess the only question is: after the years of kvetching and legal threats by Null, how much of his agenda do we want to deliver in this click of the ratchet? Guy (help!) 11:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, we are not here to pander to him, or to attack him. We should treat him no differently form anyone else. That means according to policy, if we do not then he can undermine this article just by saying that "they do not treat me according to their own rules, so do not listen to anything they say".Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If Wikipedia would do a better job self-regulating (e.g. by following its own BLP rules), maybe people wouldn't make so many legal threats. I think that was part of the point of putting in place those stringent requirements for BLPs' sources. Seigenthaler objected to what was in his biography too; does that make him a bad guy? Nah, he was just a squeaky wheel. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 12:02, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
QuackWatch has been deemed to be a suitable source for alt med topics. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a BLP, and where does it say this supersedes BLP?Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Slatersteven, Neither, we're here to document reality. Which, to hikm, will always look like an attack. Bear in mind that this has already been dismissed by a court in Null v. Wikimedia. He's never accepted a reality-based article and he probably never will. As with so many promoters of woo, he resorts to claims of libelslander. And the game plan will always be: keep demanding until you get what you want. Guy (help!) 11:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then lets use a non SPS, it its reality someone else would have seen it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The website is published by "Quackwatch, Inc" and the editor is "Stephen Barrett". The editor of the Lancet is Richard Horton. When Richard writes an article in the Lancet we do not call it self published. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again I suggest you take this up with wp:sources then as it says it is an SPS. That is what I am saying, if we ignore our own polices we give Null all the ammunition he needs to say that he is not being given a fair hearing.Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a comparable review process for Barrett's Quackwatch articles, as what an article by Richard Horton would go through before appearing in the Lancet? How do we know that? Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 12:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes.
Quackwatch:
"Q: "Are your articles peer-reviewed?"
"A: It depends on the nature of the article and how confident I am that I understand the subject in detail. Most articles that discuss the scientific basis (or lack of scientific basis) of health claims are reviewed by at least one relevant expert. Some are reviewed by many experts. News articles are not usually reviewed prior to posting. However, the review process does not stop when an article is published. Complaints or suggestions from readers may trigger additional review that results in modification of the original version."[3]
Reliable Sources Noticeboard discussions on Quackwatch:[4]
The Lancet:
"The Lancet is the world's leading independent general medical journal. The journal's coverage is international in focus and extends to all aspects of human health.
The journal's coverage is international in focus and extends to all aspects of human health. The Lancet publishes the original primary research and review articles of the highest standard. The Lancet is stringently edited and peer-reviewed to ensure the scientific merit and clinical relevance of its diverse content."[5]
Reliable Sources Noticeboard discussions on The Lancet:[6]
--Guy Macon (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As it is peer reviewed would say it is not really self published. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He only had to pay $475, which isn't too bad. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 12:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, in some ways it's much worse. If your lawsuit is so apparently baseless that it takes the cost of an economy class plane ticket to defend against, it kindof just makes "One Hundred Million Dollars" look even more capricious and self-important. Or more to the point, it makes it look like the purpose isn't to litigate to recoup actual damages, but instead to intimidate by threatening baseless litigation. If Null has a problem with Quackwatch, then he needs to take it up with Quackwatch. GMGtalk 13:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • GreenMeansGo, We're not, but Null is. Comparing his original claim against WMF with the legal threat I received, nothing has changed. Top of his list of demands is to exclude QuackWatch, because, like most alt-med proponents, he really hates Barrett. Guy (help!) 07:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So I think both sides have made their points now

I don't normally like to revert twice in the same day, but at this point it seems like any further discussion is just going to be a filibuster. So I don't know what we would do to try to reach further consensus other than refer it to, say, the BLP noticeboard to try to get more editors to weigh in. Guess I'll do that, and call it a day.

UPDATE: I see this was already done.

Anyway, User:Roxy the dog, User:JzG, I suggest we take the content out for now, in the interests of erring on the side of protecting the biography subject from poorly sourced negative content; that in my view is the greater concern than a risk of "whitewashing" because even though it may seem that criticism is being shut down, if someone's reputation is unfairly trashed, that could also serve to squelch his free speech in a way, by creating a bias in readers' minds that would make them not want to give him a fair hearing since they assume he's been discredited by a highly reliable source given that they read it on Wikipedia.

Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one; if you destroy someone's career, then they may no longer have the means to put their ideas out there. And the threat of having this be done to someone if they express dissident views could inhibit people from taking a contrarian stance. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 13:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You will need consensus. The content has been in the article for years. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What James says. Roxy, the dog. Esq. wooF 14:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't Wikipedia who is "destroying someone's career" in the case of Gary Null. The primary cause of any difficulties that Gary Null has in this area are his own actions and his own views. Nobody put a gun to his head and forced him to claim that that all diseases (including cancer and AIDS) are caused by nutritional deficiencies and can be cured by nutritional supplements -- which he happens to sell. That's on him. The secondary causes of Gary Null's problems are the multiple high-quality sources that have exposed him as being Antivax, an AIDS denialist, a pseudoscientist, and a quack. Wikipedia, by reporting what is in these high quality reliable sources, is a tertiary cause of Gary Null's problems at best. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, are you going to be evenhanded, and call those who prescribed arthroscopic surgery and antidepressants quacks as well? Probably not, because they're part of the establishment, and even when the establishment is wrong, it's considered more respectable than, say, the next Joseph Lister, who has some cockamamie theory that's at odds with what his peers were taught about how disease works (although at least Lister was criticized by The Lancet rather than some self-published outfit). Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 20:42, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
*squints* Are you really equating scientific knowledge in the day of Lister to the present day? Black Kite (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia also contains many articles on people who were regarded as quacks, who turned out to be quacks, and they greatly out number the people who turned out to be misunderstood visionaries. "They laughed at Galileo" has not ever been an acceptable argument for ignoring mainstream science in favor of optimistic fantasy.
Joseph Lister's article makes it clear that his ideas were not generally accepted at first. If, at some point in the future, Gary Null is widely recognized as a visionary then the article can be revised. I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. ApLundell (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Зенитная Самоходная Установка, Jimbo Wales has some advice for Null: "get your work published in respectable scientific journals." Null is no Lister!

Wikipedia does not cater to what Jimmy Wales calls "lunatic charlatans":

Quote: "No, you have to be kidding me. Every single person who signed this petition needs to go back to check their premises and think harder about what it means to be honest, factual, truthful. Wikipedia's policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals - that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately. What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn't." — Jimbo Wales, March 23, 2014

We do not allow advocacy of fringe points of view, so the fact that fringe believers don't like these articles shows that we must be doing something right. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I get that the goal is to side with the establishment against the dissidents, but that doesn't necessarily serve the purposes of truth-seeking. Robert Galbraith Heath had all kinds of credentials and got his work published in reputable journals, yet much of what he concluded about gay conversion therapy and the effects of cannabis on the brain has been debunked. It took a really long time for that to happen, because it's hard to get studies funded, approved, and published that will go against whatever the scientific consensus happens to be at a given point in time. Just ask Donald Abrams.
It seems what's proposed here is a double standard, where Null would need to get his work published in a reputable journal if he wanted it to appear in Wikipedia, but if people want to trash his work, they can just cite a SPS like QuackWatch. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not "truth-seeking", its purpose is to document facts as produced by mainstream experts. We leave the "truth-seeking" to them. ApLundell (talk) 00:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Зенитная Самоходная Установка, QuackWatch is not an SPS. It is a respected and widely cited source for critiques of quackery. Guy (help!) 07:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It can't be both? It can't be a respected and widely-cited SPS? Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 08:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPS has your answer: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." But of course that doesn't apply to Quackwatch, which is not a self-published source at all and thus cannot be a self-published expert source. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:51, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection 1 November 2019

I see that you're discussing and that's great, but a large block of content has been removed and reverted six times in the past three hours, and so this page is now protected. If I am not around when you resolve the content dispute, someone please reset the page protection to semi. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Biography

I could not find any biographical information in the section of that name, despite its length, and I think it should be renamed. "Positions"? "Opinions"? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is Quackwatch an SPS and thus not allowed as a source on BLPs?

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is Quackwatch an SPS and thus not allowed as a source on BLPs?

Prior RSNB discussions
"Why are we throwing skepticism out the window because of the specific wording of Wikipedia policy, when the obvious intent of Wikipedia's sourcing policies are to keep us citing independent, reliable sources instead of those with a vested interest in promoting their employers' products?"
(No mention of SPS)
(No mention of SPS)
(Mentions Quackwatch and whether a book criticizing Quackwatch is an SPS, but no discussion about Quackwatch being an SPS)
(No mention of SPS)
(No mention of SPS)
"WP:SPS allows for this sort of sources "when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.": This guy meets this with flying colors for the field of medicine and of quackery in medicine" but no actual discussion about whether Quackwatch is an SPS
(Discussion about SPS in the last four comments of the thread)
(No mention of SPS)
(No mention of SPS, but the article being discussed is a BLP)
(No mention of SPS)
(Discussion about Quackwatch, No mention of SPS)
"[Climatefeedback.org is] Not technically WP:SPS. In order to be "self-published", a website must be under the sole proprietorship of a single person or definable ideological group. This is not the case with this source which is simply a fact-checking website. Compare Snopes, TalkOrigins, or Quackwatch"

--Guy Macon (talk) 16:15, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copy editing

I have started copyediting this article. The language is strained in several places. The changes are copy edits only, and do not as far as I can tell change meaning. I am not attached to my edits , but would recommend letting them stand since they probably simplify and make the article easier to read. I am not checking sources and know nothing about Null; if my edits inadvertently change meaning feel free to change or revert. Littleolive oil (talk) 06:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So if I understand you correctly you intend to make a bunch of WP:NULLEDITs? EEng 08:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
EEng has been waiting 15 years for that opportunity.Roxy, the dog. Esq. wooF 10:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll clarify although I'm not sure why what I'm saying isn't clear. I am making copy edits to the text of the article so that the article reads more easily and complies with basic standards of English grammar. This doesn't mean I support the sources or do not support them or have checked them. And nothing I'm doing qualifies as a null edit. I am not attached to my edits and I will not fight over what I don't agree with. I don't know enough about this topic to argue it and I have no interest in learning more, but given my education I do have the ability to deal with grammar and to save others the trouble of dealing with that part of this article. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think your intention was clear.
If you wait long enough to make a pun, sometimes you've got to just use it when it doesn't quite work.
ApLundell (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Critic

I am trying to think of a better phrase than "critic of evidence based medicine". He makes up lies about reality-based medicine as part of his sales pitch for pseudoscience, but he's not a critic, he's just a knocker. He rejects the very premise, on quasi-religious grounds. It would be more accurate to say he is an opponent of medical science. "Hostile to" is more accurate than "critic of". He doesn't want to improve it, he wants to burn it down. Guy (help!) 08:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I think hostile to sums up his stance better.Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
”Hostile to ebm ... “ works very well. Roxy, the dog. Esq. wooF 09:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ebm?Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Slatersteven, evidence-based medicine Guy (help!) 10:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh.Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gary_Null&oldid=924809465"