Jump to content

Talk:Quackery/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Globalise template

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

That section contains information about Britain, the British colonies, a German doctor, and English doctor, and laws passed in several European countries. I've consequently re-titled the section and removed the globalization tag as it is not supported by your justification. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Category needed

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

cool template

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

Please follow WP:NAV and create a real template rather than a pseudo one. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:NAV: This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it. QuackGuru (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The advantages of having a real template are so great. Consider pasting yours into Template:Skepticism. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
In case anyone doesn't know the history here, see the discussions of this pseudotemplate at Talk:Quackwatch. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 22:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Me thinks a special template for this page is informative for the reader. QuackGuru 06:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
This is ancient history. It's been rejected and it's inappropriate here. Please don't repeat. -- Fyslee / talk 06:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Reference for the history of Quackery

This article is avaliable in fulltext at PubMed from a respectable peer reviewed journal: "Health for sale: quackery in England, 1660–1850" Matthew Ramsey Medical History 1992 January; 36(1): 91–96. PMC 1036526 MaxPont (talk) 07:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT#HOWTO

"The FDA also provides tips on how to recognize quackery.[12]" is not an encyclopedic statement. This should either be deleted again, or moved to the external links section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how that guideline applies here. WE are not making an instruction book but are just linking to a RS as part of the information in the article. Maybe it could be worded better? -- Fyslee / talk 00:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I found a better spot for it where it could be merged in an encyclopedic manner. -- Fyslee / talk 00:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
That's better, although I think it would be more appropriate to put it in the ==External Links== section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Done. -- Fyslee / talk 05:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Notable historical persons accused of quackery

What about current cases - thinking here of Jayant Patel, currently charged with three charges of manslaughter, five charges of causing grievous bodily harm, four of negligent acts causing harm and eight charges of fraud. A quack? SmithBlue (talk) 13:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand the situation. One reason we have stayed away from listing living persons is because of WP:BLP concerns. Another is that the judgment of history is more stable and is recorded in V & RS, whereas current situations are too volatile and changing, often without a means of judging their overall "contributions" to quackery. If we started listing every practitioner who engages in quackery, we'd have to list hundreds of thousands of practitioners who are engaging in such practices everyday, AND where we can find documentation for such events in V & RS, which is an easy task, but very controversial. It isn't worth the effort and would be of dubious value for the encyclopedia. We aren't a tabloid newspaper. Such matters can indeed be included in the articles for such individuals, IOW they must be notable enough for inclusion here. In that case, they are fair game. -- Fyslee / talk 15:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
"We aren't a tabloid newspaper" - I'll try to remember this. Thanks. (Seriously not sarcastic).
This case may be very notable at some stage - some office holders in the Australian medical community and government are linking changes in medical culture and legislation to this case. But slow is best. SmithBlue (talk) 09:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC) SmithBlue (talk) 09:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Whether Patel is a quack or not, the case is apparently notable enough to make an article about Jayant Patel. Keep in mind that crimes and medical malpractice aren't necessarily quackery, although they often go hand in hand. Quackery is often practiced by sincere and well-meaning people who don't play by the rules society has layed down, and by the rules of scientific and medical ethics. They are a law unto themselves, feeling that the ends justify the means. -- Fyslee / talk 07:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The section on Linus Pauling states: "though subsequent double-blind studies indicated no effect beyond that of a placebo.[32]" and then link 32 is dead. However, the wiki article on Pauling shows that the issue is not at all cut-and-dried. For example: "Pauling published critiques of the second Mayo-Moertel cancer trial's flaws over several years as he was able to slowly unearth some of the trial's undisclosed details.[59]" which paints a much different picture. Since the link 32 is dead, why not link to the appropriate section of the Pauling article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.67.112.123 (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

For those interested in a source that can be used where relevant:

-- Fyslee (talk) 03:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

One mention of homeopathy

unbelievable that an article on quackery has only one mention of the most quackorific of them all i.e. homeopathy. Is that really what consensus means? 86.163.254.9 (talk) 07:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

What are the criteria that define quackery?

See ISBN 0387202862 p 157 for a nice discussion. LeadSongDog (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what a book entitled "Statistical analysis of financial data in S-PLUS" has to do with this. The word "quackery" doesn't even appear in the book. Maybe the wrong link? For good discussions on the subject, try the world's top experts, who of course write for Quackwatch:
If you find the right link, please provide it. I'm curious. -- Fyslee (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Definition of quackery

We can possibly improve this article if we have a Definition section. QuackGuru (talk) 04:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Allinson

Per this revert, I'm wondering about his actual status. Does his article state that he was the founder of Naturopathy? I don't see it. If not, then that should be fixed before we state it here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

List of notables

This source is not a RS, but the list is interesting:

Brangifer (talk) 14:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


Making this Article more Neutral Point of View

Thankyou for your replies.

I found this article titled Quackery & i thought it needed abit of cleaning up & to have a more NPOV.Wikipedia said that the articles on this site are meant to be neutral in point of view & when somebody creates or edits an article to make it neutral/disinterested. I then edited the article to be more neutral and objective in view by making a few minor changes. I then received a message which said along the lines of Welcome to Wikipedia etc but beneath it said:

Vandalism warning regarding your edit at Quackery Information. Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Quackery. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. As your edits seem to be directed at removing references to Quackwatch, which is considered a reliable source when used as it is in that article, I suggest you do some reading on the subject:

* Usage of Quackwatch as RS in medical quackery

* Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal.

As to the reasons why Quackwatch criticizes alternative medicine, Quackwatch just happens to be right. The criticized methods don't work, as illustrated by the old joke: What do you call alternative medicine that works? Medicine. Read the following section carefully, especially the part about where the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) (which is pro-alternative medicine!) hasn't found evidence for efficacy after ten years of large studies: * Relation to evidence-based medicine Happy reading, and Happy New Year! -- Brangifer (talk) 06:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The message said Vandalism which i was suprised about because i had actually tried to make the article more neutral.I then looked up the Vandalism article which said it meant if someone on purpose tries to make Wikipedia look as if it lacks credibility but if someone tries to edit an article to improve it with genuine intentions,even if the edit is right or wrong,that it then isn't vandalism. I was genuinly trying to make it more neutral so i dont understand why this person in message said i made Vandalism. Also my edit removal of references to Quackwatch wasnt the only thing i edited but i had to do this too because of Court of Law ruling that that site is not objective. The person then made their own personal subjective opinion that the site Quackwatches views are right & gave their personal opinion regarding Alternative Medicine which isnt being neutral & objective.

Then when i raised this issue in the forum section i was kindly guided to address it here. Can someone please tell me if i have posted this in the correct section or if i havn't, how to move it to the correct place? I also received a comment which said

"When large amounts of properly referenced text are deleted, it sets of vandalism alarms. As you are new to Wikipedia, maybe that typical reaction wasn't quite on-target and I apologize. I see that Shot info has requested in his edit summary that you discuss the matter on the talk page of the article so that we don't edit war. You have already tried twice to make that edit and it has been reverted twice. A third time will violate our WP:3RR rule, so please use the talk page to discuss your concerns. In the meantime I will refactor the heading on your talk page. -- Brangifer (talk) 09:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)"

User Brangifer said that my edits were reverted twice and that if i attempted to edit again it will be a violation of WP:3RR rule but i feel that my edit were reverted twice unfairly and without basis so how could it be that someone would then be violating a rule if they were to edit again if the reversals of my edits were without fair basis in the first place? Then your being penalised for someones elses mistake for reverting edits that wern't Vandalism. My edits were to try to genuinely make the article more NPOV & i had no personal opinion/bias or intention to vandalise so on what basis was there to reverse my edits? I dont think its implausable to query whether they could have been done from personal bias & subjective opinion & not because of my edits breaking any rules because Brangifer said in his message:

''"As to the reasons why Quackwatch criticizes alternative medicine, Quackwatch just happens to be right. The criticized methods don't work, as illustrated by the old joke: What do you call alternative medicine that works? Medicine."

These are showing personal opinions,not NPOV so if theres a possibility that people can revert edits on personal opinions & not on objectivity then it shouldnt say on Wikipedia for people to edit articles to make them more NPOV.

On what basis or rule please have my edits been reverted if they wern't Vandalism?

Wikipedia "Revert" pages say "It should be borne in mind, however, that reverting good-faith actions of other editors (as opposed to vandalism) is considered disruptive when done to excess, and can even lead to the reverter being blocked from editing."

Since my edit was done in good-faith & not Vandalism,why was it reverted twice when Wikipedia revert page advises not to do that?

Wikipedia "Revert" pages also say' if the edit was done on good faith but even if the edit was wrong or lacking in some way,to then edit the article again instead of reverting the persons whole edit but why was my whole edit reverted twice when Wikipedia suggested not to do that?


Brangifer had suggested i read the Wikipedia Welcome articles regarding NPOV before discussing & i have now done that but still feel my edit has been reverted unfairly. I had in good faith attempted to make the article titled "quackery" more NPOV,informative and objective.'

The changes i had made were,

Paragraph 3, from quackery to alleged quackery because the "labelling" of quackery was an allegation & not verifiable proof so i thought changing it to "alleged quackery" would make the article more honest,based on fact & NPOV. This is according to Wikipedia NPOV article stating "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. Alleged quackery is a fact but "quackery" is an opinion which according to Wikipedia "By value or opinion,[1] on the other hand, we mean "a matter which is subject to dispute."

Paragraph 5,"In determining whether a person is committing quackery, the central question is what is acceptable evidence for the efficacy and safety of whatever treatments, cures, regimens, or procedures the quack advocates." After the word evidence,i edited in the words "or plausability" and I edited out the words (the procedures) "the quack advocates" & instead put (the procedures) "the person or group accused of quackery are advocating." Here my editing was probably sloppy, a bit awkward & could have done with alot better work but what i was attempting to do with this edit was again make it more NPOV by stating that the "quack person or group" wasnt a verifiable fact but that it was an allegation.I was trying to again make it "facts about opinions" rather then "opinions" themself as stated per Wiki page,NPOV.

Also,by adding "or plausability" i was trying to make it more neutral by making it shown that the statement of "In determining whether a person is committing quackery, the central question............" was an opinion & not an objective,disinterested fact & that there was verifiable proof that a "quack" can be legally defined by the terms of this statement. I dont think my edit was good enough/clear enough there & i'd have to try to improve.

I also edited out "Because there is some level of uncertainty with all medical treatments, it is common ethical practice (and in some cases, a legal requirement) for pharmaceutical companies and many medical practitioners to explicitly state the promise, risks, and limitations of a medical choice." because this passage seemed to go off track & wasn't sticking to the article topic of "quackery". I edited in "To propose that a person or group is guilty of quackery by these terms though,is controversial, because there is some level of uncertainty with all medical treatments" so that the original writers statement was still made/used, but in summary form & without it derailing too far off track from the article topic at hand.

Paragraph 6 i again changed the word "quack" to "alleged quack" for the same reasons stated above to improve NPOV I also amended the sentence "which the quack honestly believes is effective" to "which the person or group honestly believes is effective" as the word 'quack" in this instance is not objective & verifiable but opinion.

Paragraph 7' which was "In addition to the ethical problems of promising benefits that can not reasonably be expected to occur, quackery also includes the risk that patients may choose to forego treatments that are more likely to help them, in favor of ineffective treatments given by the "quack", i completely edited out as according to Wiki:NPOV article statement "Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be removed or repaired" as this was purely original authors personal opinion,editorial bias and had no verifiable sources.

Paragraph 8-9, which was an opinion definition of "Quackery" by a man named Stephen Barrett from a website titled Quackwatch, i edited out & replaced it with a definition of "Quackery" from a dictionary as i thought a dictionary would give a more NPOV which would improve the standard of this article. I also thought necessary to do this as the man named Stephen Barrett had been found in the Court of Law to be "biased and unworthy of credibility" .

Also other sources have questioned Stephen Barrett and the site Quackwatch's credibility and questioned whether it can be seen to be objective,reliable and non-biased. http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/reviews/reviews_16_2_kauffman.pdf http://www.villagevoice.com/1999-06-22/news/doctor-who/ Due to these reasons i thought a more NPOV definition from a dictionary would be better for this Wikipedia article then a source who's credibility is disputed.

I then read a Wikipedia article stating that a source doesn't have to be a credible source but just a source that can be referenced/linked to, so according to that premise,the parts of the article regarding the site Quackwatch or the owner Stephen Barrett,it is plausable to leave in the article because even if it confirmed to be a biased source in factualness,Wikipedia says all sourses are ok.


Paragraph 11 i changed from "Quack medicines"(often had no......) to "Medicines labelled "Quack" medicines" (often had no......) again to make the article more NPOV.

The title "History of quackery in Europe and the United States" i edited to "History of Alleged Quackery in Europe and the United States" for more neutrality and factualness.

Paragraph 14 i edited ""golden age" of quackery in" to "golden age" of alleged quackery in" for better NPOV in article. Also i edited "by similar growth in marketing of quack medicines" to "by similar growth in marketing of medicines alleged to be based on "quack" principals" again for NPOV.

Paragraph 15 i edited out "Not all quacks were" as this statement wasn't NPOV & changed it to " Not all were".

Paragraph 16 i edited from "marketing of "quack" medicines" to "marketing of alleged "quack" medicines" for NPOV.

Paragraph 17 i edited out "Another English quack, Dr. Solomon claimed that his Cordial Balm of Gilead cured almost anything, but was particularly effective against all venereal complaints, from gonorrhoea to onanism. Although it was basically just brandy flavoured with herbs, it retailed widely at 33 shillings a bottle in the period of the Napoleonic wars, the equivalent of over $100 per bottle today." because there were no references provided regarding this certain mans existence,(or his medicine,effectiveness or lack of effectiveness etc) to be able to provide the statement in the article in factuality.

Paragraph 19,from "quack medicines" to "alleged quack medicines"

I edited title from "Quackery in contemporary culture" to "Alleged Quackery in Contemporary Culture" for NPOV.

Paragraph 21 "mostly" edited to "today".This edit doesnt matter,just matter of semantics.

"Often used to denote the peddling of the cure-alls" edited to " often used as an derogatory and accusatory term to denote the peddling of the cure-alls"-again not a really important edit.

I edited out "Quackery continues even today; it can be found in any culture and in every medical tradition" as this was a statement based on opinion & an unfounded statement without any verifiable references provided to confirm.

I edited out "Unlike other advertising mediums" not a too important edit,just to clean the article up a bit.

I edited "opened doors for an unregulated market of quack cures" to "opened doors for an unregulated market of cures with some alleged to be quackery, but often only on speculation and without conclusive evidence" for greater accuracy & NPOV.

I edited out "Most people with an e-mail account have experienced the marketing tactics of spamming — touting the newest current trend for miraculous remedies for "weight-loss" and "sexual enhancement," as well as outlets for unprescribed medicines of unknown quality" as this paragraph seemed to be derailing off article topic & referring more to the topic of "Spam" rather then "Quackery"

Paragraph 22 i edited out the paragraph "While quackery is often aimed at the aged or chronically ill, it can be aimed at all age groups, including teens, and the FDA has mentioned[1] some areas where potential quackery may be a problem: breast developers, weight loss, steroids and growth hormones, tanning and tanning pills, hair removal and growth, and look-alike drugs." because the reference link was broken and unaccesable.

Paragraph 23 i edited "According to the U.S. Congress, quackery was determined" to "According to one article,it alleges, that according to the U.S. Congress, quackery was determined" because it was an article that stated that the U.S congress said something & not the U.S Congress itself so this statement could be potentially misleading.

I edited out "Non-scientific health care including acupuncture, ayurvedic medicine, chiropractic, homeopathy, and naturopathy is licensed by individual states. These practitioners use unscientific methods and deception on a public who, lacking in depth health-care knowledge, must rely upon the trust of providers. Quackery not only harms people, it undermines scientific activity and should be publicly opposed by scientists" as according to Wikipedia,article NPOV "Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be removed or repaired." and these statement were based on personal bias and not NOPV truth & fact and there are evidence that prove that some of the health care methods stated can be based on evidence,as an example, the Naturopathic use of Ginger http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19250006?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=4 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18272271?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=12

Paragraph 25 was edited from "expose quackery" to "expose alleged quackery" for NPOV.

Also i edited out "There are also "anti-quackery" web sites, such as Quackwatch,[15] which may help consumers evaluate particular claims." for the same reasons outlined regarding edits in paragraphs 8-9.

Paragraph 26 was edited from "Quackery' to 'alleged quackery" for greater actuality and NPOV.

Paragraph 27 i edited out "Mainstream medicine has produced many remarkable advances, so people may tend to also believe groundless claims." While this statement was NPOV, it did not relate to the article title 'Quackery" and was derailing.

Paragraph 31, a few minor word changes like "supported" replaced with "upheld" for article cleanup.

Paragraph 34,"untreatable" in brackets taken out of brackets and replaced with untreatable.

I edited this article in genuine,good faith to improve it and make it more NPOV. Apart from the editing out of Quackwatch references & opinion,and now understanding that Wikipedia says all references are acceptable regardless of whether biased or nonbiased etc, 

i see no other basis that my edit of this article should have been reversed.

I think it was reversed on unfair,unfounded,biased grounds and at most it should have been re-edited but not reversed as per Wikipedia Guidelines:

"It should be borne in mind, however, that reverting good-faith actions of other editors (as opposed to vandalism) is considered disruptive when done to excess, and can even lead to the reverter being blocked from editing." and "Revert vandalism and other abusive edits upon sight but revert a good faith edit only as a last resort."Severina123 (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Smaller bites

Please choose one of your most specific issues and let's discuss it here. The long list above is impossible to deal with. Avoid long, wordy discussion that refers to previous discussions. Just keep it short. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

flags on Quackery#Presence and acceptence

I've flagged this section for the following reasons:

  1. most of the claims here are presented without reference or citation. I suspect those are available (somewhere, since this particular passage exists more or less verbatim on several articles), but they are not here. can someone provide them?
  2. without citations (taken as a simple logical extrapolation of possible reasons) this list is clearly biased, including only derisive reasons. it comes off as a "Why people are stupid enough to use alternative medicines" section, which is clearly a violation of wp:NPOV.

I'll point out as well that the list misuses the placebo effect, and presents the same idea as separate points on different lines. --Ludwigs2 02:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I think most of this section is more appropriate in a discussion as to why people turn to non-traditional / non-mainstream medicine. stmrlbs|talk 21:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Which of course begs the question - What's the difference? (You did hand that one to me on a silver platter ;-) The similarities and overlaps are so numerous that it would apply in both situations.
The first objection is a valid one. It is largely unsourced, and I'm not sure why. I haven't studied the history of this article to find out. Where are the other locations for this text? Maybe the sources can be located. Someone might have simply lifted the text without the refs. If it doesn't get sources soon, it should be rephrased or removed. Since it's fairly good content, it would be a shame to lose it, so sourcing it is the better option. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


I agree too.Most of it is unsourced.

Even if sources are provided though,that section still doesn't fit in with the scope of this article. It seems to divert more into a topic of "quackery"/versus "mainstream medicine" and here the author really makes his biases clear & this section isnt NPOV & the list only includes derisive reasons. I nominate this whole sections contents should be removed and put in an article titled something along the lines of Alternative Medicine vs Mainstream Medicine(if Wikipedia has one or something similar). There the Article would fit the discussion of the reasons why people choose alternative medicine or mainstream medicine(providing sources are given) but in the article named Quackery it doesnt fit & seems to derail off what the article is meant to be about eg:the defined meaning of the word,the history of the use of the word,how some people apply it today,what people/organisations are involved in things that they term antiquackery,what people/organisations oppose the use of the word quackery,and generally anything else that specifically is relevant to the word/term quackery. Its meant to be an general information article around the word Quackery, not about the use and/or reasons for use of Alternative or mainstream medicine in general society. Even if nonderisive reasons were added too to make the section more NPOV,the whole piece still needs to be in a more fittig/relevant article though. Severina123 (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

actually, I think I think the entire section violates wp:SOAPBOX (just some editor getting on his high horse about how stupid alt-med people are) and should probably be removed entirely and permanently. I just wasn't prepared to be quite that bold. if there's a bit of consensus here to that effect, however, I'll do it. --Ludwigs2 05:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you Ludwigs that that should be done and removed.Severina123 (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

alright then, I'll go ahead and remove it boldly. --Ludwigs2 16:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice to see three promoters of fringe ideas agreeing on something. You have a consensus of three. Why not do what the tags are intended for, improve the section by finding sources...Try building, rather than destroying. Note that common knowledge doesnt need sourcing. Brangifer (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Sourced or unsourced,it still wasnt relevant to the scope of the article and diverted more into a discussion of Regular Medicine vs Alternative Medicine and societies reasons for choices.This discussion is suited more to a different article on Wikipedia.There the text could be rewritten,this time with sources and not violating Wikipedia NPOV or Soapbox.Severina123 (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
It is only because it wasn't sourced that I didn't revert the deletion as vandalism. I just suggested what would have been a more logical course of action, one which is suggested by the tag. Done is done, and if someone wants to take the time to source it, it would be extremely relevant to this article, since quackery often IS about "regular medicine vs alternative medicine". Note that Quackwatch most often criticizes mainstream practitioners for using undocumented methods, IOW alternative methods. Just because the person involved is an MD doesn't exempt them from criticism. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

removed state licensing sentence

I removed this statement "Non-scientific health care including acupuncture, ayurvedic medicine, chiropractic, homeopathy, and naturopathy is licensed by individual states." from the paragraph about quacks taking advantage of the elderly. The placement is a bit weasely in that it implies every practitioner in these practices is a fraudulent quack just out to rip off the elderly. stmrlbs|talk 21:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I have restored it because it is sourced content. Should it be framed differently or placed in quotes and attributed? -- Brangifer (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
It is an opinion that all these forms of health care are non-scientific. As such, the opinion should be attributed. DigitalC (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
That makes sense in this case. Let me give it a try. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

BRangifer, do you have a copy of the source article? Because for this source: [2], when I look at the archives.. I can find no such article [1]. Here is a link to the search page for this journal [2]. When I do a search of the journal, no article with Quackery in the title can be found [3]. And when I do a search on an author name of Jarvis, I find one article having nothing to do with Quackery [4]. Perhaps you can provide us with a link to the full article? stmrlbs|talk 02:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I wish I could help you, but all I've seen is the abstract in PubMed. That's evidence enough that it did appear in the peer reviewed journal. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
it must have been in there in 1992, but it is kind of odd they would have all the articles in the archive except this one. stmrlbs|talk 03:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree that it's odd. When one looks at the spacing between Aug and Sept here, there is a gap of 81 pages! All the other months have paging that goes consecutively over into each other. It's as if they forgot to include those pages in the archived links. Since the ref states "1992 Aug;38(8B Pt 2):1574-86", it looks like there was a Part 2 to that issue, and they didn't list it. It could have been a special issue pull-out. Journals do that sometimes. Well, the abstract made it into PubMed, and that's a reliable source. Jarvis is retired now, but in his time he was the world authority on the subject of quackery, a position overtaken by Stephen Barrett. A number of years ago he wrote me an email and requested that I write a book on the subject of chiropractic quackery. He had read some of my writings and thought I knew enough to write a good book. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
More searching has turned up something related from the year before. The journal has "front matter" and "back matter". That link contains reference to a seminar talk held by Jarvis. He and Barrett have educated scientists and government agencies for years on these subjects using seminars. Maybe the 1992 issue had such matter. I'll look. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I didn't find such a link, which also occurs on some, but not all, other issues. They must have forgotten it. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I tagged the paragraph as a disputed POV, because the whole paragraph quoting Mr. Jarvis's opinion, sourced our not, is just that, HIS opinion. And, as he is a director of an entity established exactly to diminish anything which does not use drugs or surgery, (as if they are wholly scientific), proves per se, that his POV is biased as ab initio.Д-рСДжП,ДС 21:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Strike comment from indef banned user. Brangifer (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

accused of...

What is Wikipedia policy or convention about 'accused of' sections? I'm just imagining, for instance, someone editing homosexuality to add a section on 'Notable people who have been accused of being gay,' which I think we would all agree would be bad. --Ludwigs2 15:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Unlike your example, I don't think anyone believes that being a "quack" is a good thing, so the claim that it is an "accusation" is NPOV. And it probably should be understood that these need to be public accusations, reported in reliable sources, for them to count. It could still lead to trouble. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
This isn't a question of good or bad, really. it's more a question of balance. being 'accused of' implies a suspicion without sufficient evidence, and that needs to be handled in a careful context. For instance, looking at Linus Pauling: it's clear that his theories about orthomolecular medicine didn't pan out, and it's a historical fact that he was accused of being a quack, and these issues are presented on the article about him in context with the rest of his life. but maintaining a separate list of people who have been accused of quackery (without much in the way of context) smacks of a 'wall of shame' approach that can't help but suffer POV problems. --Ludwigs2 17:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Have you read the editorial notes for that section and read the disussions related to the creation of that section? You will note that it must be properly sourced and we only list deceased individuals. We could also list living people and easily remain within what is allowed at Wikipedia by abiding by the BLP policy, but it would require too much maintenance to stop vandals from deleting it, so we've stuck to deceased people. That's an unfortunate compromise that isn't based on policy. It's wrong for us to do that (self-censorship), but we're also practical people. Plenty of articles about living people contain much worse content, but because it is properly sourced it would be vandalism to delete it. Are you proposing to delete this section as you did the previous section? You'll have a much harder time in your campaign to whitewash quackery because this section is carefully sourced. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Brangifer, I think you missed my question. I'm wondering about the neutrality of making such a list in the first place, not on whether the list as given satisfies policy. --Ludwigs2 05:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Al Razi

A mention of Al Razi's condemnation of quackery in 825(?) should be added. Samfreed (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

source

There was a time when people that practiced medicine, when dealing with contagious diseases, would wear on their face a cone/pointed shaped face mask, in an attempt to prevent their own infection.. They commonly came to be called "quacks" because of it's resemblance to a ducks bill. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I've not heard that before and I suspect the expression was in existence long before the germ theory of infection became prevalent. Another explanation I've is that it comes from quicksilver(mercury) being used to treat venereal diseases. As an aside it's quite common in the UK to refer to any doctor, even the best ones as 'the quack'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.183.133 (talk) 14:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Quackery Targets Teens." U.S. FDA
  2. ^ Jarvis, WT (1992). "Quackery: a national scandal". Clinical chemistry. 38 (8B Pt 2): 1574–86. ISSN 0009-9147. PMID 1643742. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Is "qwacker" a racist slur?

If it looks like a duck, and sounds like a suck, I have nothing to add to this section's title. PPdd (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

relation between new article on health care fraud and this article

Health care fraud, a recently created article seems to cover the same area (medical fraud) that this article does. It is not clear what the distinction between the topics is/should be. I would appreciate feedback from those interested in this article about clarify/resolve the overlap. Please put comments in the talk page of the new article at Talk:Health care fraud#Relation to qackery/medical fraud. Thank you. Zodon (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

That article seems to be specifically about overinflated claims from health insurers. It's very USA-specific at the moment but in other countries there are insurers or other healthcare funding bodies which might also be defrauded.
This article, meanwhile, covers a broader range of medical mischief. When some quack genuinely believes that vitamin pills or goji berries will cure a thousand different ailments, that's quackery, but it's not health care fraud in any meaningful sense. Ditto with claiming false qualifications. Ditto for vaccination scare-stories. bobrayner (talk) 06:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Bob is correct. While quackery may involve deliberate deception and fraud, that is far from always the case, and it usually involves methods that are not legitimate, or it involves exaggerated and unjustified claims for methods that may have a legitimate role, often in some other area than the one connected with the false claims. Health care fraud is deliberate and usually involves legitimate methods. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Australian doctors protest teaching of alternative medicine quackery in universities

They specifically mention methods which they label as quackery:

AUSTRALIA'S top doctors want university courses in acupuncture, chiropractic and naturopathy scrapped, claiming they are a misuse of public money and encourage quackery.
Thirty-four of Australia's top doctors, medical researchers and scientists have signed a petition challenging universities that "give undeserved credibility to 'alternative' therapies".
Signatories include Australian Medical Association president Dr Steve Hambleton and University of NSW Medicine Professor John Dwyer, who is also the founder of the Australian Health Care Reform Alliance.
IT appears the great debate regarding alternative medicine is far from over.
This week, 34 of Australia's most prominent doctors, medical researchers and scientists voiced their concern that the public are at risk of being misled about health treatments.
This outcry arose from the announcement that another Australian university announces plans to teach an "Alternative" medicine course as if it were science.
In August, Central Queensland University announced their decision to offer a chiropractor degree at their Mackay campus from 2012.

Brangifer (talk) 03:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Added faith healing practice

Added a paragraph regarding the growing trend of faith healing in the U.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.60.103.171 (talk) 09:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

"Quack" as defamation

The article claims or suggests (without citation) that simply calling a person a "quack" is not defamation (through not being a clain of fraud) in the United States. While I haven't fully researched the issue, there's plenty of authority for the reverse proposition, that calling a person a quack is defemation per se (e.g., Brinkley v. Fishbein, 134 Kan. 833; 8 P.2d 318 (1932)). At the very least, the courts seem divided on the issue, and at the most, the suggestion is wrong. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Alternative medicine article discussion to restore content describing alternative medicine as quackery based on sources such as Annals of New York Academy of Sciences and Journal of Academic Medicine

A discussion to restore the first 14 sources of this version, including Annals of New York Academy of Sciences, Journal of Academic Medicine, etc., to the Alternative medicine article is now going on here. ParkSehJik (talk) 02:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Quackery/Archive_2&oldid=1137106721"