Talk:Gary Null/Archive 3

Promoting quack cancer cures

Book mention: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=LsXmMHOT8VsC&pg=PA508&lpg=PA508&dq=%22Gary+Null%22+charlatan&source=bl&ots=uqSnW94a23&sig=ACfU3U3FenmUEkkxoPj61JqKscZp471nBg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwix7uOYrpfkAhXvRRUIHT8EAyQ4ZBDoATAPegQIHhAB#v=onepage&q=%22Gary%20Null%22&f=false

JzG (talk) 20:58, August 22, 2019‎ (UTC)

Not sure this is enough.Slatersteven (talk) 07:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't think it is enough. I think we need more meticulous "highest quality" sourcing. ---- Deepfriedokra 08:07, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Failed Verification tag

I'm going to remove the failed verification tag by the sentence that reads, "An article co-authored by Null in Penthouse is credited by David Gorski with bringing the Burzynski clinic to prominence." The source cited says,

"[O]ne of the three articles written by Gary Null and various coauthors that appeared in Penthouse magazine in the fall that year, The Suppression of Cancer Cures, was dedicated primarily to Stanislaw Burzynski and his “antineoplastons,” which at the time were new news, so to speak. However, Null’s article, even though it was contemporaneous with Burzynski’s having recently struck out on his own and started his own clinic..."

~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 04:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I read the same quote. Where does it say that Null's article brought Burzynski into prominence? - Bilby (talk) 04:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

It says that Burzynski had recently stated his clinic. Prominence may not be the best word, but the exposure of a new clinic via an article in Penthouse certainly makes it more prominent (as in increased awareness and visability - not necessarily more reputable; the word has two definitions) than it otherwise would be.~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 04:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

It isn't so much the wrong word, as not what Gorski said at all, and certainly not what the quote you used said. Nothing in the Gorski article says that Null's article was the cause of Burzynski's clinic coming into prominence. Technically, nothing says that it was promoting the clinic either, but that is at least a reasonable inference.

We've had claims in this article for many years that are not supported by the references being used. This is worrying to me. Why did it take a tag today to get a source to correct the claim that "HIV is harmless and does not cause AIDS", when the source clearly does not say that? That issue has been raised before in multiple places, and all we needed to do was find a source that actually supported the claim, but instead we ignored it. This is a BLP, and we need to ensure that our claims are fully supported by the sources. - Bilby (talk) 04:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

One source didn't say it -- well four others did, and I can produce four others, and four more if you want. The claim is accurate, and Null says it himself, while he's selling vitamins and other stuff to credulous (or desperate) victimes of AIDS. Null's HIV/AIDS denialism is an extremely serious thing, and it needs to be highlighted. We are here to make sure the article is properly sourced, not to whitewash it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. We don't whitewash - but we also need to ensure that is properly sourced. Using the Times article for years to source a claim that it doesn't say, in spite of being told that this was the case, is not what we should be doing. - Bilby (talk) 04:49, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

It's Time not the Times. BTW, how did you read the article, which is behind a paywall? I couldnt verify your "failed verification" because of it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I gained access to Time through EBSCOhost. - Bilby (talk) 04:55, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I see. I went back to the article and it was available - don;t know what happened. The Time article, from 1999, says "He takes a similarly radical approach to AIDS, raising a long-discredited argument that one of the reasons traditional therapies are ineffective is that it has never been proved that HIV plays as great a role in the disease as scientists believe." That was in 1999 and is pretty damn close to denying that HIV is the cause of AIDS. Since then, Null's been much more explicit about his HIV/AIDS denialism. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Close isn't sufficient. It neither says that he believes that HIV causes no harm, nor does it say that HIV does not cause aids - the two claims we were attributing to it. - Bilby (talk) 05:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

He made an entire AIDS denialist movie, Bilby. This is not even remotely controversial. Per [1] he seems to be trying to walk it back now, but the bell can't be un-rung just because the world criticised him for this bullshit. I know you go to great lengths to keep us honest when criticising antivaxers, but he can hardly deny it when he's made a movie about it, any more than he can deny being anti-vaccination after Vaccine Nation. Yes, it is difficult sourcing the reality-based perspective because virtually the entire reality-based world ignores him. I still haven't found a single proper professioanl review of Vaccine Nation, and that's why we deleted almost all the articles on his films some time back. Guy (Help!) 07:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

This is why I flagged it rather than remove it. The problem is that this complaint has existed for years, and it was only today when we looked at the source that he's been complaining about. We should have fixed this years ago. - Bilby (talk) 09:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

You should read this, which explains why Null's complaint was unwarranted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I did. That specificly raised the issue with Time which we ignored until now. - Bilby (talk) 12:03, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• Ping me if you need a source quote. I can get just about anything. EEng 05:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

We cannot use a source to make a claim the source does not, but if more then one source makes the claim we can use those and leave out the other one.Slatersteven (talk) 07:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I meant that, as this process continues, whenever a reference arises to a source others are unable to obtain, ping me and I'll probably be able to get it and quote the relevant passage. EEng 15:35, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

FYI regarding the Times article last night, I changed the URL ending from "0,9171,990975,00.html" to "0,9171,24466-1,00.html", for whatever reason the latter is not behind the paywall. Zaathras (talk) 13:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• Ah! That explains why I couldn't, and then could, access the article. Thank you for that! Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Qualifications

In general I'm concerned about the use of a self-published source such as Quackwatch to make claims in a BLP, per WP:BLPSPS. However, more specifically I think we have a problem with the qualifications section. While it is true that the Union Institute & University came under criticism for its doctorates, that didn't occur until over a decade after Null finished his doctorate. Without a specific connection between the standards of the doctorate program in 2002 and the one offered in 1989, I don't see how we can criticse Null's degree based on that. It suggests WP:SYNTH given the duration between the two. - Bilby (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I think we need to take it out.-- Deepfriedokra 14:00, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, and I have removed it per above (edit summary). Why's Quackwatch a WP:SPS? ——SerialNumber54129 14:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

As always, there is nothing wrong with Quackwatch as a source. Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't look like it. Calling it an SPS is a little like calling The New York Times an SPS of Rupert Murdoch* :D ——SerialNumber54129 14:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

* Although I suppose there's always a few people who would  ;) ——SerialNumber54129

Techncially, it is partisan and self published. Or at least it was self published in 2004, when the Gary Null content was added. It remains listed on WP:RSP as a source to use with caution. - Bilby (talk) 14:25, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

It can hardly be self-published now if it ceased to be self-published fourteen years ago. ——SerialNumber54129 17:03, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear. Quackwatch is still regarded as self published, hence the description on WP:RSP. However, in 2008 they changed their model and stopped relying completely on Barrett, with some editorial control added. Which is good for anything they published after 2008. The article we're referencing, though, was published by Quackwatch in 2004, prior to those changes. - Bilby (talk) 23:25, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

In the real world, better to remove it. I would not add that content back w/o a much better source. Without strong sourcing of the best quality.-- Deepfriedokra 17:00, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Quackwatch has always beewn considered a reliable source, so I have restored the information, which is relevant to Null's qualifications. Another source would be good, but only as additional support, the current source is quite sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: And I will revert it. My removing it earlier had nothing to do with the reliability or otherwise of Quackwatch (see above discusion, I agree with you on that). But the portion I removed has nothing to do with the subject. We're basically saying "Something bad took place in a univeristy that this guy once attended. Draw your own conclusions" in Wikipedia's voice. Nice one. ——SerialNumber54129 17:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, yes it does. The quality of the institution which gave Null his PhD is certainly relevant. Was it a legitimate program at the time, or essentially a diploma-mill? The legitimacy was questioned, and those questions are supported by the Board of Regents inquiry and the subsequent re-structuring of the program. I really don't see how this cannot be considered to be relevant to Null's actual qualifications, given the unscientific positions he has staked out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

If it had happened at the time, then yes; but a decade later? It would be the equivalent of suggesting Califiornia's vote in 2008 was a true indicator of how it would vote in 2016... ——SerialNumber54129 18:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Heck, it's an educational institution (supposedly). As I think we both know, educational institutions don't turn on a dime any more than cruise ships do, they pretty much plow on ahead doing what they're doing until they come up against an impediment that forces them to change. The lapse of a decade is not a significant time period in that context, I don't think. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, Not convinced about the aspects of synthesis. What BMK says just above and me thinks that the content shall go back ...... ∯WBG^converse 14:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

BMK's theories on institutional mindhive may well be true, but there is no causal link between his qualification abnd the events of years later. If anyone can find a source that explicitly links them—e. g., "an example of Uni X's crappy degree granting is Gary Null, whom later", etc. But if we can't say it, we shouldn't imply it. ——SerialNumber54129 14:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Barrett makes the connection by outlining Union's troubles in the context of discussing Null's qualifications; he doesn't have to say "this casts further doubt on Null's qualifications" because Null's qualifications are the whole subject of his discussion. Nonetheless, sometimes less is more, and while BMK's analysis will seem completely right to any academic, the average reader will find the connection tenuous, and the direct information (added by yours truly) about the absurd dissertation committee and so on tells the story well on its own. EEng 14:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Please do not re-add challenged content w/o gaining consensus first.-- Deepfriedokra 18:04, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

-EEng

As an admin, you know that's not how things work. Per WP:BRD, SN made a bold edit, I reverted it, then discussion decides what is to happen via consensus. While discussion is ongoing, the status quo ante prevails, per WP:STATUSQUO. There are no special rules for "challenged content" when it is properly sourced, the rules you seem to be referring to are only about unsourced material, which, when removed, should not be restored without a supporting citation from a reliable source. The material SN removed and I restored is properly source -- as SN agrees -- the dispute is about whether the information is dispositive or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

• I hope I've found a way out that will avoid my having to turn the hose on you two. [2] EEng 19:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

  That's probably better than what was. I'd favor total removal, as Quacksource is not of the highest possible quality, and with BLP's I think it is insufficient.-- Deepfriedokra 20:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

  I can live with losing the other material SN objects to with the addition of the material EEng added, although I would have preferred to see it stay in (for the reasons I give above in the discussion with SN, I still believe it's relevant). Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

  I disagree with removing the content sourced to Quackwatch. The author Stephen Barrett, a retired physician, is a widely published expert on pseudoscience and quackery. There have been several discussions of Quackwatch at the reliable sources noticeboard which have concluded that the source can be used with caution. Barrett does not take cheap shots but rather analyzes Null's PhD thesis in great detail, and is careful and thorough in his critique. Also worthy of consideration is that Null sued the WMF for $100 million about this same content back in 2009 and failed. Now, he is engaging in legal threats against specific Wikipedia editors. Editors should be very, very cautious about capitulating to such tactics. Although perhaps some minor re-wording may be appropriate, I think the overall critique of Null's PhD and the source should stay. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

  Then he knows his threat against me for not allowing it's removal, in addition to being false, is (non lawyer characterization) "frivolous".-- Deepfriedokra 21:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

  Hell, I've been exemplary. I escalated concerns here and at BLP and to legal. I argued for the highest BLP standards for sourcing. Less worried.-- Deepfriedokra 21:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

  I recommend that editors read David Gorski's analysis of Null and his tactics here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:37, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

  Uh oh. According to that page there's a "Dr. Eng" somewhere in the mix. EEng 21:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

  That is an interesting article. If there is two established experts alleging the same thing and it's in a public forum or an article I don't see any reason any of it should be whitewashed. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Gorski's claim that Union Institute & University was only accredited for humanities seems a bit odd - they were accredited by the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, which was (until it disolved in 2014) a regional accreditor. According to the HLC, regional accreditors "validate the quality of an institution as a whole", and don't accredit individual programs. For those a specialised accreditation agency would be needed. Given that HCL state that they have been accrediting Union since 1985, other than Gorski is there any reason to assume that the accreditation in 1989 was only for humanities? - Bilby (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Just to add to the above, the claim that Union Instutute was only accredited for the humanities seems to track back to us: originally we had an unsourced claim that it wasn't accredited at all (which was incorrect) [3], but that was changed to the similarly unsourced claim that it was only accredited for humanities in November, 2006. I've found a 2008 blog post repeating the claim but it is sourced to us. I'm wondering if this is a case of circular sourcing. - Bilby (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

If you look at the Union Institute & University's accreditation page [4], you'll see that -- even now -- although thay are "regionally accredited" by HLC -- certain of their programs are accredited separately by other organizations: the Bachelor of Science in Social Work by the Council on Social Work Education, the Bachelor of Science major in Maternal Child Health and the Master of Arts major in Health & Wellness by the Commission on Accreditation of Allied Health Education Programs, and the Master of Arts in Clinical Mental Health Counseling by the Council for Accreditation of Counseling & Related Educational Programs. Given that, the idea that NCACS must have accredited the entire institution or not at all does not necessarily follow

Incidentally, I've looked at a lot of college's websites, and Union Institute's is the first one I've see in which "Accreditation" is the very first listing in their "About Us" section. Usually you have to search fairly deeply to find the accreditation. I surmise that accreditation has been an issue for them in the past, one that they are eager to get beyond.

It's also worthwhile searching the Higher Learning Commission's (Union Institute's regional accreditor) website [5] to try to get a straightforward reading of just exactly "regionally accredited" means -- I could'nt find it, although perhaps someone else can. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Specialised accreditations are separate and in addition to regional accreditations. The degree programs in which I teach into are accredited by two specialised organisations, but if they were not accredited by them they would still be a full and proper degrees as the university as a whole is accredited. That is explained on the HLC page which lists Union's status [6], where its states that HLC accredites the university as a whole, not individual programs:

Regional accreditation validates the quality of an institution as a whole and evaluates multiple aspects of an institution, including its academic offerings, governance and administration, mission, finances, and resources. HLC’s institutional accreditation includes all degree levels as well as onsite and online offerings. Institutions of higher education in the United States may also seek accreditation through national or specialized accreditation agencies. National accreditation associations, like regional accreditors, accredit the institution as a whole. Specialized accreditation agencies accredit programs, departments or schools within a college or university.

They also state that they have been accrediting Union since 1985. Given that, they don't accredit just the humanities program, but everything the university offers. - Bilby (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I was curious about how this came about. After an IP added the false claim that Union were not accredited, another IP stopped by and corrected that to say that they were. Then an IP that geolocated to the same place as the first changed it to say that they were only accredited to the humanities. It looks a bit like sneaky vandalism. - Bilby (talk) 22:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Since I added that bit most recently, I'll remove it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Skepdic

https://www.google.com/search?domains=skepdic.com&q=gary+null&sa=Search&sitesearch=skepdic.com&client=pub-3542920166946725&forid=1&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&cof=GALT%3A%23008000%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23336699%3BVLC%3A663399%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3A336699%3BALC%3A0000FF%3BLC%3A0000FF%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A0000FF%3BGIMP%3A0000FF%3BFORID%3A1%3B&hl=en

Sources

• Tober, Steve (3 October 1985). "Gary Null provides loads of energy for health conscious Montclair audience". The Montclair Times. p. 8.
• Some gross(??) negative coverage of Gary Null by Karen Avenoso in/around ~February, 1994. It enraged his fans who went on to write several letters to editor of New York Daily News. See WP:RX ....
• Grant, Tim (28 January 2005). "Age-fighting trainer touts ideas in book". Tampa Bay Times.
• M.D, Paul A. Offit (2013-06-18). Do You Believe in Magic?: The Sense and Nonsense of Alternative Medicine. Harper Collins. ISBN 9780062223005.
• https://www.newspapers.com/image/502771538

A good

image, please. Can anyone help? ∯WBG^converse 14:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

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)

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 .... ∯WBG^converse 06:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

For all the watchers ....

Any reliable source which is not yet present at the article? ∯WBG^converse 06:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

An attempt to “Null”-ify Wikipedia on science

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

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. [7] - Bilby (talk) 09:16, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

It does not matter if most universities do it, do the top tier ones?Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. Guy (help!) 22:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

References

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Yes, per extensive prior discussion, QuackWatch is a reliable source for discussion of quacks. Guy (help!) 09:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Previous discussions have come to the consensus that it is reliable. See also Quackwatch#Influence. Black Kite (talk) 10:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

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)

Yes. There's no question, it stays, per multiple prior discussions, including specifically about this article. Guy (help!) 10:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Then why is it listed as one?Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Slatersteven, But it's not an SPS and it's not forbidden, so. Guy (help!) 07:46, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

What Gary Null wants

This is a year old but not substantially different fomr the legal threats I was sent: [8] 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)

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)

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)

QuackWatch has been deemed to be a suitable source for alt med topics. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Is this a BLP, and where does it say this supersedes BLP?Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

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)

Then lets use a non SPS, it its reality someone else would have seen it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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."[9]

Reliable Sources Noticeboard discussions on Quackwatch:[10]

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."[11]

Reliable Sources Noticeboard discussions on The Lancet:[12]

--Guy Macon (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

As it is peer reviewed would say it is not really self published. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• Are we still trying to rehash that whole thing where Null sued the foundation for $100,000,000 but then gave up and agreed to pay the Foundation's legal fees? GMG^talk 12:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

He only had to pay $475, which isn't too bad. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 12:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

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. GMG^talk 13:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

You will need consensus. The content has been in the article for years. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

What James says. Roxy, the dog. Esq. wooF 14:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

*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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 1#Stephen Barrett "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?" Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 2#QuackWatch (No mention of SPS) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 4#Quackwatch (No mention of SPS) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 14#Plural medicine, tradition and modernity (Mentions Quackwatch and whether a book criticizing Quackwatch is an SPS, but no discussion about Quackwatch being an SPS) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 15#Quackwatch (No mention of SPS) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 22#Quackwatch etc (No mention of SPS) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 32#Usage of Quackwatch as RS in medical quackery "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 Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 55#How can Quackwatch be considered a "reliable source"? (Discussion about SPS in the last four comments of the thread) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 118#Quackwatch (No mention of SPS) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 146#Could Quackwatch, Martin Gardner and Michael Shermer be used to affirm that Rudolf Steiner was a pseudoscientist? (No mention of SPS, but the article being discussed is a BLP) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 148#Quackwatch (No mention of SPS) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 223#Two sources in the lede of Alkaline diet (Discussion about Quackwatch, No mention of SPS) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 252#Climatefeedback.org (a climate science fact-checking website) "[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" Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal#Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Barrett_v._Rosenthal

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

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)

Yep, I think hostile to sums up his stance better.Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

”Hostile to ebm ... “ works very well. Roxy, the dog. Esq. wooF 09:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

ebm?Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven, evidence-based medicine Guy (help!) 10:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Ahhh.Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

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)

So if I understand you correctly you intend to make a bunch of WP:NULLEDITs? EEng 08:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

EEng has been waiting 15 years for that opportunity.Roxy, the dog. Esq. wooF 10:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Face palm..... oh man... usually I'm not this slow. Well played EEng....well played! Littleolive oil (talk) 18:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  And to think my old college advisor says I'm wasting my talents. EEng 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. Littleolive oil (talk) 02:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  Your kind comments have been duly entered in the Great Register. EEng 06:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  Duly noted and admired.Littleolive oil (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

"economic conflict of interests"

We say Barrett notes that ... the other members (barring the peers) had economic conflict of interests with Null. Barrett does not explicitly make this claim in his critical look article. For instance, he says of the second one, Philip Jay Hodes, In 2005, I located mention of "Dr. Philip Jay Hodes, Ph.D, Ed.D., Practitioner Holistic, Health Detoxification & Orthomolecular Nutritionist, Consultant" on a Web site that sold "natural tropical herbal medicines." Obviously this doesn't, in itself, imply an economic conflict of interest with Null back in 1989. Looking into Hodes myself, I found that he's also contributed some highly implausible health advice to Null's books over the years e.g., for Alzheimer's patients. But the only pre-1989 connection I found was Null mentioning Hodes in the acknowledgements of a 1988 book [13]. I'm not sure what to suggest instead; maybe "the other members (barring the peers) were associates of Null or proponents of alternative medicine."? or "... had contributed to Null's books or promoted alternative health supplements"? Cheers, gnu57 05:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The last one I think.Slatersteven (talk) 10:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Input sought

What's the reputation of FDU, as an university? Diploma-mill? ∯WBG^converse 19:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric, Accredited, legitimate. WFT do they have this crank on staff? Guy (help!) 20:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

That's the precise reason, I deemed FDU to be some sort of mill... ∯WBG^converse 08:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Huge text changes

Cab we please not do this, it makes it very hard to see what is being taken our or added.Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

The quote attributed to Null, "suppressing alternative cancer treatments to protect the medical establishment's solid-gold cancer train", does not appear in any of the referenced articles to which it is attributed. Under BLP it should be removed, but at least it should flagged. - Bilby (talk) 13:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Can we have quotes for this, as there is an accusation the sources do not support it, I do not have access to them so cannot judge.Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

The hydrazine sulfate claim is accurate and comes from the article "Supression of New Cancer Therapies: Dr. Joseph Gold and Rydrazine Sulfate". I searched the three articles for the direct quote by looking for all references to gold in the articles, and none contained that quote. There is one similar quote but it refers to the media. It is possible it was made elsewhere, but a search of Google only turns up the quote in relation to this article. - Bilby (talk) 13:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

The "Great Cancer Fraud" article in question is available here:

https://www.scribd.com/document/402731890/Gary-Null-Robert-Houston-Penthouse-Magazine-1979-Great-Cancer-Fraud, but I can't access it because its behind a paywall. Could an editor who has access to Scribd thoroughly examine the document and see if there is any trace of the "solid-gold cancer train" quote within it, please? 195.91.48.85 (talk) 23:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Why did you add the references if you couldn't read the source? The Time article quotes what is in the Penthouse article, as that is the same, but the quote in Penthouse is refering to the coverage of cancer treatments, not the supression of cancer treatments, and the full quote we claim doesn't occur as written. - Bilby (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Would you be so kind as to publish the segment in question so we can finally clear up this dispute? Once again, the website which does contain the article has locked it behind a paywall, and thus me and other editors who are not members of it are unable to read it properly.195.91.48.85 (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

As the quote didn't occur, I didn't post it. The closest thing I could find to "suppressing alternative cancer treatments to protect the medical establishment's solid-gold cancer train" was "the alternatives have been covered up by those science writers of the national news media who ride shotgun for the medical establishment's solid-gold cancer train". It is about the media, not the medical establishment's supression. - Bilby (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Shall we change the quote in this article so that it simply states the "media community" instead of "the medical community"? That way, we can accurately describe what Null actually stated, since the media is also demonized by conspiracy theorists and pseudoscientists as being in cahoots with or part of the "establishment". 195.91.48.85 (talk) 00:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

It still isn't the quote. It does not say "suppressing alternative cancer treatments to protect the medical establishment's solid-gold cancer train". Quotes have to be correct or they aren't quotes. - Bilby (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Bilby, https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/alternative-cancer-cures-in-1979-how-little-things-have-changed/ (RS) discusses the article. Time has the quote. Guy (help!) 00:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Looks good enough for me.Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Neither include the full quote that we attribute to Null. If we use a direct quote, we can't modify it by adding words the subject did not say. - Bilby (talk) 11:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Bilby, we're not attributing it as a verbatim quote, I think. The exact quote is "the alternatives have been covered up by those science writers of the national news media who ride shotgun for the medical establishment's solid-gold cancer train", but the article opens with "America's cancer plague has made the medical establishment and its media collaborators rich-even as they suppress new cancer cures". He is specifically referencing laetrile and Gerson therapy, both of which were, ironically, highly profitable and deadly cancer scams. Guy (help!) 13:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

We were attributing it as a direct quote - originally one that was very different from what he said, and then one that was not as different, although still incorrect. But that's been mostly adressed with your last edit. - Bilby (talk) 13:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Bilby, yes, you're right, but actually it was misattribution, quoting text from one page without correctly transcribing the quote status there. I fixed it, anyway. Guy (help!) 20:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Um, why did you revert my proposal, JzG? Was my compromise unneccesary, or...? 195.91.48.85 (talk) 01:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Compromise? If you’re treating Wiki as the encyclopedia it is, nothing would be phrased this way.

Bio and description should be listed as an Uber basic listing of facts - not the things you don’t like about this man - and separately list any controversies surrounding him Macherie00 (talk) 15:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

except the fact he (for example) Null is hostile to evidence-based medicine is considered an "unber fact".Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

• At the start of this thread Slatersteven said Cab we please not do this, and now someone's talking about an Uber [or "unber"] basic listing. Is there some hidden subtext here I'm not getting? EEng 19:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Quackwatch RfC

@Slatersteven, PackMecEng, and Favonian: I acknowledge your interpretation and Jo-Jo Eumerus' clarification of the meaning of the RfC result. However, the same Quackwatch source that was removed is in use 18 other times in this article. What to do? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I will wait to see what Jo-Jo says in response to my last comment.Slatersteven (talk) 18:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I take the correct course of action would be to remove them, unless they were authored by someone other than Mr. Barrett. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

It is one reference used 19 18 times, authored by Barrett. It was removed only from the lede. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I was only aware of its use for the claim in the lede.Slatersteven (talk) 18:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Then it should be removed whenever it is used about any person.Slatersteven (talk) 18:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

What if it was simply worded this way: "and Stephen Barrett has described Null as "one of the nation's leading promoters of dubious treatment for serious disease". Are we now in the business of censoring properly attributed opinions of subject experts? Other subject matter experts are used for the same type of statement. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I would say no, we are still using an SPS's opinion about Null. We can use QW to comment on the scientific basis of Nulls theories, not about Null. We can say "QW has described Nulls medical treatments as dubious" (though I would rather it was more strongly worded than that). ,AS we are commenting on his theories and actions, not him as a person.Slatersteven (talk) 20:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

That seems to be a sensible solution. Just change the wording, and not delete the source. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

No issue with that. Though I think we already do more or less do that in the lede anywaySlatersteven (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Which does almost take us full circle, why do we need QW as a source to say what we already say?Slatersteven (talk) 09:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer, Null has wanted to remove Barrett’s critique from day 1. The RfC delivers that. It’s a stupid decision but consensus is clear: th3 best known and most expert critic must be excluded because the quack does not like it. Guy (help!) 13:11, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

No its is excluded because of policy. If policy had changed to say "Except where it is an expert opinion" I would not have said it violated SPS. The policy was not written by Null. So why not change policy?Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven and Guy, it was excluded because the way we worded it was against the very specific BLPSPS policy, and Steven had "no issue" with revised wording that fixed that issue and would allow us to keep using Barrett as a source, so I propose we add this:

Stephen Barrett has described Null's medical treatments as dubious and criticized his website for containing "a huge amount of misinformation and bad advice".

Each source we use has more information and context, and excluding a source denies our readers of that information. Besides, policy does allow us to use SPS who are "subject matter experts", just not for statements about the person, per BLPSPS. Using the subject matter expert for statements about the person's claims and methods is still fair game, and Barrett's articles usually provide much more information, context, and sourcing.

We should attribute the content to Barrett, not to QW. In other cases, where it is a different author's work published at QW, we should attribute it to that author, and BLPSPS does not apply to that author as SPS only applies to Barrett's content there.

Subjects like Null, who violate NLT, OWN, COI, and NPOV, are not rewarded here. Quite the contrary; we improve the content and add even more sources to back up the criticism. We do not back down. If criticism is published in RS, NPOV requires us to include it.

COI's #Law of unintended consequences links to OWN when it says:

"Once an article is created about yourself, your group, or your company, you have no right to control its content, or to delete it outside the normal channels."

Null's legal threats are not part of "normal channels" here, so let's restore the better version of that content and source it to Barrett. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

As I said I do not think this wording violated SPS, I am just not sure why we need Barretts opinion in this context, its not as if we do not already say "He has promoted a range of pseudo-scientific and ineffective alternative treatments," or "frequently criticized for disseminating misleading information". But have no firm objection to its inclusion, just not sure what it adds.Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

When I look at the article and see that Barrett's article is used a lot, I too don't see what this adds. My objections to removal are mostly principial, and since we already use the source, we don't really have to add more.

On that basis, I retract my proposed addition, if that's okay with Guy and other editors who may have wanted this content. Pinging them: Roxy the dog, Guy Macon

If we are agreed on that, then the protection can be lifted. Pinging Ivanvector to watch this development. Please make a statement of agreement so Ivan can safely lift the protection. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

When this article was protected at the wrong version I thought "fuck it" and haven't followed this discussion. I'll look again, but I normally meekly follow consensus in these cases. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 19:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Protection had already expired when I was pinged. I'm going to be very unavailable for the next week so assume I'm not watching.

Regarding SPS: doesn't the guideline say that self-published sources shouldn't be used in an article about the publisher? This article is not about Barrett. We should be able to use a source authored by Barrett, a noted expert in medical fraud, for attributed statements about a person engaging in medical fraud. But as I said, I'm unlikely to be following this discussion. Just don't edit war over this; figure it out. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

My read of WP:BLPSPS is Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. Though it could be argued that attributed statements might skirt the line of that. But if he is the only source for such statements it is generally undue. PackMecEng (talk) 22:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I have withdrawn from all pseudoscience and fringe topics because I hit my personal limit on how much off-topic US presidential politics coatracked onto completely unrelated discussions I am willing to tolerate. Please decide this without any further input from me. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Going back to the start of this, community consensus was that articles written by Barrett and published on Quackwatch are self published, and per BLP we can't use a self-published source for claims about a living person other than the author. Right now, one article written and published by Barrett is used 19 times in the article. Of those 19 uses:

1. Four times it is used in conjunction with another source that is not an SPS and provides a valid source for the content
2. Twice it is used to express an opinion of Barrett about Null
3. Twice it is used to make a claim that is not directly about Null
4. Once it is used with another source, but only part of the claim can be sourced to the other reference
5. Eight times it is used on it's own to make a claim about Null

There are also two occasions when there is another source, but I haven't confirmed if the other source fully covers the material. My guess, though, is that it will.

2) & 3) are easy - we can use an SPS in that manner, so we don't need to make a change. 1) is also easy - if we don't need the SPS because a non-SPS already covers the material, we just remove the SPS and leave the other sources. That will just leave nine uses, where we either find an alternative reference; reword it to be an opinion expressed by Barrett and not a factual statement; or remove the claim and source. We might as well start by removing it when it isn't needed, and then we can start looking to see if there are alternative sources that we can use instead of the problem sources. - Bilby (talk) 02:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

It does seem ridiculous that it is used so many times here. That's rather unusual, to say the least. You have pointed to a number of instances where the number of uses can be reduced. Go for it. That will reduce the number of uses to a reasonable level. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what does the # of times a source is used have to do with anything? If it's appropriate for a given use, it's appropriate, regardless of how many times. EEng 07:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Both wp:undue and wp:n may come into play. If only one person give a fuck about Null then he fails notability (not matter who that person is). If only one person really slags him off that may fail undue (again no matter who they are, if no one gives a damn for their opinion neither should we).Slatersteven (talk) 09:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

That's about the variety of sources present, nothing to do with the # of times any one given source is used. Finding instances where the number of uses [of one given source] can be reduced achieves nothing. EEng 02:03, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

That is why I said may. It all depends on how they are being used. Much of the argument here has been "But he is the only person saying this about Null", thus this could well fail undue. Thus it would be fair to ask why do we rely on QW so much, because if the response is "because they are the only people saying this...".Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

BullRangifer, Barrett is close to the only reality-based source who has ever taken Null seriously enough to critique him. Guy (help!) 00:02, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Criticism of Wikipedia

Null seems to be famous for his criticism of Wikipedia. He is basically opposed to our purpose of building an encyclopedia based upon mainstream science and mainstream scholarship. Why is that not reported in the article? Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

because RS do not care?Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Yup, that might be a reason, but you should know that a large chunk of population believes in altmed. Just to be sure: I don't side with them, I'm just saying they're many. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe, but we rely on wp:rs not wp:blokedownthepub.Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2020

Why is this article totally one-sided? Citing many critics, only, is not a sound source of information. This does not help to find an independent, qualified understanding. WikiPedia failed it's purpose completely. 95.91.223.37 (talk) 18:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Not an edit request. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 18:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

But, to answer your question: Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. By a remarkable coincidence, all reliable sources disagree with Null, in other words, all those that support him happen to be of very low quality and can therefore not be used as sources. This is not a situation of our making. We cannot do anything about it, the article is necessarily the way it is. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Cov 19

Gary Null takes absurd anti-scientific positions on many personal health issues. Surely, he has said ridiculous statements about "existing" "cures" for the coronavirus. Do we have anything to add to his quakery on this issue?Dogru144 (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

See above: if you have no independent, reliable sources you have no edits. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Gary Null is not a progressive

In the past years he has vastly changed his views. His show guests are not representative of liberals although he seems to be pushing them forward as 'liberals'. 125.25.12.106 (talk) 02:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we say he is. His radio channel is called Progressive Radio Network, but that doesn't make it progressive any more than the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is democratic, a republic, or benefits the people. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Rephrase for clarity

Hey guys

→he was speculated to have incurred the maximum revenues, in the history of the WBAI station, as it shut down in October 2019.[49]

This is not clear. Let's say he was speculated to have raised the most money for WBAI of any single person in its history.