User talk:MargMad
Help me!
 | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Please help me with...
<Kenneth Blum is listed by Quackwatch as a promoter of questionable health products.[2] and Doctors writing for Quackwatch have questioned the scientific credibility of the genetic tests that Blum markets.[7]-->
I have no experience with Wikipedia and need help to get the article right. Kenneth Blum is a living persons and according to your guidelines high-quality sources should be used and any material must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. There seems to have recently been postings that are non neutral, or verifiable.
Ref {2} and {7} refer to the same article cited on the Quackwatch website.
The website Quackwatch is endorsed by a group of naysayers under the rubric of “ Skeptics.” Stephen Barrett and his board of 20 are known for many anti-non –scientific attacks on alternative medical approaches including vitamins and minerals or any nutritional supplement.
Barrett appears to have no understanding of basic scientific exploration having had no experience in the field. Therefore, any statements cited in this Wikipedia page must be read with caution and dismissed based on unsupported claims. Stephen Barrett is a self- proclaimed promoter of unscientific bias against all alternative medicine. Most experienced scientists and practitioners of alternative medicine and traditional medicine oppose Quackwatch and Barrett. Donna Ladd, a journalist with the Village Voice, says that "Barrett relies mostly on negative research even to the point of rejecting positive [peer reviewed] studies.” Throughout life Linus Pauling winner of two Nobel Prizes, was also called “the world’s biggest Quack,” and even Albert Einstein stated that Pauling’s research was too complicated for him to understand. MargMad (talk) 00:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Quackwatch is considered an acceptable source on wikipedia. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 07:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Roxy is it OK to include the above paragraph within the BLP? Could a reference to Donna Ladd be included? Would it be OK to change the ref numbers to [2] since the are the same source material?MargMad (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- If references [2] and [7] on Kenneth Blum were exactly the same, there are ways to consolidate the two footnotes into one, see WP:Referencing for beginners#Same reference used more than once. However, they are different documents by Quackwatch and thus need to be cited separately. The statements based on Quackwatch quoted above are appropriate for a BLP. I rather don't think Barrett has ever seriously proclaimed that he is a "promoter of unscientific bias against all alternative medicine"; what's the source for that statement? If there's reliably-sourced criticism of Quackwatch and/or Barrett, that may be appropriate for our articles on Quackwatch and/or Stephen Barrett, but if that criticism doesn't explicitly address Kenneth Blum, it's not appropriate for the article on Blum. Huon (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Roxy is it OK to include the above paragraph within the BLP? Could a reference to Donna Ladd be included? Would it be OK to change the ref numbers to [2] since the are the same source material?MargMad (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
January 2020
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Kenneth Blum, you may be blocked from editing. Bbb23 (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Kenneth Blum. Bbb23 (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)