Talk:Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine

Bias by the APA

This article suggests bias by the APA. However, needed verification is not provided. {{verify}} tag added. —ERcheck @ 03:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully the slightly improved detail and references in the orthomolecular psychiatry article better show the APA bias with respect to OM.--TheNautilus 23:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Quackwatch

I've removed the disparaging remark about Quackwatch. Obviously the site has its proponents and detractors. Solely quoting the SSE disparagement of Quackwatch and calling it "academic" gives the misleading impression that a) Quackwatch has no serious support and b) SSE is a reliable source, rather than an organization whose primary ideological goal is to oppose sites like Quackwatch. I do agree with linking to the Quackwatch page, which is the appropriate venue for discussing praise/criticism of Quackwatch; note that Quackwatch has been praised by JAMA, U.S. News and World Report, and Forbes... all of which are more "academic" and/or reliable by Wikipedia standards than the SSE. MastCell 16:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Arguable. JSE (with a board possessng impressive academic credentials) actually seems to take itself seriously about the academic question how do you address the unmentionable, and then gets stigmatized (play with fire...). The JSE "reliablity" issue gets even more interesting by scientific standards (JAMA, Forbes, USNWR have numerous critics about opinion and pov). QW's fundamental problem with the Kauffmann paper, , is that it is a classic example of the "Emperor has no clothes". QW would probably do best for its longterm credibility by responding to the paper's merits, and correcting/reforming itself in some areas. But I'm not holding my breath.--66.58.130.56 00:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion is appreciated. Quackwatch is controversial. The appropriate place for discussing that controversy is on the Quackwatch page. The appropriate Wikilink is provided. A unilateral disparagement of the site on this page is not appropriate and violates WP:NPOV. MastCell 03:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The references are not my opinion. The DYS reference shows the JOM editors' view & orientation of their work & publication, an allowed method. The Kauffman reference *is* the most relevant, referenced, academic, independent critique about this specific area of alternative medicine with relation to QW. Sorry that QW is so vulnerable in this area. The QW link is very general and self congratulatory (panhandling for contributions in the Intro????). I think the QW "classification" is appropriate for balance but that the QW link is insufficient to balance the QW assertions and references. You also are showing some defensive pov here. We're working on content here, let's let the reader sort the balance out, pls.--66.58.130.56 03:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean about the QW article being "self-congratulatory". The article reads remarkably neutral, repeatedly harps on the fact that Quackwatch is not peer-reviewed science, and by far the longest section of the article is devoted to Criticism of QW. It is an ongoing work by a number of editors, many of whom are hostile to QW. I agree with your statement that we're working on content, and would prefer to let the reader sort out the balance; that's why I removed your inflammatory description of Quackwatch as an "anti-alternative medicine partisan website" and replaced it with "controversial". MastCell 05:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually I was trying to be heads up, descriptive about QW, although I wondered whether it was too straight from the shoulder. Self-congratulatory? Well, let's see. Intro and the next three sections make *no* mention of *any* controversy. The Intro "subtly" advertises books for sale and solicits donations. QW does cite its good works & awards in an uncritical manner (anti-QW'rs could probably add a few), and bashes Pauling one last time. Last I checked, as of the 2005-6 papers, Pauling is in essence back at bat on both cancer and respiratory infections, and Moertel looks more than ever as either very obtuse or, per LP's comment, a fraud. Whether LP was right or not. These last comments are based on reading the reports PNAS, NIH, CMAJ and the Finns re-analysis. And, ah, yes, last of all, admission of criticism in the fifth (last) section.

If you can live with the last sentence of the JOM article, I can too. --66.58.130.56 06:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I can live with the last sentence too; thanks for working with me on it. I do disagree about the QW page. It indicates that QW considers Pauling "non-recommended"; it makes no argument about the scientific validity of LP's work, it just summarizes QW's POV. That seems appropriate for a page on QW. I'd reiterate that the "Criticism" section is by far the longest in the QW article. Yes, it's the last section - this is not bias; it's in keeping with common Wikipedia usage, where controversial topics are first described objectively, and then criticism is summarized. For instance, I note (with approval) a similar layout on the Orthomolecular medicine page. MastCell 19:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Need citation about controversy and MEDLINE status

I came here to find a source so that I could indicate that in the SIDS article, the JOM cited is a controversial journal. This article says it's controversial, but cites no reliable source saying that. My casual search failed to turn up a reliable source for this, I think in part because reliable sources, like the NY Times, don't mention the JOM at all. The (presumed) fact that it's not in MEDLINE is mentioned in the Townsend Letter reference elsewhere in the article, but I consider a non-reliable source. I searched PubMed's journal database and didn't find orthomolecular, but it's not clear to me that proves JOM isn't in MEDLINE. At any rate, the statements that the JOM is controversial, and that it's not in MEDLINE, are in need of a reliable, veriable source. I'm not suggesting those statements are wrong, and firmly believe they're right, but they still need sources. -Agyle 19:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Update: I found a source regarding Medline, and added it. I didn't find one saying JOM is controversial. -Agyle 20:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is another ref about the controversy [1] MaxPont (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably most useful to restrict ourselves to reliable sources, Max. A search of Google News shows basically zero mention of JOM outside of obscure alt-med websites. A search of MEDLINE shows that the journal is not indexed. A search of Google Scholar suggests that articles from the Journal are rarely, if ever, cited by other scientists. All of that adds up to the fact that this is an obscure, non-mainstream journal. It therefore seems obvious and commonsensical that it should not be given excessive weight or misrepresented as being prominent or mainstream in Wikipedia articles. One typically doesn't find a "source" saying that something is obscure - its obscurity is evident from the lack of reliable, independent citations. MastCell ^Talk 20:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and as far as Vitamin C and SIDS, recent research (i.e. stuff published after 1980) suggests that high vitamin C levels may actually increase the risk of SIDS (PMID 19706020). We probably want to get that right in our SIDS article. MastCell ^Talk 20:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The ref. is from the jnl. itself in an editorial controversy about the journal itself. The journal expresses its own editoral opinion about a non-scientific issue. This particular case is not covered by WP.MEDRS. MaxPont (talk) 08:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Nothing controversial about Quackwatch.org

I removed the "controversial" designation preceding the reference to Quackwatch. There is nothing controversial about Quackwatch except in the minds of those who are proponents of "alternative medicine". In fact, The Quackwatch article shows that Quackwatch is highly respected as a source of real and valid scientific information regarding health related frauds and misconduct. If you have an issue with the Quackwatch article hash it out over there. Dr. Morbius (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Without a respectable source for "controversial", it's inappropriate. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I too agree, but there needs to be a guideline for how to describe such situations. Obviously any mainstream source is going to be disputed by fringe sources, but when editors label that dispute in a manner that deprecates the mainstream source, they are leaving the impression in the minds of readers that the mainstream source is somehow unreliable. How can we get this formulated properly and incorporated into our guidelines and policies? What do we have about "describing sources"? I'm trying to find something and have found these statements (emphasis added):

• "In Wikipedia, one of the most common forms of violating the NPOV policy is to selectively cite some information that supports one view whilst suppressing or trivializing other information that opposes it, and describing sources in a way that gives an undue positive or negative impression of their value. In this manner, one can completely misrepresent the range of views on a subject whilst still complying with Wikipedia:Verifiability." -- [2] Note that this is NOT policy, but still interesting.

• "A reliable source supporting a statement that a group holds an opinion must accurately describe how large this group is. Moreover, there are usually disagreements about how opinions should be properly stated. To fairly represent all the leading views in a dispute it is sometimes necessary to qualify the description of an opinion, or to present several formulations of this opinion and attribute them to specific groups." -- From NPOV policy

• "Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view." -- NPOV:Undue weight

• "Neutrality weights viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint." -- NPOV:Balance

Note that these statements aren't only about describing "sources", but about attribution. If any qualifier is added to Quackwatch, it must be framed in a manner that describes the dispute (only "from" fringe sources, not "between" mainstream sources), and that those which dispute and criticize Quackwatch are non-mainstream/fringe sources, and individuals who are known quacks, scammers, felons (Kevin Trudeau), frauds, and/or individuals who are ignorant of science and medicine, or of all sides of the underlying issues. No mainstream sources offer any serious criticisms, only minor quibbles. Quackwatch is consistently recognized and recommended as a mainstream source. One may not agree with the approach, but the POV is always consistent with the mainstream.

How can we get this formulated properly and incorporated into our guidelines and policies? Until then, the simplest way to deal with this is to simply remove such qualifiers that subtly push a fringe POV. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It isn't POV if its consistent with the mainstream view in whatever field you're dealing with. Especially when we're talking about science. In any field where opinion and conjecture play a more dominant role such as in history, archeology etc. you can weight viewpoints based on the credibility of the source and how widely accepted that viewpoint is. Neither of these things apply in this case. In fact Abram Hoffer commits a classic crank/crackpot error by claiming that there is a conspiracy to suppress his views thereby earning himself 40 points on the Baez crackpot index. Dr. Morbius (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I went through all mentions of QW, which is quite a few, to see if there were any non-NPOV qualifiers attached. I didn't find anything significant, but I did add the following in several places: "...the alternative medicine watchdog website Quackwatch,..." That's NPOV, undeniable, and descriptive. That's one way to describe it that shouldn't raise too many hackles. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)