Wikipedia?? as a source... (edit/addition)Re: 35289

...to discredit ANY natural/holistic healer? OH YES! They've discredited THEM ALL.

While I agree (wholeheartedly!) with your assessment of H. Clark (and others that are educated & knowledgeable in the world of holistic healing), to post an excerpt from Wikipedia as a reliable source is akin to posting something from Quackwatch to discredit supplements.

See: Wikipedia on Max Gerson:

""The American Cancer Society reports that "[t]here is no reliable scientific evidence that Gerson therapy is effective in treating cancer, and the principles behind it are not widely accepted by the medical community. It is not approved for use in the United States." [1] The Guardian has reported that the main clinic of the Gerson Institute in Mexico charges $4900 per week for the therapy, a possible indication that this therapy is a purely profit-driven industry..."

So much for using Wikipedia as a source for "truth", eh? (see below/edit)

Unyquity


http://www.whale.to/a/wikipedia.html


Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org


The Great Lie of Wikipedia: "the....encyclopedia that anyone can edit."

[This is a large web based encyclopaedia. Anyone can edit it in theory, but in practice Medical/Allopathic editors (most known as Physicians Wikipedians) will not allow any text critical to Allopathy or non-Allopathic thinking, delete any external links they don't like, as well as deleting or attempting to delete pages they don't like--in effect it should be treated as a Pharma shill. You can see the page deletion attempts here. All of the vaccine, disease pages and psychiatric drug pages (basically just an on line PDF of BNF) are written by Allopaths, and policed by Allopaths. The main Allopath dealing with vaccination is known as Midgley. All links to whale.to were officially banned after rfc, even to original Smallpox vax books. Now Whale.to is on what is called a "spam blacklist" block. Not only whale but the conspiracy free vaccine site
http://www.vaccination.org.uk
What are they afraid of? They are afraid of the truth on vaccination and the vaccine diseases.]

External articles
Weird World of Wikipedia By Martin J. Walker
Fake Encyclopedia Wikipedia Deletes Alt. Media by URI DOWBENKO
Wikipedia: A Techno-Cult of Ignorance
Anti-Wikipedia 2: The Rise of the Latrines

[See this slanted piece (ref ) about Hadwen's his trial for manslaughter charges when he refused to use a vaccine and was consequently persecuted in an attempt to silence his anti-vaccine and anti-vivisection views. ]

In their own words (Allopath administrators and editors)

Baloney. It's not the criticsm we're suppressing, it's whale.to. all the articles on whale are not acceptable. Tabeh.

The (un)acceptability of whale.to as an external link has been discussed on Talk:MMR vaccine, and I think nothing more needs to be said over here.

All I am doing is making sure your defamatory, confused and misinformed page does not get its traffic as a result of link placement in Wikipedia. I think an Alexa ranking of 1,000,000 a year is not very high and no sign that your page is notable. Today, 106,763 sites were getting more traffic than you.

This single user is the most tenacious anti-vaccine editor on Wikipedia, and has filled many articles with his choice anti-science on the subject of vaccination. Everything sounds nice and NPOV, but when the matter is investigated one encounters dangerous lunacy, notoriety and dishonesty. Viera Scheibner, for example, was touted (by another editor) as a scientist with scientific arguments against vaccination until it turned out she had not published more than one paper on a medical topic, was the recipient of the Australian Skeptics' "Bent Spoon Award" and was the subject of an article in Vaccine detailing her views and modus operandi. This has to stop.

I now remove links as "non-authoratitive" if they are full of Google ads or promote non-standard treatments. JFW | T@lk 15:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Now back to the actual discussion. This all started because Wikipedia has a policy (WP:NPOV) that states explicitly that not every minority view needs mentioning. You can say what you want, but most information on whale.to is not widely accepted. There is no reason to presume that the "external links" section of articles should not fall under the aegis of this NPOV policy. Hence, links have been removed. So far there has been no indication that this has changed, and I see no reason why we should suddenly be including links to whale. Sorry.

I didn't really know where to put this notice.... John (Whaleto) is now adding a "different" link to all of his articles (ex. [ref]). The link is
http://www.vaccination.org.uk,
which is quite obviously a copy of the whale.to site, or a transfer of the contents to a different location. I seem to be on his radar now, so I'll go remove all the links I can find. -

Quacks [See: Quack/crank, 'Pseudoscience' & 'anti-science']

Viera Scheibner Notoriety established in the study kindly identified by other authors. Thankfully we are allowed to have articles on quacks.

"Viera Scheibner a notable vaccination critic and quack". --CDN99 15:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

My intentions were the same as yours (i.e. I agree alt. med. is pseudoscience); it's just that you had Category:Pseudoscience under Category:Alternative medicine, and vice versa. I changed things so that Cat:Alt. med. was under Pseudoscience, but not the other way around. You also had Cat: Professional CAM treatments under Cat:Alt med, and vice versa. But right now, Alt. med. is under Pseudoscience (alt. med. is a subsection of pseudoscience) and Fraud, and Pseudoscience is under Fraud. Things were just a bit mixed up.

Ad hominem was the main argument used to ban whale.to link [See: 'Conspiracy theory', Ad Hominem]:
I agree with 86.128.165.240 that information about vaccines and their side effects should not be suppressed. However, the whale.to link is not an appropriate source for this information because of the competing extremist information and conspiracy theories as outlined on the RFC on Talk:MMR vaccine. As already reviewed by InvictaHOG, the commentary on Illuminati mind control, Jewish conspiracy, genocide via vaccination, Roman Catholics, psychic assassins, Mormons, Walter Cronkite, demons sacrificing girls for growth hormone, or links to alien implant removers distracts from the criticisms of vaccines and decreases the value of whale.to link.

"You are right about whale.to - the most important reason to reject it is because it is associated with paranoia. I don't believe that those with concerns about vaccination are necessarily paranoid and I don't think that they should be represented by a site which devolves into paranoia and name-calling." InvictaHOG 18:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

They even banned the use of the word Allopath!
I have asked you in the past to desist from labeling users or groups of users as "allopaths". This is inflammatory, not contributory to the discussion, and in plain violation of WP:CIVIL. You have now repeatedly done the same on Talk:Measles. I am uninvolved in that discussion but observe that you are making the same basic policy violations as always.

As for Whaleto, the fact that I warred with him in the past does not mean I am disqualified from blocking him for sustained and interminable NPA and CIVIL violations. I'm prepared to do just that until John learns that calling others "allopaths" is WP:NPA and offtopic.