This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
According to WP:RSP, Quackwatch is a self published and partisan source. While it is reliable on scientific matters, under BLP policy we are not allowed to use an SPS to make claims about a living person. See WP:BLPSPS. - Bilby (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
It is a reliable source for the opinions of Stephen Barrett, so we can use it when attributed that way. It is also reliable (per WP:PARITY) on the grounds that he is a subject-matter expert and we can use it when talking about the science. But we can't use it as a source for factual statements about a living person that isn't Barrett - for that we need something that isn't self-published. Per WP:BLPSPS, "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person". - Bilby (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
QuackWatch is RS for discussion of quacks and quackery. In the case of Young, particularly, QuackWatch was one of the first places to properly document his activities. It is cited as a RS by other reliable sources including government websites. Guy (help!) 08:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
It is still an SPS, and we have another source that isn't. We don't need two sources, and having one that meets BLP and one that doesn't isn't a good solution when we can just keep the one that does. - Bilby (talk) 08:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
