Talk:Joseph Mercola/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Fix the NPOV!

I am very mad at Jytdog, for attempting to purposely mess up the Naturopathy article and calling statements from Quackwatch, which is NOT WP:MEDRS, "properly sourced", when Quackwatch is:

• negative and biased
• operated by an MD
• and potentially misleading.

--Young Naturopath 01 (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

What violates NPOV? Do you know what it means? It doesn't mean lack of properly sourced criticism. In fact it means that such criticism must be included. QW is a respected source of criticism of misleading information. MEDRS are not required for such information.

QW provides a POV that is normally not expressed in peer reviewed research, simply because research scientists ignore nonsense, yet QW and other skeptical sources specialize in exposing deceptive nonsense which misleads people. They provide a very valuable consumer protection service, all based on the best scientific and medical information. QW is a very trustworthy source because its international team fact checks its sources and researches its topics quite thoroughly. That's how it has created its great reputation, and why pushers of alternative medicine nonsense, healthfraud, and scams hate it. It exposes them. If you read them, you will be deceived and end up not trusting QW. That's what happens when you read misleading sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Not that QW is my favorite source, but just because it is operated by an MD doesn't make it invalid. The same is true of something negative. If there is valid criticism of a practice (and it is therefore saying negative things about said practice), then that too is valid and appropriate as long as the information is properly sourced. To say a source is "misleading" is vague, you must explain (and prove) why that is the case with high-quality evidence to support your claim. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I concur this article has a very NPOV. It needs to be protected as it is rewritten from an objective and informative perspective while relegating the controversy to a relatively small section entitled "Controversy." As a physician myself, I can assure you a very large number of medical doctors agree with at least some of the wisdom Dr. Mercola puts forth. The medical community is a trillion dollar a year industry. Immense marketing, regulatory, and legal pressure is put forth by the industry to maintain and expand their customer base, often under the guise of safety and medical professionalism, while ignoring the oath to "First, do no harm." Meanwhile, some of Dr. Mercola's articles, such as his brilliant piece entitled "To Protect Your Heart, Your Sodium to Potassium Ratio Is More Important Than Your Overall Salt Intake" is dead-on with everything we know about nutritional science. If people followed his advice en masse, they would avoid contracting a great many diseases and medication conditions and not require treatment at all. Unfortunately, that would cost the American medical industry billions in lost profits, hence the concerted effort to smear his name here on Wikipedia. By all means, this article is a very NPOV and MUST be cleaned up without further delay.2601:281:C200:656B:6CBF:9433:D43E:5776 (talk) 21:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

And as a fish myself, let's get rid of that NPOV and make it POV right away! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention that the sodium-to-potassium ratio is a mainstream concept (for example, see this NIH piece from 2009, 5 years before Mercola's "brilliant" discovery of the topic). So it looks like Mercola is recycling accepted concepts from the "medical industry" he claims to despise, and then pretending that he's bravely championing them in the face of censorship from the Powers That Be. He apparently expects that his readers won't do much critical thinking. And it looks like he's right. MastCell ^Talk 23:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

--DanDanner 15:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC) I just came to this site to see what it had to say about Dr. Mercola, and I find this article to have an extremely negative bias. You can say whatever you want about proper citations, etc., but I know how it comes-across to me. I've been getting information from the Dr. Mercola website for years, and I find much extremely amazing information there. Some of the topics on his site may sound strange, and some of his views may be controversial, but I believe that he is motivated by a genuine interest in making peoplesDanDanner 15:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)' lives better. And I've seen him change his opinion on a topic when presented with new information.

I don't like some of his site's "slick" marketing (e.g., the somewhat sensational titles of some articles), but even then the content almost always delivers/satisfies.

I'll give you one example of the thousands of topics, that you can find on Mercola.com, that could change the lives of millions of people for the better, but you generally don't hear about it, because no one can make money off it. The first video on this page is all about how the bacteria in your colon can greatly contribute to your well being, but only if you keep it healthy, but most people are probably starving it:

   articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/12/16/taking-antibiotics-fibers.aspx   articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/12/16/taking-antibiotics-fibers.aspx 

As a final note, and as an annual donor to wikimedia, I find the current content of this article to be a disservice to the readers. PS - I apologize if I didn't follow any editing/commenting rules - I rarely edit anything here. If I did do anything wrong, please let me know. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanDanner (talk • contribs) 15:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Joseph Mercola. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/01/02/azt.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2001/09/05/hiv-aids.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Sunbeds

[6]. Some harsh but fair criticism in this article. Guy (Help!) 23:55, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

What kind of mind-trip are these Federal regulators on? In Australia, South Africa, it is the white European stock that live in cites, who spend most of their days in home and air-conditioned offices that get melanoma. Especially when they don't slap on loads of sunblock lotion, on the occasions that they are out in the open, under the full sun with their white un- melaninated skin . The Aboriginals and white Europeans who work out-side every day both have protective melanin and the incidence of skin cancer for them is lower and they don't -in the main- ever use sun-block . Sure, too much time under these expensive 'sun-substitutes' can cause wrinkles and be bad, but lamps emitting the cancer causing wavelengths haven't been sold for over some thirty years now. What gone wrong with this so called scientific world we are supposed to be living in ? Are we now now to accept arguments from authority regardless of the authority which is absent in their argument? These Feds have it arse about face.--Aspro (talk) 01:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that qualifies for a {{citation needed}}. Guy (Help!) 18:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Joseph Mercola. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140829062422/http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/2005/ucm076069.htm to http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/2005/ucm076069.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140422230654/http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/2011/ucm250701.htm to http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/2011/ucm250701.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130906145039/http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/2011/ucm284389.htm to http://www.fda.gov/iceci/enforcementactions/warningletters/2011/ucm284389.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Joseph Mercola. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090706135749/http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/may2006/sb20060523_063274.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/may2006/sb20060523_063274.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111023170333/http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/about_ntp/TRPanel/2011/January/DraftTR568.pdf to http://www.ntp.niehs.nih.gov/NTP/About_NTP/TRPanel/2011/January/DraftTR568.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Censorship

Well isn't this interesting. Per instructions, I went to Ronz's talk page and wrote that I didn't really understand what was being attempted to be communicated about my two small edits which he promptly undid with a warning to me about pseudoscience. My comment was promptly erased. At issue, I had added a very factual comment with appropriate documentation that Mercola also supported fluoridation.

• Claims that fluoride and fluoridation is harming overall health. Mercola is supportive of the lawsuit brought by six non-profits against the EPA for failure to enforce their Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) regulations based specifically on evidence of the neurotoxic effects of fluoride on the developing central nervous system.

I also deleted the reference to an opinion piece that concerns about cellular or wireless technology being carcinogenic are pseudo science. I replaced with two 2017 authoritative validations of the carcinogenic and other harmful effects from current wireless technology.

• Claiming cancer risks arise from mobile phone radiation, which is increasingly supported by modern science and groups of scientists.

References

This biography trashing Joseph Mercola seems to be well protected by those whose intention is to smear his reputation. So much for Wiki rules on biographies of living persons. Seabreezes1 (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@Seabreezes1: Thanks for starting a discussion here.

I requested help at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Joseph_Mercola,_cancer_from_cell_phone_radiation,_flouride_harmful.

I responded on my talk page with Please review WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS. Mercola's article is not the place to address disputes over fringe theories, nor a soapbox for such theories. [7]

You wrote,Per instructions, I went to Ronz's talk page and wrote that I didn't really understand what was being attempted to be communicated about my two small edits which he promptly undid with a warning to me about pseudoscience. My comment was promptly erased. I'm unaware of any of your comments being undone or erased by me. Please indicate the change with a diff (or the location and time), or strikeout the accusation. In the future, please remember it is best to focus on content rather than other editors. --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

About noon on June 17th I, I added the fluoride bullet point and replaced the 'pseudoscience' phrase associated with wireless radiation and an opinion piece with links to the authoritative science supporting concerns of carcinogenicity from current wireless technology. Less than 3 hours later, you undid and you posted a "Courtesy Notice - Discretionary Sanctions" on my talk page. I wrote a note on my page, and then went to yours, per instructions in the notice, and copied it in your page. I checked back on your page and it wasn't there. It's still there on my page. It's really quite simple. Mercola opposes fluoridation, too, so there is no reason that shouldn't be on his page that he does. I didn't make any comment except factual that he is actively supporting a pending lawsuit against the EPA re fluoridation. The carcinogenicity of cellular is mainstream, now. There are a slew of references on that. I chose two. Saying it's 'pseudoscience' and linking to an opinion piece is POV. Seabreezes1 (talk) 01:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

P.S. If you didn't erase the comment on your page from me, perhaps because I was copying from my page to yours, I could have not saved it and thought I did since I had multiple windows open. If that is the case, I apologize for that. I still object to the prompt undo and 'Discretionary Warning' on the grounds I stated. Seabreezes1 (talk) 01:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology. --Ronz (talk) 03:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Mobile phones and possible cancer link

To Jytdog, I'm going to ask you to please stop edit warring and being unconstructive. You appear to be making the article appear slanted to a particular side that Wikipedia shouldn't be.

Youy've used the term WP:COATRACK which isn't even applicable to this article in any way. If it were then it would apply to the other subsections of this article. Now rest assured, if Mercola and the other experts are correct about mobile phones, it doesn't mean that towers will be pulled down over night and we'll see mass panic. Far from it! Anyway I'm hoping that this is not your concern and you're just a bit too keen as they say. Seriously, down to business here, you started the first revert with

...(Undid revision 669883081 by Mr Bill Truth (talk) that is classic WP:COATRACK - article is about Mercola, not about giving support to his arguments), and then . . (actually revert all that. his views are widely regarded as pseudoscience and the NYT is clear on that).
What's actually taking place here is something that makes Wikipedia seem like it lends itself to certain views and agendas and I'm not going to say that it does. This is because the good work should take place here. There's no giving support to Mercolas arguments as you say. All that's happening is expansion and I'm sorry if it may not sit well with you. Sadly this is something that you'll have to accept.
In closing I'd like to add that the view about mobile phones and cancer relationship is something that may be shared by the WHO, as per World Health Organization Says Cell Phones a Possible Cause of Cancer 09:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Mr Bill Truth, about this dif - you are taking out clearly sourced content that says Mercola's views over-emphasizing the risks of cell phones are widely considered to be pseudoscience, and adding content that seeks to prove he is "right". That is WP:COATRACK (please read that) and you are running dead into the discretionary sanctions with this. The DS are about WP:PSCI which is policy. WP:NPOV =/= "fair and balanced"; Wikipedia stands on science. If you revert one more time you will violate 3RR and if this goes to the edit warring board, you will likely face more severe sanctions than usual, especially with your history here. And please note that this is not even close to a source that complies with WP:MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 09:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

So, per WP:BRD here we are - you were bold and made an edit, i reverted, and now we are discussing. I do appreciate that you opened a discussion here. Instead of continuing to edit war, please wait a bit and let's see if anybody else supports your version. If no one chimes in after a while (and please be patient as it is a holiday in the US), we can pursue dispute resolution. There is no reason to edit war nor to get emotional. Jytdog (talk) 09:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't look like edit warring to me, but there are certainly coatracking attempts going on. For the record, Bill's version doesn't comply with our NPOV policies. -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 09:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, this isn't the first time you have engaged in Edit Warring [8] as was pointed out to by User:Rdavout. If I'm wrong then I do sincerely apologise but it certainly looks the case and now you've tried it here again. So here we have it. On and by the way, you seem to have some how overlooked the article World Health Organization Says Cell Phones a Possible Cause of Cancer which is on the American Cancer Society website. Anyway that's OK. You should have seen it now. 09:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Bill Truth (talk • contribs)

What is and isn't taboo

• Are cellphones and the possible cancer link a taboo subject? Serious question. Perhaps I should have checked first. Even what the WHO says World Health Organization Says Cell Phones a Possible Cause of Cancer, and repeated by American Cancer Society isn't regarded here and that could actually be a historical first! Sorry. Mr Bill Truth (talk) 09:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

You really ought to read your sources more carefully Bill. it says "But the team says more long-term studies are needed before any definite links between cell phone use and cancer could be made." so no. -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 10:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

That's not what I am talking about and you know it! Even something that's sourced from a major news source can not even be mentioned in any context here, simply because it's just no t allowed to be mentioned. That's sad. It seems there is a committee that decides what gets put here. Strange, very strange. I'm not the only one that has noticed a certain theme here. If an article on someone in the natural health industry or in the anti GM movement or similar makes them look like a crackpot loony then it's more likely to stand in that state. But if the article takes form and includes certain things that may show that there may be another side then the article has more chance of being changed quick pronto and the editor bullied and threatened with being banned from Wikipedia. Mr Bill Truth (talk) 08:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd ask everyone to go read the cancer.org cell phone article; an updated url is https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/study-in-rodents-investigates-link-between-cell-phone-radiation-and-cancer.html. It was a classical rat study: "The exposure to RF radiation began while the rats were still in the womb, and continued for about 2 years, which is all or most of their life. They were exposed for about 9 hours a day, and received levels of radiation that ranged from the upper limit of what is allowed by law for cell phones, to about 4 times higher than what is allowed. The part of the NTP study that’s been released suggests that male rats exposed to heavy RF radiation to their whole body for long periods of time were more likely than a control group of rats to develop certain types of brain and heart tumors. There was no significant difference in tumor rates among the female rats in the study." It concludes "It’s still not clear whether RF radiation from cell phones cause harmful health effects in people. The results from the study might not translate directly to cell phone use in people because the rats were exposed over their whole bodies, and were exposed for much longer than people typically use their cell phones, and at higher doses of RF radiation. In addition, it’s not clear why tumor rates were higher only in male rats. This does not necessarily mean that any possible effects of cell phone use wouldn’t apply to women or girls. Another unexplained finding of the study is that the rats who received RF radiation actually lived longer than the rats who didn’t." SkoreKeep (talk) 23:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Supporting articles

It seems that we may have to have articles that report the possibility that there may be a link between mobile phones and cancer before we even attempt to have credible articles from major news sources that mention Mercola's findings or views. OK then I'll gather a few. The Guardian Tuesday 13 May 2014 Intensive mobile phone users at higher risk of brain cancers, says study, American Cancer Society Article date: May 31, 2011 World Health Organization Says Cell Phones a Possible Cause of Cancer, 7News Melbourne May 11, 2015 Melbourne doctor fears link between mobile phone use and brain cancer, Buisiness Insider JUL 22 2014 Here's What We Know About Mobile Phones And Cancer

Widely regarded as pseudo-science ????

Mr Bill Truth (talk) 10:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

See my reply to you above. -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 10:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

... and note that the sources you supplied do not support your assertion that mobile phones cause cancer. -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 10:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Mercola. We have a source that speaks directly to Mercola's views (his views, in particular) on the risk that cell phones cause cancer - here - that is the New York Times, which is about as solid a source as there is. None of the sources above mention Mercola - they don't speak to his views. And to be clear, there is a risk of getting cancer from cell phone use - that is solid science. Where his views on this become pseudoscience is the extent to which he emphasizes certainty and probability of the risks. I hope you can see that You don't have to agree personally, but that is what reliable sources say, and they are what guide us here in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 16:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Sadly you're avoiding the obvious here. Sad that the outcome of certain articles may now be dictated by someone's belief system or ??? The continued bullying of people who try to make an article balanced or include what is obvious and backed up by credible major news sources will probably continue. Oh well, I guess I was a major shareholder in a certain industry then I'd want to have help. I guess there must be people out there that like to help. Mr Bill Truth (talk) 08:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not "balanced", they are neutral which is a very different thing. Please actually read NPOV, especially the WP:PSCI section. Jytdog (talk) 13:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, excuse me ..... Balanced / Neutral, you know exactly what I am talking about Jytdog! Yes I've read NPOV, and the WP:PSCI section. And it's totally unwarranted for you to even bring it up in this discussion.

It's beyond strange when looking at certain articles that could be a thorn in the side of certain organizations / industries, some users do nothing/say nothing when an article becomes very biased, especially when it makes the person that the article is about appear to be less credible than they really are. Also in a significant amount of cases when the person is portrayed as a fringe nut-job, noting is said. When someone comes along to make the article Balanced / Neutral, certain users say nothing abut an organised team-effort that makes the article biased. They say nothing! Mr Bill Truth (talk) 08:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm saying nothing! -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 10:10, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Well I am! (I haven't gotten my check either, after all these years... )

Mr Bill Truth seems to think that Mercola is made to "appear to be less credible than they really are" and "a fringe nut-job". Hmmm, I'm not sure it's that bad, but if RS portray him that way, then it's our job to convey that impression. If we fail to do that, then we are not being neutral and thus not following NPOV. We follow the sources, and he is indeed unreliable and fringe. "Nutjob"? Nah, that's just a pejorative. He's a very shrewd and extremely wealthy businessman who probably has lots of paid editors seeking to whitewash this and other articles like the Gary Null and NaturalNews articles. These are all very wealthy quacks who have an interest in keeping what RS say about them out of Wikipedia.

Whether paid or not, we do have "quackery shills" (great cite from User:AndyTheGrump) around here doing that. They don't understand NPOV and their mission is to make fringe nutjobs look more credible than they are. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Describing a medical opinion as pseudoscience as defined by a tech journalist with no medical degrees lacks literal scientific basis.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.140.247.160 (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC) 

Second paragraph is not supported by citation

The second paragraph starts with the sentence "Mercola has been criticized by business, regulatory, medical, and scientific communities." There are no examples of citicism from medical or scientific communities in the paragraph. The following sentences of the paragraph only mention Business Insider (a business group), the FDA (a regulatory group), and Quackwatch (a collection of Steven Barrett's opinions, research, and biases).

Either provide actual criticism cited from an actual medical group ( a group of professional medical doctors) and a scientific group (a group of professional scientists), or remove the words "medical" and "scientific" from the paragraph to maintain the credibility of the article.

Mercola, a qualified medical doctor, is opposed by Barrett, also a qualified medical doctor, but is supported by Mehmet Oz, also a qualified medical doctor. There is not good evidence and citation in the article to support the claim made. I prefer Wikipedia to be reliable and authoritative with good citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.49.4.224 (talk) 16:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Credentials don't matter. It is irrelevant who is or is not a "qualified medical doctor." The only thing that matters is research refuting "opinions." Mercola is ALWAYS on the wrong side of science, and that's the only thing that matters. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I think this is an inappropriate way to approach writing an article about a WP:BLP. MPS1992 (talk) 01:56, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I can see how your anti-Monsanto activist agenda would put you on the same page as Mercola, but this is not about tribes. Mercola is objectively wrong a great deal of the time. Guy (Help!) 00:47, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Ignore all credentials is about editors, not sources. An editor's credentials don't have much weight because relying directly on those would be WP:OR. Credentials absolutely matter, though, when evaluating sources - that's part of WP:RS. That said, there's a ton of reasons why we can't cite Mercola for anything remotely controversial here. WP:SELFPUB does care about credentials, but it also has a lot of significant restrictions that apply here, including the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. Pretty much anything he says about his beliefs beyond the bare fact that he holds them would run afoul of that. WP:MEDINDY also prohibits us from citing him about treatments he himself is marketing, while WP:MEDASSESS requires that we perform a broad assessment rather than just looking at what one doctor says. And, of course, WP:MEDSCI requires that we go with the general consensus of the medical community (which, per WP:MEDINDY, he is not a usable source for.) --Aquillion (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Also both Oz and Mercola are quacks, so there's that. Guy (Help!) 00:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

health of Mercola

Saw a vid of him the other day, he did not look to good. Anyone know anything? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The fall of pmpei (talk • contribs)

• Wikipedia is not a tabloid or social media. His health is only of interest here is it is notable and sourced from reliable third party sources. 203.109.162.133 (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Um, well um, if mister health guru does not look to good, there is no harm in asking if anything has been reported. This is the talk page on Mercola you know. The fall of pmpei (talk) 07:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

This page is for discussions aimed at improving the article. Outright removal of the comment would have been appropriate, as this clearly isn't about improving the article in any manner. --Ronz (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

So doctors can't get sick? How stupid is this comment?79.52.188.112 (talk) 11:10, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Why is this here? No examples.

Phyllis Entis, a microbiologist and food safety expert, highlighted Mercola.com as an example of websites "likely to mislead consumers by offering one-sided, incomplete, inaccurate, or misleading information."[13]

• Good for her. Some examples would be helpful. How are we to know Entis isn't likely to mislead?

Why is this here? Where are the examples? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.52.188.112 (talk) 11:07, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

See the "[13]" at the end of the sentence (in the article, not in your copy above)? Click on it. Then you will see something called "the source" for that sentence. It is a reliable source. All you need is find that book and look into it, and you will find more details. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:26, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

• Reliable source according to you, yes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pnuker (talk • contribs) 14:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

  Wiley-Blackwell is a "international scientific, technical, medical, and scholarly publishing business" and thus a reliable source. Not accoding to me, but according to WP consensus. If you disagree because you do not like the consequences, take it up with Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard‎. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Major new source

in WaPo.[9] Alexbrn (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I only noticed this after I used the source almost at the same time as you posted, Alexbrn.[10] But mine was a small addition, there is indeed more meat in that source. Bishonen | talk 20:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC).

No one can get ahead of Bishonen :-) I'm sure there's scope to make further use of this source to improve the article! Alexbrn (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Indeed there is more meat. I added a few key facts to the page. Please don't hesitate on reviewing and improving my work. Robincantin (talk) 02:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Where to add Emotional Freedom Techniques

Hi, it may also be useful to add Mercola's involvement in Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT) as he is a large proponent. This article mainly discusses his mercola.com site, whereas his EFT site is separate so I was not quite sure where to add this. Cheers, Uninspired Username (talk)

Where are the independent reliable sources that discuss the matter? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

There is the Chicago Magazine article for starters. Cheers, Uninspired Username (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The medical pros on staff—a doctor, a nutritionist, and four therapists—offer treatments such as the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT), which Mercola describes as a “form of psychological acupressure, based on the same energy meridians used in traditional acupuncture.” Appears to be the entirety of what they have to say on it, correct? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Here my question is where to put this information in the article - no need to discuss in any detail but simply adding it considering it has a not insignificant following and he sells related products on his site. Uninspired Username (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it's undue to include an entire sentence into this article based upon that one reference. Maybe include it as part of a sentence on his questionable treatments? I haven't looked to see if there's already an appropriate location. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Use of "Charlatan" in Bio

Hello,

I propose removing the term "charlatan" when referring to Dr. Mercola in the first paragraph. The article from where it was taken from did not use that term to directly refer to him, and is misconstrued as a fact when it is actually an observation made by the writer of the source article. Lein23 (talk) 08:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

On the face of it, this request isn't unreasonable, and the word does look a bit odd, and I was in the process of removing it when I decided to do the needful and read the citation given. It's a fascinating and informative read, if a little overdramaticised, and I commmend it to anybody, and I changed my mind, We should continue describing him as a charlatan, imho. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 10:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello again. I'd like to point out that calling him a "charlatan" is a speculation made by the author, not a fact. Also, if we're going to describe him as a charlatan just based on the article, then we might as well include the other speculative descriptions used, like straight shooter and warrior. I would propose wording it so that the term "charlatan" does not come off as a fact. Perhaps add a sentence here instead: Mercola's medical claims have been criticized by the medical, scientific, regulatory and business communities. Some have considered him warrior or quack, straight shooter or charlatan, depending on their views.--Lein23 (talk) 01:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: I just looked up Wapo; McGill University and Forbes pieces on him. The gist of it is that this guy is indeed a quack and has been peddling misinformation (if not outright lies) and has had multiple run-ins with the FDA, even being forced to admit and pay penalties for a "deceptive act" (quackery in all but direct wording). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello again. My point is that the use of the term "charlatan" in the bio is based on opinion, and is not factual.

The criticisms mentioned in the articles you cited are merely opinions and if Wikipedia's purpose is to remain factual, then using biased, derogatory terms like this that aim to be conclusive rather than objective goes against that purpose.

Labeling him a charlatan is a one-sided view, as it does not take in consideration significant number of followers who support his insights, such as on Twitter. His site is also consistently one of the top performers in the field of natural health. He has also been recognized by websites like Greatist and HuffPost for his contributions, and has received commendations from organizations like Mindshare Collaborative (Pinnacle Award).

Lastly, I would also like to point out that much of the "misinformation" that he "peddles" has been accepted and supported by mainstream experts and researchers. One example is this paper from the American College of Nutrition regarding vitamin D's influence on health. Another is the dangers of aspartame, on which WaPo themselves had an article published recently.

If you would insist on labeling him as a charlatan, I would recommend wording it in a way that it comes off as an opinion, otherwise, it is a disservice to the contributions he has made.--Lein23 (talk) 06:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

No. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 09:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Lein23, I would be very happy to drop the characterisation of Mercola as a charlatan, can we stop him being one so we can drop it? Guy (help!) 09:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

In following Wikipedia’s core principles, you are violating the first two policies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Core_content_policies

Your statements are clearly biased, and the reference to your use of charlatan as a matter of fact and not opinion is not factual.

The Chicago Magazine author clearly speculated on the opinions of Dr. Mercola made by those who opposed as well as those that supported his positions. I am again citing the reference you’ve supplied, the statement should be removed or rephrased.

"Warrior or quack, straight shooter or charlatan, the question is the same: How has a site built on ideas so contrary to mainstream science—so radical that even some staunch alternative health advocates are uncomfortable with some of his positions—become so popular?"

--Lein23 (talk) 03:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: ~ Amkgp 💬 07:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I've removed it. While I didn't spend much time on it, I couldn't find how it was verified, and so wasn't able to find an alternative way to include it properly qualified and in context. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 02:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I put it back in. Everyone who posts here except one person who wants to whitewash Mercola has agreed that it stays. It's supported by the underlying source. And it's a description of Mercola that is correct. Maybe you ought to read what everyone has written here first before removing it. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 02:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Bad label, way to prominent in the lead, and not directly supported by the body or sources. Should be removed and rewritten in a way that fixes those errors. Yeah hes a quack it looks like but that is not the way to comply with YESPOV. PackMecEng (talk) 02:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

A verifying source is required at this point. None was indicated when it was originally added. Further, even if it is verified, I can't imagine that the verifying source will demonstrate that it's the most important attribute of Mercola. Even if an exceptionally good reference is found, some clear context is needed, and in the article body first. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 03:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The term charlatan is maybe less commonly used compared to the term 'quack', but on the page itself is described as someone practising quackery. The quackery page has a clear definition in which I think Mercola falls. Regardless of including the term 'charlatan' in the first sentence (anyone reading the article will see quickly he is a controversial character) a useful place to take this discussion may be to the list of living people practising quackery. And if he ends on the list of living persons practising quackery...I dare say that's evidence enough to describe him as a charlatan. Uninspired Username (talk) 05:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

You cannot source content to Wikipedia. If reliable sources are not use that term to refer to the person that way then we cannot either. Same goes for him ending up on living people practising quackery, Wikipedia is not a RS. To be honest though I have no idea why that article has a section like that at all, but that is something for that page instead of here. PackMecEng (talk) 05:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

There are reliable sources that discuss some of the problematic aspects of the subject's practice and advice. It is important to stick to them rather than simply referring to him as a charlatan, especially when the source has posed the term in the form of a question as one of four qualifiers: warrior, quack, straight shooter, charlatan. Agree that it was way too prominent in the lede. It is better suited to inclusion in the body if sourced and represented by a longer quote. Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 20:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2020

Add this to the paragraph about Phyllis Entis, in order to clarify her relevance to the commentary -

"Phyllis Entis is the author of "Food Safety: Old Habits, New Perspectives" and "Food Microbiology". She has been a food safety microbiologist for 35 years. She is not a Medical Doctor." 67.60.217.234 (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC) (Redacted)

Not done, we already say "Phyllis Entis, a microbiologist and food safety expert" which does not imply she is a physician. – Thjarkur (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Add hydrogen peroxide inhalation to "other views" section

During the COVID-19 pandemic Mercola has received some attention by advising people to use a nebulizer to inhale hydrogen peroxide. A paragraph and links are currently on the List of unproven methods against COVID-19#Gargling and inhalation page and it would be worth adding here. In his videos on his website he recommends inhaling for 15 minutes daily...though people are disputing the term charlatan I'd say it is a pretty clear example to support using the term here! Cheers, Uninspired Username (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Added some of the info regarding using a nebulizer to inhale hydrogen peroxide to “Other views”. Mercola’s harmful advice on this and the global implications if enacted as a treatment during the pandemic are egregious enough to warrant a separate section after “Vaccines“ (rather than mere inclusion in “Other views”) in my opinion. Cedar777 (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

He is simply a quack.SkepticalRaptor (talk) 02:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you @Cedar777: I agree that there could be more emphasis on some of the more controversial views, in particular considering how many sites get info from him. (For example, in this case, it's easy to find alternative medicine websites referring back to his hydrogen peroxide article/post with further creative flair - higher concentration hydrogen peroxide is "ok", "if it burns it means it's working!"). Mercola is very influential in some circles. Uninspired Username (talk) 05:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I took the liberty of moving that info into a new COVID-19 subsection, with additional info. Mercola has this new website to tell people how to deal with COVID, and the answer is vitamin D. Robincantin (talk) 01:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Expansion of lede based upon a single ref

See Talk:Rashid_Buttar#Expansion_of_lede_and_infobox_based_upon_a_single_ref and Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Anti-vax_report_published_in_The_Hill. Basically, it looks like an OR and POV violation. The cross-article spamming is very concerning. --Hipal (talk) 01:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The document has been referenced by numerous other sources for instance Poynter Mercola is one of the 12 prominent anti-vaccine influencers named in a Center for Countering Digital Hate report linking the group to a large portion of all anti-vaccine content on Facebook. NPR, National Post, The BBC, The Financial Times, Vox, New Statesman, The Independent, Stuff.co.nz. I could go on. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

OR, POV, and RECENTISM. BATTLE judging by your edit summary.

How about working with others to incorporate the new information appropriately? --Hipal (talk) 02:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand what your problem is. You've not explained at all what your problem with the sourcing is other than reference WP:OR WP:BLP, without actually stating what is OR or BLP violating about the material. You can't just state policies without stating how the edits violate them. BLP isn't an excuse to exclude obviously encyclopedic material. WP:BLP states: Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced. Newspaper articles do not count as "unsourced or poorly sourced". Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

None of the sources verify the information to start. That's OR.

Adding the information to the lede without expanding upon the article body first is a POV violation.

Highlighting recent news over his long-term notability is a POV and RECENTISM violation.

I'm not saying we cannot use the references. I'm saying that we're not using them properly. --Hipal (talk) 02:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Nothing really seems out of line here. Mercola's long-term notability as you put it is tied to quackery he's involved in, so this isn't anything particularly controversial for this article. I see the articles mentioning he was spreading misinformation as a summary level comment, and that works well for the lead, followed by what currently exists in the body. One of the other sources does classify this under pseudoscience as well. At this point Hipal, you are not articulating any specific issues we need to act on here. KoA (talk) 03:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Mercola's long term notability is for promoting supplements with unsubstantiated claims of their effectiveness (i.e. quackery) and for funding the anti-vaccination movement. If your issue is with the "disinformation dozen" document and newspaper articles that cover it specifically, then there are other sources that cover Mercola's COVID-19 misinformation, see these articles at Coda Story (Generally Reliable at RSP) and Science Based Medicine. Mercola was also named as a "superspreader of COVID-19 misinformation" by Newsguard [11]. From these references, what do you think should be written about Mercola's role in spreading COVID-19 misinformation? I don't think a single brief sentence at the end of the lead referencing this is any more undue than a mentioning hydroxychloroquinine in the Didier Raoult article is. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

None of the sources verify the information to start. That's OR. While I may be missing something, no one has even attempted to point out what that may be. How does the single source verify the content? Below for reference: --Hipal (talk) 15:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Joseph Mercola is well-known for spreading COVID-19 misinformation and pseudoscientific anti-vaccine misinformation on social media platforms.

References

On two of the related articles, the V/OR has been addressed by rewriting the information. [12] [13]. Those rewrites also address how Wikipedia's voice was being used.

That leaves us with how to summarize Mercola's use of misinformation, which isn't specific to just COVID. --Hipal (talk) 16:34, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok, so with no legitimate issues being brought up by Hipal, the only person opposed to the text so far, I've gone ahead and reinserted the text. While there have been attempts to claim OR, the content was right there in the sources the whole time between The Hill, McGill, and NPR. I don't know what's going on in other articles, not does it matter for here, but the comments so far are almost as if the sources weren't even read closely to the point it's disruptive.

Especially with all the slinging about of an alphabet soup like OR, POV, and RECENTISM. BATTLE. . . on the talk page for such a simple and straightforward addition, I will remind folks that this subject is under pseudoscience and alternative medicine discretionary sanctions. This is straightforward fringe content we're dealing with here as a simple summary in the lead, and as someone uninvolved until now, I'm only seeing vague comments in opposition that don't match with the sources, so it's safe to drop the WP:STICK and move on. KoA (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Saying that he is "well known" doesn't really work, as the sources don't specifically state that. I think it is more effective to be specific - rather than just saying he was "known" or "well known", state clearly that he was identified as the 12 most significant purveiours of COVID-19 misinformation. That quantifies it without a vague "known for" descriptor. - Bilby (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The sources point it out, and a simple paraphrase of what they describe is to say he was known for pushing X. There's nothing particularly vague about its use. Also, the tag you added isn't really appropriate because we aren't using a single source. It also points to WP:WEASEL of which "known for" is not included because it is generally a neutral term in this context. Simply having WP:DUE coverage in multiple sources is enough to say known for, though well-known is a degree not discussed by sources, which I why I removed it.

That said, we could always change Mercola was known for spreading. . . to Mercola spread. . . if that's really going to be an issue. KoA (talk) 00:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Done, but I think it was much better to clearly state that he was identified as one of the top 12 pushers of COIVD misinformation on social media. - Bilby (talk) 00:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

"Well known" is a legitimate OR violation. Glad that eventually got removed.

That leaves us with how to summarize Mercola's use of misinformation, which isn't specific to just COVID. I'll add that some mention of COVID may belong in the lede, but we should be careful of giving it too much weight.

Is mention of the report due in the article body? --Hipal (talk) 03:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Those specific details on "tops 12 pushers" can easily go in the body rather than the lead; there could be a sentence on the study with more specification there, as well as additional sentences on the NPR and McGill summary level comments as well. That said, the current lead pairs nicely with what is already present in the body, so the COVID aspect at least has adequate coverage.

It's really a question of it anyone wants to flesh out more detail in the body, but there wouldn't be any issues from weight perspective yet since this kind of thing is already described as Mercola's MO in overall health subjects. Anyone would be free to add more detail in the body, but I think the lead can mostly be left alone unless there are significant new details that develop. KoA (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

On to the RECENTISM problems: The McGill ref says, This book, as well as Mercola’s decades of peddling health misinformation on the Internet, exemplifies the dangerous blind spot of the wellness movement. The NPR ref says, One of the leading anti-vaccine advocates, Joseph Mercola, is believed to bring in millions each year through his companies, which sell an array of branded natural supplements, beauty products and even pet supplies. In a written statement to NPR, Mercola's company said he "rejects your biased accusation of promoting misinformation." Neither is specific to COVID, nor the timeframe of the pandemic. --Hipal (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

There's no recentism brought up in those comments, and this isn't exactly late-breaking news. As for what you quote, it's best not to leave out the relevant portions. Here's the full quote Dr. Joe Mercola, an osteopathic physician who has made an impressive fortune selling supplements through his online store, has a new book out about the COVID-19 pandemic, a book which he co-authored with Ronnie Cummins, an organic food crusader. This book, as well as Mercola’s decades of peddling health misinformation on the Internet, exemplifies the dangerous blind spot of the wellness movement. Then there's Mercola’s conspiratorial take on COVID-19 is monumentally wrong. . ., Summarizing the book is, in effect, summarizing the misinformation surrounding COVID-19., etc. You keep saying you aren't seeing things in sources when they are right there next to what you are quoting. That isn't helping here. KoA (talk) 00:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

You keep saying you aren't seeing things in sources when they are right there next to what you are quoting. I don't know what you're talking about, but your inability to FOC is disruptive here.

I was pointing out that the information is not specific to the timeframe of the pandemic. To then pretend otherwise, or focus only on that timeframe is problematic. This seems a best RECENTISM. --Hipal (talk) 02:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Please give WP:FOC a read. What you just quoted from me is me focusing on the content discussion (or lack of validity of comments). Please slow down if you are having problems with that as I advised you off-page. KoA (talk) 12:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

My proposal then would be to remove anything that describes Mercola actions to only the pandemic when they are not. --Hipal (talk) 21:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

PPP loan for business

Despite Mercola being identified as a major amplifier of COVID-19 misinformation, his business received a federal loan of $335,000 from the Paycheck Protection Program in 2020.

References

Putting aside editors including BLP-violating comments in edit summaries [14], this seems at best an attempt to use this article to shame it's subject.

The relevant content from the Washington Post article is:

Five prominent anti-vaccine organizations that have been known to spread misleading information about the coronavirus received more than $850,000 in loans from the federal Paycheck Protection Program, raising questions about why the government is giving money to groups actively opposing its agenda and seeking to undermine public health during a critical period.

The groups that received the loans are the National Vaccine Information Center, Mercola Health Resources, the Informed Consent Action Network, the Children’s Health Defense and the Tenpenny Integrative Medical Center, according to the Center for Countering Digital Hate, an advocacy group based in the United Kingdom that fights misinformation and conducted the research using public documents. The group relied on data released in early December by the Small Business Administration in response to a lawsuit from The Washington Post and other news organizations.

...

The largest loan, $335,000, went to Mercola, an organization affiliated with Joseph Mercola, a well-known anti-vaccine activist and businessman. The left-leaning human rights group Avaaz deemed one of Mercola’s groups on Facebook one of the leading “superspreaders” of misinformation about the coronavirus. His Facebook pages in English and Spanish together have more than 2.7 million followers.

...

I've seen similar content added to other articles on corporations, but don't recall any for BLPs. I'm not sure what encyclopedic value is here, especially concerning Mercola himself.

The use of "Despite" as the first word appears to be an inappropriate use of Wikipedia's voice. --Hipal (talk) 22:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I have added a comment on this. Hipal has reverted that comment. I have reverted his reversion. The arguments of encyclopaedic tone fall rather flat when one considers the current context, namely to clarify Mercola's self-made, unattested statement about his personal wealth. It is relevant in that it is stronger evidence (federal PPP loan data) used to clarify weaker evidence (self-reported assets uncorroborated by any other evidence). Encyclopaedic tone is no immunity to pointing out hypocrisies or inconsistencies. It would be great if Hipal were to stop running interference and issuing ominous NPOV warning notices on the talk pages of people whose take on NPOV tehy disagree with. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC. --Hipal (talk) 19:19, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks- and agree. It's certainly notable and relevant that Mercola got a loan for several reasons. It's also not damning that he did. tedder (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Please get the required consensus for BLP info. Newest version below. --Hipal (talk) 19:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Despite this, his company Mercola.com Health Resources LLC received a loan of US$335,000 under the Paycheck Protection Program's first round.

References

Another attempt to rewrite lede

In the recent attempts to rewrite the lede again[15][16][17], there might be information and changes that improve the article overall. I suggest working in much smaller edits, with clear edit summaries, and refer to the associated sections of the article body that support them. The associated duplication of information in the article body appears to indicate the changes are being made without regard to the overall article. --Hipal (talk) 15:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for finally opening a talk section Hipal, I was honestly about to a submit an edit warring report for both of you considering how messy the article history was getting between Hipal's and Gammapearls' reverts making it near impossible to figure out what was actually being objected to. Gammapearls, do remember that WP:ONUS applies to edits you've been making in how to approach this talk page. You need to get consensus for edits in that case, but when someone repeatedly reverts you, they are also expected to use the talk page to explain that. Hipal, the blanket reverts and unhelpful edit summaries over the last month do come across as WP:STONEWALLING rather than documenting specific legitimate reasons for why content should be removed (which is what this talk page is for). All of that together has made it nearly impossible to WP:FOC for someone uninvolved like me in these recent edits, so I suggest both of you avoid those issues going forward here.

Maybe this diff from the last round of edit warring summarizes what the main content issues have been?

1. I don't think we need a source on how he pronounces his name (is the pronunciation even needed?), nor should we really be linking to his youtube videos given the fringe nature of them. If it's going to be that big of a deal that people will argue over, I say just cut all mention.
2. For the quote needed template, that isn't needed since it's lead content that is summarized elsewhere, especially with Joseph_Mercola#Views_and_controversy
3. On Mercola's FDA warning, there is a whole section on that, Joseph_Mercola#FDA_warning_letters, so why anyone would be reverting additions about that to the lead is beyond me. The other warning letters could be briefly described as well, but a single sentence in the lead on the COVID warning is far from undue. That should have definitely been a case for simply improving on the sentence rather than blanket reverting.
4. The only other piece I could find was where Hipal removed fringe and discredited saying please gain consensus on talk page as required - Chicago Tribe ref and content may be ok[18]. Especially given the edit summary, that's exactly a case where we don't blanket revert, so I'd be inclined to reinsert that. KoA (talk) 17:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the breakdown.

Re Pronunciation: I don't know what general consensus there is around pronunciation of names, but it seems a bit intrusive. I have no problem with it being removed.

Re Quote needed: The lede should summarize the article, so there shouldn't be anything in the lede that isn't clearly addressed in depth in the article body. The tag seems unnecessary.

Re FDA letters: I was in a rush and the edits were very difficult to review, so I'm going to look it over more carefully when I have more time. Until then: There are nothing but primary sources in Joseph_Mercola#FDA_warning_letters, which suggests problems with the section overall that need to be addressed first. My thoughts were to remove that section, and incorporate the material into the other section where it's also mentioned, with the addition of better sources to support such weight. The new Chicago Trib ref looks helpful for this.

Re Introduction of the Chicago Trib ref: I wasn't clear if this was a new or existing reference, and throwing it in unformatted hinders review. It looks new and useful, unless I'm overlooking something. Let's get it into the article body to start.

Given this is a BLP under multiple sanctions and the editing requirements of BLP, changes to the lede should be made with great care. --Hipal (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

2021 FDA letter in lede

The restoration of the Feb/March FDA warning [19] does not have consensus. A primary source is not a better one, as it has little or no weight on it's own. Contrast it with past warnings where there were possible follow-up actions, supported by independent sources. Why is this warning is being given more emphasis than others when there are better references for the others? --Hipal (talk) 14:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

So in short, absolutely no reason for disruptive blanket reverting that multiple editors such as TylerDurden8823 have warned about now.

That's especially with comments like I was in a rush and the edits were very difficult to review, so you blanket reverted anyways. Or the Chicago Trib ref which you think may be useful, but blanket reverted because it wasn't formatted correctly when it could have simply been moved to the body. Removal of content requires actual valid concerns, not tendentious ones like that.

Especially for something like the FDA warning, that does have consensus. It already exists in the body and is a major detail in that section, and you are the only one opposed to it in the lead without any valid policy concerns. So far, it is at least some mention of FDA warnings as opposed to none, where the latter would be even more undue and POV. Reverting it and simply claiming no consensus does not change that. If instead you want a summary of his FDA warnings in addition to the COVID warning in the lead, the burden is on you in this case because other editors have agreed the current version is fine on it's own. Nothing is stopping you from improving upon that to flesh out the lead further. That is how normal iterative editing works.

On that note, I've removed the tag-bomb[20] per #2 It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given. No clear, valid, and concrete neutrality issue has been articulated here. If the addition of Mercola's fringe activities and being warned by the FDA is somehow viewed as undue, especially related to COVID (possibly the most serious topic on his list), that's a personal editor fringe WP:POV that we do not need to discuss further here no matter how much someone vaguely cites BLP. KoA (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I do not find Hipal's arguments persuasive. This [21] feels like WP:Canvassing and I strongly recommend against it happening again. Hipal, I found your pattern of censoring important and well-sourced information on multiple pages about prominent pseudoscientific figures promoting misinformation to be troubling, to say the least. I haven't found the handwaving about BLP or undue at all convincing and your mischaracterization about "finding consensus" here is what seems undue. I strongly suggest you take a step back and rethink your position on this. To be clear, the change I made was made with great care and is well-supported by a strong source directly from the FDA, a well-established/recognized strong source. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The inability to WP:FOC here is disruptive.

Please work to gain consensus. --Hipal (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Hipal, we already have been focusing on content and related discussion, or at least as much as your actions and comments allow us to. When you're blanket reverting, etc. in content and making vague claims, we're left having to try to handle that behavior germane to the content discussion. As Tyler mentioned, please step back from the article if you cannot edit collaboratively.

As for consensus, I gave you guidance on this already, but please read WP:STICK again. So far, we have multiple editors that are fine with the lead content at least as a starting point, and you haven't been able to provide any valid reasons against. KoA (talk) 22:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

(Outdent) In terms of consensus, I see only one editor who believes the lead has a POV to it. As per what mainstream, reliable sources say, “Researchers and regulators say Joseph Mercola, an osteopathic physician, creates and profits from misleading claims about Covid-19 vaccines.” Samboy (talk) 00:56, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

The numbers don't matter, policy does. --Hipal (talk) 16:39, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

That new NYTimes ref looks helpful. Much better than the primary ref that was introduced into the lede to verify the disputed content.

So, as far as policy is concerned, we should not be using that primary source in the lede (and probably nowhere else at all), we should be introducing subjects covered in detail in the article rather than highlighting a specific FDA letter, and we should be considering all of Mercola's notable actions rather than focusing so heavily on COVID (or at least put them in context that his COVID work is just more of the same from him).

I've replaced the disputed content with something that should address most of the policy problems, using the NYTimes ref identified by Samboy. --Hipal (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I think we could use the new NYTimes ref elsewhere, to support content about his anti-vaccination and misinformation campaigns. --Hipal (talk) 17:06, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and the majority here were arguing for policy, not against. I also suggest reading WP:1AM in cases like that. Intervening edits like reinserting the tag a third time and then threatening to get the page protected because your ideas were not getting consensus were not helpful at all, but at least you reverted yourself and did what you should have from the very start. Hopefully that means the community here will not have to deal with another talk section or article edits this like again. KoA (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

[22] --Hipal (talk) 18:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Nonsense. I have no objection to an NYT source to further support it if desired. You are quite capable of adding it. Frankly, it would have been far less disruptive to simply add it from the get-go. Numbers do matter when invoking the topic of consensus. I agree with KoA and Samboy that I sense an ax to grind. Regardless, it looks like the proper content is in now. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for rewriting your comment [23], but [24]. --Hipal (talk) 18:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Hipal, since you aren't commenting on content there and appear confused about what happened, I highly suggest reading WP:FOC in this case and WP:DR overall. Please also realize that we're all editors trying to help you here. For a little summary of this talk section, myself and others had to deal with some very poor content edits and talk page content discussion you made that were largely deemed invalid or too vague. I know that can be tough to swallow sometimes, but what FOC doesn't allow is for people to make poor edits and content arguments only to continue them by citing FOC. Talk pages are not the place to focus on editor behavior, so comments like that have primarily been focused on issues with relevant edits and content discussion, at least as much as you've allowed us to disentangle the two. I only give this final summary as a hopeful learning opportunity to make it easier for you to help everyone to focus on content since this content topic seems to have come to a close and should not need further response. That's at least the tentative close of my content-related comments.

If the general process of consensus or expected decorum in content disputes, reverting, etc. is still something you have questions on, this isn't the place to discuss that further, nor should it force us to take up even more space here. Instead, I suggest seeking out guidance from a different mentor outside of article space as I initially tried to help you with. That's as much as I intend to say on behavior here. KoA (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

[25] --Hipal (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Mercola to delete posts after 48 hours

In August 2021, Mercola announced on his website that he would permanently remove all of his articles, declaring that he is President Joe Biden's "primary obstacle that must be removed," that he had been defamed in The New York Times with a false article, and that "the groups that created it are funded by dark money and operated by an illegal foreign agent." He also stated that it is "blatant censorship" and that he would continue to publish articles but "each article I publish will be available for only 48 hours and will then be removed from the website." And Mercola urged his readers to "download, share and forward this content."

References

Expanding upon my edit summary, SOAP - something is probably DUE from the NYTimes ref from the independent viewpoints[26]:

If we present anything on the topic, we should do so emphasizing the context that the NYTimes ref provides, rather than using it to simply promote Mercola's viewpoint. Removing this ref [27] is problematic. The other refs are extremely poor in comparison, if not in general.

Some of the important context that we might include instead:

Dr. Mercola has built a vast operation to disseminate anti-vaccination and natural health content and to profit from it, according to researchers. He employs teams of people in places like Florida and the Philippines, who swing into action when news moments touch on health issues, rapidly publishing blog posts and translating them into nearly a dozen languages, then pushing them to a network of websites and to social media.

Rachel E. Moran, a researcher at the University of Washington who studies online conspiracy theories, said the announcement by Dr. Mercola was “him trying to come up with his own strategies of avoiding his content being taken down, while also playing up this martyrdom of being an influential figure in the movement who keeps being targeted.”

Basically, he's trying to get around being sanctioned or removed from social media while encouraging others to spread his misinformation. --Hipal (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Hopefully my WP:BOLD edit here addressed this issue? If not, feel free to adjust. I couldn't find any other good sources than the NYT. ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for all the work.

I've trimmed it further. I doubt there will ever be enough coverage of the topic to justify it's own subsection. --Hipal (talk) 02:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2021

I have found many inaccuracies with this article, here is what I have only found in the opening paragraph:

1. Reference [2] makes no reference to: " medical devices"
2. "unproven alternative health notions including homeopathy and opposition to vaccination", there is no reference to this claim
3. "alternative medicine organizations as well as the political advocacy group Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, which promotes scientifically discredited views about medicine and disease.[4] Until 2013,[5] ",in particular reference [5] does not state why or how or who discredits the views of of Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. This is only a link to the the website for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, therefore probably rrelevant
4. "his marketing practices relied on "slick promotion, clever use of information, and scare tactics."[6] ", this is article depicts one the against argument, where is the for-case?
5. " In 2005, 2006, and 2011, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warned Mercola and his company that they were making illegal claims for their products' ability to detect, prevent, and treat disease.[8]", this is no longer valid, the product has been approved by the FDA: https://southwestmedicalthermalimaging.com/equipment.html
6. Reference [9] Quackwatch has not criticised the Mercola site but rather has added reference to the FDA; who in 2005/06 requested that Mercola remove alleged false claims about 6 products.

Vgiotis (talk) 07:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

This is not an edit request, it is a complaint. In order to be able to action requests, there has to be a request in the form "Change A to B. -Roxy the dog. wooF 08:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

The request must not be controversial, so start a discussion and get a consensus before making an edit request. Do that for each point and you'll make more progress. -- Valjean (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Quackwatch

As an FYI, there's been a bit of edit warring breaking out lately claiming BLP issues because of using Quackwatch. That has been fixed in this edit by adding another source reiterating Quackwatch's comments. At that point, no one should be reverting over the current issues. I'm also opening this because no one has used the talk page at all yet, so if someone feels strongly and wants to get consensus for something different over the longstanding content, this is the place to do so. KoA (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

As long as the secondary source which quotes QW is used, the primary QW source can stay. I believe that's historic practice around here. This is a big help to readers as the book isn't very accessible, whereas the QW article is verifiable, with all its references. -- Valjean (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that's definitely a good example of why aspects of that are written into BLP policy. Quackwatch generally is considered reliable by other secondary sources, so it usually isn't hard to find something like that. Technically I can get the snippets from Google Books, but yeah, it's still cumbersome. That's also why we don't exclude sources that aren't easy to get online though. I saw a few others I could potentially add, but it'd probably be overkill at this point. KoA (talk) 22:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Consumer food safety template

Joseph Mercola has been added to the Consumer food safety template in the section "Regulation, standards, watchdogs". That is very odd and should be removed. I noticed that the Weston A. Price Foundation has also been added to the same template. I don't know if this was a mistake or it is trolling, but this is clearly misuse of the template and these should be removed. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not really clear how the template is really intended unless it's in reference to Mercola's misdoings and scrutiny of them, but I saw a few other categories that didn't really seem valid at the template either, so I removed a few. KoA (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

If the other topics with controversial histories are fine in staying it would be inconsistent and unprofessional for Mercola and WAPF to not be allowed. Altanner1991 (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Mercola's misdoings shouldn't negate the fact that he is, or was, the most involved in the topic across the internet. Just my 0.02. Put another way, it doesn't seem right to me to devise a system whereby controversial people have an article but not on navboxes, etc. That is overly penal. Altanner1991 (talk) 09:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

The Non-GMO project is just as pertinent and it is reputable; it should likewise not be removed. Altanner1991 (talk) 10:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Oof, please see WP:FRINGE for calling the Non-GMO Project reputable, which also applies to Mercola. We have to be careful about lumping such subjects into more reputable groups or people. KoA (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Complete nonsense, because the other pages on that navbox are just as controversial. Altanner1991 (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

If they are allowed to have an article, then they are allowed to be on the related navboxes. Altanner1991 (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Existence doesn't imply WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't really a grounded argument. As was already made clear, the edit related to this page was overreaching for the category. KoA (talk) 15:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Alrighty. I guess they'd be better organized on navboxes like Template:Alternative medicine or maybe even Template:Pseudoscience/Template:Conspiracy theories. Altanner1991 (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

New documentary

Mercola was the topic of an NY Times documentary (Links: NY Times, Hulu). Perhaps it might be something worth including in the article. ScienceFlyer (talk) 05:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Removal of large quote

I don't think the large quote from a non-notable person should be there, it's from an opinion piece. However, the source does neatly summarize what kind of marketing techniques Mercola's company uses, so I'm leaving "Using aggressive direct-marketing tactics" as a statement in the text. Robincantin (talk) 10:54, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@Robincantin I agree this quote should not be there for two reasons. (1) The source should be from a reliable secondary source which it is not and (2) the wording is not neutral. The sentence should read as follows, "The site and his company, Mercola LLC, brought in roughly $7 million in 2010 through the sale of alternative medicine treatments and dietary supplements using direct-marketing." Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Also this is a biography of a living person so the sources have to be reliable secondary sources or the quote is removed immediately.Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2023 (UTC)