Talk:National Health Federation

Links[edit]

If you enclose the title of a page between two square brackets it becomes a link to that page. For example enzyme links to the enzyme article. Putting more letters before or after the link means they are merged into the link eg enzymes. If you want to link to one page with a different wording, put a vertical bar between the page title and the link text eg link text. TimVickers 02:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources and neutrality[edit]

This article needs reliable secondary sources describing the NHF, rather than solely rehashing what's on its website. The reason for this is that the NHF is a lobbying organization with a clear agenda. Many of its positions are described here in the most favorable of terms, when in fact they are quite controversial. For example, "educating the public about the dangers of vaccination" could be re-parsed as "playing up scientifically unfounded fears and misleading people into avoiding a proven health intervention." There are multiple other examples in the article as written - it's as if the Operation Rescue page was sourced entirely to their website and said, "OR was founded to prevent the ongoing murder of innocent fetuses." The solution is to provide some reliable secondary sources, or at least balance it with perhaps equally partisan sources from another viewpoint. For example, Quackwatch's page on the NHF claims that the organization promotes a number of unproven therapies in which its members sometimes have a financial interest, and that over 20 of its board members have been in legal trouble for such issues. Again, Quackwatch has its own agenda, but the solution is to find some reliable secondary sources. MastCell ^Talk 21:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no question that this article is all fluff and no substance. Looks like I'll have to pull myself away from doing research on the current Trudeau v CPB (ongoing) lawsuit to cleanup this article up. TheDevilYouKnow 18:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've trimmed some of the sections that appear to be just self-promotion, along with a bit on Ron Paul that was off topic. --Ronz (talk) 15:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update June 16, 2007[edit]

OK I've added a Further Reading section with some links to books and papers regarding the NHF and more. There was one more that I was considering whether or not I wanted to add. Fads & Fallacies In the Name of Science by Martin Gardner. The cover tells you exactly what it's all about. The curious theories of modern pseudoscientists and the strange, amusing and alarming cults that surround them. A study in human gullibility. However, I really think this one would fit much better over at either the Kevin Trudeau or Natural Cures article. If anyone believes it should be included I will post it a link to the preview (google). TheDevilYouKnow 01:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quackwatch[edit]

I've removed the reference to Quackwatch from the lead. The Final Decision in the Barrett v. Rosenthal case found that Quackwatch is a partisan site.[1] I've retained it in the criticism section, but a reference to a partisan site such as this does not belong in the lead.Vitaminman (talk) 09:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That decision has been amended. Even if it hadn't been amended, partisan sites are widely used here, so that isn't a justifiable reason for deleting such a notable website from the lead. I was a major party in that ArbCom, and Quackwatch and I have been vindicated by the Arbitration Committee:

As a result of this "Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal": The amendment removed the false charge against me of having used "unreliable" sources (QW), and it vindicated QW by removing the description of it as being "unreliable". Justice was finally done after two years! Note that only the second motion (1.1) passed.

RS/N: Usage of Quackwatch as RS in medical quackery: The consensus is that it may be used as a source under the same rules and precautions that govern the use of any other RS. It is an obviously notable source that is highly regarded by the mainstream (no criticisms) and villified by the fringe/alternative side, which is to be expected -- it exposes their unscientific practices, scams, and other illegal activities.

I have restored the original, very long-standing and undisputed content. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nhf hfn wiki.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Nhf hfn wiki.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 18 November 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits[edit]

I'm trying to understand the rationale for this edit, which has been repeatedly re-inserted by Healthdefender (talk · contribs). Wikipedia articles need to be based on independent, reliable sources. The edit in question removes numerous independent reliable sources (for example, the American Cancer Society, Quackwatch, the McGraw-Hill Concise Dictionary of Modern Medicine, etc). What is the rationale for removing these sources and replacing their content with material from the NHF website? MastCell ^Talk 22:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]