From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
|
|
|||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
|
:Removed. — [[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler|talk]]) 13:33, 27 October 2025 (UTC) |
:Removed. — [[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler|talk]]) 13:33, 27 October 2025 (UTC) |
||
|
::{{ping|ScienceFlyer}} I see that you have reinserted the source. [[Quackwatch]] ”cannot” be used on this article, under [[WP:BLPSPS]] (and while not all of Quackwatch is considered SPS, this particular citation is, under [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_282#RfC:_Quackwatch|this 2019 RFC]]. I was going to say that claim could likely be covered by the remaining Science-Based Medicine source, but per [[WP:SBM]], that source should not be used for negative statements in BLPs. I’m going to leave that in for the moment and hopefully you’ll find something better. (But taking a quick look at some of the references, I suspect the real answer is that the article on Shaw should be replaced with one on the laboratory, which if formulted correctly could get around BLP concerns as well.) — [[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler|talk]]) 15:13, 27 October 2025 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 15:13, 27 October 2025
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
Is this entry an advertisement? Notes & references missing; no section on the issue of analytical vs clinical validity and the possible harm to patients of confusing the two. Mahnut 05:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahnut (talk • contribs)
Other references to illustrate the consensus that Great Plains Lab offers discredited testing. [1] [2] I don’t believe it’s necessary to add any more citations, but other editors may disagree and wish to add them. Experts around the world agree that IgG allergy testing is discredited.[3] —ScienceFlyer (talk) 23:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ Chabane, H.; Doyen, V.; Bienvenu, F.; Adel-Patient, K.; Vitte, J.; Mariotte, D.; Bienvenu, J. (2018). “Les dosages d’IgG anti-aliments : méthodes et pertinence clinique des résultats. Position du groupe de travail de biologie de la Société française d’allergologie”. Revue Française d’Allergologie. 58 (4): 334–357. doi:10.1016/j.reval.2018.01.007.
- ^ Kelso, John M. (2018). “Unproven Diagnostic Tests for Adverse Reactions to Foods”. The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice. 6 (2): 362–365. doi:10.1016/j.jaip.2017.08.021.
- ^ “The myth of IgG food panel testing”. American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Retrieved 8 April 2021.
Hello editors,
I would like to request removal of the following sentence from the William Shaw (laboratory owner) article under Wikipedia’s Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) and Reliable Sources (RS) policies:
“Great Plains Laboratory is listed as ‘performing nonstandard laboratory tests’ by Quackwatch.”
The cited source, Quackwatch, is a self-published website that does not meet Wikipedia’s definition of a reliable, independent, secondary source for living persons (see WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:RS).
Because the statement conveys a negative evaluation of a living person’s business and relies solely on a self-published, non-editorial source, I request that it be removed entirely or replaced with a neutrally worded statement supported by a high-quality, independent source.
I have a conflict of interest (connection to the subject), so I’m not editing directly, but I’m submitting this under BLP policy for review.
Thank you for your attention and for helping ensure the article complies with Wikipedia’s standards for fairness and verifiability.
— Scott Shaw 76.92.172.156 (talk) 05:11, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
- Removed. — Nat Gertler (talk) 13:33, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- @ScienceFlyer: I see that you have reinserted the source. Quackwatch cannot be used on this article, under WP:BLPSPS (and while not all of Quackwatch is considered SPS, this particular citation is, under this 2019 RFC. I was going to say that claim could likely be covered by the remaining Science-Based Medicine source, but per WP:SBM, that source should not be used for negative statements in BLPs. I’m going to leave that in for the moment and hopefully you’ll find something better. (But taking a quick look at some of the references, I suspect the real answer is that the article on Shaw should be replaced with one on the laboratory, which if formulted correctly could get around BLP concerns as well.) — Nat Gertler (talk) 15:13, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
