":::::::::Some very serious bad faith accusations there. Please WP:assume good faith. NATTO seems to be obsessed with some straw man of his own making. No one has implied that QW was chosen as the ""Best of the Web"" site (which NATTO has repeatedly accused on several places here at Wikipedia), nor has anyone (but NATTO) suggested that it was chosen as a ""Favorite"" or a ""pick."" It was listed along with the other sites, in alphabetical order. All the chosen sites are ""Best of the Web"" sites. Only one site gets chosen as ""Forbes Favorite,"" which is always placed at the top of the list. The next ones are ""pick""s. In this case five were chosen as ""Forbes Best of The Web pick""s, and they were placed, as always, immediately afterwards. All the rest (18 very good sites) were then listed in alphabetical order, and were of course still among the ""Best of the Web."" That's the way Forbes does it. No one (other than NATTO) has claimed anything more than that QuackWatch was among the ""Best of the Web"" sites. Somehow the ""forest for the trees"" principle comes to mind..... The fact is that QuackWatch was mentioned in a positive way along with a number of other good sites, that were also mentioned in a positive way. What's wrong with admitting that and be done with it? Somehow NATTO just has to do some OR editorializing to squeeze a negative taste out of a positive orange. (""Wow that orange was sweet, but it wasn't seedless! Let's condemn it all the way to hell. We certainly wouldn't want anyone to notice that it was sweet! We only accept seedless oranges, no matter their taste."") That's pretty poor POV editing. Where is all this bitterness against QW coming from? Is it because NATTO's () method of dental practice or other dubious beliefs are threatened by the criticisms found on QW or DentalWatch?    

  
 "