Talk:Joseph Mercola

This article completely fails the "neutral point of view" policy.

This article compleley fails the "neutral point of view" policy and needs to be rewritten to adhere to it. 75.164.234.69 (talk) 05:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Please describe a specific problem with the article and a specific change you want made. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:03, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Horrible bias

In 20+ years of Wikipedia, I have never seen page as biased as this one. It should be removed until fixed. I'm sure have the negative points are valid but this is a hit piece pretending to be informational. It's absurd. PFR (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Which part of it does not correctly replicate what reliable sources say? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2025

Writing a list of Dr. Mercola's views and calling them "controversial" is unnecessarily adding a value judgement to every one of those views and it is also unnecessarily repeating the point about Dr. Mercola being highly controversial.

For example being against and wanting to label or ban outright GMO products is hardly controversial, they are generally banned in most countries around the world. People working with GMOs may enter things like this trying to push their narrative.

If he has very strong views on something those views are notable regardless of whether they are controversial or not. Therefore, remove the uncited judgement that they are controversial. Seriousmonkeyman (talk) 22:29, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.

To be very clear: there is currently a reason to have a qualifier such as “controversial” to justify the notability of the entire list.

You may think it is notable without that qualifier, but I politely disagree. Everyone has views. Wikipedia will not mention literally every view held by every (politically active) person who has a page. The controversy is the criterium for inclusion in the current list.

I have no issue with asking for extra context, and I do think this could be changed for a better word, (I don’t have the answer rn) but it is not responsible to remove the word entirely. Controversial is a correct term. It doesn’t mean he’s wrong or right. It means that there is controversy about his view/its subject.

Slomo666 (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

source already in use is poor?

Hipal - why do you consider this a poor source when it's used (twice) in the very same paragraph to elaborate on the other aspects of Mercola's theories about nebulised hydrogen peroxide? Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:46, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

The content in question is here, with the reference, Garcia, Arturo (April 15, 2020). "Will 'Nebulized Hydrogen Peroxide' Help You Avoid Contracting..." Truth or Fiction?. Archived from the original on April 22, 2020. Retrieved April 28, 2020..

My apologies. I didn't notice it was used elsewhere in the article.

Looking a bit deeper, a RSN discussion might be helpful, but it looks to be judged a poor if not unreliable source for most of the discussions I'm finding about it. I'm seeing 5 mentions of it currently at RSN, only two specifically about it as a source. Looking at the truthorfiction.com website, it seems amateurish. Briefly looking for signs it has a solid reputation, I'm finding that it is not on lists of such publishers. --Hipal (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2026 (UTC)