And if you follow through, at least a couple of the four retractions mentioned on Wikipedia appear to be nothing but some acknowledgment/funding related trivia.
This is ad hominem. The link provided only supports the accusation with previous accusations.
Both were ad-hominem. The first one also suffers from a pompous bias: What does it even matter if the submission is not peer-reviewed? It could have been posted on a blog! It is dropping little seeds of doubt, to weaken and attack something you don't want to attack directly:
"A warning to everyone that the linked website does not adhere to Wikipedia guidelines for being a credible source."
Expect better. If you demand peer-review, then review the contents as a peer! You have the opportunity to get what you want, instead of needlessly attacking a fellow scientist' credibility.
Surely a distinction can be made between attacking someone's character and attacking their claim to authority. Within every scientific paper there's an implicit claim to authority and here the track record has weight alongside whatever qualifications they may have.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
It appears that the original comment was valid ad hominem, but still ad hominem.
This paper is not peer-reviewed. It should end there.
>This paper is not peer-reviewed. It should end there.
So you think scientists aren't allowed to communicate with one another and the public except through peer reviewed articles? 'Tis absurd. Anyway, peer review means very little nowadays. I publish 3-5 papers per year in top journals in my field, and many of the referee reports I see are hilariously insignificant, effortless, and/or just totally off the point.
FTFY