Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:00, 6 July 2007

Biography B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article has had a peer review which is now archived.

The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Sbinfo (talk · contribs) / Barrett, Stephen Barrett, Stephen

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Stephen Barrett. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Stephen Barrett at the Reference desk.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

Archives----
October 2005 – July 15, 2006 July 20, 2006 – July 27, 2006 July 27, 2006 – Sept. 18, 2006 Sept. 18, 2006 – Oct. 28, 2006 Nov. – Dec. 2006 Jan 2007 Dec 2006 – February 2007 March 2007 – April 2007 April 2007 April 2007 – June 2007

Notability Again

If BC is not in itself notable what are we to make of the WP:NOTABLE guideline "The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standard of the notability guidelines." ? If this is so, the general notability policy is applicable to articles rather than particular items within them. This dispute has dragged on because criteria applicable to articles has been applied to sentences within articles. It reminds me of the wisdom of Aristotle who said that we should be aware that judgements are only as precise as the nature of the subject matter allows, and of Wittgenstein's assertion that philosophical problems are fictions generated by grammar. Or perhaps it is a Rylean category mistake. These analogies are not precise. A minor issue has been treated as though it were a major one. Editors have been using sledgehammers to crack a nut. It doesn't much matter whether SB's lack of BC is included or not. And Misplaced Pages guidelines are just guidelines. Not laws which, like Colonel Nathan R Jessep's orders, are always obeyed. All consensus should take is goodwill on the part of a few good men. robert2957 14:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I belong to a sizable group of editors who think that the notability guideline is useless and will rarely quote it in discussions. (Notability itself is not unimportant; the problem is the guideline itself.) Regardless, the part of the notability guideline you're quoting says that the guideline does not apply to the individual facts/etc. that make up an article. It does not say there are no other reasons (or even notability aspects for that matter) that may prohibit/allow/require the inclusion of specific facts/etc. -- it can't say so, since a guideline does not trump policies.

For the full range of arguments, most of them not based on the notability guideline, see the discussion above. Interestingly, one argument states that we need secondary sources to help us assess if it's a nut or something requiring a sledgehammer. When in doubt, don't include = when in doubt, use a sledgehammer?

Just as interestingly, opinions vary from "Barrett wants it in the article" via "trivial" back to "insidious attack". A number of editors seem to think it's eminently important to include it in the article. Others seem to think it's eminently important to exclude it. AvB ÷ talk 15:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

PS I have proposed to remove an equally trivial fact (the license thing) as a kind of trade-off, where the other party ends the otherwise endless attempts to include the trivial BC thing. It feels nicely symmetrical to me. Although within a month a new consensus will alter everything we agree on now, so in that respect it really doesn't matter what we do. But WP:BLP forbids this eventualist attitude in BLPs... Perhaps you can quote us a philosopher who shows us that this is the way out? AvB ÷ talk 15:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully we lay out the facts and logic clearly enough to achieve some stability this time. And next.

I'll paraphrase. Based on the notoriety, aggressive statements including websites, broad declamations, numerous denunciations, litigiousness, previous expert claims, medical, science and health commentaries & related claims, the current article misrepresents the known qualifications of Dr Barrett by omission(s) - a significant public health-related commentator in the late 20th century based on his long running & fairly successful PR efforts (and legal strategems) to *project* his MD (and opinions) as *the* voice of "mainstream" science and medicine in the 1970s through the 1990s.

A more factual article would clarify and dispel confusions that last to this day, a fundamental service of encyclopedias.

The "license thing" helps dispel scurrilous sounding claims by partisans where I note even QW-related sites have over a dozen webpages that discuss "de-l'd" directly using the newly minted hyphenated "word"(ahem) and dozens of webpages graced with at least one particular partisan (treated like a dread disease - say, like TB :). (go to QW's "Search Our Affiliated Sites" and enter the hyphenated "word" or partisan's name). This is not to mention their (both sides) ongoing legal and political warfare. (I am weaseling with "scurrilous-sounding" because I have seen comments & questions about the continuity of the license between 1993 and now, but no evidence either way, and observe BLP in reference to any partisans who might be just as "sensitive" or litigious).--I'clast 21:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It's very simple.

• The "delicensed" claim, which you some editors want to include in the article, is a lie. Best evidence is that he retired in good standing.
• The "not board certified" claim, which you also want to include in the article, is merely misleading. You claim that its absence is also misleading.
• Neither claim is supported by a reliable secondary source. The first is not supported by any reliable source.

— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Question: do you mean the first or the second? Thanks. AvB ÷ talk 12:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Wrong about me and my intent, Arthur. I have never supported "de-l'd", I only explained the situation without using Google searchable names and inflammatory words. (Given "... "incomplete data, obsolete data, technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo", asmong others, I do, however, see some irony.) The "not board certified" is complex but I disagree; the legal studies part is the clearest omission. I earlier said I am doing something about getting a more reliable secondary source for the "not board certified" discussion (...if dead trees will move less slowly) that should help the suddenly fastidious. I think sometimes some editors confuse me with parties that are quite dissimilar with much different backgrounds, interests and personalities.--I'clast 22:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It's amazing where OR and especially SYN, will take you. Shot info 03:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably unwittingly, I'clast is trying to make Misplaced Pages into a crystal ball by making it say what they see in their crystal ball. It could be true. It might be happening. When it comes to a certain scientist (no, not Barrett) I (almost) can't wait to infuse Misplaced Pages with what my crystal ball is telling me. (My crystal ball = what I view as my superior talents/skills/experience/etc of science, politics and mass psychology in a specific area and most others as a "true belief"). But that isn't how it's done here. AvB ÷ talk 12:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no crystal ball in observing the common types of biographic data discussed in this section, just uninformed readers when we fail. I have no idea what (which parts) shot_info is commenting on here, it could well be Arthur's mistaken SYN about me, other than similar edits by shot seem to follow me around.

As far other places, I do make note that popular political beliefs are often substituted on science issues (and I do take action). That's not a crystal ball, that is usually an extra helping of WP:V on various science matters, sort of a Misplaced Pages NPOV-SPOV that bulldozes a lot of common bs here. I have actually had better luck collaborating with many mainstream doctors about this than most non-medical editors. I am not saying it is easy, it's hard work technically but I often have been able to dig up the current research (past few years, decade) from authoritative sources (well ranked medical school sites, govt authorities) that still surprises the less currently informed or those relying on more (convenient) proprietarily influenced sources (e.g. pharma detail staff, heavily advertised articles & journals).--I'clast 13:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

We're probably on the same page in terms of educating docs etc. on "controversial" issues. But it takes time. What is learned or accepted by individual physicians rarely percolates back through the system; what is needed is (painting with a very broad brush) such things as (1) awareness (among students) of the other side in (real) controversies (2) in the longer run, for the controversial to become mainstream, enter textbooks, etc. (Even the most partisan attackers have a place in this process, cf. e.g. AIDS activism). However, WP editors can't do much re Semmelweis type paradigm shifts when it's too early. Misplaced Pages policies are based on the assumption that once such a shift has materialized and an "authority figure" ignores it, anything from consumer organization to reliable sources will be writing about it. If this doesn't happen, it's time to go and discuss policy and community standards. Not to fill the Barrett talk page with wishful thinking.

-- stepping off soapbox now, resolving not to discuss this here for a while apart from the occasional oneliner, or the long-awaited advent of new acceptable sources. AvB ÷ talk 15:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Pls note, what I am discussing for the Biography section doen't require a crystal ball or a paradignm shift - just a basic description of his educational and professional background, legal and medical, skipped in the rush toward highly detailed, and occassionally less independent or substantial, accolades.--I'clast 00:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to make it clear that I have never supported saying that Stephen Barrett was "de - licenced". I don't want to get mixed up in that contoversy. I am saying this because a post from me heads this section. I have never questioned the good faith of Stephen Barrett. And finally, I shall be retiring from editing this article for the time being. It is taking up too much of my time. In a couple of months time I shall come back to editing the Misplaced Pages. I believe there are changes to be made to the articles about Neville Chamberlain and atheroma, to name but two. →До свидания товарищи! robert2957 07:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Integendeel! Tot (spoedig) ziens, kameraad! AvB ÷ talk 12:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I corrected my comment about "de-licensed". It wasn't I'clast, who I was replying to, or Robert. However, there are still differences between that claim and the Board Certification question, and I believe there can be good faith arguments on either side. In fact, I've made arguments on both sides. There cannot be good faith arguments on "de-licensed", at this point, as reliable primary sources indicate it's incorrect. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. How do you feel about the fact that the Bio section, first para, contains a defense against the de-licensed nonsense? Like board certification info (and certainly a lack of it), this is not information we routinely add to bios, and seems to somehow acknowledge the bogus de-licensed criticism. Its only function is to debunk that criticism.

It seems that no one is interested in my compromise where both the disputed board certification info and the active/retired license info are left out/removed. If so, I'm inclined to work towards moving/including both criticisms (with full context) in/to the criticism section. Detractors say x, Barret says y. For the delicensed nonsense, the Quackwatch site suffices; for the board certification hype (I mean, do detractors really believe that Barrett's being board certified would have changed anything?) that would mean accepting say the Donna Porter article as a reliable source for this item only. A consensus seems possible. Or would the editors currently arguing it's an acceptable source suddenly decide differently? AvB ÷ talk 22:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think including Barrett's lack of Board Certification in the criticism section would be fine, except then it would have to include that he took and failed the Board examination (as that is part of the criticism). What source are you going to cite as Barrett's response to this? -- Levine2112 22:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps editors could be persuaded to accept Barrett's defense on a Misplaced Pages talk page? To tell you the truth, I personally have no problem detailing the whole thing in the criticism section; as I've said earlier, my main objection would be that the section is too long, but if it would end the impasse I'm all for it. Then again, when floated earlier, the idea sort of flopped. AvB ÷ talk 22:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Essentially it would says something to the effect of: Barrett failed his Board examination and thus was never Board Certified. His critics cite that this disqualifies Barrett's claimed expertise; however Barrett responds that lacking this qualification never affected his career adversely. Yeah, it's poorly written, but does this cover all of the points essentially? If so, I don't see why a polished version should be too much longer. This of course is all citable from reliable primary and secondary sources (especially since we are treating this like criticism and thus Barrett's critics are certainly reliable sources of their own criticism). -- Levine2112 22:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll reserve my opinion for now; let's wait and see if others weigh in. (But note that "reliable" in "reliable sources of their own criticism" isn't quite the same thing as "reliable" in WP:RS etc.) I'm turning in for the night. AvB ÷ talk 23:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think one thing which we can all agree on - given how many have written about Barrett's lack of Board Certification being a detriment (the lawsuits, the news articles, the reasearch papers, the notorious borderline libelous press releases - is that this is an extremely notable piece of criticism. -- Levine2112 23:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you're both on the right track. ॐ Metta Bubble 00:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

My view on this hasn't changed since the last time I said my view on this hadn't changed. The reasons are the same I've been voicing for months: the dearth of good sources, undue weight and WP:BLP. I wouldn't agree that the criticism is notable simply because the critics voice it; see WP:SELFPUB. I don't foresee my take on this changing until or unless better sources are found. thx, Jim Butler 16:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

So criticism that is self-published is never notable? If that is the case, the Quackwatch can never be used as a notable source of criticism. Regardless, the criticism - Barrett's lack of Board Certification makes him less qualified of an expert witness and a medical critic - has been asserted by many sources. Of the source which I have listed, at least five of them are quoting or summarizing another party making this criticism (so SELFPUB isn't an issue). Please understand that this is an entirely different proposition than what we have been discussing for the past three months; as this is a proposal to introduce this information as criticism (completely in context). Make sense? -- Levine2112 17:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say that self-published criticism is never notable, but sometimes it isn't. We don't go including everything Barrett writes, either. Unless you can provide a non-partisan, reliable secondary source for the criticism you quote ("Barrett's lack of Board Certification makes him less qualified of an expert witness and a medical critic"), I don't see that it passes BLP or undue weight or WP:V. Now, Levine2112, surely you know by now this isn't going anywhere, so why do you continue? When there is no consensus to add material to an article for BLP reasons, it is poor form to keep the issue front and center on the talk page, and of course disruptive. Perhaps it would be good for you to disengage on this issue? If not, I'd support an RfC on your behavior and a block. Enough is enough. --Jim Butler 01:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's time to seriously consider an RfC, if editors do not disengage. --Ronz 01:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Jim, you are completely misinterpreting what is going on here. This is a completely new issue that has been raised and suggested not by me, but by AvB. Many notable critics of Barrett's have cited that his failure of Board Certification makes him less qualified. (Before the issue was to not include this criticism but rather just the fact that he isn't Board Certified.) AvB has been pretty consistent in his/her feeling that by taking this fact out of the context (as a criticism), it creates a policy issue. However, now we are discussing re-introducing this material in full context as criticism, thus getting rid of the policy issues. I think a discussion of this will get us somewhere. I hope you and Ronz will see that. At this point, the reluctance to mediate this issue per WP:DR has been the primary blockage in reaching a resolution. I hope the dissenting parties (either by vote or by silence) will opt to participate with civility in this very realistic proposal. Threats of RfC is not a good way to begin, civility-wise. Please let's collaborate and settle this amicably. -- Levine2112 01:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Levine2112, I do understand that you want to present the BC stuff as criticism rather than simple biographical info. BLP and WP:V still apply, and my objections about the sources you've provided remain the same. Nor am I "threatening" an RfC. I am simply objecting to your behavior as is generally done on WP, and as I'd expect anyone to do if they objected to mine. thank you, Jim Butler 23:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This has already been settled via BLP policy and no consensus. This is very exhausting. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 01:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

From WP:BLP#criticism:

The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article.

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

So let's take this point-by-point. This view of several critics (that Barrett's failure of the exam and subsequent lack of Board Certification takes a notch out of his credibility armor) is certainly relevant to Barrett's notability. The view of these critics are based on several reliable secondary sources (Dynamic Chiropractic and the WCA are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand). I believe we can work out a way to write this material in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material (especially if we include Barrett's rebuttal, as suggested by AvB above). We will certainly strive not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics; and given that the WCA and DC publication goes out to 60,000 plus and they represent organizations each with large memberships, we are certainly not representing the view of a tiny minority.

This criticism is sourced reliably and is about Barrett specifically; thus there is no guilt by association claims here. This material is noy biased nor malicious (at least no more than what one would allow from any criticism). Thus I am not pushing an agenda or a biased point of view; however since DC and WCA are offering criticism originally purported by Negrete, they are in effect a third-party source. Perhaps, the Fintan Dunne and the Donna Porter article can be used as well or in their place, as they too offer up similar criticism. -- Levine2112 02:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Round and round and round we go. Ad nauseum again and again and again. Please stop. --Ronz 03:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You all are being unbelievably difficult! I am starting to suspect that there is some ulterior motives at work here to protect Barrett from the valid, notable, and citable criticism. -- Levine2112 04:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. --QuackGuru 04:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Anybody would think the opposite is true given the overly high levels of criticism compared to other BLPs and the demand by the Anti-Barretts to include yet even more while deleting biographical material. Methinks the COI is on the other foot (which probably explains the reluctance of key figures to put their money where their mouth is...but this is an aside). Shot info 04:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I am neither anti-Barrett nor do I have any COI. As I have attested to several times now, I have no dealing with or about Barrett outside of Misplaced Pages. I had no idea who he was until coming to this article. I am not a practitioner of any alternative or allopathic medicine. I don't sell pills or supplements. I don't participate in blogs or forums about about Barrett. Nothing. Any COI claim on me would be unfounded and frankly, untrue. -- Levine2112 06:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Founder of NCAHF?

Right now the lead states he is "the founder of the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF)." I question that statement. He is at best a co-founder. The previous lead stated he was "a founder", which is accurate enough. This needs to be corrected. -- Fyslee/talk 08:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Request to make a small change as described above: {editprotected}

The article on the NCAHF agrees with you that he is a "co-founder", so I have changed the LEAD accordingly. SGGH 19:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Fyslee/talk 19:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

If we are trying for a compromise, new proposal then......

Why don't we start back with what I originally suggested? That being:

Barrett is a 1957 graduate of the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and completed his psychiatry residency in 1961, he is not board certified.

It comes to the point and is generic in what it says. It also can be looked up if someone is interested. --CrohnieGal 16:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

We cannot include the board thing against BLP policy. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 16:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a marvellous suggestion, Crohnie. I support it, yet I don't imagine it will gain a consensus (as evidenced by QuackGuru's response just above). Please note, however, that further above in "Notability again", AvB and I are working together to introduce this information in full context of the sources (as criticism), thus elimintating possiblie claims of WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:BLP. What are your thoughts? -- Levine2112 17:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the conversation between you and Avb which is why I posted this again. I have not changed my mind about this not being in the article. I just thought if something was going to be put in that this is generic. --CrohnieGal 17:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, I like your suggestion. I ought to afterall; run-on sentence aside, it is pretty much exactly what I have been suggesting for a while now. -- Levine2112 17:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

According to Crohnie: She has not changed her mind about this not being in the article. According to Levine: He likes this suggestion Crohnie has made. It seems Levine now agrees with Crohnie. Super! :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 17:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I like Crohnie's suggested wording to include Barrett's lack of Board Certification. I think that is pretty clear. I also think that it is pretty clear that your post here is just meant to be annoying. Please refrain. -- Levine2112 18:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Crohnie said in part: I have not changed my mind about this not being in the article. Crohnie's suggestion is, when in doubt leave it out. I too agree with Crohnie! It is pretty crystal clear. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 19:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Crohnie was suggesting to include board certification in the bio, so you I'm guessing you'll change your vote when you realise your mistake. I too think the information clearly belongs in the article somewhere, and it's pretty inevitable it's going in one day. I'm happy with Crohnie's suggestion. ॐ Metta Bubble 02:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Archived

This talk page was becoming gigantic (446 kb!), so I have ruthlessly archived it. If there are any threads that were unresolved and need to be rehashed, please pull them from the latest archive. Neil ╦ 17:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

re: "science"

"He has said...he learned...difference between scientific thought..."."...distinguishing science from pseudoscience..." etc. I previously removed the quote part as contentious, self congratulatory, self promotional statements that have concrete counterexamples and critiques by far more accomplished jurists, scientists & doctors to the expertise implied in this assertion. (I left the medical statistics part as a sympathetic treatment of how he might have gotten his start.) Not even Newton or Einstein's WP biographies have such bold self statements after epochal breakthroughs.--I'clast 10:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Fyslee reverted to a POV statement without any discussion here. The problem is not whether we can verify Dr Barrett's quote (Fyslee's "justification" in the edit summary), the quoted assertion tremendously violates NPOV - a self congratulatory statement that implicitly construes the author's work and criticism as unusually correct or authoritative. A number of papers from more accomplished scientists (PhD professorial researchers, national awards, *scientific* papers) and national authorities, as well as the results from court, contradict this rather bold assertion of "infallibility" (that the author's capability to "distinguish science" is so notable where published failures to correctly distinguish the science (or legal arguments) are also notable, dramatic and current. In the example I'm looking at (the fundamental criticism been published for over 20 years, with rising levels of independent, authoritative confirmation, now from NIH and NAS), Dr Barrett's statements fail to notice that his "proof" drastically fails to repeat the original test(s) in several ways (a number of shortcomings), fails to even begin to adequately control the tests (ineffective controls for simple problems carefully cited before the biased tests even started, a biased investigator pompously screwed the tests up anyway, ignoring correct, expert advice), and that the newer (and highly biased) tests do not remotely cover the hypothesis, stopping short over 90% (99+%?) of the input (controllable) variable range. Stuff that repeatedly violates high school science lessons (duplication of conditions, control, gross hypothesis testing) in just single examples. That's scientific expertise and implied "infallibility"? Again, I'm looking at real scientists' and authorities' published work, with now verified statements. Still uncorrected over at QW after years.

A much more NPOV, yet sympathetic, treatment of the start of Dr Barrett's interest in his avocation is the med school statistics part.--I'clast 18:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Page Protection again?

Judging by recent edits, I think we need full page protection again. Agreed? --Ronz 17:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

1. We need to remove the "no court victories" per WP:BLP. It's not sourcable, and may not be correct.
2. We may need remove the board certification paragraph, per WP:BLP. It's been argued as a possible violation.
3. The change from "aims" to "claims" under the Online activism paragraph is actually a significant change, which may have been perceived as a spelling correction.
4. The change from "denunciation" to "denouncement" under Defamation lawsuits is a mistake, perhaps also in the guise of a spelling correction, as the target is not a valid (American) English word.
5. Request withdrawn The lawsuit section was removed as possibly being a WP:BLP violation, and should not be left in while the article is protected. I thought the lawsuit section should be there, but I'm pointing out it was deleted under WP:BLP, so possibly it should be removed. (changes made 21:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC))

— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree to the court victories; though this is 100% true. Thus far Barrett has indeed lost every one of his libel suits in court (or it was settled out of court).

Disagree with the Board Certification as it is valid and notable criticism from reliable sources.

Disagree with the claims/aim as it is actually more accurate and much more NPOV.

Agree to denunciation/denouncement. Not familiar with how or if this was changed or was originally inserted incorrectly.

Disagree to removing the lawsuit section as it is expressly permitted by WP:RS and lends itself to Barrett notability. Despite the misconception here, his lawsuits are not part of the criticism section. This is fair and accurately covered.

-- Levine2112 21:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The change from "aims" to "claims" indicates that they "claim" success. I don't think the web site says that. http://www.quackwatch.com/00AboutQuackwatch/mission.html reports: "Quackwatch, Inc. is a nonprofit corporation whose purpose is to combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct." However, if the change was intentional, it doesn't need to be reverted under the {{editprotected}} banner. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry that I didn't wait longer for others' viewpoints before requesting page protection, but I thought it was best considering what was happening. --Ronz 22:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No worries Ronz. Arthur, please remove your editprotected request as it's never going to get consensus. Please make one request at a time, beginning with the most practical. I don't think any change is so crucial that we can't discuss it here properly first. ॐ Metta Bubble 02:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, under Misplaced Pages policies, even potential WP:BLP violations should be removed immediately, even on a protected page. However, #1and #4 (part of ) are agreed to by the editor who inserted them, so probably should be implemented without further delay.

#3 (part of seems to make a "correct" statement into an incorrect statement. (See the Quackwatch mission statement for the probable source of that sentence.)

The others are probable WP:BLP violations, but I'm willing to wait.

— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 05:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

While we are on BLP, I think modifications of the Defamation Lawsuit section should be very careful and selective. Part of what originally set Ilena off was pro-QW "rewriting history" on BvR and her getting acknowledgement in WP that the decision in the original lower court and the SC opinion on her actions were not considered defamation, "As the lower courts correctly concluded, however, none of the hostile comments against Barrett alleged in the complaint are defamatory" and not "just a technicality". That seemed to be part of her acceptance on the BvR article.--I'clast 06:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Ilena is still banned, I believe, so what she wants/wanted in the article is irrelevant. That being said, much of what you want slandering about Barrett probably should be OK.— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

While we are on the topic of Ilena - more published criticism from Barrett's favorite critic: Anti-alternative "Quackbusters" Have Giant Court Losses on Two Continents. . . and yet another reference to Barrett's lack of Board Certification being a detriment to his credibility. -- Levine2112 06:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

According to BvR, Ilena doesn't do any critising, she is just merely recycling Bolen's criticisms. Not that the Anti-Barrett's here remember this... :-) Shot info 06:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That may be true in regard Barrett, but not in regard Wikipedians. Fyslee and I were libeled on her web site. (And that article is probable libelous even if it were published in the United States and even if the facts were correct.) Unless, of course, it's plaigerism. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

She retracted the libelous statements against me, and I didn't demand a formal renunciation, so there's no current case. However, Fyslee may have a valid case. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, this is a brand new article and not the subject of the BvR republishing case. -- Levine2112 07:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

And regardless, according to the determinations of the various courts (aka BvR) Ilena's comments are merely a recycling of Bolen's, so "another reference" really means the "refering to exactly the same poor sources that others have pointed out previously over, and over, and over, and over etc.". Pure genius really. Shot info 07:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the page should be unblocked. The level of "edit war" is not that high and it is better to reprimand POV-pushing editors here instead. MaxPont 15:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the multi-edtitor editwar the day the article was unlocked is justification for it to remain locked a little while longer. I'd like Arthur Rubin to remove his edit protected request above as because it is so broad unaccepted it kind of stalls any future edit requests from being accepted. A better approach would be to propose things we can agree on. ॐ Metta Bubble 00:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm withdrawing request 5, as I think the lawsuits should be there. We seem to have agreement on #1 and #4, but, as an interested admin, I can't make the change. I'm willing to defer #2, but #3 needs a source. Quackwatch states that their "mission" is as you specify, but the word "claims" also implies that they "claim" success. I haven't found that on Quackwatch. (I also don't see that as belonging in the Barrett article, but that's another problem.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I can see you think the wrong version was protected Arthur. It's always the wrong version. I do not accept your edit 2 Arthur, there are several editors who concur. And I do not accept an editprotected request for multiple issues. And I do not accepted that just deleting the edits that offend you is a solution to the article's needs. Edit protected is not a revert tool. As a janitor, you should know better. Again, I ask you to remove the edit-protected tag you've put on this talk page as it's stalling serious discussion. You can't seriously believe an admin is going to act on it given the replies you've received. ॐ Metta Bubble 00:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

No, there were a number of Levine2112's edits that I quite agree with. I've withdrawn #5, and willing to defer or withdraw #2 if you think it will help, but we have agreement from the editor (Levine2112) that #1 and #4 should be reverted, and I still think the subtle wording change he made in #3 converted a correct (but stylistically questionable) statement into an incorrect (or at least unsourced) statement, so I'm not willing to give that up. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

With regards to #2, perhaps it would help to include second party sources with the litigation section such as:

• Justices hand victory to free speech online - Howard Mintz, San Jose Mercury News
• Calif. Supreme Court Shields Web Republishers - Jessie Seyfer, Law.com
• How Web providers dodged a big legal bullet - Eric J. Sinrod, CNET News.com
• High court justices sound cool toward Internet libel case - Bob Egelko, San Francisco Chronicle

While these, for instance, describe Barret v. Rosenthal, the BvR case stemmed out of and is related to many of Barrett's other lawsuits (e.g. Barrett v. Clark). -- Levine2112 00:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Anti-alternative "Quackbusters" Have Giant Court Losses on Two Continents Shouldn't this be removed from even this talk page since the article is written by a blocked editor and also advertises the sites that are not supposed to be here either? --CrohnieGal 18:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but maybe some want it kept here to document Levine2112's thinking about what sources are appropriate? --Ronz 18:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Call for criticism

Please discuss the criticism changes rather than saying "round and round". This isn't helpful and since this is a new discussion, it is entirely untrue. I have laid out the policy rather clearly; now let's discuss with civility. -- Levine2112 18:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I choose to respect WP:TALK, WP:CIVIL, WP:CON, WP:DR, and WP:DE by not repeating past discussions. --Ronz 18:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a new issue. Before we were discussing inserting Barrett's lack of Board Certification into his biography (Remember? This is where you said it was being used out of context.) Now we are including the full context (that this has been used as criticism) and we are placing it the criticism section under the apt "Qualifications..." section. If you have an issue with the new addition, let's discuss it here. -- Levine2112 18:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No it is not new, given that I suggested it months ago providing we had new sources to draw upon. --Ronz 18:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Mere suggestion doesn't mean that this is old news. This has never been discussed in full as a consideration for the criticism section. This is legitimate criticism which has been a subject in numerous articles, several court cases (of which Barrett was on the losing end), and a couple of research papers. Please provide a valid reason not to include this information. -- Levine2112 18:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, no. I already have addressed this. --Ronz 18:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not just about you, Ronz. Let's give others a chance (those with less of a WP:COI here than you) to address this issue. It's only fair. -- Levine2112 18:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone have a COI here? Report it immediately. Give specific names and supporting evidence. Otherwise remove what's a false and uncivil personal attack. Thanks. --Ronz 22:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ronz, you know perfectly well about these COIs from the Barrett vs Rosenthal ArbCom. I will not repeat that discussion as the "COI-editor" doesn't want his real name exposed. MaxPont 15:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

There were no findings of COI other than Ilena. There were accusations of COI. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

But there was a broader statement (a sotto voce cautionary note for many?) at BvR of Principle on COI with an interesting and suggestive example, especially for certain kinds of individual editors:

5) Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest, a guideline, warns: 1. avoid editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,... and then finally Bite: Can you explain 'why it’s a bad idea for a PR firm to be editing Misplaced Pages on behalf of a client?...passed 9-0

It might be said that ArbCom did not get into voting on the individual details of COI (vs POV) and rather opted for a more general note to all.--I'clast 12:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems Levine2112 is accusing me of having a COI, and MaxPont is trying to cover for the incivility. Am I missing something? --Ronz 02:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It's actually very instructive to see who cry "COI" then don't follow them up? Curiously it is the very same people who fail to follow other WP policies, not just COI. Now, why would that be... Shot info 22:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Arthur. You say "There were no 'findings' of COI other than Ilena.". This is plain wrong, and I'm not sure why you're misrepresenting this. The truth is there were multiple findings of fact at Arbcom including Fyslee being noted as a health activist and being cautioned about COI issues "to use reliable sources and to edit from a NPOV. He is reminded that editors with a known partisan point of view should be careful..." ॐ Metta Bubble 01:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense and inappropriate, especially given your recent behavior. Please stop with the personal attacks now. --Ronz 02:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Not nonsense, but a complex discussion between perceptions (and precise, possibly unsettled, Wikilegalese) about "conflict" vs open, pronounced POV, that unfortunately flared up here and needs to just generally stop adding heat and fuel. I think Fyslee has gone to the sidelines and I think Metta Bubble will too if we can just cool the snowballing from other editors.--I'clast 12:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Levine2112, you've not followed up with your COI accusations. Please strike out your accusations if you aren't going to file a WP:COIN report. These are serious accusations, as Ilena (and those that supported her disruptive editing) found out. --Ronz 02:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ronz, that you call quotes from Arbcom nonsense only reinforces Levine's point. And I'm completely willing to back this up on the WP:FNORD noticeboard, so chill. ॐ Metta Bubble 06:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty funny given that editors defending Ilena splashed the COI brush around liberally only to fail to back it up. Prehaps you would like to be the latest to do so?BTW Fyslee wasn't cautioned over COI, nor was COI a finding of fact. This is an atypical misrepretation of an editor is was shown on the same ArbCom to have a long line of continual misunderstandings, misreadings and misintpretations. Very "unclear"... Shot info 06:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Using your logic, even Ilena wasn't banned for COI 'cos there's no such word as coi. Obviously the relevant terms used at Arbcom are partisan health activist engaged in incivility and use of unreliable sources"... followed by "cautioned to use reliable sources and to edit from a NPOV. He is reminded that editors with a known partisan point of view should be careful..." ... hmmm? COI? It's not rocket science. Are you taking yourself seriously? ॐ Metta Bubble 08:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The nonsense I'm speaking of are your interpretations, especially in contrast to your behavior. Best stop kicking the dead horse. If you're interested in WP:COI, read through the WP:COIN archives. If you're going to make COI accusations, do so in a report there rather than harassing editors here with accusations you're not prepared to follow through. --Ronz 15:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Read the Arbcom report yourself. That Fyslee is a health activist was one of the findings. That he used unreliable sources (parts of Quackwatch and similar sites; the "finding" that Quackwatch is an unreliable source was rejected) and was uncivil were findings. That he violated WP:COI was not a finding. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ronz, that's rich coming from you! This topic's nonsense began with your all-too-typical use of WP:CIVIL as a weapon to harass and mangle discourse. ॐ Metta Bubble 00:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Arthur, that's exactly my point. You said Ilena was the only editor banned for COI. If you want to take a loose definition of COI like that, so Fyslee was cautioned for same. Again, it's not rocket science. You seem to want your cake and eat it too. That there's a ragtag team of imbeciles vapidly backing up this doublestandard only serves to prove there is likely a conflict of interest problem on this article. The fact is Fyslee was cautioned to stop editing from an uncivil and partisan viewpoint. Only an imbecile would deny this and I'm sure one will be along shortly to do so. ॐ Metta Bubble 23:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

(to Metta) Ilena wasn't banned for COI. Or else the ArbCom would have kindof used that phrase you know. Unfortunately for yourself, it seems you haven't read the details of the ArbCom, nor WP:COI for you to make your claims above. If anything, you need to stop taking yourself so seriously because your statements make you look stupid. Shot info 22:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

ABMS

The link to ABMS is misleading as they didn't exist when Barrett was "failing" his BC. Mind you this has been pointed out previously and I note that the editor in question has taken on himself to ignore this (again) to push his anti-Barrett POV. Shot info 22:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see ABMS site:

The official ABMS Member Boards and Associate Members are (year approved in parentheses):

• (Allergy and Immunology (1971)
• Anesthesiology (1941)
• Colon and Rectal Surgery (1949)
• Dermatology (1932)
• Emergency Medicine (1979)
• Family Medicine (1969)
• Internal Medicine (1936)
• Medical Genetics (1991)
• Neurological Surgery (1940)
• Nuclear Medicine (1971)
• Obstetrics and Gynecology (Incorporated 1930)
• Ophthalmology (Incorporated 1916)
• Orthopaedic Surgery (1935)
• Otolaryngology (Incorporated 1924)
• Pathology (1936)
• Pediatrics (1935)
• Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (1947)
• Plastic Surgery (1941)
• Preventive Medicine (1949)
• Psychiatry and Neurology (1935)
• Radiology (1935)
• Surgery (1937)
• Thoracic Surgery (1971)
• Urology (1935)

-- Levine2112 06:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

"From 1933 to 1970, the Advisory Board operated as a federation of individual specialty boards. In 1970, the membership voted to reorganize the Advisory Board as the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS), which was implemented that year". So in fact, Barrett didn't sit for anything to do with the ABMS, and the link is still misleading. Shot info 06:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It became the ABMS - same/same. This should be noted int he ABMS article. If not it is a shortcoming of that article, not ours. Regardless, Barrett never got Board Certified by ABMS. -- Levine2112 06:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Remember this little fact thing you keep harping about? Suggest you reread WP:OR to examine what you have done. And as for your second non sequitur, he hasn't been board certified by the UK, Canadian, Sri Lankan or Turkmanistan boards either. Shot info 06:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

He is an American doctor. Wonder what the "A" in ABMS stands for? -- Levine2112 07:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Pretty hard to be certified by something that didn't do the certifying. This is called SYN, remember? Shot info 07:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

What are you saying? I am unclear. -- Levine2112 16:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I do enjoy this tactic of yours, let the discussion go on, then say "I don't understand" - then wait for a repeat. Simply put, you have mislead everybody by only crying that you want 6 or so words in the article. Instead what you want is some OR to imply that somehow an organisation that did not perform such activities was the organisation that Barrett failed. All repeated above, and you are correct, you are unclear. Shot info 02:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Barrett took the Board Certification for his specialty and failed. The organization which represented his specialty became part of the newly formed and unified ABMS. Those who had been Board Certified by these parent boards were grandfathered in as ABMS. Regardless of whether Barrett took the test again after ABMS represented his would-be specialty (which he opted not to do during the next 20 years of holding an active license), Barrett was never Board Certified by ABMS; hence the Wikilink. -- Levine2112 08:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

So, yes, Barrett did not fail any certification associated with ABMS, except by you performing OR. Thank you for clearing that one up. Shot info 22:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Board Certification

Did I miss something? I just reread the article and the information removed by the first editor that protected the page is now back in. But this I find more disturbing is that the board certification is in the article, against the consensus, that is unless I missed something. Please read the article again to see what I am talking about. --CrohnieGal 00:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

See WP:WRONG. (And see, and possibly comment to, my {{editprotected}} request above.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that, Arthur Rubin. I hope other too will enjoy its tounge-in-cheek nature. It's always the "wrong version" when it's not your version, eh? Anyhow, now would be an excellent time to begin civil discussions long-sinced abandoned. Above, I comment on two things: 1) The policies which support the inclusion of the criticism related to Barrett's lack of Board Certification and 2) The policies which support the inclusion of Barrett's litigation history. Mostly, my policy explanations/interpretations were met with hostility and a stubborn unwillingness to discuss on a policy-level. Now perhaps we will be all more willing to have a civil discussion. I'd appreciate that. -- Levine2112 01:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The many levels of irony preceed you... Shot info 01:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Last time the article was protected it was also on the WP:WRONG version. Go figure. ॐ Metta Bubble 02:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Funny how that works. :-) So shall we discuss now? -- Levine2112 04:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Do I understand correctly that you, Levine2112 decided on your own, against consensus and the first editor who removed a bunch text prior to the protecting the page, to put all of it in anyways? I think it is now time to take the to WP:BLP. The new edits seem to me at least to be against policies and against BLP rules. Also the comments about COI without any proof or back up with difs, shouldn't they be immediately removed per WP:BLP? Sorry but I think I will leave for awhile. I learn policies and then this happens which doesn't seem right. I hope everyone will act with cooler heads and better common sense then what is being seen lately. --CrohnieGal 14:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I was being bold. I was hoping that if I made all of the edits which I would like to see implemented, then at least we could reference a version which demonstrates this. It was dumb-luck that this version got edit protected, but let's use this time to discuss my changes in terms of policy. Follow Arthur Rubin's lead here, and let's discuss everything issue by issue, calmly and politely. Sound good? -- Levine2112 16:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I am adding a new reference noting the board certification issue for WP:RS, V. This source is independent of the chiropractors, with editors and editorial board (free sample version is Jan 2007) of mostly PhD and MDs with a number of medical school faculty including U Maryland and Harvard:

B. Horrigan, Quackbuster Loses in Court, EXPLORE: J of Science and Healing, Volume 2, Issue 1, Page 11 (January 2006) ...Barrett conceded that he was not a medical board certified psychiatrist because he had failed the certification examination. This was a major revelation since Barrett had provided “expert testimony” as a psychiatrist in numerous court cases....

I think this concludes the WP:RS and WP:V issue for board certification.--I'clast 21:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a larger quote with more context, given what you've provided sounds exactly like the sources that we've already excluded. --Ronz 22:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I cant find that article listed in the table of contents. For that page, I read "Do Addiction and Chemical Intolerance Share the Same Etiology?", Horrigan B, pages 9-13. --Ronz 22:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read the article, but it does appear that the "Chemical Intolerance" piece does discuss Barrett's lack of Board Certification. Click here to see a relevant Google search which demonstrates this. It certainly looks like third-party source which we can all agree to accepting. -- Levine2112 23:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

And round and round we go. We need context. We need to decide BLP and WEIGHT. Looks like it's a small sidebar based upon a Negrete press release, exactly like all the other unacceptable sources that we have to date. If so, then there is nothing new here. --Ronz 23:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

(As an aside, this EXPLORE: J of Science and Healing is a hilariously bad journal of quackery. The Jan'07 issue has a paper by Gary Schwartz. The currently available May'07 issue is a special about the now-defunct PEAR Lab.) --Ronz 23:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Your mere postulation that this is a sidebar, if correct, may just provide the context and weight you have been looking for. Again, we can only theorize until we learn more about the article, but perhaps it is discrediting Barrett's opinions on this topic by explaining that - for one - he isn't Board Certified. I don't know. Just a guess. If that were the case, then once again we have a source using this information as criticism. Please don't immediately inject your bias, and let's rather wait and see what more we learn about this article. -- Levine2112 23:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry that you don't like my noticing that from what we have so far, this is no different from any previous source that we've discounted. --Ronz 00:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

If it's a sidebar, it's probably quoted from the infamous press release without review, and has no additional weight. If it's in the text, and not written by a person attacked by Barrett or whose profession is attacked by Barrett, and the journal is reputable (see above for an editor questioning that last), then it is probably allowable. But we need a larger quote to determine context. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Arthur Rubin here for the most part. However, just because someone's profession has been attacked by Barrett, doesn't explude them from ever being a reliable source of information. And actually, in response to Ronz, this is much different from the previous sources which you have discounted for some reason or antoher. Here, EXPLORE is a peer-reviewed scientific journal with an impressive board of editors and panelists. More than any source before, this one seems the most third-party of them all (though the Fintan Dunne, the chiropractic sources, the research papers and several others are third-party sources in terms of their relationship - or lack thereof - to the lawsuit being described where Barrett admitted in the stand that he wasn't Board Certified). -- Levine2112 00:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) Rather than making uncivil comments, why not investigate if the source would be considered reliable while we wait for more context? I find the articles laughable, and of course, it's a journal about quack pseudoscience. Still, Misplaced Pages:Verifiability/Noticeboard could be helpful. --Ronz 00:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check that out. What uncivil comments?! :-( -- Levine2112 00:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"which you have discounted for some reason or antoher" --Ronz 00:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

That's uncivil? Have you not discounted every other source I have presented? I was only responding to what you said, ". . .this is no different from any previous source that we've discounted." If you really think this is uncivil, I sincerely apologize and will gladly strikeout. -- Levine2112 08:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Please strikeout. If you'd like further explanation, we can discuss on one of our talk pages. --Ronz 15:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Its just like the SSE

Elsevier's new 'scientific' journal

"EXPLORE: The Journal of Science & Healing

"It is an interdisciplinary journal that explores the healing arts, consciousness, spirituality, eco-environmental issues, and basic science as all these fields relate to health."

Acupuncture/Acupressure • Ayurveda • Biofeedback • Botanical or Herbal Medicine • Chiropractic • Consciousness • Creative Therapies • Diet/Nutrition/Nutritional Supplements • Environmental Medicine • Holistic Medicine/Nursing • Homeopathy • Indigenous Medical Practices • Manual Therapies • Mind-Body Therapies • Naturopathy • Osteopathic Medicine • Qigong/Tai Chi • Touch Therapies • Spiritual/Transpersonal Healing/Prayer • Tibetan Medicine • Traditional Chinese Medicine • Yoga

But how much science?" ]

answer, not much (where not much equates the the amount of a substance useful in homeopathy). So here we have another quackology source masquerading as "science" and parrotting yet another Bolenism. I'clast should save his pennies and purchase a few journals that have this thing called credibility. Shot info 03:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This is yet another perfect example of an attack reference. This is against BLP. QuackGuru 03:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Just because the journal may not agree with everything that Barrett says, doesn't make it an attack reference. Unless you have good proof that a purpose of EXPLORE is to attack Barrett, then we must accept Explore for what it is, a scientific journal published by Elsevier (incidently the world's largest publisher of medical and scientific literature) and - in terms of Misplaced Pages - a reliable source. -- Levine2112 08:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there anyway to see this article without having to sign up to the site? I see sign in and also a section for how much it would cost to have an article. I can't see anything here and I don't sign up to sites I know nothing about, sorry. --CrohnieGal 12:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's a problem. I'm certainly not paying $30 for what looks to be just a section of summarized press releases. --Ronz 15:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, unless someone who actually reads the article can assert that it isn't a sidebar and isn't a recycled press release, it's not reliable. Considering the number of times the recycled press release has appeared in peer-reviewed (or at least, they claim to be peer-reviewed) journals and in news reporting services, I think we need someone to assert that they read the quote and it really is in the article, not in a sidebar, and not within a quote from Negrete.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 21:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC).

In the page image (p. 11), the news article is in leftmost columns 1 and 2 (of 3 for the page), slightly longer than one page-column total, and about half way through. The text of the paragraph is not a quote, much less a quote attributed to Negrete. Negrete is not even mentioned until the last paragraph.--I'clast 06:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

So at the moment, it's not an RS per WP:RS. Shot info 22:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

That conclusion would be ORiginal SYN or just whole cloth ;-D ?--I'clast 06:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

More like a shroud :-) Shot info 06:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Alternative health

I guess we better discuss what is the right version. For starters, I'd like the quotes around "alternative" removed unless we're going to include a specific quote. Can we agree on this much at least and get an editprotected? ॐ Metta Bubble 02:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I see at least two places where "alternative" or "alternative medicine" is quoted. I agree that they seem extraneous and ought to be removed. -- Levine2112 04:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur, but correcting errors or following WP policy (as in my 5 suggested edits above) seems a higher priority than style problems. Remember, though, I seem to be closer to neutral than most. You really need Fyslee or QuackGuru to concur to indicate a start at consensus. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Please let's stay on-topic. There's other talk sections for other issues. The highest priority is forward progress, so minor requests are also useful...

The request is: Per WP:MOS and Quotation_mark#Emphasis_.28incorrect.29, please remove the quotation marks put around the phrase "alternative" medicine (in several places in the article). It is not actually a quote.

Can we go ahead? ॐ Metta Bubble 01:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. -- Levine2112 01:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

As above, "alternative medicine." and "alternative" health practitioners don't need quotation marks. Please change. Requesting after no objection to this request for 7 days. ॐ Metta Bubble 00:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I made the change. I agree with Arthur Rubin that a more important goal than style issues is to find consensus on the tone and content of the article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

edit request

{{editprotected}} Hi there. I invoke the policy (guideline) that the wrong version was protected. The board certification thing was added against BLP and against consensus. Also the court litigation was agreed upon to remove by consensus. See alarm bells. Please revert back to before the large amounts POV, BLP violations, and against consensus edits were made.Click here. This will lead you to the right version to protect. Thank you very much. _-Mr. G-_ 03:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'clast suggested above:

I think this is a good idea, and it would help focus the discussions by having a separate page which we can edit and refer to. --Ronz 18:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• B-Class biography articles
• Old requests for Biography peer review
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Articles with connected contributors