Misplaced Pages

Levine2112, I support your urge to solve the problem in a constructive way and I think that most editors agree here. However, IMO there is little point in debating with Quackguru, whose disruptive behavior already has led to a formal rfc ]. Quackgurus refusal to accept an invitaion to a formal Mediation about this issue is IMO pure obstruction. I think that the best way is to ignore Quackguru and try to reach a consensus with the other editors. (One obstructive editor does not have the right to veto a consensus building process.) MaxPont 18:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop with these blatant personal attacks against editors. Thanks. --Ronz 19:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope this discussion stays on track. The point of disagreement is whether the source should be considered third-party, or not. I don't think it's fair to say that since Barrett has criticized chiro generally therefore all chiro sources are unreliable (this is my understanding of QuackGuru's argument). It's far too broad for my liking. Using that logic, you could exclude anything about anyone in any bio. What if someone criticizes newspapers? Does that mean we can't cite any newspaper for their article? Of course not. What if someone criticizes mainstream medicine? Does that mean we can't cite mainstream medical journals? Of course not. ॐ Metta Bubble 00:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to put that point together myself, but I couldn't seem to get it across as succinctly. Needless to say, I totally agree with you here, Metta Bubble. -- Levine2112 00:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a lot of Anti-Barrett COI accusations, does it not? Shot info 00:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Drivel. There isn't even a hint of COI accusation in what Metta Bubble wrote here. Please reread. -- Levine2112 08:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I have problems with you not recognising your own SYN efforts, your comments are drivel in themselves. Shot info 22:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Such a summary is not remotely SYN. ABPN can be worked in howsomeever, an article which already clearly shows the linkage between ABPN and ABMS as Levine discussed about ABPN and ABMS before.--I'clast 06:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Such a summary is SYN and exactly SYN, the link to ABMS is misleading as they didn't exist (or rather they did exist, but they did perform the "certification" per se) when Barrett was "failing" his BC. Feel free to use the real information, not a synthesis of existing information to push a POV. Shot info 06:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Colleges in biographies, merged or changed names, are often referred to by the successor organization. Although the test has surely changed (as has say, the SAT & name), pls feel free to enlighten us how the results (certification) of ABPN testing administered today by the ABMS is so notably different to the previous result (certificationn) directly by ABPN to the WP readers and how that is pushing POV by Levine. Perhaps you can help improve any text involved.--I'clast 08:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

So, you agree that if the SYN supports your POV to violate BLP, then it's all ok? Anti-Barrett much? "There is clearly no consensus to include the board certification, the statement has clearly been used to advance an agenda in the past, it has been stated that "back in the day" it was not unusual for people not to be board certified, and it very obviously did not hamper Barrett's career. Misplaced Pages is not here to help Negrete or Barrett, but we do have a policy on biographies which says that controversial content comes out until there is consensus for inclusion and wording." Shot info 09:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not even sure which area you are alleging SYN now, still on the relatively trivial organizational and name changes om ABPN and ABMS? I continue to show expanded 3rd party coverage of the BC statement. Also a QW site publishes and references the BC part without refutation. So why not WP?

I will respectfully analyze JzG's stmt, which I take as an independent, good faith, conventional view that may not yet be as current on some details here at WP SB-QW (he is usually attending other articles) and in the recent (2002+) journals (where Dr Barrett's science positions can sometimes be clearly seen to be at least obsolete, and by some scientists' analyses, more problematic).

statement has clearly been used to advance an agenda in the past An unfortunate association with the QP-Bolen mailings, but not germane to neurologically related areas of SB-QW commentary that also happens to be at least obsolete as well as the general need to well describe qualifications of such a prominent popular (but not especially scientifically notable or consistent) author on health-medical-personnel and nominally science topics. This article still seriously fails to describe his educational and professional achievements objectively and completely, or comparably to other WP articles.

"back in the day..." True, for the start of Dr Barrett's career, a level of recognition of expertise attempted but unattained. But by the 1980's, well within his career, with the rise of HMOs, other organizations and new standards, it was the new standard of expectation (at least for new medical graduates).

did not hamper Barrett's career... Not his QW career, most of us (readers of 1970s-80s popular press and group think promotions) didn't even know about it, we just read the expert psychiatric witness part which carries some suggestion of BC (although not absolutely necessary). For his psychiatric career, that would appear to be OR where details of his actual psychiatric career are relatively shrouded and subject to adversarial speculation.--I'clast 10:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

"When in doubt, leave it out."

There is clearly no consensus to include the board certification, the statement has clearly been used to advance an agenda in the past, it has been stated that "back in the day" it was not unusual for people not to be board certified, and it very obviously did not hamper Barrett's career. Misplaced Pages is not here to help Negrete or Barrett, but we do have a policy on biographies which says that controversial content comes out until there is consensus for inclusion and wording. Guy (Help!) 11:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. QuackGuru 00:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I plan to work on the doubt part.--I'clast 11:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

As is your right. Please just refrain from the ad nauseum that has littered this page for months now. --Ronz 02:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

the board certification issue is a BLP violation

There is no third-party references and there is no consensus after multiple long debates. Time to stop. Agreed? QuackGuru 17:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

"no third party reference" is your repetitious, unsupported partisan assertion, especially since the last reference met all prior objective specifications from several months discussion, including Arthur's conditions. It is sad that old opinions based on seriously incomplete information are able to insist, persist and continue disinforming readers so long at Misplaced Pages, especially after what appears to be a complete frustration, if not abuse, of the consensus process by a persistant minority of strongly pro-QW partisan editors. As for reasonable agreement, much less collaboration, with an MPOV troll, that appears to likely be an impossiblity.--I'clast 20:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the new source hasn't panned out as being anything other than what we've had before, a press release from Negrete. Also, please stop with the personal attacks. --Ronz 21:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, for a couple of days, you can read the Explore article here. (I don't know why I waste time on this stuff.) Looks like it's a basic duplicate of the Negrete press release. Make of that what you will. The journal is generally adequate as a V RS, but I'm not sure if reproducing a press release makes the grade for BLP or not. No strong feelings about the matter. However, if there is no consensus to add, it's time to MOVE ON. Since there is a BLP concern, it may be against WP policy to keep the stuff even on the talk page. Raising the question again and again, just to keep repeating the phrase "SB is not BC" and getting it into the search engines etc, could reasonably be seen as bad-faithish behavior. 'Nuff said. thx, Jim Butler 21:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC) (link removed - Jim Butler 03:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC))

Thanks. This confirms my earlier comments. Can we assume that QuackGuru, Arthur Rubin, and Shot info all stand by their earlier statements against using this source? --Ronz 21:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not suprised. More detractor references. We have zero third-party refs and this has gone on way too long. It was given a try. This should be over not tomorrow but today. Enough is enough. Agreed? QuackGuru 00:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Today's improved "BC" reference source: from Forbes.com Notice that Misplaced Pages defines RS 2nd sources as sources with an editorial policy and a responsibility for fact checking. If such a source prints something THEY stand behind their article. It is beside the point that they got the input from a press release. There are estimates that large fractions of the articles in mainstream media are thinly disguised rewrites of press releases from big government and big corporations. Again the "BC" starts out with a supermajority, and although editors that see the merit of BC have been confronted with repeatedly changed interpretations and arguments on V RS policies, I am confident that we are going to work it out, both on the logic of references & sources and that the references & sources are improving on still recent news. There is a more fundamental discussion about excluding material that concerns the Koren trial, but that will await another morning.--I'clast 11:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

There is an extensive criticism of mainstream media building on the fact that up to 40 percent of mainstream newspaper articles are little more than thinly disguised rewrites of press releases or similar “media packs” from the large PR agencies. To use a press release as the foundation of an article is a common practice. We can like it or not, but by including it as editorial text the publisher takes responsibility for the claims and facts in the article. The newspaper stands behind the text, see WP:ATT. Misplaced Pages editors are not in the position to cherry-pick what articles we like or not. We have to accept that two secondary RS (Dynamic Chiropractic and Explorer) now have published the news item and stand behind it. MaxPont 12:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

So some editors no longer care that the these are Negrete's press releases? --Ronz 14:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS, V articles contain or reference the wrtten statements of a prevailing attorney at trial, more recently sustained upon appeal, substantially repeated again in writing, and as far as I can see, without even legal challenge from Dr Barrett. Negrete is an experienced licensed lawyer, not just some wannabe, involved in winning several court cases involving Dr Barrett. Reliable sources have used the prevailing attorney and his written quotes to varying degrees as primary sources.--I'clast 17:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

And that this information has been published by major magazines and scienitific journals adds much to the argument that the lack of Board Certification should be included. We are not just dealing with a press release from a "partisan" source anymore. This is EXPLORE. This is Forbes. Including Barrett's lack of Board Certification (either in his biography or with full context in the criticism section) is hardly arguable anymore. Every point of BLP is satisified now; furthermore, Barrett has come to Misplaced Pages and told us that this information is not private. It has been public for 30+ years. -- Levine2112 22:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

If any editor wants to include the board revisionism certification, they can go directly talk to the administrator who removed it. Agreed?  QuackGuru  talk 00:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Really not necessary, but it is a good suggestion. I think now with the Explore and the Forbes articles covering this issue, even more editors are going to be pro-inclusion of Barrett's lack of Board Cerification. -- Levine2112 00:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

First, there clearly is no consensus. Second, consensus cannot overide BLP policy. Board certification revisionism is a BLP violation. Moreover, threre are exactly zero third-party refs. Third, the 3RR does not apply to BLP violations of any kind. Do we all agree with Misplaced Pages policy?  QuackGuru  talk 00:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Forbes and Explore are both third-party sources. That takes care of all of the BLP violations which you believe exist. -- Levine2112 00:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

They are not third-party refs. According to Guy the board cerification is revisionism. We can't ignore BLP policy. Agreed?  QuackGuru  talk 00:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The situation is unchanged. We still have no third-party refs, only Negrete's press releases in various forms. --Ronz 02:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

How can you say that Forbes and Explore aren't third-party refs? This makes very little sense. These are each credible publications which both mention that Barrett is not Board Certified. There is no controversy surrounding that he isn't Board Certified. We all agree that he isn't. All of these other sources are just showing how notable of a fact this is. So now we have a scientific journal, three trade publications, a major magazine, several web-based publications, two research papers, two legal documents, and Barrett himself at Misplaced Pages all confirming that Stephen Barrett is not Board Certified. How much notability to you require to satisfy WP:WEIGHT? -- Levine2112

This has been explained before they are not reliable as third-party. Notablility may be irrelevant because it is revisionism. If there are any third-party refs in the future, you still can't include it in the article because it is revisionism. Most people were not certified and it was irrelevant. Thus, it is misleading and not a criticism. It is soley used to advance an agenda. Revisionism is against a little thing known as BLP. Agreed?  QuackGuru  talk 15:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

QG & revisionism rebuttal

In your opinion, multiple publications publishing a recently surfaced fact are unreliable, including mainstream publications and Dr Barrett's site. hmmmm.

Notability may be irrelevant because it is revisionism Wow, not even Russia was that confused about "revisionism" in the 90s (you could see their thunderstruck faces when a commonplace fact or practice in the US was stated, they were doing things 50+ years behind, and sometimes *quite* glad to revise). A statement of an until recently, little known *fact* is revisionism of a successful public self promotion that included convenient omission? Many readers *do* want such a "revised" edition of WP - I would have 30 years ago, exactly as I have read Dr Barrett's comments & biographies.

Yes, 99.99%+ of people were not ABPN certified in the 1960's and little doubt those that *were* ABPN certified thought their certification was quite relevant. This biography is promotional partly because it repeatedly asserts "top" expertise examples in a seriously unbalanced manner when there are other important 3rd party determinations of expertise missing. Like missing the 1/3 or so that did get certified in the area of greatest academic preparation for a medical profession, for an individual that broadly proclaims his sweeping judgment on medicine and science, even outside his field of specialization, that affects millions' health. Quite relevant.

Also the academic legal preparation is unmentioned. The continued factual lapses are seriously erroneous by omission.--I'clast 20:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Revisionism is a BLP violation and a synthesized critcism. Its time for all us us to discontinue talking about this rewrite of history (misleading criticism). Board certified has nothing to do with anything but to advance an agenda. Misplaced Pages is not the place for this.  QuackGuru  talk 01:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually YOU are pushing "revisionism", where the *current* 21st century fact set simply does not fit your POV, to present a "barbie doll" idealized figure in a caricature of nature's form. (Ab)Using an external personality's agenda as an excuse to protect the (vocal minority) "home team's" agenda against a supermajority is a better statement of the situation. Nowhere have I encountered factual resistance as here at fairytale land where two common type biographical facts, pertinent to professional background have been absent past mentioning.

Reviewing WP:BLP line by line, I have to strenuously disagree that "BC" is a BLP violation. Perhaps there is a maximally favorable or NPOV version best for you, such as Crohnie's Biography version, or the most complete context as the Criticism version, I could abide by either.--I'clast 05:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The best version for me is when in doubt leave it out. The criticism revisionism is against Misplaced Pages's BLP.  QuackGuru  talk 21:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-productive repetition.--I'clast 05:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

litigation

The extra long details about the litigation also has no consensus for inclusion. Time to stop. Agreed? QuackGuru 17:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Chopping out the facts most relevant to readers' needs for people that are trying to access and assess *current*, correct information seems to be a favorite pastime here. A positive consensus to include the material was clearly formed last year, before the additional QW partisans, still a small minority in the recent strawpolls, rallied to the mothership to once again rewrite history less factually, an increasingly bad habit here. Also see my answer above.--I'clast 20:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we show that there is sufficient consensus to change the consensus?--I'clast 11:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, if secondary sources are need for the litigation section, here are some which we can add to start:

• 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

-- Levine2112 20:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree there should be a litigation section. It shall remain. However, the current size of the section is extremely long and is overpowering the article. Oh my. First, all or most of the primary refs are out. Second, it should not be a huge section. This article is about a person and not litigation. If we can't agree, what is the next step. Its called no consensus. Agreed? QuackGuru 00:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

We're all aware of the details of BLP and NPOV now, so this should be easy to at least identify the issues. Primary refs need to be backed by others to determine WEIGHT. We need to identify partisan sources and have non-partisan sources for issues that are controversial or otherwise might violate BLP. --Ronz 01:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that any of the sources above can be qualified as "partisan". Agreed? -- Levine2112 22:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

That is not the point. We are talking about the HUGE size of the section. As it stands, the section is way too long. Agreed?  QuackGuru  talk 23:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the section is too large. It basically covers all of the cases in a very succinct manner. We could package everything up into paragraph form, but I fear it may not be as clear of a resource as it is now. I am guessing that adding commentary from secondary sources wouldn't be ideal to you, as it would make the section longer. Perhaps then, we can just use them as refs to qualify the data with reliable secondary sources and thus satisfy any BLP concerns which you may have. Otherwise, we can use these sources to expand on the issues and get some qualified insight. That being said, the Barrett v. Rosenthal article is probably a more appropriate place to expand on these subjects (or at least the cases related to B v. R). So - and sorry, just thinking as I am typing here - we probably would be better served using these secondary sources as bolsters to the existing sources. -- Levine2112 00:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The section is way too large. This is obvious. Start a new article if you believe it is notable.  QuackGuru  talk 15:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

No valid reason has been given to have such a huge section. A basic covering of litigation is all that is necessary. A summary is best.  QuackGuru  talk 21:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Secondary sources have been added. There is no policy against a large section, especially when there is a lot to cover. What is there is pretty cut-and-dry; no interpretation, no analysis, just the facts. These cases are all notable; some determining important case law (as evidences by many of the sources provided). The Barrett v. Clark series (Sherell, Fonorow, Rosenthal, et cetera) all amount to determining some of the most important Internet rights issues of our time. -- Levine2112 03:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with QuackGuru. It's true that Barrett v. Clark is a notable case, but it's only notable for deciding a particular issue of law after Barrett's claims had expired. The other litigation doesn't seem particularly notable in any way. Third party sources often cite his litigiousness, but we don't need to have a subheading for every case. Probably we can cover each one in a couple of sentences. Cool Hand Luke 17:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

All of the litigation listed are related to the same case, in a sense. They all are libel cases stemming from the publication or republication of the same or similar material. That being said, perhaps all of the cases can be summarized into paragraph form rather than going case-by-case. We need to show how pervasive these suits were. (Each is wholly relevent, but the there is something to be said about the sum total of the combined cases) Aside for Mercola (a notable figure in his own right who seems to have opted for settlement), the other cases all resulted in a Barrett defeat - typically because the statements were found not be libelous and that Barrett could not prove actual malice. We need to mention how Barrett v. Clark eventually lead to Barrett v. Rosenthal, which is certainly a landmark case in terms of Internet law, and we need to briefly discuss Barrett v. Rosenthal's outcome (then point the reader to the main article for that case). -- Levine2112 19:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Subpage for trial edits: Talk:Stephen Barrett/Temp

As a means of going forward, I might suggest a separate subpage for trial edits (and perhaps different versions) on the litigation section since article space is locked.

Perhaps I am misreading the intention of this request, but I don't think that Barrett's pursuit of libel litigation is notable enough to garner its own page. I definitely think it needs to be part of Barrett's article as his libel litigation is in part responsibile for his notariaty. Above, I have listed four articles which discuss Barrett v. Rosenthal (and cases leading up to this landmark case including Barrett v. Clark). When the article becomes unlocked, my plan is to support much of the primary court records with these secondary (and third party) sources. If you would like to discuss how to implement these sources (as just backup sources, to give context, to give commentary, or in some other way), I am open to suggestions. -- Levine2112 22:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The idea, unless I'm misreading I'clast's comment, is to have a page separate from talk where we could work on the edits that we want to eventually go to the main page. It would be a workspace for us while the page is locked. --Ronz 02:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. -- Levine2112 04:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I've created Talk:Stephen Barrett/Temp for our use. It's a copy of the protected article minus the categories. I think I've followed WP:SUBPAGE pretty carefully, but wouldn't be surprised if I overlooked something. It has it's own history, but no talk. All discussion should be here. --Ronz 22:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

FAQ?

Given how often editor's are asking the same questions, and bringing up the same issues, would a FAQ be useful here? I'm not sure it would be, given most questions are about other editors opinions or previous discussions. Still, it's worth considering. --Ronz 19:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I am unclear what you are requesting here. Give us examples of questions which you believe are frequently asked and have set answers which we can all agree to. Where would this FAQ exist? On the article? On this talk page? Elsewhere?-- Levine2112 22:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The FAQ would be a page separate from this talk page, similar to an archive. I'm just throwing the idea out for consideration. I'm not sure I can think of good questions to use either. --Ronz 02:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Intelligent design (side bar to the right of the table of contents) for an example. Avb ÷ talk 14:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a request for help on this by my mentor. I'll get back to you when I know something. --CrohnieGal 00:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Names of children and spouse included, but failure to meet board standards is irrelevant?

Here is a retired medical doctor who has taken on a mission to denounce and discredit areas of medicine that in his judgment constitute "quackery," and there are editors who believe that his credentials, or lack thereof, are irrelevant to the article, but the names of his children are relevant? And this we are supposed to take seriously? --Leifern 00:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly having trouble taking these comments seriously. See previous discussions please. --Ronz 02:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Abstain. I'm neutral on including or excluding the children. However, if the relevancy cannot be demonstrated it can be removed.  QuackGuru  talk 02:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I move for removing their names. The information isn't relevant to the article, and considering the hatred (also quite evident right here) and threats aimed at Barrett, there is no justification for also exposing them to such things. -- Fyslee/talk 00:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Fyslee. Avb ÷ talk 14:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} I removed the names. Per WP:BLP, names of non-public individuals should only be included in articles if there is an extremely strong reason to do so, and I see none here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree per Carl, AvB and Fyslee. --CrohnieGal 15:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikilink NCCAM

The NCCAM needs to be wikilinked to U.S. National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. -- Fyslee/talk 00:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Stemonitis 15:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Biography, completed prof'l background

Barrett is a 1957 graduate of the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, completed his psychiatry residency in 1961 but is not board certified. In 1968, he had completed 1/₂ years of a correspondence course in American Law and Procedure at LaSalle University Extension Division, Chicago. He was a licensed physician until retiring from active practice in 1993,...

It is literal, factual and NPOV minimalist, covering material of intrinsic encyclopedic relevance to give a more minimally complete précis on professional backround.--I'clast 12:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Zero sources for BC thing, no consensus, no go.
2. See also this counter-proposal. Avb ÷ talk 14:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

1. "zero sources" sounds seriously POV now, such a logic seems should silence some articles derived from presidential press secretaries, too. Simply the bare facts should be presented NPOV.
2. re counterproposal. A little fluffy with disparate level facts and excess detail. Parts of the med school clerk & internship years are often scattered, "completed" there is like an encyclopedia saying: "GWB, a graduate of Sam Houston Elementary School, completed 3rd grade in Mrs. Childress' class. GWB later completed high school at Andover."
3. re licensing. Personally I think that the current article's sentence is lengthy, the first use of license is redundant, but the second use of license encyclopedically resolves a public issue that has been raised. Otherwise I am relatively indifferent to it and think that it is favorable to Dr Barrett.

Reworking your "counter proposal" accordingly:

Barrett is a 1957 graduate of the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons in 1958. He completed his psychiatry residency at Temple University Hospital in 1961 but was never board certified. In 1967 and 1968 he followed a correspondence course in American Law and Procedure at La Salle Extension University.

Barret worked as a psychiatrist, consultant and medical director in military, legal and hospital settings from 1961 to 1991. He had a private practice from 1963 until retiring in 1993. and his medical license is currently listed as "Active-Retired" in good standing. A longtime resident of Allentown, Pennsylvania, Barrett now resides in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

--I'clast 20:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying hard to find links to try to end this dispute. Really I don't care but I came across these sites, , and . So what I am saying is the above links should be taken into account with this on going dispute. Thanks, --CrohnieGal 21:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I do work hard on policy based resolution as you reference, i.e. Misplaced Pages:Polling is not a substitute for discussion ...We include text in articles based on such policies as verifiability and encyclopedicity, not based on whether the text is popular among voters. I am directly addressing and identifying claimed issues in verifiability and encyclopedicity. I also periodically mention the supermajority, as both a reminder of perceived need for factual text and because I have the unmistakeable feeling that some in the very active minority here seek to foreclose discussion when their arguments are weak and (f)lag.--I'clast 05:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'clast, that's not really an improvement I'm afraid. But even if it were, you haven't indicated how you're going to persuade opponents to allow the sources (Barrett in response to an attack from a Misplaced Pages editor) and (a chiro source). Zero sources about covers it. Nothing new here, just a waste of time. Avb ÷ talk 21:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

re ..allow sources First, we are going to grind the situation analysis to the fine points because I maintain there are some disconnects on facts & policy interpretations being used at critical junctures that need definition to come into focus for 3rd parties. including the discussion by Dr Barrett, here, has nothing to do with why he stated "not BC", and your mentioned "attack" seemed to deal with the trial's question of funding sources and the possiblity of implied COI, 1964 vs later BC frequencies, exchanges mostly with MD1954 rather than some kind of non-permissible "dr evel" statement. Dr Barretts statements are still admissible.

regarding ... (a chiro source) My mistake AvB, when I scooped the text out of the archive in edit mode between two AvB signatures, I got Levine's nearly identical version with BC and those two refs and popped into the WP current editor, thinking you had dumped only the licensing part in that proposal, not both pieces as stated later. If you were willing to keep the chiro reference then (ok, you weren't), I wasn't going to argue now. The chiro reference (sh)could be replaced with either EXPLORE and/or forbes.com as non-chiro pubs coverage of Koren.--I'clast 05:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Zero sources? Thats irrelevant. Board cerification revisionism is a BLP violation regardless of whatever sources presented. And thats the end of that. Waste of time? Agreed.  QuackGuru  talk 21:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Empty cant.--I'clast 05:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

In view of the responses during the preceding 3.5 months, it may be impossible to persuade opponents that we can cite Explore or Forbes.com in support of this content. Explore's scientific reputation has become tainted by uncritically printing Negrete's unscientific press release. The cited part of Forbes.com is just a press release relay. Also note that my already low opinion of associatedcontent.com hit rock bottom recently. Avb ÷ talk 08:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Look. Dr Barrett and Negrete are not likely friends (well, see Falwell & Flint) and might get a date to the US Supreme Court one of these days. That's why we have policies and standards on news coverage. Essentially you all (try to) impeach multiple RS news media over several years (here, 2005 & 2007) with only ad hominem attacks on Negrete because you have personal disagreements, much greater than Dr Barrett's mere demurrals on importance or relevance, on simple facts, because now your "mainstream" news sources are "obviously" biased, stupid, unwitting or whatever alleged (s)pawn-of-the-devil accomplices. Instead of endless denials of others' WP:RS sources, I would suggest that if you don't like the news, (1) you try to convince Dr Barrett to win with better cases so that he is more likely to have the quoted interview or statment in the news after winning at trial and the ultimate appeal. This is one reason why some (including academics) perceive WP to have some serious POV, bias problems.

I try hard to develop facts and encyclopedic text. I *do not* feel that the basic Biography sketch remotely qualifies as NPOV encyclopedic right now. It is POV POS promotion, deletionsim and denial, one on top another on 2 simple facts that meet the policies on fair minded review.

Or (2) that meanwhile, if you are going to try to impeach an article from a "mainstream" source, I suggest you find a few WP:V contradictions - even on hard science facts it has taken me 4 hard contradictions with the promise of 6 more if needed to impeach an article from a cheesy "mainstream" source where the conflict was obvious. Why should you all now get such a big discount with mere ad hom hand waving allegations on multiple tier WP:RS sources (Negrete in writing. in official capacity upon favorable court ruling, reporter, editor, board responsibility) only? That's not good enough. The "not board certified" has been sourced through QW's Chirobase, Forbes.com, Dr Barrett himself here, EXPLORE (non-DC) among others, covering the trial in 2005 and the recent appeal court ruling in 2007 (sustained). These are indications of a serious bias and POV problem in operation here contravening verifiability and encyclopedicity as standard of article writing.--I'clast 10:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

First you do realize that anyone can release a press release for print, right? Also the new links above I got to check out one so far this is a blogger site which to my understanding is not allowed. Also my understanding is that the press release being spread around also doesn’t mean inclusion according to the way I understand the policies of WP:BLP. Then add to the support that this should be allowed is because Dr. Barrett himself stated on Misplaced Pages that it was never hidden. I thought the using Misplaced Pages for a source for something like this is not acceptable. There are two editors here using a link written by Ilena Rosenthal, with her website attached, being used to support all of this BC stuff. My understanding of her situation is that she is blocked for a year and indefinitely blocked for anything she has COI in. I asked about this earlier and all I got was a response that maybe some would like it to stay. According to the rules a blocked editor should not be quoted nor have any impact to articles she is permanently blocked from. And finally I posted this link, Please take note of the date on the top. It says ten years and it is dated 2002 which if I am reading correctly the BC shouldn't be used because it is after the retirement.

It's time everyone to reread and rethink the notability, weight and verification and don't forget BLP rules. I think my links show why at least I do not believe this should be added to the article. --CrohnieGal 14:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyone non-notable can issue a press release - they can be and are frequently ignored by the various news. We apply BLP and other policies develop WP:V and WP:RS material. What bloggers comments are doesn't matter to WP, yea or nay, we can't control what they say and we don't need to listen to them. I am not clear who you are saying used that link where or before. Also I am not aware that her articles or news quotes are prohibited from quotation per se if she gets herself published in a suitable WP:RS source - given the problems and treatment that some experts have had at WP that might really shrink WP's source base. Do you have a link to such a statement or policy?

She was indefinitely blocked, which is not synonymous with a "permanent block". In the press of the RFAR near the end, she popped off about another conflicting editor's identity, possible association and possible COI in the wrong place and way, after stretching the admins patience. It was not her COI per se, of which she was most open - she had her own BLP treatment problems here, but rather her fiery conflicts, partisan views, and slow development with some WP rules (too accustomed to USENET) that got the one year and article edit prohibition. When she was provoked, she stayed provoked, and she was (easily) provoked immediately and constantly by editors that were her adversaries in other venues, something that several WP editors (and admins) tried to help stop unsuccessfully.

The "triple board" program has nothing to with Dr Barrett and a successfully acquired BC is something that now has to be maintained by applicable training, research or professionally related reading (back then BC tended to be more permanent), again all issues that have nothing to do with Dr Barrett or the BC qualification issue. The BC qualification issue is variously notable, including where an author asserts expertise (and strong opinions) on many related subjects (medical and psychiatric) that others, often more formally qualified , researched, or professionally distinguished in science and/or medicine, either greatly disagree or feel that implied (or asserted) expert opinion is lacking or the parties related standing is in conflict. This includes subject categories that were covered by the original BC exams. The BLP policy should be considered for tone and taste in writing about basic biographic (including BC) facts that are part of the author's life & career (also pertaining to a significant investment in time and money, for both training and practice) and pertinent to millions impacted by his numerous, forceful, controversial views. However, neither should BLP claims become a fig leaf or crutch for POV. The "press release" ceases to be a press release when it is sourced and altered for WP:RS publication, the lack of BC is verified multiple ways (author's direct quote, author's related site coverage, news coverage (especially notability) from multiple sources).--I'clast 18:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)

My opinion after reading Crohnie's post and I'clast's response: I'm not sure about the triple board article, but for the rest I do not see how I'clast's response even partially refutes Crohnie's points. A note about the item written by a blocked editor, linking to their attack site: I agree we might cite/link/quote it on a talk page (and possibly in an article) if it had been published in a RS, minus any attacks on WP editors or links to same, etc. If this editor ever gets published in a source we can use on anything but themselves, I'll be the first to admit I'clast had a point here after all. In the meantime, the link under discussion is clearly inappropriate as input for the consensus process on the talk page of Barrett's bio and completely useless as a source. It's one of the many things that (as argued by QuackGuru and Crohnie) should be removed from the talk page. Like the Chiropractic talk page, this page is regularly used to repeat attacks on Barrett by partisan editors. Avb ÷ talk 11:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought that I answered the underlying policy issues even if the answer is long winded. Pls reread it. Crohnie's points on IR are extraneous to the the material I am interested in for SB article space and I have no plan to use that link in the SB article as a reference.

I do not think that IR article is particularly unacceptable for the Talk page, rather news and a legitimate expression of a known pov that you are free to personally reject in whole or part. Again I have no idea *where* this link has been cited on talk (provide a dif please), to look at its context. I am very wary of the refactoring that goes on here on a basis that a cited page contains links are objectionable to some if the linked site is not WP blacklisted when the article contains legitimate related international news (whether the news is good or bad) that I was unfamiliar with.

It's time everyone to reread and rethink the notability, weight and verification and don't forget BLP rules. I have considered this at length and see no policy reason to not have brief, accurate rendition of Dr Barrett's professional background more or less as I am discussing. I think that categorizing discussion as attacks on Dr Barrett, unless the assertions are unsupported and defamatory, may be counterproductive. Let's try to get the professional background finished. Thanks--I'clast 12:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Re edit summary: IR link was proposed as a source, but is not even appropriate on talk page Re rereading: not necessary. Re rejecting a POV: I don't reject the POV expressed in that editor's associatedcontent.com post in whole or in part. Nor do I reject any POVs of Barrett's. I am here to document POVs, not to reject them. I am here to require the best of sources for a BLP. I am not editing any differently than I have done in scores of other articles. My arguments are no different than those of other experienced editors arriving here (JzG, Tony, JoshuaZ to name a few). I'm begging you, please give us some sources we can use. I do reject the incessant innuendo that ALL editors here have a POV that matches either the extreme of Barrett on one side and Bolen-Negrete-Rosenthal-unknown number of chiropractors-ear candlers-whatever on the other side. I'm begging you, please stop. That's all. Avb ÷ talk 13:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

PS Regarding any real news here (the Dutch court case I think): that's being covered by reliable sources in the Netherlands so it is available for use in Misplaced Pages. First impression: (1) The reliable sources (such as the Volkskrant newspaper) are either neutral or negative about the ruling. (2) Barrett isn't mentioned. Avb ÷ talk 13:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Doing a text search of Talk and the last archive for the "IR" link, I can't find an original reference about the IR link or related conversation so criticism of the IR link seems spontaneous, disparaging and distracting unless you (AvB or Crohnie) have a dif. This would also be an example of why deletionist refactoring is a problem.

"Personally reject" I mean simply disagree or ignore, not REJECT as in delete, this practice I disagree as going too far if the link is used in normal, good faith conversation (still no clue where and how the missing link was used).

I will state we are miles apart on the need for additional sources on BC and I have not seen such interpretation of requirements required before, formerly the mistaken notability argument. It is very pertinent, factual, newsworthy and multiply verified on normal biographical sketch information. I think the much pumped derivative RS position is largely argumentative ad hom with respect to coverage on Negrete - if he can't be beat on several tries in court or silenced in the news, his pertinent factual statements can be silenced here. This is effectively requiring an even higher level of notability (for whole WP articles?) and coverage on a minor news event for a pertinent, WP:V fact that may contradict a one-sided, monolithically Jovian Biography section on Dr Barrett.

The choice of words and phrases like "innuendo", "sources...begging you please stop" and "...chiropractors-ear candlers-whatever" in your reply don't build communication and trust. Although I agree there are not "two shoes", one size fits all for either "side", it simply seems to me the edits have often polarized to one degree or another with respect to QW and Dr Barrett even though we are much different as individuals, that all. No subscription needed.

I, like most Americans, am not literate in the Belgian or Dutch languages. As far as the IR article being grossly imbalanced or unfair, her translation/interpretation of the news seemed to reasonably parallel a "skeptic" site's view, near the end of the news (it's long, about 18:30 - 24 minutes in), where the American "skeptics" were espousing a questionable, if not unethical, scorched earth "legal" strategy - better to not pay the 30,000 Euro judgment (+ court costs) and disband a 125 year old group than to comply with the court's ruling (and fine). Perhaps you could identify better English language sources (elsewhere, not here) since you are multilingual and can verify for yourself the local coverage, which still likely will have different subject views than an international audience. However, I do view this whole "IR" link/delete business as an off topic distraction (no dif to a relevant discussion), unfavorable to my discussion of Dr Barrett's professional background, so I wish to discontinue any (distracting) IR related debates.--I'clast 21:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

diff.

If you need translations or summaries of Dutch sources (Dutch is the language of the Netherlands and the northern half of Belgium) as well as German (the language of Germany, most of Austria and parts of Switzerland) and French (the language of France and parts of Canada): feel free to ask me.

An acceptable source is all I ask. Avb ÷ talk 21:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the dif, AvB. The link's usage in Talk seems quite ordinary in nature.

re "acceptable source is all..." There is no real policy basis to require another source under WP:RS or BLP. Rather these continued source requests reflect a collection of shifting, individuals' personal preferences combined, arbitrary in their very nature, that maintain a glowing (one-sided), non-encyclopedic Biography section. First it was "WP:Notability", nope. Then RS for the DCA and/or WCA sources (fine at RS noticeboard), then RS for EXPLORE (an Elservier publication), and lately Forbes.com, on top of the author's QW site, Chirobase, and the author's allowable statements here, quite satisfying BLP, too.

Now another source? This has become just like a Charlie Brown gag. You (all) should show definitive policy or impeach the sources with hard policy (line quotes) and WP:V facts, not just ad hom allegations that dismiss the RS sources (publishers) and personal preferences for the articles content and personages interviewed or covered, to continue the errors by (com)omission of basic biographical facts on pertinent, professional background for a basic biographic sketch. This type of information is ordinary in other biographies.--I'clast 11:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

"Impeaching" the sources: That has already been done. I refer you to the previous discussion. Regardless, it is not the duty of the disputing editor to show why sources can't be used. It is the duty of the including editor to show that they can be used and meet all relevant policies, especially WP:BLP (see e.g. the ArbCom's policy explanation in the Badlydrawnjeff case. And that has not been done. Not by you, not by anyone else. "Unscientific press release" is not an ad hom by the way. And neither is "... chiropractors-ear candlers": I was arguing that it is not a good thing to label certain editors as sharing the POV of Bolen-Negrete-Rosenthal-unknown number of chiropractors-ear candlers-whatever: i.e. as defenders of everything Barrett opposes. Avb 23:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Previously the usual editors opposed to "not BC" wrote vigorously, but absent a real policy basis. I have tried to summarize this in the new section, "BLP & not impeaching a source, fine'," below. I think that using disparaging sounding terms, e.g. BNR chiro-ear candlers, to make a point is an error. I'm sorry if in the effort to adequately & briefly identify & describe the populations with adequate terminology on clear sides of an issue is difficult.--I'clast 12:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see the current discussion started here. The policy-based arguments to exclude the disputed text have never been refuted. That they failed to convince a number of editors whose collective editing pattern is quite recognizable was to be expected. No convincing policy-based arguments to include have been forthcoming. That they failed to convince another group of editors whose collective editing pattern is also quite recognizable was to be expected. I have seen a lot of arguments that tried to change WP:BLP into something it isn't, or even tried to undermine our bedrock policy, NPOV, arguing in favor of allowing sources that are simply not allowable. This discussion ended a long time ago without a consensus to include. Continuing it serves no purpose whatsoever other than to clutter up the talk page, drive away productive editors and stand in the way of progress editing this article. Avb 20:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Refuted. Jimbo's Langan intervention appears to be Jimbo saying building the whole ~290 word lawsuit section *entirely* from primary sources about a contentious subject was not acceptable. Ok, this seems to have nothing to with your "BLP policy citation" where as few as three words of fact ("not Bd Certified") have several secondary sources, are slapped with one major extension of Wikilawyering. Another Wikilawyer leap appears to be your (collective) OR that transforms several diverse publications back from secondary sources (at least one) into a single primary source (Negrete), however edited without *any* credit to the publications/publishers (Forbes, Elsevier, APNews etc). Your argument to suppress an augmentive fact, is already covered for inclusion in BLP even for primary sources (these *are* multiple publishers as at least one secondary source!), in an ordinary summary of professional qualifications. Jimbo's intervention is the then twisted and magnified to jump up several notches exclusion or blessings is just convenient POV pushing by a certain group of editors.

The "unacceptable sources" argument to deny multiple sources(EXPLORE magazine, forbes.com, DCA magazine, WCA magazine), *on top* of the primary subject's self sources, has become laboriously overlawyered, at least doubly (over)stretched policy - ridiculous and abusive. A simple fact, an encyclopedic fact, a neutral fact, a noted fact (several times), an subject agreed fact, a (site cited) self published fact, a POV balancing fact. That's plenty good enough.--I'clast 11:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a request for help on this by my mentor. I'll get back to you when I know something. --CrohnieGal 00:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I have requested help about this from another editor who has posted here as an outside uninvolved editor. But please clear up one thing for me, are you saying that the IR article is allowable along as she isn't the one posting it? As for your saying a line by line policy quotes should be done about this, well, I will wait until either my mentor or the administrator appears with their opinion. For the record, I don't care about Barrett and I am very neutral about all of this unlike you who has a big WP:POV by your own admissions. --CrohnieGal 13:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me answer your IR question in two parts. 1. Is *this* IR article from that source usable in the main SB article? No. It was simply part of a normal discussion between Levine and Arthur where the subject of IR had arisen and had an interesting point, that SB-IR was not the only public speech related case where QW style rhetoric or related lawsuits had received unfavorable legal results. 2. In principle, can an IR article be quoted or referenced at Misplaced Pages SB/QW? Oh, yes. If IR can get her material through the editorial processes at Time, Readers Digest (similar to Dr Barrett's original notability) or other recognizable publishers, the resultant material is much more likely to be briefly notable & acceptable here after normal WP policy reviews for WP:V, WP:RS, WP:BLP. I would predict most likely in the Criticism or legal sections. Ditto if a Time reporter quotes her. All subject to the normal editing processes here and Time.

Do I have a personal opinion? Like everyone, including you, yes, I do. I also have a pretty fierce and pragmatic SPOV that is fairly broadly informed with elements of penetration that have often been a surprise to recognized or supposed experts. You may think you "know" my point of view, you don't.--I'clast 19:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

First, you have made it very clear that you do not like Dr. Barrett. As for me, I am pretty neutral on this subject. I am in contact with my mentor now and hopefully I will have some answers or he will come here. I, of course had to update him on this article since this is not an article he edits or follows so I gave him some links to read. I think that the IR info should not be on the page according to what ARB said but her and articles that she is involved in plus article that are alternates, except ones about breast implants. To me it looks like you and Levine are posting on her behalf. I am sorry but that is what it looks like. I am trying real hard to WP:AGF but your comments are making this hard to follow. I will let you all know when I know something from the two editors I have written to. Please be patient with me, I am trying real hard to follow policies. --CrohnieGal 00:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Crohnie, that edit has some assumptions and aspersions. You may not be aware that your edits & history do not quite seem so neutral in a number of ways. You are the one who has raised the IR related link here, again. There is no proposal to use IR's link in the article and the "secondary boycott" to refactor a Talk page based on a contained link contained within a legitimate exchange seems partisan (and misdirected) to me. I do not post Ilena's links or philippics here, I never have (I first used that link on *this Talk page* to identify my request for a dif from you or AvB since you were fussing about Ilena's "presence" so much that the fuss has detracted from other discussions). I have collaborated with Ilena when she was here, as I have with Fyslee and other editors vigorously opposed to her. I have sometimes utilized Ilena's material and knowledge as a resource since she has significant background in USENET (ugh) but we are quite different. I probably have had much more technical agreement and commonality with some of her avowed opponents around here. When I was younger, I viewed Dr Barrett pretty favorably, I am still not comfortable addressing his name other than as Dr. Last year there were serious science, promotional POV and WP:V factual issues that needed to be addressed in Dr Barrett's bio, it has not been easy to adjust. If I sometimes sound aggravated around the SB / QW / NCAHF area, it probably has more to do with the general stress levels of the edit area, than Dr Barrett himself.

I never edited or spoke of Stephen Barrett publicly (internet, USENET, Misplaced Pages etc) until last year, here at Misplaced Pages only, and Ilena late last year (about October I think, I had not even known of her), here at Misplaced Pages only. Can you say the same?--I'clast 12:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

BLP & not impeaching a source, fine'

BLP is about privacy and protection of persons for harm. Dr Barrett is a public person, even saying, "I am the media," who has long sought the spotlight to forcefully project his views in medicine and science as some form of popular authority. He has severely criticized others' research (see Linus Pauling in the SB article), commercial offerings (see KingBio) and communications (see Koren and Barrett v Rosenthal) yet upon some legal challenges he has been decisively defeated at trial & appeal where his credentials have challenged for relevance (KingBio, Koren). It is only natural that an encyclopedia accurately reports on his professional credentials without the bias as currently written. Indeed it seems seriously irresponsible to do otherwise with WP:RS, WP:V facts that are not even close to BLP. He's not under age, he is a public person, a public commnetator by intent, he has been in the news repeatedly, he displays the most positive parts of his credentials liberally, he says he is not thin skinned, and he is known to liberally rebuke those whom he claims defame him, and yet here, himself he confirms this specific fact, "not BC". It is material relevant to their notability, as SB, MD.

Per AvB's mention, my sense of ArbCom & Badlydrawnjeff was that is was mostly about limits of inclusion for marginal biographies' AfD & DRV; privacy and minors; privacy and otherwise private people caught in the glare of a one-time public incident; grossly unjust or indecent harmful publicity; and Jeff's heavy handed approach to administrators - nothing that applies here.

If AvB means to object to a fact, like "not BC" more recently caught in the glare of testimony in court, I have to say that a small, known *fact* exploding into greater view, is a much different kind of creature than a newly news (dis)covered person. Dr Barrett himself has said that this previously known (but not as-well-advertised) fact had been known (some? primarily NACM?) DCs for many years. The "BLP club" is being greatly distorted to silence simple, encyclopedic facts inconvenient to some editors' POV.

My comments about ad hominem pertain to Negrete, the person, as the prevailing lawyer in the course of his duties, issuing careful, legal, public statements on the results of a successful case of some public note. Your "unscientific press release" is simply a trivial, irrelevant redundancy stated prejudicially. Most news (articles), including press releases, are "unscientific", rather observational, hopefully verified information to varying degrees, anecdotal in nature - this almost seems like an attack on WP:RS policy for non-technical newspaper and magazine stories. Are you going to seriously try and tell me that most news seriously attempts hypothesis generation & hypothesis testing much less almost any form of active or repeated controls, sampling, measurement, statistical treatment and error analysis? "unscientific press release" is just prejudicial terminology.

Therefore the "contra not BC" editors' BLP claims appear to be empty, multiply stretched & greatly exaggerated assertions without effect on "not BC" fact being included in the Biography or Criticism sections.--I'clast 12:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

<1st Post attempt removed by AvB per WP:BLP (diff).>

I'clast, the current discussion to which you were referred, started here. QV please. In the meantime I have removed your post; it contains blatant WP:BLP violations. Feel free to reinsert minus the violations. You are most welcome to your opinions (for all I know they may be true) but inserting them here as a statement of fact without any sources, and probably based on the (type of) unacceptable sources disputed here, is WP:POINT. Please stop. Avb 20:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I have read and answered why the Langan intervention a poor policy citation that I consider to be one of two grossly over reaching or twisted policy interpretations including OR. There is no excuse for continued factual denial in the biography.--I'clast 11:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

What you wrote in no way validates inclusion attempts or refutes policy-based arguments to exclude. The root problem is that about a dozen editors, generally quite experienced, accomplished and reputable, do not accept the sources brought forward so far. That means the info is unsourced: we can't link to those sources. It's a BLP issue, but even if WP:BLP would not exist, you still wouldn't be allowed to include it: any editor can remove such material straight away as original research. Just like most other editors, I'm now bowing out of the farce this BC discussion has turned into. Please note that silence, after all that's been said and done, does not imply a consensus to include. Avb 13:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

::::I too am leaving, as my talk page says, I am taking a Wkik break. If anyone wants to get a hold of me go to my page and you can email me. The last comments to me were enough to make me take a time out and rethink whether I want to be an editor on Misplaced Pages. I expected things to be different then the regular internet, but I am disappointed. So good bye. I too, agree with Avb in saying my not being here doesn't mean I support any consensus, even the suggestion I made about BC. --CrohnieGal 14:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go Crohnie. Pls say hi to <name removed> for everyone here. I'm sure we are all waiting to see you again.--I'clast 23:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I Googled the name above - apparently it belongs to one of IR's nemeses. I think I'clast needs to explain the reference. I'm not even sure it can stay here on the talk page. Avb 08:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

On second thought I'm removing the name to prevent it from being made searchable in search engines. Avb 09:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

So AvB, with the Langan objection mincemeat, sheer force of numbers, apparently in a base other than 10, and retreat are the reason and method of fact denial. The objection isn't OR, the objection itself is POV. My view of pedigrees is a little different also.--I'clast 14:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

OK folks. There is one more remaining area of the article to NPOV before we can all take a much needed wikivacation. Any thoughts.  QuackGuru  talk 01:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

To summarize my past comments: I'm concerned that we are giving undue weight to viewpoints that have little or no business being in an encyclopedia article. WP:RS, WP:NPOV (especially WP:WEIGHT), & WP:BLP - we're very familiar with these now. --Ronz 04:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like where we were about 4 months ago, when policy began being ignored and editors overwhelmed by an edit-flood... Or as it was put then, and later several times...round and around... Shot info 06:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Until we get it straight.--I'clast 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the following section should be removed, as per NPOV:

James A. Mertz, then-President of the American Chiropractic Association, wrote in a letter to Time in 2001: "The American public is being grossly misled by Dr. Stephen Barrett. While he positions himself as a protector of the public, his statements are, in reality, so one-sided that he simply cannot be taken seriously." In the original Time article, Deepak Chopra called Barrett a "self-appointed vigilante for the suppression of curiosity."

James Mertz POV could not be described as a NPOV, as he has a strong bias. I am sure that the same could be said about Deepak Chopra.

However, I do believe that his failure to be BC belongs in the criticism section - and is NPOV. DigitalC 20:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This is always the question: how to accurately present criticism in a NPOV manner. I have to agree that it looks like other editors may be favoring an NPOV Criticism version of "BC" since Biography has had so many disputes with rather esoteric interpretations and extensions of controverted rulings by mgmt, that it is time to refocus.--I'clast 23:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The BC is revisionism, a farce, and a BLP violation. Sorry, but, we appreciate it if everyone stops trying to bring back old no consensus discussions on this talk page. Lets focus on NPOVing the criticism section. Currently, its nonsensical and too bias. Agreed?  QuackGuru  talk 01:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No, not agreed. I don't agree that it is a BLP violation, and I do believe that it belongs in the criticism section, and is NPOV. DigitalC 01:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

An administrator removed it when the article was protected per BLP. After 100+ days, it has become clear there is no consensus. Though, we can agree to disagree. Agreed?  QuackGuru  talk 02:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Chopra is the most notable critic listed here thus far. Also, I think equating a critic with NPOV is difficult. If they are a critic, clearly they have an opinion. What is important is presenting the criticism from a neutral point of view, which we currently do. -- Levine2112 02:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Given the context of the Deepak Chopra quote, it's really nothing more than name-calling - certainly nothing that belongs in an encyclopedic article. Let's look carefully at WP:WEIGHT, WP:BLP, and WP:RS, rather than looking for critics whose names will be recognized. --Ronz 03:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Negrete's site as a source, court records as source

Regardless of the material this source is not acceptable. The site is an attack site and we don't link to it even to source the statement that the Earth is not flat. The court record linked to should be linked from elsewhere. Even so, it is a primary source without a secondary source. The other source does not cover the proceedings or the outcome. Hence, not acceptable even if Negrete's site was an acceptable reliable source. If you want to use it, post it on your non-attack blog or something and see if it is accepted. Levine, you are known for removing cites of blogs that host originally RS material. Why is this different? Avb 13:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Extreme undue weight

This article gives too much space to criticism, to the degree that it is overwhelmed by it, unlike in real life. The criticism comes from a tiny minority (even if this would include ALL chiropractors in the world). The praise comes from the academic world (with the exception of a few personal opinions). Or should we simply expand the space used to document all positive and neutral RS material on Barrett, in order to cover it as extensively and as detailed as the criticism and defamation stuff - just to get the article balanced again? Then again, that would bloat the article to truly unencyclopedic proportions. Thoughts? Avb 14:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hate to break the 70s-80s mind share (real estate) bubble, but the currency of that statement sounds like uncited OR, especially the academic part. You mean like small, related groups of academics like CSICOP, for whom Truzzi appears to have coined and defined the word, pseudoskepticism? (see also the scandal over the "Mars Effect") Over at the QW article, an independent professor cites the *rise* of alternative medicine as a factor in groups like QW's rise. Or perhaps we are talking about the criticism of extreme, small minorities like the CA Supreme Court 7(-0), out of tens of millions.--I'clast 17:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Mind share/OR/assorted straw men: Don't be silly. Once again, when looking at the balance of reliable sources and fringe sources/attack sites we can't publish, it is obvious that mainstream science, medical doctors, etc. overwhelmingly share Barrett's POV regarding much (if not all) of alt-med. Avb 23:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Mainstream science POV ceases to science when it is any POV, much less this individual's POV where the degree of intersection and confluence is a hot topic. Your (perhaps dated) OR on mainstream science "overwhelmingly share Barrett's POV" needs an explicit, current WP:V RS, because Dr Barrett *is* roundly criticized or contradictied in public publications (including some the most recent authoritative available) on a number of unrebutted science issues by real scientists and experts.--I'clast 10:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No, this is the status quo per reliable sources of which we have plenty. Perhaps outdated? Not on this wiki. Your overly enthusiastic OR on mainstream science, which I have called a crystal ball before, is what needs sourcing. And since you are the one who wants to include material, you are also the one to provide proper sourcing. Without sources, it's just editor opinion. I mean, no one is saying Quackwatch material is perfect. Mainstream science overwhelmingly shares Barrett's POV. But since you regularly insist I'm publishing OR on talk pages, I'll make it true for once in the hope that it will make you happy: even my rather young GP will recommend QW any day when faced with patients who want to stop taking statins per the recommendations of a certain osteopath on the Internet. Avb 15:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Summarizing previous my previous comments on this: If we can't meet WP:WEIGHT it should be removed. I think the criticism and lawsuits sections should each be reduced to a paragraph. The quote-mining is laughable and has to go. If editors here refuse to follow WP:TALK and WP:CON, then we need to work around them. --Ronz 17:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well said. Avb 23:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell being criticised and then litigating because of it is Barrett's most notable claim to fame. Hence I believe the sections are an appropriate size. Please work together or follow the standard dispute resolution processes. ॐ Metta Bubble 23:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Since when has he ever litigated for being criticized? Never! He gets criticized all the time and hardly even replies. He has only litigated when libeled, and the cases have been in response to ONE case of libel republished by many, and only a few got sued. An "osteopathic physician" (clearly identified in an earlier version of the same article) was wise enough to settle out of court for $50 grand. Barrett criticizes people's methods or ideas, but they attack his person, IOW he criticizes in the East, and they attack in the West, which is an unfair response. Ad hominem attacks are not the way to respond. -- Fyslee/talk 23:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

"being criticised and then litigating because of it is Barrett's most notable claim to fame" --> Which sources gave you that idea? "Please work together or follow the standard dispute resolution processes." --> I guess Ronz means to work around editors who refuse to follow WP:TALK and WP:CON per standard disruption resolution processes. I know I will. Avb 23:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you both should re-read my comment. Sorry but you appear to have the meaning backwards. ॐ Metta Bubble 09:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"being criticised and then litigating because of it is Barrett's most notable claim to fame" --> Which sources gave you that idea? Avb 15:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

remove self-congratulatory stmt *again*

I am removing QG's (re...)-re-insertion of the self-serving, self congratulatory quote again. The statement is a WP:BLP/WP:SELFPUB violation: it IS self-serving, it IS contentious (even issues in current court cases I think, as well as the implicit assertion of authority), it DOES involve claims about third parties.--I'clast 17:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Reverted. My edit summary should have read: Not a WP:BLP issue, not self-published, please read the source and http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/inspired/ Avb 21:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Block reprinting in Spiked survey, a contentious, self-serving assertion, long self published and repeated, that have direct contradictions by real scientists, appears more like a blog without *any* editing is weak. ( "what inspired you", "in association with Pfizer" without any apparent editorial modification whatsoever ) Certainly weaker than EXPLORE's usage of Negrete's statement and verifying a multiply sourced 3 word fact from therein (not B-C). Very asymmetric application of WP policies here. If we could agree on the nature of this survey (or really just reader response?) as a lightweight source, "Bronz High School of Science" would be about equal to "not B-C", not gross self congratulatory propaganda where the "distinguish science" part in writings has been seriously at issue, including court, with trivially obviously fundamental examples available. It is still contentious and self serving, regardless of the source, and that is a direct reprint of a long standing self promotion. This is not a consistent policy usage at all.--I'clast 22:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

"or really just reader response?" --> Have you read the linked page like I asked? Not block reprinting in a survey; selected people were invited. Not at all self-published or the subject's own site. Asymmetric? Obviously required by policies. If Negrete is ever invited to write up his own opinion of himself for publication in such a source, you may well be able to use it in an (admittedly hypothetical) article on Negrete. Avb 23:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Self-asserted, similar to other QW related assertions. (1) it is an opinion about himself in an otherwise factual section, (2) the opinion is POV/contentious here and in the real world; (3) the quoted part tacitly asserts his opinion on science as expert and/or authoritative, any demurrals aside where his primary *academic* scientific credientials appear to be Bronx Science and a bachelors in Chemistry at Cornell; (4) the opinion appears quite promotional in nature. Maybe try out for another section, certainly not Biography. EXPLORE was edited V RS containing Negrete sourced material about a single WP:V(several routes) fact (not B-C) - whereas Spiked doesn't appear to edit his opinion about himself at all, the column ("center" bar?) is only labelled as "survey responses", hardly an editorial claim of responsibility. An invitation, like "we'll print what ever you respond" would sound much like a blog, as a thin tissue to present his opinion, about himself, in the otherwise factual Biography. That is quite unbalanced and inappropriate. Asymmetric - pushing an unedited opinion (response) into a (supposedly) factual Biography section in preference to a simple, encyclopedic V RS fact on Dr Barrett's professional background.--I'clast 10:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

(1) An attributed opinion is a fact (2) not contentious at all - no reliable sources say that Barrett says things about himself that he doesn't believe (3) see item #2. (I see Fyslee moved and enhanced the text - I support that edit) (4) promotional - maybe; which policy forbids us to note the subject's opinion on himself? You may want to find reliable sources criticizing Barrett on that specific point. As to your Negrete/Explore comparison, you completely fail to convince me. Different cup of tea altogether. Asymmetry: I consider Spiked! a reliable source for information on Barrett as provided by Barrett in what amounts to a mini-interview (one question, one answer); you consider WCA a reliable source for unsolicited information on Barrett as provided by Negrete. My opinion is subject to consensus but does not violate any policies; editing per your opinion would violate WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:WEIGHT, etc. As explained a zillion times during the BC discussion. (BTW, did you notice that Luke used several of my 22 March arguments? They have become mainstream fast over these four months; WP:BLP now includes specific language to support and enforce what you're thinking of as mincemeat. Granted, I was an early adopter, but I was not the only one as confirmed by my wiki radar at the time. Avb 14:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

BLP & weight problems

The litigation section is littered with links to primary sources. This is a big BLP violation. Court document sources are not secondary sources. They will never satisfy BLP because they are primary sources. Moreover, the litigation section is way too big. Quotes are being removed for no valid reason. Hopefully, editors will comply with BLP policy in the future. Thats means removing all primary sources and links to websites which cite primary sources. I here here alarm bells again. Any thoughts?  QuackGuru  talk 21:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The Joel M. Kauffman is too bias. It must be removed for now. We can consider it being returned if it is neutrally written in tone. Agreed?  QuackGuru  talk 22:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Kauffman is an independent skeptic, academic and senior scientist with no prior record of discord with QW. Previous challenges to his scientific acuity simply showed him to be current with current medical research and science from top medical schools. Deleting his criticism would be simply POV vandalism.--I'clast 23:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

As has been pointed out to you before, there is only one source that Kauffman is a "skeptic" and that source is you. If he was a skeptic, he wouldn't be publishing in a dubious journal with little credibility. Shot info 23:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. In case Google is broken on your internet connection, two examples (of many) where Kauffman associates or identifies himself as a skeptic or a contributor to (or member of) a skeptical association or publication:

1. Raymond Brown, Joel M. Kauffman, 1999, "Identification of Photographs in Opaque Envelopes: ESP or Simple Probability", Skeptic Magazine, 7(4), 70-73 (1999).
2. To the Editor of NEJM

Joel Kauffman is clearly a skeptic on several public issues, where on at least one issue he, many recognized skeptics and Dr Barrett may have agreeable, if rather unpopular, skeptical opinions. His book Malignant Medical Myths indicates studied skepticism on a number of subjects.--I'clast 10:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, court opinions can be used even though they are primary sources, see WP:PSTS, but these records must first be placed into a notable context by reliable secondary sources, per BLP. I think the use and interpretation of these records verges on original research, which is totally unacceptable for prose that impeaches the character of a living person. This section needs serious cleanup.

That said, there's nothing wrong with using these particular primary sources if they are the subject of reliable secondary sources. Misplaced Pages policy does not demand that we remove all links to primary court opinions. Cool Hand Luke 22:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The legal section cites a number of secondary sources for the section's material. The primary source links provide allowable, augmentive WP:V detail and are not trivial or privacy related records like parking tickets, b/d, etc. trial transcripts and other court records, ...unless cited by a reliable secondary source. Where primary-source material has first been presented by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to turn to open records to augment the secondary source--I'clast 23:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

James Randi article is a good example of how to approach these matters. Since I'clast seems to have a problem with BLP a good place to start learning is to review C._Alan_B._Clemetson and for him to ask himself, is this hagiographic? Shot info 23:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Good example of a hagiographic article, which actually is edited by I'clast (TheNautilus), among others. -- Fyslee/talk 23:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I have only 2-3 more edits than Fyslee and Shot_info there, one in direct response to Fyslee's request for more Wikified links (you're welcome), others to trim content or trivially correct spelling, link, format etc. However the principal, rather less experienced WP author, seemed to be previously feeling a little put upon by Shot and Fyslee, so I would be careful about Shot & Fyslee offering secondary pretexts here to disturb the new editor further, sounds a little ominous.--I'clast 10:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we can use court opinions, but the section currently fails WP:BLP. Several of the law review articles don't cover Stephen Barrett in any substantive way. Barrett v. Koren only has primary sources in the form of court orders and a self-published explanation of his lawsuit prior to verdict. Barrett v. Clark is similarly poor, and Barrett v. Rosenthal was not even about Barrett. I'm not saying that these don't deserve mention, it's just that the dearth of reliable secondaries in the current article looks like a BLP issue. I'll try to find better coverage of these suits, but I think it's entirely appropriate to remove them in the interim. Cool Hand Luke 04:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Bolen

At some point in the restructuring of this article Bolen has been axed. It seems very strange to have painful amounts of detail about law suits against people republishing Bolen's opinion pieces and yet have nothing substantial about the relationship between Barrett/Bolen? One thing that jump to mind is was Barrett succesful in his libel case against Bolen, if not why is he suing all these other people for republishing his work. As it stands this is a huge gap in the story. David D. (Talk) 15:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It was strange how the Illinois lawsuits didn't even explain their Bolen link before. Almost all of this litigation stems from Bolen's letters being republished online. I also don't understand why Barrett didn't sue Bolen directly. Barrett apparently told the East Bay Express in 2001 that he couldn't find Bolen to serve him with process. Bolen disputes that claim in a letter to the editor, but it's clear that Barrett initially couldn't get service or perhaps jurisdiction over Bolen. Does Barrett explain this on his site? I find it mysterious myself—the primary reason he lost some of these cases appears to be CDA immunity, which wouldn't apply to Bolen. Cool Hand Luke 16:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Pennsylvania Department of State, Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs License Verification Page, Stephen Joel Barrett. Accessed 1 March 2007.
2. User:Sbinfo (Stephen Barrett) commenting at Misplaced Pages
3. Anti-chiropractic groups spreading ‘stroke’ lies online, World Chiropractic Alliance.available online
4. ^ Curriculum Vitae
5. Ann Wlazelek, "Allentown critic of quacks moves to 'milder winters'", Mcall.com, June 13, 2007. available online