Misplaced Pages

Metta Bubble wrote: "being criticised and then litigating because of it is Barrett's most notable claim to fame" --> Which sources gave you that idea? Avb 23:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

In response to the same question on Metta's talk page, Metta indicated that I'clast had already answered it for her. Summary of the answer: Barrett has written this and there are reliable sources; they don't have these sources now but say they will be able to provide them later. In short, editor opinion, not verified information. Avb 09:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Jumping to favored conclusions, AvB? I said that I am having trouble tracking down some of QW's and its authors' *direct statements* for more complete answers. Also it seems very curious that QW doesn't have a good bibliography for its articles since notable individuals with a high batting average frequently have them on the web, even posthumously from admirers.

There are a *lot* of examples on QW related authors and entities that involve SB either directly or subsequently, but I have to admit is (unnecessarily) time consuming to *link* and reference the obvious for instant gratification that has been ignored anyway by some in the past. (a frequent problem in QW circles since at least 1969 with Pauling and Herbert)--I'clast 09:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a website, not a scientific journal, and thus should not be held to the same standard. Here's a good enough "bibliography"....;-), or were you thinking of something else? -- Fyslee/talk 09:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'clast posted the same response to my talk page where I responded to it in full. I'll post the relevant part below; anyone interested in the full story, please click here. Avb 15:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Iconoclast, although what you're writing is both unnecessary and uninformative regarding my request for sources, I'll discuss it anyway: "Jumping to favored conclusions, AvB?" -- Please don't call me that; I'm now Avb. Favored conclusion? No, just one of my favorite policies, WP:V. I remain interested in seeing these sources provided. Please do. I don't have access to anything that comes near, otherwise I'd dig this stuff up myself (I've tried). You'll be surprised how proactive I am when reliable sources document something you think I don't like. I think it would be fair to say that I like all information once it's sourced. Reliable sources are our sine qua non. We're moving towards an encyclopedia entirely constructed from reliable sources. BLPs are our first concern in this respect. Jumping -- I would be if I said that these sources do not exist. Also, it's policy to differentiate between editor opinion and verified material. "Editor opinion" is not derogative in any way; editor opinion may well be correct, but it only becomes verified material when reliable sources are provided. Regarding your criticism of QW, I wouldn't know; I asked for sources in order to learn more. All I'm getting here is more editor opinion. I would view what you and user:Metta Bubble are saying here as vastly more useful in building an encyclopedia if verified in reliable sources. Avb 15:14, 20 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)

(1) An attributed opinion is a fact yes, the *quote itself* is a fact, the quote's self gratifying opinion is still opinion and was especially promotional as presented in the Biography section;

(2) no reliable sources...belief is misleading (SB's "true" self belief is not the WP topic, perhaps you have been reading tboo many less reliable publications);

(3)I moved the quote/opinions to a more relevant, opinion oriented section, Activism. This avoids inclusion of potentially misleading uses of opinions parading (with) as harder Biographic facts. The advertisement length, promo and relevance is still a discussion.

(4) Yes WP:BLP, as does WP:RS, does talk about "self-serving" and "contentious" material (which can have both local WP and real world dimensions) - not to be used, especially if one buys into your "secondary source reverted to primary source" strategm. (Spiked! appears to take less nominal editorial responsibility than EXPLORE)

(4a) your Negrete discussion slants the rules about V RS to aggressively exclude multiple secondary sources on an event, primarily reported upon by one participant, simple factual material of a common & basic encyclopedic interest - the terminal or maximal professional qualifications of an individual in areas further addressed in the subsequent career(s).

CoolHandLuke acknowledged primary (court) sources *can* be used but he says perhaps more carefully here, still considering (he is new and may struggle to find & context past buried conversations/details). Your March 22 position, quoting Jimbo's Langan deletion of a contentious *section* built completely on 8 primary sources, as a reason to arbitrarily drop *any* primary source usage that does not greatly flatter the individual seems partisan and not what CoolHandLuke was discussing.

(Personal attack removed) Spiked! (esentially a minimally edited , if any, & hardly a science/tech/med authority or specialty journal) coverage of Dr Barrett's positive opinions about himself, at great length, in contrast to simple, relevant facts about himself (both from literal secondary sources and himself), along with your original research (or proposal) for WP policy stretching, is highly asymmetric and I believe represents both point of view & actions similar to (Personal attack removed).--I'clast 12:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

#1, #2, #3: non sequiturs. #4: If you want to discuss Spiked! as a reliable source for information on Barrett, please do so in a separate discussion. Your arguments for repeatedly removing sourced text wereWP:BLP and WP:SELFPUB which do not apply. (4a) My Negrete discussion? You are repeatedly bringing up the BC thing in an unrelated discussion. My bad for letting myself be engaged in it. I'll ignore any such attempts from now on. You're also twisting my words again (my Langan example about not allowing court records that have not been discussed in secondary sources; you should really learn to reread when asked - for your convenience, here's the diff). Stratagem? Don't be silly; it's policy. Forum shopping? That's a pretty grave acccusation (disruptive editing/gaming the system). Please provide diffs. Avb 12:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That answer is a twisted wreck. You *always* deny the "not B-C" secondary sources' coverage for using the Negrete (primary) sourced material and create the laffey-taffy policy stretch for putative contextual OR where you apparently have no concept of "source based research" and encyclopedicity. It's only your (plural) "I don't like it". The relation of the Barrett quote (prominently displayed POV promotional opinion parasiting off the credibility of an otherwise factual Biography section) is to "not BC" (simple fact) is sheer asymmetric POV (Personal attack removed) on your part.--I'clast 14:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This is an attempt to restart the BC discussion without providing new sources, so I'm ignoring it. I will not ignore your attack on me though. You may want to take back "including hypocrisy". I for one assume you really believe what you're saying, however misguided it may be. Avb 23:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Repeat of a question you seem to have missed: Forum shopping is a pretty grave acccusation (disruptive editing/gaming the system). Please provide diffs. Avb 00:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Repeat of a question you seem to have missed: Please provide evidence of forum shopping. Please also provide evidence where I "insistently include Spiked!" Avb 13:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Removing as personal attacks (and WP:BLP violations) for now, at least as long as no evidence has been forthcoming. Avb 15:24, 19 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)

You know, one of these days you should make reading a skill followed by comprehension. None of the top 10 links in google state that Kauffman is a "skeptic". Lots of conspiracy theories and lots of publications in junk science journals, still waiting on the "Kauffman is a skeptic" source...except that made up by yourself. BTW, heres a better link to Amazon ] and the breathless review just screams "Read me for I am WOO!". Maybe if you stop wanting to shove your quite apparent POV and worship of CAM hacks into a Misplaced Pages BLP article, you might have a better time as an editor. Shot info 09:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The POV and superciliousness there are noted, as well as your conflicts of interesting views. I guess reading the book would just be too much to ask such a superior intellect before you criticize the author out of whole cloth. Just because I edit a subject doesn't mean that I worship it or them, I often help underdogs. Nor do I (mis)represent myself so inconsistently as you. I also doubt you know my point of view well, you might be surprised. Or just condescendingly indifferent.--I'clast 13:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

We here don't need to guess your POV, your POV is quite apparent both in what you do, and what you don't do. My POV (SPOV) is glaring obvious. Of course your faith in my (mis)representation can be aired in COIN but you don't have the guts to expose your many failings at core WP pillars in a public forum now do you? Shot info 23:42, 17 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)

More than being obvious, it shows your POV, CAB is a alt-med hack, that you cannot find fault with, but you are prepared to quote mine to the 1000th degree on Barrett. Shot info 09:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Shows both your POV and knowledge of nothing. In the 1980s CAB quotes were the mainstream voice used to deflect Pauling's assertions on vitamin C as insufficiently researched, as well as authoring several authoritative (mainstream) articles and publications (tomes) on vitamin C. Again, in case you missed it, I have not contributed any significant text to the CAB article, just minor corrections, wikification, spelling etc.--I'clast 14:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The example of an article which is very hagiographic, and that you avoid editing (because it is supportive of your POV) but you continue to grill this article is telling for your lack of NPOV here, and a subtle hint of COI. Shot info 23:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not other articles are hagiographic is not relevent to this talk page, and blaming other editors for their purported POV elsewhere is similarly unhelpful. See WP:TALK. Cool Hand Luke 00:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Simply put, we have one editor who seems to think we can ignore WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT while using the expresssion "hagiographic" (see archives). So the question is, why does he ignore policy making one article less "hagiographic" (when it disagrees with his POV) while allowing a more "hagiographic" article (which agrees with his POV) to stand? His answers are very illuminating and go to the heart of his problem, which is, he is allowing his POV to run riot over policy. Something AvB, Ronz and other editors (myself included) have pointed out. Shot info 01:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'clast may getting gang banged and lynched by a number of internet activists who link their sites to the QW related sites, bring their POV wars to Misplaced Pages, and interpret policy to fit their POV & needs of the moment. As for the CAB Clemetson article, it certainly doesn't involve WP quotes of CABC alluding to those who disagreed with his opinion or research as "rapists and murders" although he may have had more such data, nor does the CABC bio quote him congratulating himself at length on his education & medical/scientific authority, and professional achievements even though CABC *was* certified, had nationally recognized research, and his *scientific* opinion was quoted in national publications in good standing to even Nobelists. Beyond SB/QW articles etc, there are other articles with gross errors (and partisans) that due to lack of time I haven't gotten to yet that would command my attention first anyway even if I agreed with your assessment.--I'clast 11:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

"rapists and murders"??? Now you either can't parse a quote or you are misconstruing it so it fits your POV about Barrett. We both know you are intelligent enough to parse a quote if you really want to... Your lack of good faith is quite evident and is affecting your judgment and performance here. How about reading that quote in its context and trying to understand what Barrett was talking about, instead of taking it out of context and making a BLP slur about him here. I would have previously thought that this type of misquoting was below you..... You owe Barrett and everyone here an apology for such a cheap shot. -- Fyslee/talk 19:56, 18 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)

BLP/Weight issues are central problems here. Cool Hand Luke, I hope you can clean up and NPOV the litigation. Of course, this will be difficult.  QuackGuru  talk 18:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't figure out what happened to Barrett v. Negrete. Maybe it was settled with non-discosure agreement? At any rate, it doesn't seem to have much secondary coverage. And I can't find anything for Barrett v. Koren except items based on this POV press release and celebratory webpages like this. Cool Hand Luke 00:10, 18 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)

Incorrect 3RR edit summary

I incorrectly commented in an edit summary that Maxpont was at 3RR. Sorry about that. Avb 12:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That quote is *not* a consensus version. It is POV pushing supreme of opinion into a factually built up Bography section with naked self promotion & proclamation, restarted earlier by QG. Please take the quote to Activism which is what the quote is about, for editing. This is the language of mainstream science and its neutral balance? Broad speeches about "quackery", "rapists", "murderers" etc. for those disagreed with as well as "contaminated with incomplete data, obsolete data, technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo."--I'clast 12:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't help it that mainstream science sees Barrett as a hero, I'clast. And I also can't help it that his detractors portray him as a villain or that Barrett sees what he calls overpromoters of questionable treatments etc. as villains. That's the man applauded by mainstream science. What counts on Misplaced Pages is the sources reporting on them. Avb 12:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You continually confuse "mainstream science" with loud trillion$ pharma pov and (sometime) 20th century US medicine as one body of knowledge vs grossly violated methods and current *authoritative* reports of science. (Personal attack removed) I don't portray Barrett as a villian, I have tried to get basic Biography material straight in the presence of numerous activists and Usenet warriors here, one or two facts in particular in many, many months. I think I am one of the few with no economic conflicts on alt med (actually personal financial interests would go the other way) or "skeptical" activist background. It might even be fair to say my persona here is created by the gross technical and activists/extremists' POV imbalances in WP, especially on altmed and QW related areas.--I'clast 13:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Attacks on the editor again. For the last time, this is about sources, not about editor opinion. After all that has been explained to you, you still act as if we have been asking for "current authoritative reports of science". Assuming you are right (and based on both US and EU publications I don't think you are) we at Misplaced Pages still can't do anything about it until reliable secondary sources have written about it, e.g. documenting that/how Barrett lost his erstwhile supporters. Avb 13:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Putting aside what is WP:RS for basic sourcing and *adding* verbiage, when something that is nominally WP:RS fails WP:V, such as a current change in news or science, we don't publish contradicted information and nonsense as straight V RS. QW clearly fails WP:V on a lot of hard or fundmental mainstream science issues, nonscientists (including many doctors) be damned. The case is complicated by both the pharma driven advertising in journals, including (later) impeached articles presented as "science", and the decades of self promotion by QW that have NOTHING to do with Science. Forget Bolen, Hulda etc, go read the f------ mainstream med school, NIH, NAS research conclusions, I do. If it fails current WP:V, a lot of QW "science" prattle is toast without significant rewrite and description to reflect current science!

Otherwise the encycloipedia fills with obsolete POV, trash and laughable nonsense.--I'clast 14:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This is one of the clearest examples of misinterpreting our core policies WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR I've ever seen. I don't think anyone should be editing here on such a basis. Avb 14:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually you misinterpret them to suit your fancy. Again look very carefully when I say if something flunks WP:V, it impacts the text even if not quoted directly. Feel free to disengage any time you like.--I'clast 14:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

My assessment of your interpretation of our core policies remains unchanged. I encourage you to seek input from an uninvolved admin regarding your interpretation. As to your advice to disengage: you are currently not among the editors I take my cues from. Thanks anyway. Avb 23:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

repeated BLP (legal?) violation

Back to using questionable sources with a little NPA and BLP vio thrown in? For those who so loudly proclaim their own privacy, I believe that this (again & again) repeated comment seriously violates WP:BLP on a third party as well as violating WP:NPA on the (same third party) WP editor (the WP editor as previously determined by Fyslee himself). WP:BLP expressly states (WP:Self Pub, too): Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:...using it does not involve claims about third parties. That other BLP party already *has* publicly complained (obliquely) about his treatment at WP. It is also unfair to present one side of a confidential legal agreement only partially known through the statements of Dr Barrett, the plaintiff, about another WP:BLP, from the questionable site source using the archives to "time blink" and combine information in violation of Dr Barrett's legal agreement. The 3rd party BLP who Fyslee roundly criticizes, Fyslee publicizes material that which both Dr Barrett and WP say are not supposed to be published together. Next time the 50k and identity info are together or other related legal confidentially "busting" without a reliable source, we should get probably management opinion about this problem.--I'clast 12:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikilawyering again? FWIW, this has already been published on the Internet by a certain banned user (with full names and a full range of epithets), I'clast; one you seem to see as a reliable source on libel cases by and against "Quackbusters". Legal problems? I don't think so. But why not ask management straight away if you're so sure? Avb 13:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Still sounds like a gross BLP, RS & self pub violations as well as NPA about a WP editor. If you want to mail a link, I suggest no more "exposure" links here.--I'clast 13:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

More attacks on other editors, and more non sequiturs. (Where did I indicate I might want to mail a link? Where did I add an "exposure link"?). And once again skipping a question, making this a pretty one-sided discussion. Here it is again: Why don't you ask management straight away if you're so sure? Avb 14:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Fyslee did the exposure part, I suggested that your answer not publicly add to it & I suggested maybe mailing the links. The management part concerns Fyslee's games on 3rd party BLP.--I'clast 15:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the disruptions here are once again out of control. WP:DNFT WP:NAM --Ronz 16:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'clast, in case you missed my question, here it is again: Why don't you ask management straight away if you're so sure? Avb 00:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I discuss things first and try to resolve things agreeably.--I'clast 11:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'clast, I have not exposed anything that has not been public knowledge for a long time, even here. It has even been in the Mercola and Barrett articles, but was removed from the Mercola article because it came from Barrett's website instead of an actual trial transcript (which would of course be impossible, since it was an out-of-court settlement). That impossible demand was the ploy used to keep the facts from being included. No agreement between them has ever been broken by Barrett, or Mercola would have complained about the fact being on Barrett's site. Barrett could even use his name without violating any agreement, TTBOMK. Barrett has just been unusually and unnecessarily kind to Mercola by later rewording the site by not using his name. The Internet Archives are not off-limits as a source, and I have only used it here on the talk page for your enlightenment. You should study the development of that page during the course of the trial and afterwards. There hasn't been the slightest shadow of a BLP violation or breach of confidentiality. You just don't know the situation very well, probably because you weren't part of this old discussion when it happened before, and it did right here. Whatever the case may be, I am not attempting to include it in the article, just letting you know here on the talk page how things hang together. -- Fyslee/talk 22:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

(1) a ploy used to keep the facts from being included No inclusion of identity and (partial) settlements terms together was part of the confidential settlement that Dr Barrett mentioned in his article and that he would ask others to respect. (2) although Dr Barrett can be acceptable as a BLP source about himself (except, according to some parties(-ans), on "not B-C"), he cannot be directly sourced for a negative 3rd party BLP, even when the material concerns him(SB) too, (3) a published WP:RS V with it, fine (I am not aware other than the rumors of partial disclosure you keep casting and the QW/SB "blinking" links), show us, otherwise it is a dangerous 3rd party BLP violation even here in talk where that party has complained publicly about WP. (Danger, danger Will Robinson!) (4) you've probably let everyone know how you hang it out on this now over half a dozen times, kind of daring given RFAR. (5) ...Mercola would have complained about the fact being on Barrett's site - highly speculative OR of the dangerous kind on a BLP problem.

I actually would like to see SB's settlement for other reasons, so by all means I'll wish you good luck to get and link it, even as just a (legally acquired) augmentive primary document if nothing else is a problem (I really won't kick). But I think your 50k+name campaign needs to be suspended until WP:V RS is shown or at least *complete* original documents are available.--I'clast 11:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

So far this has been about discussion on this page, not about inclusion in the article, so your concerns are misplaced. There is no BLP violation of anyone, and your first point about the settlement terms is your own speculation. Your second point is the reason it was pulled from the Mercola article, and rightly so. We could still include the figure without the name in this article without any problem using Barrett as the source, and if we got the actual settlement (highly unlikely) we could then use it in both articles, name and all. All we have now is that the publication of the figure and all identifying information (name, profession, location, dates, etc.) were obviously not a part of the settlement. He later removed the name as a nice gesture. He didn't have to do it, and we are not bound by his preferences, but I have no problem leaving the name out since we aren't required to do it, just because we can. -- Fyslee/talk 19:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Domentation required for inclusion

Levine2112 fails to appreciate my recognition of the need for documentation (see my edit summary) of controversial inclusions and has removed the refs, which is a grave offense.

We have long had a list of undocumented items, with no proof of whether, where, or in what manner Barrett specifically criticizes them, and I have now provided that proof, which finally legitimizes their inclusion in such a list.

I have simply resolved a longstanding policy violation.

This is what the rules here actually require for inclusion (proof of his criticism and where it's located). So far, general and vague references (in this case just a link to Quackwatch) are not considered sufficient documentation for inclusion of specific material in any article, especially specific and controversial matters. It's another story for common knowledge, where references are not required.

The links are not counted in search engine results. They are a required service to readers, showing whether the inclusion of the item is indeed justified, and leading to Barrett's actual words (even though many of the articles are prepared with the advice and input of many advisors and experts, they do represent his opinion).

Wikilinks are not sufficient (in any sense at all) as documentation for his criticisms. They only lead to articles that tell about the subject, but not to his criticisms. This is the article about him, and thus inclusion of what he has written on his website is specifically allowed by the rules here, so don't accuse me of violating any rules (especially in light of the fact that your accusations against me (COI and linkspamming) in the RfArb were exposed as incorrect and misleading, which, BTW, can still count against you in any upcoming RfArb of your behavior back then and now). Right now we are providing a double service by including both, but it is only the references to his actual words that are actually required, wikilinks (not an absolute requirement) being a matter of style and service, not documentation.

Documentation is what is required and Levine2112 has removed it. Until he can show a rule that allows the inclusion of controversial claims and statements without specifically referenced documentation, they should remain. -- Fyslee/talk 09:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

There were discussions about QW POV/link farming and use of WP:SOAPBOX / questionable sources may need to be re-examined rather than such bland assertions (and threats?). Levine's COI??? RfArb? sounds like things are going thernonuclear when all the activist POV and potential COI here merge to a prompt supercritical primary.--I'clast 11:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You just love to fan the flames to create disruption and dissension, don't you?! This isn't the first time you've done it. Please stop. These are references in this (Barrett's own) article, which is an entirely different matter than adding links to other articles where the V & RS bar is set quite high, and properly so. The rules for biografies (a) specifically allow it, and (b) the V & RS bar is not as high in this situation. This is no worse than the long list of refs in the CAB article, and in this case it is required as documentation for inclusion in the list.

We all have POV here so we're even. Your insinuation of "potential COI" is absurd, uncalled for, and has never been proven. In the distant past there might have been a very weak possibility, but that was a long time ago. Barrett and I aren't exactly bosom buddies....and never were. Never met the guy or spoken to him. A shared POV does not a COI make. I have reworded my statement above to avoid any misunderstanding about the COI issue. Levine has made false COI charges against me, and now you're doing the same. -- Fyslee/talk 18:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Calm down Fyslee. (1) In my own editing I have not used that extensive of reference links to, uh, (baldly) favored source sites e.g. I use one reference to cover many specific items, but I could easily add a favorite dozen or two. (2) Stroll's references at CAB Clemetson are not extensively linked either, especially here where the link farm issue seemed unresolved. (3) Because of the ever darkening comments of several editors I was speaking to potential POV and COI more broadly, you are the least of my worries on POV and outside connections right now since at least your POV and interests are pretty well known to all. (4) We are not "even" - you write and share tons more of your opinion, link QW etc frequently, you are an activist of years & years standing with numerous sites linked to QW etc, not me. (5) My observation was that if the group of editors' darkening, hyper-defensive, antagonistic edits continue to such a lunch lynch with Levine, that things might get very unpleasant concerning such an artificial situation.--I'clast 04:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget, I'clast does like saying things like "I've had substantial capability to go to COI for weeks and I do think COI would be unpleasant, for you. " Of course, the fact that it is now several months since that infamous quote and I'clast still hasn't actually "gone to COI" is rather telling of his desire to tell people they have COI without this minor thing called "proof". Shot info 22:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:DNFT, I have patiently explained several times before now,, & .--I'clast 04:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

And yet, you still have the gall to accuse multiple editors of COI. Prehaps you should refrain because you have a growing list of claiming, then backing down. This is quite disruptive and doesn't help improve the article other than to betray your POV. BTW, I am more than willing to cooperate at a formal COIN discussion. Your reluctance to do so clearly shows that you are the one who needs to cooperate. Obviously because you don't have the facts, nor the guts to say "sorry" even when you finally had to admit you got it wrong . Shot info 04:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

First, the link to the Quackwatch homepage provides a table of contents of all of the modalities which Barrett has criticized and thus is a sufficient reference for all. Second, per the ArbCom, Fyslee was found in violation of posting links to unreliable sites such as Quackwatch. Third, all of these links are primary sources and in order to satisfy WP:WEIGHT secondary sources are needed. Technically, until such secondary sources are provided, the whol list should go. Fourth, there is clearly no consensus to add all of these sources, thus per WP:CONSENSUS they must be removed. -- Levine2112 23:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

1. I concur that the QW home page is adequate documentation for all modalities listed there.
2. You've clearly misread the ArbCom decision. He was found in violation of posting links to unreliable sites (not necessarily including QW) during his first month of editing. No findings of recent violations. No finding that QW is unreliable.
3. They're allowable in the QW article. If Barrett isn't QW, then QW is a secondary source as to Barrett, so QW references are allowable here. If Barrett is QW, than the articles should be merged.
4. There is WP:CONSENSUS to add the sources, so they should be there unless they viloate a WP policy or guideline.

— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

If you concur that the QW home page is adequate, then please revise to be as such. Curious, how has WP:CONSENSUS been acheived when there is dissent about including the sources? -- Levine2112 00:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus. That said, I think we should leave the links. They're useful and will keep future editors in line. Lists often pick up a lot of dubious material over time, and we make the list more manageably verifiable by pinciting each item. Note that not all of these items are listed on the homepage—I believe that's what Arthur Rubin is getting at in the above comment. Those that are listed can just cite to the homepage footnote, but others will need to be cited more directly. Cool Hand Luke 06:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Are we really to here to make this WP article a directory/TOC for every Quackwatch article? WP is not a link farm. Let's just link the home page and perhaps reduce that list to only the most notable ones. -- Levine2112 06:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

No, but this list will only require linking to the home page and a few others for items like amalgam removal. Cool Hand Luke 06:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think perhaps WP:EL is getting confused with the requirements for WP:V (see the start of WP:REF. Shot info 06:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

When do we draw the line then? At what point do we say enough entires on the list? Enough entries on the list with links to Quackwatch? Let's just limit this list to the most notable ones. How was this current list developed? What was the criteria for inclusion? -- Levine2112 07:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Surely you have been on WP long enough to know the requirements of WP:V... Shot info 07:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The thing is that most of these criticisms are listed verbatim on the home page. The others should be cited per WP:V, but it's editorially nicer to just use one footnote for all of the modalities listed on the homepage. Cool Hand Luke 07:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing of biographies a different matter

None of what Levine2112 writes above (here) applies, simply because this is a biography and very different rules apply as regards sourcing:

• Primary sources are expressly allowed and required in biographical articles;
• There is no danger of "linkspamming" (which could be a legitimate charge if done in this manner in another article not related to the subject);
• None of the links figure in search engines since Misplaced Pages uses nofollow tags;
• Documentation for the subject's notable POV are required and thus only primary sources will do;
• Not all the links are to Quackwatch, and some of them are not easily found (if at all) on the index page;
• WP:EL (which has no application here) is getting confused with WP:ECITE;
• WP:SELFPUB is being ignored. There is no violation of that policy here;
• "Linkfarm" applies to external links, not to directly sourced and specific references in articles, especially when those links are not in list form, but are mere numbers in reference format. They do not disturb the readers' ability to read the text, yet can easily be found, which makes the article of much more worth to readers.

We are only documenting the specifics of Barrett's controversial POV. This current sourcing is a great service to readers, and we're dealing with bytes, not paper. Misplaced Pages should be more, not less, than other encyclopedias. -- Fyslee/talk 09:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think linking the different items in the list to where it is located on QW is appropriate and makes for an easier read to the outsider. I never liked just the list. When I saw the list with the added links and read it, it was much better and easier to access, never mind clearer to understand. I say put the list back with the QW links that show where on QW you can locate Dr. Barrett's information on everything. It wouldn't be over doing QW links since this is a biography about Dr. Barrett and linking to his site is allowed per WP:BLP.--CrohnieGal 12:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Crohnie has a point. Agreed.  QuackGuru  talk 19:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The bare list was bad, but since most of these items are verifiable on the front page there's no need to deep link. I believe this a a better solution editorially because it keeps the article size down and makes the references uncluttered. Everything is still verifiable—in fact, it's superior per WP:V because sites like the internet wayback machine will preserve the front page whereas the deep links may be lost. Cool Hand Luke 01:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The direct links point directly to the topic. Easier for the reader and is needed to comply with policy.  QuackGuru  talk 01:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Tell me what part of what policy demands direct links. If anything, WP:V counsels against dumping a truckload of self-published references into an article. Cool Hand Luke 02:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The homepage just doesn't do it for me. The readers deserve better. A not so easy to find links is not the way. What does it for me? Just one click is all it took! This should be easy to understand. The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. Removing the direct links creates an unreferenced policy violation. The homepage is not each specific topic. Each direct link is. Cheers.  QuackGuru  talk 02:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I said nothing about truth, I'm also talking about verifiability. If we were to go all-out and actually use reliable third-party sources, they would just characterize the criticisms Barrett has made. That would not only be acceptable, but it would be superior to what you've done. The home page is precisely the same; it characterizes many arguments he's made, and it's available in archival form to boot. I'm beginning to wonder if we should cite this list using only third-party sources to avoid potential WEIGHT problems. Cool Hand Luke 03:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The home page is not each specified topic. The Misplaced Pages community demands references or it creates a policy violation.  QuackGuru  talk 03:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

You really don't need to be patronizing. The homepage verifies that he has written on all of these topics. It says so. Verbatim. The ones that are not listed there are separately linked, so the whole list is verified. At any rate, you've convinced me that the list is an irredeemable WEIGHT/SYN problem. I'll try to source the topics he's well-known and cited for, and I will delete the rest. Cool Hand Luke 03:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Everything is referenced in accordance with policy.  QuackGuru  talk 03:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool Hand Luke, I am agreeing with your rationale and believe that in order to satisfy WEIGHT, we need to use third-party sources. For the ones which we can't find, those should be deleted. In fact, we went through this line of discussion in terms of Barrett's lack of Board Certification, and there QuackGuru agreed that without reliable third-party references, even an undisputed fact which Barrett's supports via first-party reference should not be included. -- Levine2112 04:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a biography and primary sources are not only allowed, they are required for sourcing the opinion of the author. It can't be any other way. I agree with CoolHandLuke that the index page is good enough for the ones listed there, while the few others can be deeplinked. -- Fyslee/talk 08:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Here are some policies I think apply to this: , ,, and on this one I think the last paragraph applies to this article; --CrohnieGal 13:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. Specific inline citations are the way to go. No syn, paraphrasing, etc. Just his words and where they are found. -- Fyslee/talk 14:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it OR to say

"When the pharmaceutical company Pfizer sponsored Spiked-online to conduct..." when the reference actually says something different? Shot info 06:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

What does the reference say? Rather than blanketly deleting, please amend to correct. -- Levine2112 07:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

What Inspired You? is a survey of key thinkers in science, technology and medicine, conducted by spiked in collaboration with the research-based pharmaceutical company Pfizer. Survey respondents hail from all corners of the globe, ranging in age from 19 to 93 and ranging in experience from new talents to Nobel laureates. Each of these individuals was asked: 'What inspired you to take up science?' The survey will roll through September, and the discussion will go live at a launch event in central London on Tuesday 10 October - book tickets here.

Discovering and developing a new medicine requires inspired scientists with the knowledge, skill and tenacity to overcome many scientific challenges. Such people are at the core of Pfizer's business - individuals who have the potential and opportunity to influence the future for us all. But in the future, there might be less of them. With fewer students pursuing science at A-level, at university or as a career, an understanding of what inspired leading scientists could provide a valuable insight into the current situation. While the views expressed in the What Inspired You? survey do not necessarily reflect the views of Pfizer, we are proud to partner with spiked to find out more." Since the reference in question uses the work 'collaboration' and 'partner' (etc), "sponsored by" is OR. Shot info 07:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is Spiked-online italicized? What about: "Spiked-online, in collaboration with Pfizer, conducted a survey..."

It still comes across as an unnecessary mention of Pfizer, that's more promotional than anything else. --Ronz 07:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the italicisation. Dunno why it is notable that Pfizer is mentioned, other than it's another of these "FACT". Either way, if it's included, it needs to be included in toto otherwise it's OR. Personally I don't see why it's needed but I'm sure we will be reminded that its a "FACT". If editors want to promote Pfizer and allow WP to give free advertising, then by all means ... but OR isn't allowed. Shot info 07:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems on the edge of WP:SYN. I don't see why this is very relevant anyhow. We don't list the sponsors when, say, a politician speaks at the Republican National Convention. Partnership might be relevant to the survey, but unless Barrett is some sort of trustee or official with spiked online, Pfizer's involvement has de minimus impact on his biography. Linking him to Pfizer this way seems to be using two verifiable facts to promote a position. Cool Hand Luke 08:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's over the edge: WP:SYN to promote a critical minority position (Mr. Y is "in bed with" company X). This aspect will be discerned by readers who already have a negative opinion on Barrett, already harbor deep suspicions about the role of "Big Pharma" in health care, or are aware of the accusations of some of Barrett's detractors. Advancing this position can be a reason for some editors here to include it. Recognizing this, some other editors dispute its inclusion per WP:SYN and hence per WP:BLP. Many neutral editors who are not aware of the criticisms may not see it as criticism of Barrett (and hence not a WP:SYN/WP:BLP violation), but a plug for Pfizer that should not go into the article. On balance, I see only one reason to include this: criticism by a minority; if allowed, it should have sufficient weight as evident in reliable sources and I for one do not know of any reliable sources mentioning this point. Which leads us back to WP:SYN again. I see no policy problems with the various reasons to exclude. Therefore, the entire reference to Pfizer should go. Avb 08:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, you, I and probably a majority of other editors and readers can see this. But how long before "it's a FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACT" is dropped? As I stated, editors wish to have an ugly encyclopedia, so fine. It's all happy days in Barrettland :-) Shot info 09:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion proposal

How about just removing this whole section?

'Spiked-online, in collaboration with the research-based pharmaceutical company Pfizer, conducted a survey entitled "What Inspired You?" of "key thinkers in science, technology and medicine". They asked: "What inspired you to take up science?" Barrett replied that his appreciation of medical science:

"probably began when I took a college course in medical statistics, and learned what makes the difference between scientific thought and poor reasoning. Medical school brought me in touch with the rapid and amazing strides being made in the understanding and treatment of disease. My anti-quackery activities have intensified my interest and concern in distinguishing science from pseudoscience, quackery and fraud."'

It really isn't needed in the article at all from my prospective. The rest of the items are enough. Sometime items don't really need to be in the article, which I just recently read in another articles talk page. I just don't think it is needed. Opinions? --CrohnieGal 11:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion proposal has my vote, I haven't seen other Biographies with so much soapbox self-commentary, not to mention the rather nonacademic source with Pfizer's commercial sponsorship and the ad. Pfizer, the largest pharma, seems somewhat controversial here given the altmed - pharma wars and various history & allegations concerning QW & Dr Barrett.--I'clast 19:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not. -- Fyslee/talk 20:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Pfizer's involvment has to be mentioned in the body (not iin the ref) to show context and weight; otherwise it should be deleted. -- Levine2112 20:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't. --Ronz 20:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It is definitely not Biographic section or quality material, soapy (box), fluffy (huge space hog) and (self serving) opinion based. It is about the his POV leading to Activism, POV that would not be notable otherwise. Move it or dump it (preferred). This is little more than a Pfizer ad page from a group of corporate paid bloggers, less than a tabloid.--I'clast 21:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion is fine with me. Another way of handling the controversy is to rewrite the text in an encyclopedic (sic!!!) more detached indirect style with something like: Barrett states that his interest in Q began with a statistics course xxxx. He believes that he represtents Science, xxxxx and yyyyy" MaxPont 21:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Ambivalent, but Pfizer's "involvement" does not have to be mentioned and probably should not be mentioned if it's retained (see SYN concerns above). I consider this source to be barely more than self-publication, and MaxPont's suggestion for rewriting it is the best I've heard. Cool Hand Luke 21:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Max's suggestion looks like a way ahead (fancy us being here to edit an encyclopedia!!!!!! :-). Shot info 23:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

"...editing an encylopedia" -Shot

Moved Spiked online quote on origins of acivism here per Max and shot, above:

When Spiked-online conducted a survey of "key thinkers in science, technology and medicine" entitled "What Inspired You?", they asked: "What inspired you to take up science?" Barrett replied that his appreciation of medical science:

"probably began when I took a college course in medical statistics, and learned what makes the difference between scientific thought and poor reasoning. Medical school brought me in touch with the rapid and amazing strides being made in the understanding and treatment of disease. My anti-quackery activities have intensified my interest and concern in distinguishing science from pseudoscience, quackery and fraud."

Let the collaboration begin.--I'clast 10:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally I don't mind how it stands as it is short and sweet. Nevertheless my recommended clumsy attempt is documented earlier. My only real opinion is that if additional info is added, it needs to follow the reference without adding in OR (like the Pfizer bit). Personally I don't think Pfizer should be mentioned, not because of trying to hide anything, but following what seems to be a common practise in WP by not introducing weaselling. Shot info 12:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Max's colaborative proposal, below, looks like a nice start on shorter & sweeter and covers the relevant content.--I'clast 12:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The inclusion of that material serves at least three purposes:

1. It goes to further documenting his notability as someone who is recognized as a "key thinker....in medicine."
2. It is an unusually clear statement of how he thinks and what motivates him.
3. It shows how the intimate relationship between critical thinking, scientific thinking, and quackbuster thinking has a synergistic and self-enforcing effect on him (and of course others like him).

The existing format of the wording under discussion covers these aspects and serves as a perfect ending to the section documenting his notability (bio section), right before the section dealing with his activism. All very good writing style and encyclopedic to boot. We're accomplishing all this in one fell swoop, which isn't always that easily done. -- Fyslee/talk 14:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a huge POV ad, Fyslee. Too long, contended on science, -tious on scientific - extraneous, self serving material included, also essentially self pub, page commercially linked, supported by largest pharma.--I'clast 12:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is my suggested rewrite (with comments):

• Remove the quote and rewrite in a more encyclopedic way that can reduce the controversy around the passage.
• If the promotional label “key thinkers in science, technology and medicine" is kept in the article, the origin of the label (the sponsorship from Pfizer) must also be kept. Better to remove both of them (or move the label to notability section).
• Make clear that this is Barretts own view, which is not necessarily a correct neutral description of his activities.

Barrett views his activism as a part of medical science. He claims that his anti-quackery activities are about distinguishing between science on the one hand and pseudoscience, quackery and fraud on the other. He states that his interest in the area began when he took a course in medical statistics, which he asserts taught him the difference between scientific thought and poor reasoning. MaxPont 09:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Which accomplishes another goal - to marginalize and hide his notability by totally deleting that part and then introducing editorial POV not evident in the original. All a violation of NPOV. The existing format violates no rule and presents the matter very nicely. -- Fyslee/talk 13:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is about Dr. Barrett so I don't understand why some are saying that it is Barrett's view. Of course it is, it's his WP:BLP. I say keep it like it was without the mention of Phizer. If everything was deleted because a pharma industry was involved, then we would have no encyclopedia to write. --CrohnieGal 14:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

True, indeed MaxPont 17:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Fyslee, Encyclopedic texts should be written in a neutral somewhat detached style. A narrative text is preferred over lining up facts and quotes. No, I don’t introduce any editorializing POV. I only make explicit the true fact that those are his viewpoints and opinions. I try to write an encyclopedic text. Fyslee’s version of the text easily deceives the reader into believing that Barrett is the arbiter between what is proper science and what is pseudoscience. Also, the notability of Spiked online is questionable. It is not a well known publication and mentioning the source does not add any relevant information other than the label Key Thinker. The “notability” of Spiked Online should be mentioned together with other awards. (I will move it.) It is Fyslee’s version that violates NPOV. Remember, a biography is not a self-promotional job resume. MaxPont 17:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll buy that edit. A wise solution. -- Fyslee/talk 17:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, so now the notability is separated from the quote. Then it would be OK to accept a rewrite of the qoute to my proposed indirect encyclopedic narrative. MaxPont 17:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

That's where the risk of interjecting your own POV is a danger. Weasel words can implant into reader's minds something they did not have before reading those words. That's why a common method for avoid NPOV violations is to quote precisely the POV and attribute it. That makes it clear it is the POV of the person being quoted, and not the POV of Misplaced Pages or its editors. Unless there are compelling reasons to change a quote, then don't. All kinds of problems can ensue. -- Fyslee/talk 18:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Self serving POV and such words can implant into reader's minds something they did not have before reading those words. Leaving the ad quote out improves the article. Please focus on collaborating with Max to extract the biographical content without the spiked QW POV load. I would be interested for someone to take a Shot at some collaboration with Max on *brief* content extraction. Thanks.--I'clast 20:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Whaaaa? Shot info 23:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No Fyslee, you are using the term weasel words in the wrong way. Weasel words are vauge statements such as: "some people say", "it has been suggested that", "many famous professors believe". In this case we are using perfectly correct sourced and accurate statements such as "he believes", "he says that" (about Barrett). MaxPont 13:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I see you haven't followed the link above to weasel words. You are wrong. The quote is sourced properly and it is obviously his opinion, thus it meets NPOV requirements both as regards wording and sourcing. You are introducing weasel words when it is not necessary, and only adds the obvious suspicion (born out by simply reading the way it reads now) that the editor who wrote that is an adversary of Barrett who wishes to make sure that readers become suspicious about Barrett's own statement. This is an editorializing POV vio and needs to go. Using standard NPOV wording (by making it clear who says it) is the normal way to go. Period. -- Fyslee/talk 14:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The list

I would like to see the preferences of everyone about the list. Do you prefer a link to QW for every item or do you like the way it is, deep linking for some of the list and then just linking to QW for the ones listed on that home page. I am trying to make my own decision but would appreciate what others think of this. Thanks, --CrohnieGal 21:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Here are two policies for you to read. The WP:BLP and WP:SELFPUB policies apply in this case.  QuackGuru  talk 21:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I favor the homepage solution, not because deeplinking everything would be against a policy, but because it's more likely to gain a consensus (meaning something everyone can live with) at no cost to WP:V. Cool Hand Luke 21:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

First, Cool Hand Luke, your reasoning in my opinion is not a good reason to me to not deep link each item, sorry. I think that a consensus might be positive for the deep linking but of course this is just a guess on my part. I have really enjoyed your input to this article a lot though so keep up the great work. Mr. Guru, I'll try to reread the policies tomorrow, having a bad day today physically. I am leaning though towards deep linking them all for the following reasons, first, consistency, and I personally think it is clearer for the average reader. I would like others to also give there opinions here if they don't mind. --CrohnieGal 22:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how that's possible. At least two editors have expressed that they're absolutely opposed to dumping 32 links in the article. Moreover, their reasoning is not terrible. Such links do resemble a link farm. Cynically, it looks like an end-run around WP:EL, because no evidence is given that each of these 32 articles is relevant to his notability. Here's a hypothetical example to illustrates this argument: imagine that wikipedia editors create a list of over 30 editorial topics written on by a political blogger. Such "citations" would not be allowed as external links, and deeplinking all of them could reflect the biased piece selections of partisan editors who pick sources weakly associated with the blogger's notability in violation of WP:SELFPUB. This might be less of a concern with the homepage articles. At least Barrett himself finds the opinions significant enough to put on the front page. I don't think this argument wins, but I think it's a fair concern for editors to have. Out of respect for our fellow editors, this is an easy accommodation for us to make.

We should make articles easy to use for readers, but we are making a verifiable article, not a directory of Barrett's opinions. As long as WP:V is satisfied, we're fulfilling our primary duty.

Both editors opposed to linking 32 articles seem receptive to linking the homepage where available, and at least two other editors find that acceptable. I think this is a livable consensus solution. Cool Hand Luke 04:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I obviously favor deeplinking as a complete (and the only proper) solution to fulfill the obligation to directly and specifically source content. The second solution is a compromise that eliminates a valuable service to readers. Knowing the two protesters, who would love to not only eliminate the list but the entire article, I find such a compromise problematic, but when an admin backs them up, even while admitting that deeplinking does not violate policy, we're in deep shit here and a compromise may be the only way to save the list at all. Rather compromise than let those two editors get their way and trash the whole list. This must place any right-thinking admin in an uncomfortable situation, knowing they are backing up such intentions and lessening the quality of the article in the process. That is the only reason I have even indicated (above) a willingness to compromise, not because it's a satisfactory or good solution. We are doing readers a disservice by not deeplinking, but if Misplaced Pages is to live well below its potential and provide half-rate articles, that may be the only solution here. Grumble..... Consensus does indeed often violate NPOV, our most sacred policy! -- Fyslee/talk 05:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe in compromising on our core principles, of course, but this isn't a clear-cut case. I can't think of another article with a list of writing topics like this. It's not perfectly clear that we can even have such a list without some third-party indication of these particular topic's notability. I think the list is editorially desirable because it gives readers a quick idea of the sorts of things he writes about. It's a sidebar though, and his specific claims<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s"> aren't discussed. Deeplinks are useful here, but so are directories, and I think the analogy isn't crazy.

I would feel differently if there was an existing article that did something like this. But if we're plotting new territory, we might as well strive for consensus. Cool Hand Luke 08:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. Lets review. Mr. Guru did not agreed that without reliable third-party references the "BC' can't be used. In fact, it has nothing to do with references. The fact remains that it is misleading and was not unusual to not be BC. It was irrelevant back in the day and was also irrelevant to his career. Therefore, it is intentially misleading. Levine2112 is misunderstanding my conclusions of BC. The board certification thing is revisionism and a BLP violation. Therefore, it will always be against policy to include regardless of whatever references applied. In a biography article primary as well as third-party references can be used. The WP:BLP and WP:SELFPUB policies allow the direct references in question for inclusion. Nonetheless, direct references are also needed to verify the text. Additionally, a link to click to another link can be confusing to find and is not verifiable. The vague links are not the specified topic. What is the specified topic. The direct links are. The direct links are verifiable. A vague link is not each specific topic and does not benefit the reader. According to Levine2112 we should not include primary references and yet he has littered the 'defamation lawsuits' section overwhelmingly with primary references. Correct me if I am mistaken. The questions remains. Should we remove all the primary references from the litigation section or not. As far as the direct references (the list) that lead the reader to exact topic, is it needed to meet the threshold for inclusion. The homepage is not the same because it is not each specific topic. A not so easy to find link is not verifiable. You have to click on the first link to get to the homepage. Next, you have to search and then find the link. Then, click again. Primary references are perfectly acceptable to source the opinion of the author and deeplinking everything would not be against a policy. Consensus is based on policy and not something like, I don't like it. I want others to weigh in on both 'the list' and the 'litigation' or anything else that is relevant.  Mr.Guru  talk  22:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Why not remove the whole list? The paragraphs above and below explain enough so the list really isn't necessary, thought? --CrohnieGal 11:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, most of the list refers the reader to the home page which is repetitious. --CrohnieGal 11:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Without the deeplinks that's somewhat true, but that is also the intention - to get rid of the list, get rid of Barrett's POV, and get rid of Barrett - IOW sabotage this article. So stop and think about what you are supporting. -- Fyslee/talk 13:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Your right but with some of the links going to the home page and some going directly to his article it is a hard read and inconsistent. I say go for a deep link for all of them or get rid of it because without the deep links it is a ridiculous to read. --CrohnieGal 14:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

None of this addresses the WEIGHT issue. How do we know any of these articles are notable without a third-party reference to support each article? -- Levine2112 20:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I find this a bit puzzling. The same words are being used in the article, so how can using different refs be "ridiculous to read"? That could only be true if the list was in fact a de facto list of external links. If that's how you feel about it, I think policy should compel you to demand removal. I, on the other hand, think lists of characteristic topics are useful even without any direct links. Perhaps we should find a third-party source that let's cite a modest listing of topics he's covered. The source for this list would be a third party and wouldn't need to include any links to Barrett at all. Cool Hand Luke 20:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I find this more than a bit bizarre. We are once again forgetting this is a biography, and that WP:EL does not apply in this situation. Sourcing of biographies is a different matter. WP:V requires documented sourcing of material and biographies allow the use of self-published sources as documentation for the POV of the article's subject. We have a solution that works, fulfills all the rules, violates no policy, and now we're going to change course, venture into the Twilight Zone and try to find someone else's opinion about what the subject believes?!? Bizarre. Why not take the simple solution that works and meets policy? If we can't do it any other way, then let's just compromise and use the index page for most of the links and only deeplink the few that are found elsewhere....and then be done with this obstructionist effort and get on with other things. Strangely enough this is par for the course. Let's just compromise. -- Fyslee/talk 20:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I just reject the notion that the list is "ridiculous to read" as-is. Cool Hand Luke 21:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't see it that way either. It can be read as is. It's just one step removed (for all the ones only linking to the index page) from completely fulfilling referencing requirements. I suspect that's why Crohnie wrote that. Simple frustration, which is understandable when a compromise produces a lesser quality product. Whatever. -- Fyslee/talk 21:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Why allow a link farm to controversial, essentially self-published pages of questionable reliability, when *one* reference from the same source demonstrates WP:V, WP:RS and provides an overview for chunks of the list *and* provides access? I am all for a thorough, informative, *balanced* bio that even includes *some* access. Even in the bio, I don't see a need for spam linking - else who/what decides when to stop? 100 pages? 500 pages? This is not QW-WP, yet.--I'clast 21:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Plus without secondary sources, there is no way to show that any of this satisfies WEIGHT. Again, all we know of Barrett's writing these articles come from the primary source... Unlike the Board Certifiaction issue which had primary and secondary sources. BLP applies to positive and neutral content just as it does to negative content. If we are going to insist on secondary sources for Board Certification, then we must do the same for what articles Barrett has written. -- Levine2112 06:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Link farming refers to external links and has nothing to do when primary references are perfectly acceptable to source the opinion of the author. We do not insist on secondary sources for board certification because it is revisionism and a BLP violation regardless of sources presented. Levine has again ignored my previous conclusions about BC and has forgotten about an administrator had removed it under BLP policy. And there was never any secondary sources for the BC thing. POV attack references are not secondary sources. Again, primary sources for the authors opinion are usuable under current policy. Vague links to a home page makes is difficult to find the specific topic. Direct links are easier for the reader. Therefore, direct links will improve and create a higher quality article.  Mr.Guru  talk  18:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. -- Fyslee/talk 19:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Barrett confirmed first hand that he was not Board Certified. So if primary sources are usuable under current policy, why not include that Barrett is not Board Certified. BLP applies to positive and neutral contant just the same as it does to negative content. Otherwise, if you can't apply the same threshold accross the board, I think linking just to the QW homepage is reference enough to support that Barrett indeed authored articles about these subject. Regardless, this still doesn't show any notability. Why is it notable to mention that Barrett wrote an article on some subject? We need secondary sources to show each article's notability. Otherwise we are relying on OR to make the assumption of which of his articles are worth mentioning and which ones are not. -- Levine2112 23:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

More importantly, we are here to write an encyclopedia and a BLP, the current format and push to include this list of information is just plain ugly. I think the list should be pruned to a single line saying that "Barrett has authored on numerous...blah, blah" with the reference to the QW site (per Levine). I agree with Levine that the _detail_ of this information is not notable. Shot info 23:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Levine, I answered your question already. The BC is revisionism and a BLP violation regardless of who said what. It is misleading and has been used to advance the critics' agenda. As for the list. We are not relying on OR. The reason: Primary references are perfectly acceptable to source the opinion of the author. Deep linking is easier for the reader. Just one click is easier versus hard to find links. Therefore, deep linking will improve and create a higher quality article. Note. There may be a way to have one ref and have each link for readers to click on. Just add the links all in one ref. This could be a good compromise. Also it can be done in small for the links to take up very little room. We can have only one ref and include all the links! Agreed?  Mr.Guru  talk  03:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not know how to properly format the links into one ref in a uniform format. Just regular deep linking may be the best option. Any thoughts.  Mr.Guru  talk  04:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus to add deep links. I am in favor of limiting the list only to ones which have a third-party reference to lend Weight to the article. -- Levine2112 18:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) You must be aware that that would place his criticisms of chiropractic right at the top of any list. Right now it is given equal weight, simply because weight is not a guideline that applies here. If you insist on weight being applied, then chiropractic will end at the top and be backed up by multitude third party references from V & R sources who happen to agree with him, and quite a few who don't. I vote for keeping the current format where they are all given equal weight. Thus no editorial POV accusations of bias can be involved. -- Fyslee/talk 18:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Is that supposed to be some kind of threat? Look, if Barrett is most notable for being a critic of Chiropractic, so be it. Personally I concur with the government of New Zealand - who found Barrett not to be a credible critic of chiropractic in any shape or form. Quote from the New Zealand Commission on Chiropractic - nothing has written on chiropractic that we have considered can be relied on as balanced. But if that is what he is known for most and there are third-party references supporting that, then sure it should be included. -- Levine2112 05:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Here are two policies for you to read. The WP:BLP and WP:SELFPUB policies apply in this case. Primary references are perfectly acceptable when sourcing the opinion of the author in this particular case. Deep linking is easier for the reader to find the specified topic. Agreed?  Mr.Guru  talk  18:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. This is not presenting the opinion of the author, but rather giving a list of his writings whcih are of questionable notability without secondary sources to give each one weight. -- Levine2112 18:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Levine said in part: This is not presenting the opinion of the author,... If it is not the opinion of the author then it is secondary sources. If it is the opinion of the author then it satisfies policy. Agreed?  Mr.Guru  talk  18:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree still. There is a flaw in your logic here, for something can be neither an opinion and a secondary source. Granted, each article Barrett has written is his opinion, but the fact that he wrote said articles is not an opinion. Currently, the only sources lending to the notability of said articles are the self-published articles themselves. By only sourcing to the articles themselves or even to their listing on Quackwatch, we do not in anyway satisfy WP:WEIGHT. -- Levine2112 20:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

>Outdent< I checked the list and all but the Stem Cell/Embrionic article is linked to from the home page. I fixed it, but I still say that we need secondary sources to show why listing each one is notable and to provide weight to each article. -- Levine2112 23:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with you Levine (although I do like your signature!). Yes, it is not a link farm, but it simplifies the process to be able to click on a link and go to his commentary about the specific point. In addition, this article is about Barrett, and his comments. Maybe we should add more primary sources, but I'm not completely in support of that idea--this article isn't completely about his critiques, it's about him. Personally, I like the links because it simplifies the wiki-experience. Is that so bad? Orangemarlin 23:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The references are there to support that he has written on the subjects listed. The Quackwatch site provides links to all but one of these articles. We are not here to provide a link farm for Stephen Barrett nor to make it one-click easy for people to read his opinions on different subject matters. If someone wishes to read more about a particular topic, they can simply go to the Quackwatch home page and click-thru. Two-clicks. Regardless, how do we know it is notable that he wrote any of these articles. Secondary sources need to be provided in order to satisfy WP:WEIGHT. Otherwise, this list ought to be deleted. -- Levine2112 23:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You've convinced me on the lists (not completely, but I'm not sure it's worth warring over). However, I'm not sure undue weight is violated since the discussion is about Barrett, not about these topics. OrangeMarlin 23:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

My feeling is that Barrett has written on many other subjects not listed here yet. Are we to list each and every subject which he has written on? This would be a long list indeed. What is the threshhold for inclusion of this list. I've dealt with lists before and they can easily grow unwieldy if we don't set steadfast inclusionary rules. Or is it more prudent to only list the ones where there is a secondary source to show notability? Another option is to just say that Barrett has written about many subject dealing with alternative medicine, etc. and just leave it at that. -- Levine2112 00:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Nice signature. I like the color choices - very apropos. -- Levine2112 00:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, in the context of editing an encyclopedia (which is what we are doing) we don't need to mention EVERYTHING (something that Levine should bear in mind with additions of criticism it should be noted). Hence I agree with his summation "Another option is to just say that Barrett has written about many subject dealing with alternative medicine, etc. and just leave it at that." with a reference to the relevant area (or even areas) within QW and other locations. Note that on particular subjects that Barrett has been particularly well known for, then special mention is warranted, but otherwise, (IMO) no. Shot info 00:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The areas for which he is particularly well-known for should have secondary sources demonstrating this notability. The rest should go. (With regards to the criticism section... Shot info should bear in mind that this section is short now and only includes criticism from 3 sources.) -- Levine2112 01:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP tells us what is in a BLP. It's that simple. The criticism is better...now...in spite of distributions and edit wars. Levine should bear this in mind when editing BLPs. Shot info 01:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

At this point I have no idea what you are talking about. It seems like you are point fingers at me just to point fingers. Let's not start that again. -- Levine2112 01:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but what exactly is so wrong, in a list of articles the man has written, with linking directly to those articles? Are you disputing the notability of those articles in the absence refs proving it? ornis (t) 02:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. We need secondary sources to demonstrate WP:WEIGHT, but I would rather just say he wrote many articles criticizing Alternative Medicine. -- Levine2112 04:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The WP:BLP and WP:SELFPUB policies apply to articles when written on a person. The discussion is about Barrett which satisfies policy. Link farming refers to external links and has nothing to do when primary references are perfectly acceptable to source the opinion of the author. Primary sources for the authors opinion are usuable under current policy. A vague link to a home page makes is very difficult to find any topic. Direct links are easier for the reader. Therefore, direct linking will create a higher quality article. At the very least we should link some of the difficult to find links. I'm convinced the links should remain in the article. However, linking some and not all of the difficult to find links could be a good compromise.  Mr.Guru  talk  04:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

(copy of WP:WEIGHT policy) NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source... By the way. Under current WP:WEIGHT policy we do have reliable sources. According to WP:WEIGHT policy mentioned by Levine2112 we can use primary references because they are reliable sources. Hmmm.  Mr.Guru  talk  05:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

See point three of WP:SELFPUB... it is not unduly self-serving. Hmm. -- Levine2112 05:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you mean a different policy that one that discusses self references within Misplaced Pages to Misplaced Pages? Shot info 05:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes and I have to say, I think this whole list is unduly self-serving. We have no way on controlling or regulating what goes on this list. Certainly, if we are to have a list we should excercise some restraint by only including those topics which have some kind of secondary source lending to the notability/weight of Barrett writing about said topic. Otherwise, let's can the whole list. -- Levine2112 05:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, in my own article construction efforts, I try to keep lists to 3, 4, mayybbbeee 5 lines, at 6 lines, I get ruthless. I try to keep the list's scripted references to a minimum, where one reference covers several or many items, unless the reference is of a special quality (rare, super authoritative, hard to find). Although I might see where my point of view could benefit from a longer list, I don't do it because I think it is poor encyclopedicity and may reflect a need to change .--I'clast 05:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

We are talking about direct links for the benefit of the reader. No change to the text. Therefore, it is not unduly self-serving. In fact, it is very neutral in tone. Just links. Everything is in accordance with policy. Are direct links better for the reader? Are vague links harder for the reader to find the article? What is the best way to improve this article? Can we compromise on linking some of the links?  Mr.Guru  talk  06:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Direct links to each of Barrett's opinion pieces is certainly unduly self-serving. Additionally, point 4 of WP:SELFPUB states: it does not involve claims about third parties. Well, that's exactly what we have here. Given that this list violates at least two of the seven caveats of SELFPUB, I don't think that the policy can protect the inclusion. The links themselves shoulf be there just to support/verify the content. A link to the home page of Quackwatch which lists all but one of these articles is sufficient. Regardless, I am in favor of doing away with the cumbersome list and replacing it with a mention of articles with notability established and demonstrated by a third-party source. Otherwise, the reader has no way of knowing what the inclusionary practice was for the list and for which articles and topics Barrett is notable for. I am pretty sure you can find third-party references which support the notability of Barrett's writing on Chiropractic, Homeopathy and Alternative Medicine in generel, but until these third-party references surface, we have no way of knowing for sure.-- Levine2112 06:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

(ri) Which ones specifically? ornis (t) 06:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the links are self-serving at all, not in the context of WP:SELFPUB. Certainly not "unduly" when there is a list of points with a link to each. I agree with I'clast that the list should be shortened, but at that same time I agree with WP:V that claims should be referenced. Either the links stay or the list is shortened (with links). My preference, for a better encyclopedia, is a short list. Shot info 06:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

A good example of showing notability comes to us from Barrett's own Quackwatch - actually the Misplaced Pages article. Read the sentence: Quackwatch has also been cited or mentioned by journalists in reports on .... Something like this in place of the unwieldy list would be more appropriate and more in line with Misplaced Pages policies. -- Levine2112 06:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You are comparing apples to oranges. That section in Quackwatch discusses and documents the notablity of the website, a requirement for the very existence of the article here. Only tertiary sources will do for that purpose.

The list in this article has nothing to do with Barrett's notability. That has already been established. The list documents what he has criticized, and since sourcing is required, each item is sourced as required, using the only sources allowable and useful in this situation - primary sources. No one else's opinion counts. He has written his opinions in those articles.

BTW, thanks for admitting (in your edit summary here) that they are HIS articles, and obviously HIS opinions, which obviously means they are allowed as primary sources for this BLP, where other rules apply than in other types of articles. No policy violations here. Please stop obstructing the building of an article that is informative and a service to readers.

I have restored the list to the condition required by the WP:V & WP:ECITErules for sourcing here, since WP:EL doesn't apply in precisely this situation (documentation of the opinions of the subject of a BLP article in the article itself). -- Fyslee/talk 15:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The legitimate concept of a Wikified/reference linked, biographical list with some examples can be extended well past taste into outright promotion and advertising of person & opinions from (technically) questionable sources filled with unreliable opinions often confused with reliable technical sources.--I'clast 18:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. The way the list is linked up now - aside from being just ugly - is certainly unduly self-serving to Barrett, nearly providing him with a Table of Contents of his website. This is ridiculous. Furthermore, none of the articles listed have any secondary sources to satisfy the WP:WEIGHT concern. What is to stop someone from listing every single article Barrett has ever written and providing direct links to each. Again, let's removed all of the articles and just say that Barrett has critically written about many forms of Alternative Medicine and reference it the home page of Quackwatch. Otherwise, we are giving much to much weight to each article Barrett has written when certainly most of them are not notable in the slightest. . . and if they were/are, then secondary sources should be easy to locate to support individual articles. -- Levine2112 19:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The list as "reliable sources"

(copy of WP:WEIGHT policy) NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source... In accordance with WP:WEIGHT policy, we have reliable sources. According to WP:WEIGHT policy primary references are reliable sources and acceptable. This improves the quality of the article. We can compromise by linking some of the hard to find links. If not, we will go by the most notable. The chiropractic reference will then be moved up to the top of the list! Agreed?  Mr.Guru  talk  03:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The links are reliable sources that the articles represent Dr Barrett's opinions, they are not reliable sources about the subjects. Hence one encyclopedic view might be to take a long list, even longer, flatten it to a 5-6 line paragraph with primarily the homepage link and a few more. The other is called link farming and advertisement at some point.--I'clast 11:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You write: "The links are reliable sources that the articles represent Dr Barrett's opinions, they are not reliable sources about the subjects." Precisely! We are in full agreement. In this situation (which has nothing to do with the subjects themselves), we are only documenting that he has written on those subjects and sourcing the claim that he has done so. We are not quoting from those articles, only using internal links. I would support your concern about a link farm if someone decided to expand the list to include everything he's written about. No one is suggesting or attempting that.

We are not even getting close to any violation of WP:SELFPUB, because we are not even using one word of the "material" from those self-published articles (which could be against the "contentious" clause there), only linking to them as embedded refs of equal quality, which means they don't disturb the flow of the article. Such linking is not forbidden and fulfills the requirement for verifiablity. -- Fyslee/talk 15:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Defamation lawsuits

A bunch of them were removed when the article was locked by administrator if you remember. Then there was discussion about how they should be presented. --CrohnieGal 16:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The litigation section is way too BIG. I here here alarm bells ringing in my ear. Any thoughts?  Mr.Guru  talk  21:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

How about the suggestion that was said about putting them in a paragraph instead of listing? Just a though...--CrohnieGal 21:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The way I would write it is start up front with an explanation of his relationship with Bolen. It's poorly explained now, but it drove these lawsuits. Then I would explain the lawsuits simply. Something like:

Barrett filed suits against website operators and USENET posters reposting Bolen's letters online in several states, including Illinois, California, and Pennsylvania. Most of these were dismissed under anti-SLAPP statutes, or failing to establish the evidentiary burden for libel, or because of an interpretation of Communications Decency Act ("CDA") that gives users immunity from lawsuits when reposting libelous material online. Barrett v. Rosenthal, a lawsuit that Barrett initiated with another doctor in California was appealed to that state's supreme court. The court adopted the majority interpretation of the CDA, granting immunity to defendants for reposting Bolen's letters online.

I'm probably over-reacting, but the coverage on these lawsuits is currently very repetitive and over-detailed. Also, does anyone know what happened on remand in Barrett v. Negrete? Is it still a live case? I should look it up in PACER but I'm close to $10 in charges. In any case, it hasn't been covered well, so should be excluded as OR. Cool Hand Luke 22:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

That's an excellent summary. It should be possible to cover the matter in two or three paragraphs (including the refs, and place explanatory notes in the refs to keep the article text shorter). -- Fyslee/talk 23:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, I looked into Barrett v. Negrete after all and the case is still live. Last entry in the docket was the magistrate judge's pretrial planning and discovery report April 10. Discovery is apparently ongoing right now, and the magistrate requests settlement statements by September 11. Unless the parties settle, the last pre-trial conference will be held April 7, 2008. The reason that it's taken so long is both parties agreed to stay the case pending the California supreme court's ruling in Barrett v. Rosenthal—not that any of this belongs in the article. Has little coverage; I say we keep this case out until that changes. Cool Hand Luke 23:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think a paragraph similar to what CHL has authored above would certainly work. Definitely, we should work our way from Bolen and the infamous press release and how that grew into several libel suits, give the results and finally landmark internet case, Barrett v. Rosenthal. Note that though the CDA finding provides immunity for the reposting of libel, the judges opinion in Rosenthal was that none of the statements were in fact libelous anyhow. -- Levine2112 23:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Nothing was libelous against Barrett, which is why the circuit court affirmed the motion to strike against all of his claims. The stalking comment (not against Barrett) was quite possibly libelous, but the Supreme Court does not reach the issue, nor was it competent to. That's why the majority does not weigh in on the factual question. It looks like Justice Moreno was just emphasizing that the court of appeals affirmed dismissal of all Barrett's claims; even he doesn't express an opinion about libel on the stalking claim. We'll never know because the issue is decided by law and can't reach a trier of fact. It might be worth a mention to state that the only remaining potentially libelous statement was actually made against Polevoy. Cool Hand Luke 00:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The judge's opinion in BvR was that none of her statements about Barrett were libelous. Nothing said about Bolen's statements. Bolen's original libelous statements are still the subject of court actions. Her wild and hyperbolous statements were so far out that no sensible person would believe them, thus they were judged as not causing any harm and she got off the hook, even though she believes them and intends harm (she still repeats them and embellishes on them, thus setting her up for further lawsuits without any CDA protection at all). -- Fyslee/talk 08:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Right. Justice Moreno affirms that nothing she said against Barrett (including claims repeated from Bolen) were libelous; that's how he reaches his additional finding that she was not in conspiracy with others. You're right that we can't really draw much of a conclusion on Bolen's remarks at all, and we shouldn't make such sweeping statements. It's still worth repeating from secondary sources that only Polevoy had any stakes in the California Supreme Court decision though. Cool Hand Luke 13:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Since this is the Stephen Barrett article, I think that the Polevoy detail would be better suited for mention on the actually Barrett v. Rosenthal article and not here. -- Levine2112 16:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with CHL. A mention of the Polevoy details would fit into this article.  Mr.Guru  talk  19:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

At this point, we should comment out the litigation because of the servere weight problems.  Mr.Guru  talk  20:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Unlike the list of Barrett's articles, the litigation section actually has many secondary sources supporting what is said there. -- Levine2112 23:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Also the primary sources in the litigation sources are not (technically) questionable sources filled with unreliable opinions often confused with reliable technical sources, where the legitimate concept of a Wikified/reference linked, biographical list with some examples can be extended well past taste into outright promotion and advertising of person & opinions.--I'clast 18:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The litigation section is extremely HUGE. I here alarm bells ringing in my ear. What next?  Mr.Guru  talk  03:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a proposal on the table to have the litigation section shortened to describe just the meat of the trials - the history, who sued who and why, and the results; all leading to the granddaddy of the cases thus far: Barrett v. Rosenthal. If you would like to help craft that, please participate constructively here and work to gain a consensus rather than telling us about the noises you are hearing in your head. -- Levine2112 07:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Pfizer

I removed it. This is simply a WEIGHT issue, as well as keeping the Barrett/big-pharma conspiracy promoters in check. --Ronz 17:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

We should avoid Pfizer weasel words.  Mr.Guru  talk  17:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Another example of weasel wording is changing numerous to most. We know Barrett has criticized numerous but saying most is just weasel wording and original research.  Mr.Guru  talk  17:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

No one is saying that Barrett and Pfizer are in a conspiracy together... at least not on this article. What is notable is that Pfizer sponsored the survey from which we are referencing. It takes no OR to see that. It is right there on the reference. Pfizer is much more notable that SpikedOnline and to leave it out is an egregious omission apparently being done to protect Barrett from the association. That is what is weaselly here. -- Levine2112 18:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Saying it was done in collaboration smacks (or implies) of a conspiracy which is weasel wording and is obviously a weight problem.  Mr.Guru  talk  18:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that is an obvious conclusion you are reaching. Pfizer actually solves the Weight issue of mentioning such a "small-potatoes" publication such as SpikedOnline. It makes it seem more notable and worth mentioning. -- Levine2112 18:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The Pfizer collaboration is obviously weasel wording to imply Barrett is collaborating with Pfizer. The Pfizer reference is there to support inclusion but without the weasel words. We can keep the reference but remove the weasel.  Mr.Guru  talk  18:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to Levine2112's edit summary, the website is notable, and notable enough to have an article here (which settles any charges of lacking notability!). I've been on their mailing list for years. The survey is even more notable because of the interviewees, who are outstanding and notable persons in their own rights, including several Nobel laureates. That's what makes it all notable, not because it was done in collaboration with Pfizer. -- Fyslee/talk 19:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Pfizer is much more notable that SpikedOnline's survey. There is absolutely no reason not to mention it. No one is makign the assertion here in the article that Barrett and Pfizer are in cohoots; rather all we are stating is the fact that Pfizer sponsored the survey. It is clear from the responses here that some of the editors removing the Pfizer mention are in fact protecting Barrett from this association. This is called white-washing and is expressly prohibited by Wiki policy. -- Levine2112 19:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

We do not need the Pfizer weasel words to support inclusion. The reference is included to support notability.  Mr.Guru  talk  19:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

As regards the survey, "sponsorship" is OR. "Collaboration" is the proper word. Pfizer is one of many sponsors of the website and magazine, another matter entirely. As regards the bad faith charges of whitewashing, there is nothing to whitewash, since the only association is between Spiked and Pfizer, not Barrett and Pfizer. -- Fyslee/talk 19:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict x2) Fyslee stated it better than I was going to. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

"In association with Pfizer" would be the most correct way to word this based on the source. There is no implications by mentioning this other that lending to the over notability of this survey. Otherwise, why mention that this came from a survey at all? -- Levine2112 20:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

In association with Pfizer is implying Barrett is associated with Pfizer when he did the survey which is original research.  Mr.Guru  talk  20:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Pfizer-Barrett inference is original reserach, *all yours*.--00:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Remedial Reading 101:

• "What Inspired You? is a survey of key thinkers in science, technology and medicine, conducted by spiked in collaboration with the research-based pharmaceutical company Pfizer." (emphasis added - Fyslee)

Now what part of that exact quote do you not understand? And it has to do with Spiked, not Barrett. -- Fyslee/talk 20:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Makes complete sense to me. Let's add the wording just as it says then: in collaboration with Pfizer. (Research based is superfluous for our purposed here). Also, I was getting the "in association with" from the top of the reference where it says in association with Pfizer (logo). I agree that it has to do with Spiked and not Barrett. I am not sure why QuackGuru is making that implication. -- Levine2112 23:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If "in collaboration with" is not preferred, "in parternership with" might find quotable resonance with some. From the same credits, Pfizer statement, "...While the views expressed in the What Inspired You? survey do not necessarily reflect the views of Pfizer, we are proud to partner with spiked to find out more...".--I'clast 00:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This is one of those pointless pieces of trivia that seem to litter the highly contentious articles because editors say "yes" with one hand and "no" with the other. The particular peace of trivia (like so many others...) can be easily seen in the reference when clicked on, adds absolutely nothing to the article, and casts a poor light on the editorial capabilities of wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Shot info 00:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

For notability, Pfizer is the heavyweight here, perhaps the primary mover & author (concretely stating *either* Spiked or Pfizer as primary is OR so far; Spiked *is* the publisher). Beyond the Pfizer presence directly noted as "in association with", "collaborative" & "partner" here, its lengthy presentation and careful description here suggest that about all we can reasonably, literally assume is that Spiked licked the envelopes &/or made the followup phone calls and wrote a few paragraphs. It is not sensible to say that Spiked initated various major committments & arranged the Pfizer VP's lead speech at the Chemical Society, identified, vetted, and lined up the 134 respondents (out of no-telling how many invites even with Pfizer's name and money driving attention), perhaps arranging transport, housing, and perhaps honoraria in some cases (common corporate & pharma practices in many areas). By various measures Pfizer is almost certainly the lead partner (Spiked? spake who?) but again my point is that it is OR to assume Spiked is primary in most senses, given the details so far. Both need to be credited. Without Pfizer's involvement, my view this is just another lightweight (non-notable) corporate paid blog with some printed advertising.--I'clast 05:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't think the mention of the survey should be included without mentioning Pfizer. -- Levine2112 05:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Pfizer did not has some type of involvement with Barrett. Therefore, it is irrelevant to mention Pfizer. Mentioning Pfizer is weasel wording. Spiked online conducted the survey and not Pfizer. Notability has nothing to do with Pfizer.  Mr.Guru  talk  06:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Unlike you, I have no fixed ideas about anything regarding Barrett & Pfizer. Pfizer clearly has a major part in the creation and publication of this survey as noted in the Spiked! website and Pfizer, #1$ in its industry, is far weightier and more credible than Spiked. Sourcing counts.--I'clast 06:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Levine2112 06:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Naturally...

Other articles in Misplaced Pages would regard the sentence "Mr. X, in association with Mr. Y, said....." as weasel wording. Other editors would drop the bit between the comma's. The arguements to keep it in do smack somewhat of desperation, especially when the link is not wikipedia's to make, nor is this article about Spiked. The "in association with..." should be in the Spiked article, not here. Shot info 07:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

In other cases, "in association with" just euphemeistically means advertising or financial support. Here the article itself also speaks to "collaboration" and "partner" as well as other signs of active participation; Spiked! not showing the personnel resources to ordinarily carry out a number of related tasks, that are easy for Pfizer here. Here, "in association with" looks very modest, and quite different in scope of participation.--I'clast 07:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

So is the reference in regard to Spiked or SB. Other editors fail to make the connection in notability for the Spiked article itself. Use here is strange. I don't disagree with the parsing of the sentence (remember I agree with it back at the start) but I'm thinking that it is more weaselly to mention it here, and not specifically at Spiked itself. Without this, it implies that there is an importance of Pfizer to SB, rather than to Spiked. Obviously this isn't the case, which is why it is better to have it where it is relevant, at Spiked. Shot info 07:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Pfizer is probably not notable to WP's Spiked article, since Spiked apparently has many such corporate relationships unless Pfizer is the dominant one. Pfizer *is notable* in this survey series article because Pfizer has a big presence in research, having credibility and contacts throughout the biomed & scientific world, touching many of lives. Spiked!, probably, simply would not be a credible party to most invitees by itself or be able to dig up and chose all the candidates. I would say take Spiked & Pfizer at their words, "collaboration" and "partner" - if you mention/quote one, you clearly mention/quote both, at least the first time and maintain the full attribution in the references/footnotes to any separate paragraphs. As for SB-Pfizer connections (or aspersions), there is nothing here other than he is one party of interest to the Spiked-Pfizer survey, among 134.--I'clast 08:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

So you agree that the relationship of Pfizer to SB is irrelevant and yes that it is in context with Spiked. Explain why again it should be brought up in SB rather than Spiked? All the information above seems to deal with Spiked, not SB, he is just circumstantial. Shot info 08:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

...relationship of Pfizer to SB is irrelevant would be OR, too sweeping, and not specifically germane here. I said that there is no such imputation here of aspersion on or impropriety by SB with the survey. Simply the correct sourcing combines Spiked & Pfizer because of the literal (& liberal) wordings used by them as well as the nature and scope of the materials & followup required for the survey, etc. The combined sources are noted and notable at SB because the survey sponsor especially pertains to the notability, credibility and stature of the specific survey series, the 134 respondents, including Dr Barrett, and not the rest of Spiked magazine. We need to work out reasonably succinct, factual and accurate attribution to source (and weight) the sourced material (in two different sections/parts), I proposed what I thought was reasonably compact & complete attribution, above. I am thinking use Spiked in collaboration with Pfizer... in the first sentence, use Pfizer in one or more of the refs in the first sentence and the lead to the later paragraph, and refer to "The Spiked survey..." implicitly back to the first, longer full form as above it.--I'clast 10:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

IMO the twisting of WP principles is sometimes taken to extremes. How can mentioning of a clearly stated partner in a collaborative project be Original Research? MaxPont 12:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi all, http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Stephen_Barrett&diff=next&oldid=146985450 What is this? Reference tampering? Please help... somebody! Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  18:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It's called more complete attribution. Pls read the previous discussions. Zzzzz.--I'clast 19:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The change he complained about lost changed two references to one different one, without a good reason. Please use the {{cite}} templates if you change the references to add Pfizer (which I still feel is at most appropriate within the {{cite}} template.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Pfizer

The correct references are all included to meet the inclusion criteria. More importantly, please refrain from adding weasel words. Barrett is not a partner with Pfizer. Moreover, there is no relationship between Pfizer and Barrett. Therefore, is serves no purpose to include it in this article. It is irrelevant to mention Pfizer. Notability has been established by including the references.  Mr.Guru  talk  19:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where this Barrett-Pfizer stuff keeps coming from, the correct source attribution is Spiked and Pfizer, collaborating on the survey and content, where Pfizer likely did much heavy lifting. Spiked is the publisher with *very* minimal direct editorial content there, similar to Pfizer's. It has been pointed out before by others that your citation of WP:WEASEL is skewed. ... presenting opinion as such and leaving it strictly at that. Words characteristic of this stylistic phenomenon, such as "critics say..." and "some argue that...", are colloquially known in Misplaced Pages as Weasel words. Pfizer "in collaboration" and cited as a "partner" in the survey are WP:RS facts to the extent we accept Spiked magazine itself. Since the admins have locked the article for 2 weeks, I'll wish anyone ready for one, a good vacation (maybe me too).--I'clast 21:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the "reference tampering" bit, but it's just plain sloppy quoting. Y'all should know better. (corrected per I'clast's confession below - Fyslee)

The title is not "Key thinkers....", as implied below:

• entitled "Key thinkers in science, technology and medicine." (emphasis added - Fyslee)

The proper wording (without any refs here) is:

• The magazine Spiked-online named Barrett in a survey of 134 "Key thinkers in science, technology and medicine."

The title of the survey was:

• What Inspired You?

How on earth can this mistake be made yet again? Come on guys, this kind of carelessness is unbecoming, and now this inaccuracy is locked in place. -- Fyslee/talk 20:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Please make the changes explained above. This has nothing to do with POV, but only regards accurate quoting. Here is the correct code:

• The magazine Spiked-online named Barrett in a survey of 134 "Key thinkers in science, technology and medicine." -- Fyslee/talk 20:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

No so fast with the request, your assertions too have several problems. Please discuss to get a correct, agreed answer first, Fyslee.

Fyslee, there several problems with your assertions on "wrong edit". We're all a little sloppy sometimes. "entitled" - that's originally mine, not Max's, sorry. Named? where? "referred to" might be more accurate, maybe "called", we should work on verbiage and word choice here first. Using "entitled" as a trojan to revert other favored parts to even less accurate text, no thanks. Hopefully the admins are watching this very carefully. What Inspired You? is a survey of key thinkers in science, technology and medicine, conducted by spiked in collaboration with the research-based pharmaceutical company Pfizer. Survey respondents hail... Work the text here first, please. Word improvement & phrasing there is a small thing, and we have plenty of time to do it right.--I'clast 20:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I will propose this text to replace ...respondents, entitled "Key thinkers in science... with ...respondents referred to as "...key thinkers in science....--I'clast 21:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC);

First off my apologies to MaxPont. I saw his revert using the inaccurate wording and linked to it, not realizing it was a repeat of an earlier error. My only concern at this point is the mislabeling of the title of the survey. It was a survey of 134 key thinkers, entitled "What inspired you?" If you want to interject weasel words to ensure that readers question whether they (including the Nobel laureates) actually are key thinkers, then that is just another example of your POV editing. The weasel words are unnecessary editorializing. Why do you insist on walking in such "small shoes" (as the Danes would say)? A bit of fairness and largess on your part would be more becoming. Smallmindedness and pettiness are unbecoming. Assuming good faith of more than just the editors here would help things alot. You are creating potholes in a nicely paved highway. -- Fyslee/talk 22:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Fyslee, one of the problems I am having with the article and your view, is that you overstate Barrett's accomplishments without accurate context and importance, much less a human balance with anyone's true natural frailites. In general this is not wise, in critical health care issues this is dangerous, readers need an accurate article with facts, even if they are not all flattering. I feel there is a balancing factual deficiency that does not aid readers to accurately weigh(t) Dr Barrett's opinions as a mortal here. Not so very long ago my views of Dr Barrett would have probably more closely paralleled HHS' Eng. I don't think the fundamental problem is for me to "makee nice-nice", but for Dr Barrett to better distinguish and focus on what is false and dangerous or that we create an accurate article.

"Barrett named" was not a correct summary either of the Spiked-Pfizer survey and helped cause a slight confusion (also I recommend fixing the contributory capitalization & ellipsis errata, as suggested above). I made an early trial edit and mischose one word, that took a life of its own. We are continuing to refine that sentence here. As for Pfizer, it is part and parcel of the Spiked-Pfizer survey collaboration as stated in the survey's webpages. I think that Arthur and I were getting somewhere, and I am quite willing to work to improve the factual transition to the "key thinkers" quote some more. I have always found that extracting the facts accurately is important. But if the shoe fits, one should wear it, too. As for any perceived lack fairness and largess assigned to me, that may more reflect your beliefs, committments and long running activism than any real action or intent on my part. With an article like Dr Barrett's bio, smooth is *not* the primary objective, factual & accurate is. When I say this looks like an advertising link farm, please take me at my word - I am not aware of *any* other WP bio with that many wikified & linked references to the subject's opinions.--I'clast 10:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

"I don't know where this Barrett-Pfizer stuff keeps coming from" because the information is in Stephen Barrett, you know the article we are editing here. So if it appears in Stephen Barrett and not Spiked (magazine) then that means that it is more notable for one article and not the other. Why you cannot see such a basic function of Misplaced Pages is surprising (although probably shouldn't be given past edit warring). Given that editors are desparate to keep it in here and not here either means there is a POV fork going on, or the Pfizer issue is just not notable. Your call... Shot info 00:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Pfizer is also *listed* in Spiked (magazine) among 30+ sponsors, partners etc, but the detail there is inadequate and has nothing to do with source attribution. Here, the Pfizer source is part and parcel of its correct attribution with Spiked and notability of the survey.--I'clast 10:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Pfizer Promoting Controversy

{{edit protected}} Sentence to be restored > The magazine Spiked-online named Barrett in a survey of 134 "Key thinkers in science, technology and medicine."

According to Tim: The "quackbusters," we know, were originally organized, and funded, by the pharmaceutical industry. Insinuating there is a collaboration with Pfizer and Barrett has been used to advance an agenda and thus a BLP violation and weasel wording. For example, when referring to The New Yorker magazine we do not mention the sponsors because it would be weasel wording. This is also synthesizing a controversy. I believe in accordance with policy this edit should be reverted. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  01:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Please deny this request. Tim Bolen's accusation doesn't appear on this page and it is clear from the article here that the collaboration with Pfizer is with Spiked online and not with Barrett. QuackGuru has been told this many times and he is the only one here making this inference. -- Levine2112 01:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Please fulfill this request. We have policies for all us to adhere to. See: WP:WEASEL WP:BLP WP:SYN. Cheers.  Mr.Guru  talk  01:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The only agenda exists in your mind. It is clear from the wording that the association is between Pfizer and SpikedOnline and not between Pfizer and Barrett. Thus no SYN, no WEASEL and certainly no BLP violation. -- Levine2112 02:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

So why is it needed here and not here. As you have pointed out (and I'clast) "the association is between Pfizer and SpikedOnline and not between Pfizer and Barrett". Shot info 07:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

To describe the survey in full and to satisfy WP:WEIGHT. The Pfizer association demonstrates to the prominence of the survey and why it is given such a proportionate space in the article. I am not going to lecture you on the actual text WP:WEIGHT. At this point, I am sure we all can recite it verbatim. Suffice it to say, keeping the survey's association with Pfizer - an extremely large player in the health world - reference demonstrates weight appropriate to its significance to the subject, Stephen Barrett - a player in the health world. If QuackGuru concucts something negative into this, we can't help. He could just as easily read something positive in this - that Pfizer sponsored a survey that chose Barrett for a reponse could seem like a prestigious thing. -- Levine2112 08:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Chill about QG, this question has been asked of other editors and you are the only one to answer. So Pfizer has relevance to SB? Yes or no. Because in one breath you say no "the association is between Pfizer and SpikedOnline and not between Pfizer and Barrett", and in another you say yes "keeping the survey's association with Pfizer - an extremely large player in the health world - reference demonstrates weight appropriate to its significance to the subject, Stephen Barrett - a player in the health world". Either it is relevant to SB or not relevant to SB. Which is it. If Pfizer has relevance to SB, then yes, I agree, needs to be in Stephen Barrett. Shot info 08:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

There is problems with the wording of the sentence currently in the article. We have policies we should comply with. Right?  Mr.Guru  talk  02:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

We have been through stuff like this before such as the BC revisionism which was a BLP violation. Agreed?  Mr.Guru  talk  02:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

This is the same problem but a new sentence. This is another endless ongoing debate to include against policy material. This is a very serious matter. When in doubt leave it out. BLP says do no harm!  Mr.Guru  talk  02:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The current POV sentence in the article violates policy after policy. Articles must be written from a neutral view point. End of discussion.  Mr.Guru  talk  04:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

N Edit declined. Protected edits require consensus, which this one does not have. No opinion about the substance of the edit. Sandstein 05:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit request

We request an unrelated tag be placed upon the Biography section because there is unrelated content currently in the article. "in collaboration with Pfizer," is pointy and is unrelated to the specific Barrett survey. This article is about Barrett and not Pfizer. It has no relevance to Barrett. Read the above comments by Shot info for more details. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  19:25, 28 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
6. ^ Barrett's response to Spiked-online's "What Inspired You?" survey series. Cite error: The named reference "Spiked_Online" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
7. ^ "What Inspired You? — Index of Survey responses". Spiked-online. Retrieved 2007-07-23.
8. ^ "What Inspired You? — Introduction". Spiked-online. Retrieved 2007-07-23.