Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:17, 14 February 2007

Sources for contentious claims

Note that per WP:NOR and WP:V, as well the 'synthesis' restriction, we as WP cannot make any of our own conclusions by the juxtaposition of sourced facts. If we have a reliable and neutral source that says something controverial, we can quote it or summarize it, but we cannot construct a synthesis from generic bits of data and come up with our own conclusion. Crum375 19:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

As noted in my message to you on my talk page, I have improved the references and made the revisions. I hope that improves things. -- Fyslee's (First law) 21:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

As I noted on your Talk page, I think this version is much better. Thanks, Crum375 21:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Barrett ruled in Appeals Courts in California to be "biased and unworthy of credibility."

NCAHF filed this suit and then hired Barrett and Wallace Sampson as "experts." It was a stunning defeat in NCAHF Vs KingBio. NCAHF (Barrett is one of the founders & is VP & Head of Internet Activities) hired Barrett as an "expert." Here is the direct quote: "The trial court concluded NCAHF failed to prove a false or misleading statement.King Bio’s expert testified the products were safe and effective. The products were included in the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia and complied with FDA guidelines.NCAHF presented no evidence that King Bio’s products were not safe and effective,relying instead on a general attack on homeopathy, made by witnesses who had no knowledge of, or experience with, King Bio’s products, and who were found to be biased and unworthy of credibility." After this loss, Barrett and his publicists tried to portray themselves as victims ... claiming it wasn't them but the lawyer's fault for the suit. Very typical of them to blame others for their disasters. They also lost to BOTANICAL LABORATORIES, INC and got a judgement of over $100K against them. That's when they got NCAHF suspended from the State of California, which many feel was a ploy so they couldn't get sued nor have to pay the judgement. Gotta run. Thanks for asking. Ilena discuss

I don't see in your quote above where the court ruled that Barrett specifically is "biased and unworthy of credibility". Can you provide a link to that case? And if this is in fact the case that Barrett and Quackwatch are specifically "biased and unworthy of credibility", shouldn't this be included in the lead of their respective WP articles first? Crum375 22:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. Here is a link to both the Superior Court Case and the Appeals Judges ruling NCAFH loses to King Bio. You will see it applies directly to Stephen Barrett and Wallace Sampson. Barrett signs his postings with both hats ... Quackwatch and Director of Internet Operations for NCAHF and they co-produce a widely disseminated newsletter. The Appeals Court case (which I provide the pdf for here specifically use the terms "biased and unworthy of credibility." Barrett is a writer, not a scientist. He wages legal and smear campaigns against those he opposes. This is factual and provable ...not an attack. It is a description of his work, unflattering though it might be. Greetings from the Jungles Ilena discuss

Of course it should be in their articles. The problem is that Barrett and Quackwatch has a fan club here on Misplaced Pages that vigourously tilt the article into a pro-Barrett POV. MaxPont 22:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

WP is not about 'fan clubs' but about following our content rules. I suggest you do your best to convince the editors at those articles, which represent a de-facto WP consensus, to change the leads. But until then, we would have to assume that the court case did not apply to Barret or Quackwatch specifically, until and unless proven otherwise. If you do have some other source showing that Barret/Quackwatch are specifically unacceptable as sources, please feel free to provide it. Thanks, Crum375 22:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. Here is a link to both the Superior Court Case and the Appeals Judges ruling NCAFH loses to King Bio. You will see it applies directly to Stephen Barrett and Wallace Sampson. Barrett signs his postings with both hats ... Quackwatch and Director of Internet Operations for NCAHF and they co-produce a widely disseminated newsletter. The Appeals Court case (which I provide the pdf for here specifically use the terms "biased and unworthy of credibility." Barrett is a writer, not a scientist. He wages legal and smear campaigns against those he opposes. This is factual and provable ...not an attack. It is a description of his work, unflattering though it might be. Greetings from the Jungles Ilena discuss

Ilena, I read your sources, and I fail to find where it says that Barrett or Quackwatch are "biased and unworthy of credibility", or that "He wages legal and smear campaigns against those he opposes". Unless you provide better sources (or point me to a direct quote that I missed in your sources), I am afraid your statements can be construed as attacks on a living person, and violate WP:BLP. So please provide better sources that support your above allegations, or otherwise please refrain from making these attacks. Thanks, Crum375 00:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

So sorry. I'll make it clearer for you. Page 22 ] contains this quote: The trial court concluded NCAHF failed to prove a false or misleading statement.King Bio’s expert testified the products were safe and effective. The products were included in the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia and complied with FDA guidelines. NCAHF presented no evidence that King Bio’s products were not safe and effective, relying instead on a general attack on homeopathy, made by witnesses who had no knowledge of, or experience with, King Bio’s products, and who were found to be biased and unworthy of credibility. Would you like a list of his legal attacks ? I'll be providing evidence shortly to his smear campaigns. Ilena discuss

The selective quoting of court statements, though vaguely interesting, has little to do with the article and the relevance of the link. The link mets WP:RS and the editor in question should have a read of WP:COI. Shot info 04:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Assuming all of this is right, then why isn't it reflected in the lead of the wiki-linked articles? Crum375 02:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm new at this and learning but why is there a problem with links to articles in Misplaced Pages that are about Barrett and Quackwatch? Is there something I should know? --Crohnie 23:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

those who belive in the effectiveness of alt med object to Barrett's oposition to the practice and in some cases have reacted by wageing campains against him.Geni 23:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Barrett's reliability or otherwise is not really relivant to this article. He is a notable comentator thus it is legitimate that his views be included. Of course of the College has responded to them that should also be included.Geni 23:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I thought reliability was relevant to all articles on Misplaced Pages ... not self promotion and promotion by publicists and promoters. Barrett calls himself "the media" ... he bragged about it in Time Magazine. He is all about promoting his viewpoint through various medium: Healthfraud List, quackwatch.com and related sites connected via "anti-quackery" webring, Misplaced Pages, Usenet, Blogs, Chirotalk, Quack Files ... to name a few. It is a network to flood the internet and other medium with their opinions, claiming they are unbiased scientists. They are not. They are writers and flacks and wage legal attacks and smear campaigns against modalities (like homeopathy), and chiropractic and many others. On the Healthfraud List a "cry to arms" was recently put out to bring more of their "unbiased" editors to Misplaced Pages. This is all factual and documented. Barrett has waged a smear campaign against the subject of this article, and now is using Misplaced Pages to further it. I thought this was an encyclopedia. When does an encyclopedia put "recommendations" from one engaged in legal battles with the subject of an article such as this one? "recommend avoiding both the school and its alumni." I hope that there are unbiased administators watching this article. Barrett's NCAHF was suspended in May, 2003 and though I gave the link to the State of California's website showing it's suspension, that relevant information was kept off of Misplaced Pages until December, 2006. He has people who help make his "look good" ... the job of public relations people. This verifiable but not praiseworthy fact is extremely relevant when his viewpoint is pushed here on Misplaced Pages as RS ... when in fact it is he claiming to be so ... via his media connections. He writes books. He writes articles. He promotes websites. They push his viewpoint about who is and who is not a "healthfraud" and a "quack." It's a public relations media business. He is no scienitist ...nor is he unbiased. His hatred of Dr. Hulda Clark and determination to destroy her and anyone and anything close to her (this college for one, Bolen another) should not be allowed to be played out on Misplaced Pages. Thank you and I hope you're having a beautiful day. Ilena discuss

Even if it was said during the King Bio case that Dr. Barrett's testimony was "bias and unworthy of credibility", does this also mean that all other cases he testified in were called this? My understanding is that Dr. Barrett has testified in other cases, is this true, and if it is, what did the courts say then? Just playing devils advocate. --Crohnie 15:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

What does any of this have to do with the article? Just because Barrett's testimony in a single (a few?) court of law, with regard to a specific topic, was deemed for those specific proceedings biased ant not credible, that certainly does not undo the many awards that Quackwatch has received for the information on their website. Perhaps Ilena's personal conflicts with Barrett has something to do with her perspective here? Certainly there's a WP:COI issue. --Ronz 00:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that sometime Quackwatch should be allowed. He has won awards and a lot on his site is referrenced well. I was wondering about WP:COI issues. I am new but I thought this was against policy. I don't agree with everything on Quackwatch and don't go there often at all, actually very seldomly but it just seems that there is attacking that is unnecessary going on, like this talk page. Maybe it's something I don't understand. --Crohnie 00:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Relevance of link

Lets WP:AGF. Even if we did include the Barrett sentence, is it appropriate to quote, "avoid the school and its alumni." That sounds like an attack. -- Dēmatt (chat) 04:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It is an attack waht of it?Geni 10:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It is relevant criticism, made in a sober manner without any ad hominem or straw man attacks. It fulfills the NPOV requirement for inclusion of opposing POV. I have now reformatted that sentence to make its relevance easier to understand. Readers who get that far, and who are interested, can read it for themselves. -- Fyslee's (First law) 11:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess a better assessment would be an unjustified attack. Fyslee, your version is better. I'll add some. -- Dēmatt (chat) 12:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That is of course a POV judgment call, and has no Misplaced Pages-relevant place in determining whether to include it or not. One side considers it justified, and that's enough. The other links regarding accreditation issues, as well as the actions of the named (in the link) notable graduates, make for a compelling case for it being very justified criticism. To even publicly announce that one is a graduate from that school, is to place oneself in the middle of a bullseye for investigation, since some of its graduates have been guilty of dubious practices, and one therefore could be suspicious of others who have bought their degrees there. The whole issue of degree mills and dubious accreditation is now blowing up in the faces of many public employees, politicians, and other notable and unnotable people, and the records of such schools are being examined by journalists and others, since being a graduate of such a school is a big red flag warning of possible misdeeds. McKeith and Clark are just two right here. Their actions lead others to examine the credentials of anyone with papers from Clayton, and if I were such a person, I'd burn those papers as fast as possible and never mention them. The articles in this category are very relevant to study: ] -- Fyslee's (First law) 12:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I still think that we have an obligation to justify why we would include such an attack, rather than just print the attack. It's the difference between being the one with the gun verses the one reporting on the one with the gun (lame attempt at an example;). -- Dēmatt (chat) 12:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...We need to be careful with that, since our opinion is not to be included, only a presentation of opinions from V & RS. If including more of his opinion, which explains why he is critical, does the job better, go for it. -- Fyslee's (First law) 12:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

What ya think? -- Dēmatt (chat) 13:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

As always, what you do, you do well. It looks good and NPOV. I have wikilinked it. -- Fyslee's (First law) 13:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Wiki is not telling what something is NOT

I added the link to the exact description of what Clayton College is. All the pontificating by Barrett and all the places it isn't accredited appears to be verbose and attacking. We can certainly have a comment about the criticsm, but I just read the websites and I don't see them claiming to be anything other than what they are ... nothing more. Thank you.Ilena discuss

But accreditation to a college is important and I personally don't see it as attacking, just information. --Crohnie 19:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"Accreditation"

I did some independent research to get a viewpoint not reliant upon Quackwatch and Bad Science. Basically, their "accreditation" is worthless:

The American National Naturopathic Medical Accreditation Board is an accreditation mill .

This "accreditation is not recognized by the Dept of Education .

Clayton uses "non-traditional accreditation" not recognized by the state of Alabama .

The American Association of Drugless Practitioners is an accreditation mill

--Ronz 18:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that if the accreditation is not accepted someplaces and might even be illegal that the beginning of the article should be reverted back until this get clears up. It sounds inconsistent to have the first paragraph say it is then to go a little further and say it isn't. --Crohnie 19:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There are countless types of accrediation. Should we list everyone that a college is NOT accredited with? Of course not! As an encyclopedia, we tell what it is ...not what people suing their graduates and waging smear campaigns against them want people to know. No, it's not an accredited dental school either. It's exactly what it claims to be. Nothing more. The rest is POV. 19:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilena (talk • contribs)

The notable issue here is that the accreditation is worthless. --Ronz 19:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Crum375's edit to my consolidation works well. The facts are listed and Clayton's perspective is made clear. --Ronz 19:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Anyone with more than two brain cells that can communicate can then see the clear spin the institution is placing on the real facts, when the facts (as clearly documented by official sources) so clearly document the dubious nature of their accreditation. The spin is betweeen the lines. They are telling the truth, but definitely avoiding telling the whole truth. In the very next section on their website they pawn off all responsibility on the hapless student:

What are the laws in my state? How do I practice? Do I need a license?

Students are responsible for determining the legal issues involved in conducting a natural health practice in his or her state. The laws differ in each state or locality and our policy is to not offer detailed legal information. We recommend you contact your state or local government for legal interpretations, conduct Internet research or visit your public library as it is important for you to know what your legal boundaries as a consultant are.

So basically they are flying under the radar by not directly lying. Their type of "honesty" isn't worth much, so caveat emptor: "Let the buyer beware". -- Fyslee's (First law) 20:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

What does the school teach?

Now that we have totally detroyed the credibility of this school, maybe it would be a good idea to write a little something good about it, unless it is all bad. Anybody good at writing for the enemy? Or are all we interested here is naturopathy bashing? -- Dēmatt (chat) 20:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Their web site has a lot of info - should not be hard to lift/cite some material. Crum375 20:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

A short list of the subjects they teach, and then wikilink them. That should be good enough. -- Fyslee's (First law) 20:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It's just a pure and utter extension of the Smear_campaign spread by Barrett, now repeated, almost verbatim here on Misplaced Pages. Everything Wiki is NOT ... biased, subjective, and part of a legal campaign he is waging. Ilena discuss

Did I miss something? Comments keep being made about Dr Barrett trying to smear this article. Did he post somewhere? Some of this is just not making any sense to me. What does any legal problems have to do with the article? Sorry, maybe I shouldn't mention anything, but this seems to be one side, at least here about smear compaigns. --Crohnie 22:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Barrett has a team on the internet who promote him and post his linkspam throughout the internet including Misplaced Pages. That's what Media or Public_relations and Smear_campaigns are all about. Ilena discuss