Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:31, 28 November 2012

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article has had a peer review which is now archived. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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

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

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

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to complementary and alternative medicine, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Archives

It is requested that an image or photograph of Stephen Barrett be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16

Who Are the Most Powerful People in American Medicine?

An interesting article:

• Who Are the Most Powerful People in American Medicine?

Although Barrett is mentioned among what George D. Lundberg calls "a pretty impressive list of candidates", he concludes that the patient and physicians are the most powerful. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Busting the Quackbusters?

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Haley Fromholz wrote in 2001, that Stephen Barrett (quackwatch.com), and Wallace Sampson MD (Scientific Review of Alternative and Aberrant Medicine) "were found to be biased and unworthy of credibility." Peculiar that there is no mention of it here but rather sounds like a glowing POV-based review. Dobyblue (talk) 20:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

If you'd like to propose an addition to this biographical article, please review our policy on such material and describe the reliable source which would support your proposed content. MastCell  21:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

LOL, predictable. As someone who would want to keep Misplaced Pages honest you'd think you might make the addition yourself? If of course that's the goal here?Dobyblue (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I haven't found any reliable secondary sources that would support such an addition. As you probably know, site policy forbids using court transcripts in isolation as sources for biographical material, because it's very easy for an unscrupulous editor to quote parts of a court decision out of context. I thought maybe you had some appropriate sources for this material, since you brought it up. MastCell  19:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Judges are generally scientifically illiterate (your favorite expletive goes here)s, and are generally not RS. Their "peer reviewers" (appellate courts) uphold something like 98% of their decisions (remember Scopes and Darrow), and the burden is on disproving their findings of law (or of fact), the opposite of a scientofoc peer revoew. The RS New York Academy of Sciences and its peer review panel definitely does not agree with this judge re W. Sampson, since they published his "Antiscience" article re Alt Med as the peer reviewed defining article of their conference on "The Flight from Reason". - ParkSehJik (talk) 22:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

QPW as a source

Can someone who is well versed in this wikipedia editing put in some content using the references at quackpotwatch.org about stephen barret. the existing content of this article is very onesided with a strongly biased POV. 108.247.169.27 (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not considered a RS (except in its own fringe world). It is even blacklisted here because it has nothing reliable to say. Conspiracy theories are not good sources for facts. Its author is also blocked from editing here because he has behaved so badly.

Any bias you note is because all reliable sources are positive toward Barrett (and Quackwatch, which is another subject). We base our content on what RS say. If RS were critical, then we'd be happy to include such content, but it's pretty hard to find. What has been found has been included in this article. It is minor criticisms. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:RTP move of discussion re Removal of talk page material from this talk page

(The following comment was made on ParkSehJik's talk page, and was moved here by ParkSehJik --Ronz (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC))

ParkSehJik, I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person, Talk:Stephen Barrett, but that you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Misplaced Pages has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

I went ahead and removed your aside on the talk page as a WP:BLP violation. Your personal opinion is that psychiatry is pseudoscience - It's irrelevant to the article. You then went on to bring up attacks on Barrett without a source. --Ronz (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

- I did not know the BLP requirements for sources also apply to talk pages. Now I do"Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Misplaced Pages page.". ParkSehJik (talk) 20:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

- I have no problem with your removal, however, how can one call for finding sources in BLPs if one cannot state the as-yet-RS lacking assertions on the talk page?

- My "personal opinion" as stated at WP is based on RS and MEDRS, and is not an opinion. It is a statement of the content of mainstream MEDRS sources. Try reading the sources upon which the assertions in the third paragraph of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders are based, and the first four sources here. All I intended to do was restate the content of this RS information. :) ParkSehJik (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for responding! You're a new editor trying to edit highly controversial topics. In addition to WP:BLP, you should be aware that there are Arbitration Committee sanctions in place for the topics as well. You can look at the top of the article talk pages to find more about these sanctions.

I strongly suggest you leave these topics alone until you have a much better understanding of how Misplaced Pages works. Editing controversial topics will give you an extremely skewed perspective of Misplaced Pages, and gives you much less leeway in your editing.

If you want to continue trying to edit these articles, you should familiarize yourself with WP:BLP, WP:FRINGE, WP:MEDRS, WP:NPOV, WP:CON, WP:DR, and WP:TALK. Again, better to leave the articles alone for awhile and edit where you can take a leisurely approach to learning the details of Misplaced Pages's many policies. --Ronz (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding , does this mean we're done here? I'm happy to answer your questions further, and as I've already foreshadowed, the answers will come from the policies listed. --Ronz (talk) 01:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. My edits at alt med seem to have stuck, albeit they generated conroversy. I do have a question, peripherally related to my edit on this page that you correctly deleted. My edits at psychiatry, forensic psychiatry, and bipolar disorder, were based on sources that are peer reviewed internationally recognized top journals in the field were dismissed at Wikiproject Medicine as violating "common knowlege". The edits were about a controversy whether psychiatry is medcine at all, and were well sourced. There is significant conroversy as to whether simply listing mental category classification criteria, and defining "out of the norm", allows the attachement of the term "disease" to the category (e.g., bipolar "disorder"). Further controversy is as to whether the categories have any reality at all (e.g., penis envy). Further, psychiatrists at Guantanamo do not treat disease. They help extract information, somtimes using "discomfort". That may be science, but it is not medicine. What policy or guideline allows "common knowledge" that psychiatry is pure medicine to trump the sources I provided? Also, what talk page may have more self-critically thinking kinds of editors who might participate in such discussion? ParkSehJik (talk) 01:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Look more closely over WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 03:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• Old requests for Biography peer review
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Skepticism articles
• Unknown-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• Articles with connected contributors
• Misplaced Pages requested images of people