Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
He's on the board of Institute for Science in Medicine. I'm not sure it's worth mentioning without an independent source. His bio there might be considered as an external link if it offers substantial information not already in the article or already available from external links. --] (]) 16:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
He's on the board of Institute for Science in Medicine. I'm not sure it's worth mentioning without an independent source. His bio there might be considered as an external link if it offers substantial information not already in the article or already available from external links. --] (]) 16:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
:Berrett and many other ACSH lobbyists is members of that Institute, so why not mention it. Why not mentioning that Barrett SLAPP-suited anti-fluoride activist Darlene Sherellhttp:// http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/99d0729p.pdf--] (]) 08:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
:Berrett and many other ACSH lobbyists is members of that Institute, so why not mention it. Why not mentioning that Barrett SLAPP-suited anti-fluoride activist Darlene Sherellhttp:// http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/99d0729p.pdf--] (]) 08:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
::As I mentioned, an independent source is almost a necessity. See ]. --] (]) 16:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
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.
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 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
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.
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)
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. MastCell19:18, 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
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 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?
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)
Thanks, I will read them more thoroughly. How does FRINGE apply? It is not FRINGE that there is historically and currently possible nonsense and pseudoscientific reasoning basing much of psychiatry. Popper used it as paridigmatic of pseudoscience in Conjectures and Refutations. Empirical evidence for attaching the term "disease" to psychic categories "researchers" keep coming up with is entirely lacking. Forensic psychiatry is so far from medicine and having a scientific basis that there are a plethora of academic peer reviewed articles about calling its experts "whores". Criticism of attributing being outside the norm in a psychic category as indicative of "disease", often resulting in involutary treatment, is similarly widespread. Overprescription of anti-depressants is household conversation. Abuses resulting in conservatorships and involuntary commitment (for which the patient has to pay... if they can ever get out), is standard academic stuff in medical ethics discussions. The profit motive to find a disorder, and to regularly change medications, a guarantee bi-weekly or monthly income of i insured $50/15 minutes to rewrite each patients presecriptions, for life, for diagnosing bipolar, is almost unique to psychiatry. There is no known way to get un-diagnosed. Once placed on a 5150 hold, even when made in error, for convenience, or by maliscious accusation of suicidal intent (SI), by an enemy, and the required involuntary hold and referal to a psychiatrist that results, results in removal of basic guaranteed rights for life, such as a second Amendment right to bear arms, or an ability to have a professino in law enforcement. These are not FRINGE ideas. I am mystified at the response to my mainsream MEDRS based edits as having less rationality in the deletions and arguments for them at talk, than argumentation by practitioner-editors in my alt med edits. ParkSehJik (talk) 03:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
No offense, but take a look at WP:BATTLE as well. Misplaced Pages may simply not be the place for most of what you're interested in discussing/furthering. --Ronz (talk) 03:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Institute for Science in Medicine
He's on the board of Institute for Science in Medicine. I'm not sure it's worth mentioning without an independent source. His bio there might be considered as an external link if it offers substantial information not already in the article or already available from external links. --Ronz (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
