Misplaced Pages

Steth's personal opinion on Barrett's not being board certified and editors who want to exclude it (copied from Talk:Chiropractic)

... IMO, Barrett apologists come across with a wierd sort of 'true-believer' protector of the emporer and his NO CLOTHES type of mentality. SB is OK with the notion that he was unable to pass his boards, even getting off the throne to appear here to say so. But for some reason, a sort of protectionist cabal scurries about to hide this fact (board failure = no clothes = rear-end exposed)afraid of anything that they feel sounds negative about the boss-man. Oh, well. There are two sides to every coin, eh, Avb? Steth 16:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be too confident about my opinion of Barrett if I were you, Steth. AvB ÷ talk 23:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

PS If you feel I want to keep the BC information out of the encyclopedia, think again (and read the compromise I posted on the Barrett talk page). I'll want to include it when convinced (based on common sense arguments or secondary sources) that it has sufficient weight (or notability if you will). Lacking that, I'm still willing to discuss my compromise. It illustrates my general stance in such cases, firmly rooted in Misplaced Pages's mandatory NPOV: if we say something, it must be in the context of the source we use. In this case our only reliable sources are Barrett's own publications and his contributions on WP talk pages that are intended to provide such information for WP articles). Obviously, that's exactly what editors debating on the side of Barrett's detractors are trying to prevent here. They want to say he isn't/wasn't board certified, but they don;t want to tell the readers what this means. After all, responses and background info make Bolen's BC criticism look pretty empty. Just like his (now retired?) de-licensed mantra. AvB ÷ talk 13:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Since the Quackpotwatch article is deleted, preliminary moves to ban Bolen were summarily made and the Biography section is strongly favorable to Dr Barrett, forget WP:WEIGHT/COI with things like "8th runner up" "all in the family", I don't think Bolen's rhetoric is the problem here. Also more comment on BLP.--I'clast 15:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

We can agree to disagree on my common sense argument. But I do note your sidestepping of my policy based summary of the status quo. See BLPN for Fyslee's refutation of your "overblown context" argument. AvB ÷ talk 17:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation/application of "context" and encyclopedia editing. I may have missed Fyslee's key "refutation" if you will show the key dif(s).--I'clast 01:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Motion to adjourn with "no consensus, material excluded"

The length of the discussion, tiresome as it may have been, and ready as we all may be to compromise and end it, does not make a POV, undue weight compromise acceptable - not even with a clear consensus to include (which we do not have). Only neutral, weighted compromises should have been discussed, but instead they have been ignored or rejected without good arguments.

Due to WP:RS, we can't use the chiro sources etc. So our only reliable sources seem to be primary ones: Barrett's own publications and his contributions on WP talk pages that are intended to provide background to this information. However, WP:BLP requires court records to have been reported in reliable secondary sources first. This is where we lose everything regarding Barrett's board certification said on his website. We're now left with his contributions on WP talk pages which were intended to defend humself against POV-pushing accusations I'm not even sure I can repeat here even if followed by Barrett's response, because we know we cannot source them to a reliable source. I'm repeating the entirety of our sources here. From the Barrett talk page, where a wikipedia editor was not describing the battle but taking part in it:

Misplaced Pages editor accuses: Under oath, Barrett admitted that he failed his board certification exams. Yet he calls himself an expert? An expert of what? Healthcare fraud? I think it is pretty fraudulant to present yourself as a "medical expert" when you can't pass an exam that 89% of your colleagues can. That puts him at the bottom of his class. He has also called himself a "legal expert" yet under oath admitted no formal legal training. Very disingenuous indeed.

Dr. Barrett responds: The above ideas come from a misleading news release written by people who I am suing for improperly attacking me. One thrust of their campaign has been to suggest that I have midrepesented my credentials. I certainly have not. The words deliberately make it sound like what I said was somehow extracted under pressure. The fact that I am not board certified has been known by chiropractors for more than 30 years and has never been a sectret. I have expert knowledge of certain aspects of law that I studied and have worked with for many years. I completed 1-1/2 years of law school through a correspondence course under the G.I. Bill and emerged with a working knowledge of the areas of law that interested me.

(...)

Misplaced Pages editor accuses: He is lacking board certification from the American Board of Medical Specialties. That is not just a nice thing to have. Almost every competent doctor in this country is board certified.

Misplaced Pages editor accuses: As witnessed in his case against Dr. Koren, not having the proper credentials can backfire in places like a court room. I don’t know one lawyer that would use a non-board certified physician on the stand as an expert medical witness.

Dr. Barrett responds: During my psychiatric career I testified in many court proceedings and not being board-certified didn't make the slightest difference.

Misplaced Pages editor accuses: So let’s get to my point. He is not board certified, he has not practiced in many years, and his work history is not impressive. Most of his work experience includes vague descriptions like ‘consultant’.

Dr. Barrett responds: Since my posted curriculum vitae doesn't explain what I did, whoever wrote the above doesn't doesn't have the slightest idea what it involved. In addition, the whole discussion of my psychiatric experience hasn't the slightest relevance to my writing activities. I have functioned as an investigative reporter for more than 30 years and have sufficient knowledge and enough help from other experts to do what I do effectively.

Since during the entire discussion many policy based arguments against inclusion have not been refuted but generally ignored, and no valid policy based arguments in favor of inclusion have been provided, I move to end the discussion as "no consensus, material excluded".

AvB ÷ talk 17:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree Yes, it's time to end this. -- Ronz  17:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree As a side note, I noticed that this is being debated on the Chiropratic article. Not cool in my opinion. I went there to check it out for my son.----CrohnieGal/_Contribs 18:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. We need to reach a compromise. Every policy point that has been brought up has been discussed. If there is something which anyone feels has been ignored, please let us know what they are so we can discuss. So far, the large majority has no problem with including this material. -- Levine2112 22:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The burden of evidence is on you. Please list, with diffs, any policy arguments in favor of inclusion that you feel have survived the debate, and any policy arguments in favor of exclusion that have not survived the debate. AvB ÷ talk 00:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have done so below. In short, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:BLP have all been satisfied by the latest compromise. -- Levine2112 19:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

"We need to reach a compromise." No we don't. It's been 81 days since you started discussing this topic and you personally have made over 500 edits concerning it during that time. Seems like your massive effort working on this would have been better suited on other endeavors. -- Ronz  22:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Why must you be so disparaging? I make a motion for civility. Let's agree to that first, then we can talk about a compromise. -- Levine2112 22:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry that you feel my comments are "disparaging". I'm just pointing out the facts. Nothing incivil about that. -- Ronz  22:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Telling me the my efforts are pointless is uncivil. All I am asking you to do is agree to be civil from now on and let's proceed with discussions of a workable compromise. -- Levine2112 22:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I made a comment on WP:BLP please check out the comment made by an editor there. Also, would you point me to the policy that says we have to continue until a compromise is made? Thanks, ----CrohnieGal/_Contribs 22:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:Consensus. -- Levine2112 22:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

From WP:consensus: Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome. "No consensus" is a valid outcome, see for example WP:AfD. It is equivalent to "agree to disagree". When discussing the deletion of non-BLP material, it defaults to "keep"; for BLP material it defaults to "delete". This applies to parts of articles and was still under discussion for entire articles last time I looked. By the way, this is one of the policy aspects you have left unchallenged until now. AvB ÷ talk 00:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

From WP consensus: When there are disagreements, they are resolved through polite discussion and negotiation, in an attempt to develop a consensus. If we can all be polite, I would like to continue trying to develop a consensus. -- Levine2112 01:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You once again fail to answer Crohnie's question. Please tell us where WP:Consensus says that "we have to continue until a compromise is made"? Please note that I have already explained that the outcome "no consensus" happens very regularly on Misplaced Pages. Why are you ignoring that explanation? You do not even try to refute it, instead acting as if you just did so anyway. Let me also point out that you seem to be missing a very practical demonstration you're getting right now: editors can walk away from a dispute that has become unproductive. It does not mean the last person left will win. The test whether or not you have a consensus is decided when you try to include anything discussed here. As explained in WP:consensus. <sound of door closing softly.> AvB ÷ talk 15:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

May I ask why this discussion is on ]? ----CrohnieGal/_Contribs 22:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure. There is an editing dispute strikeningly similar there involving the same editors and the same sources. There, the World Chiropractic Assocaiation (WCA) is considered by some editors to be a reliable secondary source for the NACM (an organization critical of chiropractic). But here, the same editors don't consider the WCA a reliable secondary source for Stephen Barrett (a person critical of chiropractic). So you can see why the conversation was brought up over there. -- Levine2112 01:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the link, I'll read it later. ----CrohnieGal/_Contribs 22:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. Vote against a specious, highly airbrushed Biography section that cannot tolerate the smallest factual admission of even the slightest shortfall by the subject including professional background, especially where a casual image of scientific / professional infallability for passersby seems to be a major theme built on unsustainable assertions and inferences.--I'clast 00:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds big, considering the fact that you're trying to add another instance of content creep to an article already on the slippery slope of compromising on edits started by editors representing a (tiny) minority viewpoint regarding the subject. This article visually suffers from massive content creep. It is a BLP disaster. 54% of the text is taken up by the Criticism and Litigation Controversy sections alone. The rest is riddled with innuendo and half-references to Bolen's opinions. It should be courtesy blanked and thoroughly debugged before being allowed back on-line. AvB ÷ talk 11:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Disagree Why would anyone want to keep factual material OUT of an article. I thought that's why they call this an encylopedia! Especially material that the subject verified himself!! He seems to be OK with it. Sanitizing a biography might have worked under Communism, but this is the free world you know. In my view it is a form of protectionism. IMO, the material should be included. Thanks Steth 18:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Why? Because you would give weight to a single datum from the single source, ignoring the rest. For your convenience, here's the source again:

Misplaced Pages editor accuses: Under oath, Barrett admitted that he failed his board certification exams. Yet he calls himself an expert? An expert of what? Healthcare fraud? I think it is pretty fraudulant to present yourself as a "medical expert" when you can't pass an exam that 89% of your colleagues can. That puts him at the bottom of his class. He has also called himself a "legal expert" yet under oath admitted no formal legal training. Very disingenuous indeed.

Dr. Barrett responds: The above ideas come from a misleading news release written by people who I am suing for improperly attacking me. One thrust of their campaign has been to suggest that I have midrepesented my credentials. I certainly have not. The words deliberately make it sound like what I said was somehow extracted under pressure. The fact that I am not board certified has been known by chiropractors for more than 30 years and has never been a sectret. I have expert knowledge of certain aspects of law that I studied and have worked with for many years. I completed 1-1/2 years of law school through a correspondence course under the G.I. Bill and emerged with a working knowledge of the areas of law that interested me.

(...)

Misplaced Pages editor accuses: He is lacking board certification from the American Board of Medical Specialties. That is not just a nice thing to have. Almost every competent doctor in this country is board certified.

Misplaced Pages editor accuses: As witnessed in his case against Dr. Koren, not having the proper credentials can backfire in places like a court room. I don’t know one lawyer that would use a non-board certified physician on the stand as an expert medical witness.

Dr. Barrett responds: During my psychiatric career I testified in many court proceedings and not being board-certified didn't make the slightest difference.

Misplaced Pages editor accuses: So let’s get to my point. He is not board certified, he has not practiced in many years, and his work history is not impressive. Most of his work experience includes vague descriptions like ‘consultant’.

Dr. Barrett responds: Since my posted curriculum vitae doesn't explain what I did, whoever wrote the above doesn't doesn't have the slightest idea what it involved. In addition, the whole discussion of my psychiatric experience hasn't the slightest relevance to my writing activities. I have functioned as an investigative reporter for more than 30 years and have sufficient knowledge and enough help from other experts to do what I do effectively.

Steth let me ask you to think about a few things here. First, did Dr. Barrett practice have problems because he was not board certified? Did Dr. Barrett testify in many cases as a specialist? Why would him not being board certified make any difference back when he was practicing? If you locate my link I posted on here you will see that most were not board certified and that certification wasn't taken seriously like it is these days. Him not being board certified fails WP:not,WP:Notability and WP:Weight. The only reason I see a push for this is because his distactors have tried to use it against him and you have to admit you do not like Barrett. This is not an attack against you but you have shown over and over again that you do not like him. Personally I don't care either way but I am trying to do it the right way and even though this conversation has gone on for way too long, I have learned a lot. ----CrohnieGal/_Contribs 00:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Crohnie, Barrett is notable for being a medical critic. So why is it worth mentioning that he is a doctor? Or which medical school he went to? Or what year he finished his residency? Or the current status of his medical license? Answer that and there is your answer. -- Levine2112 02:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It contains lots of information that is much more interesting than the board certification thing. It's a great source. It's almost a pity that e.g. Mastcell (diff) (diff) does not accept it as a reliable source. AvB ÷ talk 18:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You are leaving out the court documents, the news articles and the research papers as sources. And I thought MastCell supports inclusion of this material. Please read Barrett's comments above closely: The fact that I am not board certified... This is a fact. It is verfiable (thus no WP:V, WP:RS issues). Barrett is clear that he is open with this information (thus no WP:BLP issues). This information has been the topic of several lawsuits, at least one deposition, several news articles, and a couple of research papers (thus no WP:WEIGHT issues). What more is there to talk about? Really? -- Levine2112 18:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the above (repeating here for your convenience):

Due to WP:RS, we can't use the chiro sources etc. So our only reliable sources seem to be primary ones: Barrett's own publications and his contributions on WP talk pages that are intended to provide background to this information. However, WP:BLP requires court records to have been reported in reliable secondary sources first. This is where we lose everything regarding Barrett's board certification said on his website. We're now left with his contributions on WP talk pages which were intended to defend humself against POV-pushing accusations.

AvB ÷ talk

You are forgetting that RS/N said we have reliable sources. The chiro articles, the research papers, the Candadian Lyme Disease Foundation article, and the Fintan Dunne articles are all reliable secondary sources reporting on the trial where Barrett testified to not being Board Certified. BLP is thus satisfied. -- Levine2112 20:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Forgetting? Hm. As if I could. We have discussed this to death. You have zero reliable secondary sources. You should really stop repeating this refuted argument. RS/N (a new board, you were the second poster) referred you to BLP regulars for a good reason. They apparently did not know this: Material from primary sources should be used with great care. For example, public records that include personal details such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses, as well as trial transcripts and other court records, should not be used 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, subject to the no original research policy. See also Misplaced Pages:Verifiability.. Unlike you, I believe that a consensus, here on the talk page, on RSN or anywhere, cannot trump WP:BLP. AvB ÷ talk 20:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Then it still remains that the minority of editors here think that we don't have reliable sources to post this information, while the large majority of editors (including 4 or 5 admins) feel we do. You can't ignore that. -- Levine2112 21:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you test the water by editing the article the way you want? I think you have misinterpreted the acceptance of your secondary sources among editors. Especially admins should know better than to allow them as reliable regarding Barrett. And in view of their contributions to this discussion, they won't. If your test addition depends on the reliability of partisan secondary sources (and the ones you provided represent a tiny minority), it should be reverted. I'll hold back for a while and see what happens. AvB ÷ talk 22:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I tried and it got reverted by one of the usual gang. What would be nice is to see if someone new objected to this material. So far, no one has (maybe there was one?). Every new person we ask about this are in favor of including it and don't see any policy issues preventing it from inclusion. -- Levine2112 02:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

"The usual gang" sounds somewhat provocating to me. Especially since it apparently includes 4 or 5 admins ;-). Also, Fyslee was not involved in this discussion. But the test is not over: now we wait to see if someone reverts to your version. Please note that this is a delicate phase that can easily turn into an edit war. If that happens, any uninvolved admin can protect the article in whatever state it is found in, or cut the knot for us, ending the test. What you need to see is support in the form of stability. (Hint: we only learn something if the next revert comes from "the usual gang".) AvB ÷ talk 07:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

disagree: Per Steth, Levine2112. Ombudsman 19:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Ombudsman, long time no see. If you want to take part in this (probably dead, most editors are ignoring it now) discussion, please familiarize yourself with the preceding 80+ days of discussion on the subject. AvB ÷ talk 19:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes we have no consensus, we have no consensus today

The material stays out. We're on day 83 of not having consensus. Some editors here fail to understand WP:CON, but that's no reason to edit war.

"On the other hand, it is very easy to create the appearance of a changing consensus simply by asking again and hoping that a different and more sympathetic group of people will discuss the issue. This, however, is a poor example of changing consensus, and is antithetical to the way that Misplaced Pages works."

I've removed the edits because the editor has failed to respect WP:CON, WP:DR and WP:3RR, nor has the editor addressed the BLP and WEIGHT issues that have been discussed ad nauseum. -- Ronz  15:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

"PLEASE READ THE DISCUSSION, DON'T REVERT. We have agreement to leave this in and leave it up to non-involved editors." Sorry, but I didn't agree to it. There's certainly no consensus. -- Ronz  21:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I am just abiding by the agreement which AvB suggested. Thought we could test the waters and see if it attracts any uninvolved editors. However, it was reverted first by an involved editor, then it did indeed attract a new uninvolved editor to re-include the content. I guess you don't like that agreement. Okay, well it was worth a try and at least it revealed another editor in favor on including the content. -- Levine2112 21:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You and AvB can make whatever agreements you want. Just don't force them upon others without even asking.

Yes, we found another editor that brought up the same, tired, old issues. Nothing's changed for those of us trying to build consensus rather than forcing a WP:VOTE. -- Ronz  21:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The general idea of testing the water comes from WP:consensus: Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome and You find out whether you have consensus, if not unanimity, when you try to build on it. AvB ÷ talk 22:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Weird whitewash

As a passerby, reading pages and pages above, I've gotta say... Is there a meatpuppet (WP:COI) problem on this page or what? Where's the RFC? Metta Bubble 16:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing to the discussion.

Your questions have been asked multiple times over the 15 months.

Summarizing my perspective: there have been a number of editors here that are out to discredit Barrett by any means possible. They've made this article into a mockery of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. This article was a blatant attack on Barrett. Most of these editors, thankfully, have left. The article is slowly coming around to something more neutral. There's no whitewashing here, only cleaning up others' messes. -- Ronz  16:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Really? I read the chiroweb article on Barrett and it said some pretty scathing things also. Metta Bubble 16:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Summarizing my perspective: there are a number of editors who assume bad faith and think that my efforts to include a relevant and verifiable fact is an attempt to discredit Barrett. Not true. Barrett himself has come to Misplaced Pages and given us the information that he is not Board Certified and explained that he wants to be clear that he is not hiding this information, but rather it has been public info for over 30 years. It is Barrett's opinion that not being Board Certified didn't affect his career in the slightest. However, some of his critics believe otherwise. Editors against inclusion will say that this opinion of the critics is a minority opinion and WP:WEIGHT prohibits its inclusion, but I point out that Barrett's opinion is also a minority one. (After all, according to Barrett, when he first took and failed the Board Certification exam in 1963, 1 out of 3 psychiatrists were already Board Certified, and by the time Barrett retired in 1993, over 80% of all MDs were Board Certified.) Anyhow, our take at Misplaced Pages, in order to acheive NPOV, should either be to 1) state that he isn't Board Certified and explain his and his critics' views on this or 2) just state that he isn't Board Certified and leave out Barrett's and his critics' opinions on this matter. For simplicity, I am opting for option #2. This way, we allow the reader to decide whether or not this is important. By Wikilinking to BOard Certification, we give the reader the option to learn more about Board Certification in general. Overall, I think this is most fair, encyclopaedic, and best fits with the spirit of Misplaced Pages.

Thanks for your support on this Metta Bubble. You are in good company too. With you, 26 of the 32 editors who have commented in this content dispute are also in favor of including this material. About 5 of these supporting editors are admins. An editor against inclusion (AvB), graciously told me above that we should begin to test the waters by re-including the content and wait and see what happens. I am glad that it attracted your attention, an experienced editor but a new editor in this dispute. Thanks. -- Levine2112 16:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, really. Look in the talk archives yourself. The editors even allowed Ilena Rosenthal to disrupt this and other articles until she was blocked.

Yes, those chiropractors certainly don't like Barrett. It's no coincidence that most of his detractors have strong ties to chiropractic.

All this fits in to the arguments that if certification is mentioned at all, it is mentioned with the context. As you have pointed out, that context is "scathing" criticism of Barrett by chiropractors or others that have a beef with what Barrett has written. -- Ronz  17:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Further comments. chiroweb may not generally be considered a WP:RS, but individual articles must be considered separately in separate contexts. Also, approximately 21 of the 26 editors how have commented in favor of inclusion are WP:SPAs, while none of the 6 in opposition. (And I think I may have been counted in both groups.) I'm now leaning in favor of a brief mention in the criticism section, so I'm still opposed to Steth's version, even though I may have been counted as one of the 26. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

ArthurRubin, thanks for your input. I didn't notice any SPAs in my counting. Which ones were you thinking? Anyhow, if you are in favor of including the material in the criticism section, I would be most open to reading suggested wording by you. Thanks again. -- Levine2112 21:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Opinion survey

Please may I ask a favour? I know that polls suck and all so I've made this a little more detailed. For the sake of clarity I'd appreciate if inclined editors could help me understand by please just giving a yes or a no (or an indeterminable) directly below each question below and sign your name. It shouldn't take too long. I'll preserve the survey structure and civility, and move inline comments below. This is an open survey with no time limit. If anyone feels strongly inclined please add your own yes/no questions to the bottom of the survey. Thanks. Metta Bubble 00:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Update: I will look the other way if you add comments, but please keep them concise. I will definitely refactor if the comments turn into discussion. Thanks again. ॐ Metta Bubble 12:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This survey is in reference to the following proposed statement and sources:

STATEMENT: "Barrett is not board certified"

SOURCES:

• See Circuit Court of Du Page County, Barrett v. Fonorow, No. 2--02--0886.
• Case refiled on July 30, 2001 at Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Case No. 01 L 009026.
• Stephen Barrett Loses Major Defamation Trial in Hometown, Dynamic Chiropractic, December 2, 2005, Volume 23, Issue 25. available online
• Anti-chiropractic groups spreading ‘stroke’ lies online, World Chiropractic Alliance.available online

1. Is the statement criticism (either direct or implied)?

• No. -- Levine2112 02:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Yes. Implied by reflecting criticism from attack site whose author is being sued for libel/defamation by Barrett. AvB ÷ talk 09:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• No, but additional wording may make it so.--I'clast 17:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• No. Agree with I'clast above. -- Dēmatt (chat) 18:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• No. It is factual..it may have negative connotations (I prefer my physicians to be Board Certified). RalphLender 16:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Yes. If he were a practicing physician, it would be commentary, but as a retired physician, it is criticism. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Yes, implied. Board-certification was not as standard during SB's training as it is now, and in any case it's not relevant for criticizing alt-med. Jim Butler 00:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• No, however once a consensus is reached about inclusion I think that alternative phrases should be discussed. MaxPont 13:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

2. Would the statement be more appropriate in a criticism/controversy section than in a general biography?

• No. -- Levine2112 02:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Yes. If it is to be included at all, it should be included in the context in which it was made. Otherwise it's both OR (taking out of context) and SYN (putting the info where no sources have placed it, juxtaposing it with other CV-type info. AvB ÷ talk 09:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• No. Definitional considerations alone are sufficient to properly place such facts in the biography.--I'clast 17:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• No. -- Dēmatt (chat) 18:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• No. It is a fact and part of his accomplishments/licenses/certs. RalphLender 16:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Yes. (Apparently) no one thought it notable when he was practising, so it's only relevant as criticism. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Only if supported by a verifiable sec source establishing its notability. Otherwise, equally inappropriate. Jim Butler 00:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• No, unless rephrased and put in a context of controversy. MaxPont 13:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

3. Is the statement potentially libelous?

• No. -- Levine2112 02:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• No. But Barrett would be the only one of the thousands? of non-board-certified psychiatrists where the fact is mentioned. Board certification is only mentioned in the articles of a dozen high-profile psychiatrists, including Freud. I found an interesting example that parallels this situation, but where the article is actually OK. The subject was not board certified and the tiny amount of space given to his critics says a lot. And it's not even a BLP - he died years ago. I'm not giving you his name though per WP:BEANS. I will email it to trusted editors when asked. As a reminder of what Misplaced Pages is, and what it is not.

AvB ÷ talk 09:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• No.--I'clast 17:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• No. -- Dēmatt (chat) 18:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• No. It is a fact. RalphLender 16:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• No. (But potential libel is not the only reason to excise material under WP:BLP.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• No. Jim Butler 00:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• No, MaxPont 13:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

4. Is the statement too sanitised (i.e. lacking a critical relevance aspect)?

• No. -- Levine2112 02:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• No. It isn't sanitized enough. AvB ÷ talk 09:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• No. The *Biography Section* is over sanitized and one-sidedly promotional.--I'clast 17:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• No. -- Dēmatt (chat) 18:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• No. It is relevant. A person's training and certification is relevant in a bio. RalphLender 16:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• No. Perhaps it's not santized enough. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• No, per Arthur. Jim Butler 00:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

5.Is the statement relevant to Barrett's notability?

• Yes. -- Levine2112 02:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Not really. Only to the degree that his notability derives from publications of critics. Which is virtually nil. His notability derives from the accolades heaped on Barrett and his websites by mainstream medicine, media and skeptics alike. AvB ÷ talk 09:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Yes. Where a subject has attacked many others for the better part of 40 years, publicly utilized his MD credentials, and pontificated on a number of medical and scientific subjects, his detailed professional background is quite relevant.--I'clast 17:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Yes. Because he criticizes the degrees of others. -- Dēmatt (chat) 18:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Yes. RalphLender 16:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• No. It might be relevant if he were talking about matters within his speciality which would be covered by the exam, but almost all of the alternative medicine he attacks does not fall under that category. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• No, per my comments under #1. Jim Butler 00:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Yes, absolutely, per arguments by Demmatt and l'clast. MaxPont 13:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

6. Is the statement true, as far you are personally satisfied?

• Yes. -- Levine2112 02:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Yes. AvB ÷ talk 09:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Yes.--I'clast 17:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Yes. RalphLender 16:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Yes. -- Dēmatt (chat) 18:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Yes. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Yes. Jim Butler 00:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Yes, MaxPont 13:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

7. Are the sources high quality enough to satisfy WP:V?

• Yes. -- Levine2112 02:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• No idea and no time to take another look. AvB ÷ talk 09:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Yes.--I'clast 17:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Yes. Clearly verifiable. RalphLender 16:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• No. Either primary or biased secondary. Jim Butler 00:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Yes. -- Dēmatt (chat) 02:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Yes, MaxPont 14:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

8. Are the sources high quality enough to satisfy WP:RS?

• Yes. -- Levine2112 02:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Most primary sources are (Barrett website, court records), but not his responses to a Misplaced Pages editor on a talk page as explained above. The secondary sources provided so far are parroting the information in connection with the related string of attacks from attack sites banned from Misplaced Pages. AvB ÷ talk 09:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Yes. Parrot - that's OR. Echo perhaps, an issue is their separate journalistic existence as 3rd parties where medicine & journals of most stripes have interesting problems with WP:RS, WP:COI (e.g. NEJM editors' books) at close quarters.--I'clast 17:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Yes. -- Dēmatt (chat) 18:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Yes. RalphLender 16:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• No, per #7. Jim Butler 00:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Yes. here are my arguments in the case. MaxPont 14:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

9. Are the sources high quality enough to satisfy WP:BLP?

• Yes. -- Levine2112 02:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Yes. RalphLender 16:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Of the primary sources, only Barrett's own site would satisfy WP:BLP. However, all BC info on the Quackwatch site is replicated from court records, which cannot be used per WP:BLP unless a reliable secondary source has commented on them. Which is not the case. The secondary sources (and certainly the cited web pages) are not reliable sources for information about Barrett and certainly fail WP:BLP since all other policies should be strictly applied. AvB ÷ talk 09:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Yes. Primary sources, carefully used, can augment the Biography.--I'clast 17:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Yes. -- Dēmatt (chat) 18:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• No. The secondary sources are all from his critics; all of whom are either personally attacked by Barrett or had their alternative medicine speciality attacked by Barrett. Barrett's comments here on Misplaced Pages are not usable. Barrett's comments on his own web site might be usable, but they were also withdrawn. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• No. BLP threshold even higher than V. Jim Butler 00:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Yes, see my arguments here ] MaxPont 13:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

10. Could the statement potentially harm wikipedia in repercussions?

• No. -- Levine2112 02:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• No. The statement could potentially harm the editors including it though. That also applies to this talk page by the way. Misplaced Pages is not the author. AvB ÷ talk 09:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• No. But its omission might reduce Misplaced Pages's credibility fro others (too late for me).--I'clast 17:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• No. -- Dēmatt (chat) 18:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• No. RalphLender 16:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• No. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Probably not, except that it's transparently silly and thus yet another reason for grownups not to take WP seriously. (Note: I am no fan of Barrett. There's more than enough stuff over which he can be legitimately criticized. Ironically, it took something this silly and petty to make me see the guy as something of a sympathetic protagonist.) Jim Butler 00:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• No, MaxPont 14:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

11. Do you think court records suffice as a source ever?

• Yes. -- Levine2112 02:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Yes. This is not an opinion by the way; it's 100% clear from policy language: When used judiciously and not BLP related. The same applies to BLP material, with the added requirement that it should have been discussed in independent reliable secondary sources first. AvB ÷ talk 09:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Yes, but needs to stated carefully, accurately.--I'clast 17:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Yes, under some circumstances. -- Dēmatt (chat) 18:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Yes. RalphLender 16:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Yes, but not under BLP. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Per Arthur. Jim Butler 00:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Yes, if it is a fact that can be understandable without interpretation for non-lawyers MaxPont 14:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

12. Would attributing the phrase to a specific source be any better?

• i.e. "Chiroweb claims Barrett being uncertified is important because... yada " or "Court documents state Barrett was not board certified..."

• No. -- Levine2112 02:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Yes. All information in Misplaced Pages needs to be attributed (either explicity or by citing the sources). AvB ÷ talk 09:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Probably not.--I'clast 17:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• No. Not necessary, SBinfo said it and is fine with it. -- Dēmatt (chat) 18:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• not better or worse. A verifiable source is needed, however. RalphLender 16:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Probably not. It's separately required by WP:ATT, but I don't think it's adequate. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• If that source were a reliable sec source, sure. Such a source hasn't yet been provided. Jim Butler 00:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• No, because it is a fact MaxPont 14:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

13. Can a survey clarify this issue?

• Yes. -- Levine2112 02:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• No. This issue should have ended on 22 March 2007 after I had supplied the reasons not refuted by anyone to date. No compromise necessary. Talk of a compromise only started to gain traction when the discussion had been overextended for a while and was no longer productive. From there, the obstinacy of some people trying to include the material without consensus went from irritating to mind-boggling. AvB ÷ talk 09:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Depends on how much of the prior material is reviewed.--I'clast 17:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• No. All these questions have been asked and answered ad nauseum. You've overlooked and diverted attention from the important policy issues. -- Ronz  17:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Depends on the integrity of the editors of this article. -- Dēmatt (chat) 18:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Yes. Get a sense of how editors feel and use that to build agreement. RalphLender 16:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• No. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• No. BLP is what it is. Jim Butler 00:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

14. Is there a biased group of editors focusing on this article (either way)?

• My apologies for this question. I think it's relevant.

• Yes. -- Levine2112 02:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Yes. But I'm afraid we're thinking of different editors. There are some zealous self-professed Barrett haters here who are fighting the - mainly chiro - fight against Barrett on Misplaced Pages instead of describing the fight insofar it is notable and "weighty" enough. They insiduously misapply policies, game the system and generally abuse the good faith of their opponents. I will supply diffs for that in an editor behavior RfC should it come to that. I'm hoping it can be prevented. AvB ÷ talk 09:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Yes. RalphLender 16:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Yes. The editors are often functionally polarized; a number of ill founded statements have recently been made about other editors' intent and contributions.--I'clast 17:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Yes. -- Dēmatt (chat) 18:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Yes. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Yes. Jim Butler 00:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Yes MaxPont 14:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

15. Has there been confirmation and consensus among editors that there is bias editors among us?

relevant question added by QuackGuru

• According to the above previous comments there appears to be a bias among editors. Very well. Anyhow, we must comply with BLP policy which states: Biased or malicious content > Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons in biographies and elsewhere. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability. Do you agree with BLP policy??? Even Levine has admitted there is bias. He too has answered the question using the word: "Yes" to the bias question. That confirms (consensus among editors who answered yes to the bias question) we must use third-party published sources to conform with BLP policy. BTY, we have no third-party refs. No third-party refs = BLP violations. The 3RR does not apply to BLP violations. Do you agree with Misplaced Pages policy? :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 04:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding policy. Biased editors does not equal biased content. BTW, several thrid-party refs have been presented here; you just don't recognize them as such. -- Levine2112 15:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur with the confusion, but some of the (clearly) biased editors are making biased edits. (And all the "third-party" references are clearly from people or groups which Barrett has attacked, so should be given little or no weight.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we need an guideline article to refer to in these situations, "The other editor is always wrong." Something along the lines of WP:WRONG. -- Ronz  15:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

So Dr Barrett can effectively censor references or muzzle entire segments of society by subsequently attacking them, even when their work & statements are supported by national authorities, while WP should rely on one sided references in areas reknown for their (sometimes unashamed) scandalous, long running COI and scientific subreptions?--I'clast 02:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

On the face, this suggested article has AGF violation written all over it. Perhaps I am not understanding what you mean here though. -- Levine2112 16:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that at times like this we could use a light-hearted article, like WP:WRONG, that discusses the futility of finger-pointing and escalation as a solution to disputes, in contrast to taking personal responsibility and working to reduce tensions. Maybe it should be titled, "Chill." -- Ronz  18:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe WP:CHILLOUT is close enough. -- Ronz  18:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Levine has admitted once again there are "bias editors" here. We have exactly zero third-party refs to satisfy BLP. Levine, thanks for your honesty we have bias editors among us. Because of the admission by Levine, we have to conform to BLP policy and use only third-party refs. Are some editors pretending detractor attack references are satisfying? Hmmm. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 01:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Simple truth is, if one looks at the WP:RS criteria and includes massive advertising COI and previously demonstrated bad science in many "accepted" "promoter" publications, this article might be very short.--I'clast 02:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

COMMENTS:

Also note if you have another suggested wording (or section placement).

I have replied (not exhaustively, in order not to repeat everything I've already said) - not because I feel we still have to continue this discussion round, but because it beautifully closes the circle to its beginning on 22 March 2007. It shows that Levine2112 and probably others too tend to use tactics that hinge on disrupting and overextending discussion, as well as irritating and harassing other editors, rather than addressing the policy-based arguments made by experienced, reputable editors whose interpretation of policy and community standards is beyond reproach. During this discussion I have kept a list of these tactics. Although I realize that not all of it may be agreed on by reputable editors -- the list is frighteningly long. I'm asking Levine2112 (and to the degree it applies to them also, Steth, I'clast and others) to refrain from repeating these tactics in the future. Especially since I think Levine2112 has all the makings of a good editor regarding articles where he doesn't have these strong feelings. It is possible that you do not know that you are using them. In that case please reread the entire discussion carefully, placing yourself in the moccasins of your opponents. I could, of course, add diffs to my list and publish it on your talk page(s). However, that would almost certainly be the start of an editor behavior RfC. I would like to prevent that. It would be very wise to end the disruption and adjust to normal wiki practice. You see, you have wasted an enormous amount of other editors' time in this discussion alone. While researching, before joining in, what led to the Barrett v. Rosenthal arbitration, I have already seen many other instances of the same behavior. It actually looks good to the innocently AGF passing-by admin. But zooming out to the bigger picture it can be seen for what it is: insidious, malignant behavior not geared to building an encyclopedia but to filling - mainly chiro-related - Misplaced Pages articles with personal hatred and agendas. I realize this discussion was about a small piece of information. Unfortunately, that makes it worse instead of better.

I must be mad spending anymore time on this. I'm going to look at our kittens for a while. Their fighting practice is play, and they stop when another kitten yelps. They even stop when I yelp when playing with them, feeling little teeth explore how far they can go biting the strange ugly biped tiger that feeds them at times. AvB ÷ talk 09:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your time on this, both Levine2112 and AvB, and anyone else yet to answer. Whatever the outcome it could be really useful to have a central repository of opinions on this matter... ... We have a cat that curls up on your lap and romantically purrs into your eyes. Then he seems to decide at some point to be so much in love he simply must EAT you and promptly pounces on your face, dual-clawing, eye-gouging, lip biting. If you're quick and awake you might catapult him with a right hook before you need plastic surgery. My housemate is an expert. She never falls asleep in front of the TV anymore... Ahhh! Cats. ॐ Metta Bubble 11:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your attempt at resolving this issue, Metta Bubble. I would also like to note that though this should have prompted simple non-inflamatory responses, AvB quickly descended into personal attacks, incivility and bad faith assumptions. If he/she wants to start an RfC, feel free. -- Levine2112 16:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It's been enough. Please stop.

I would be surprised if many reputable Wikipedians familiar with what happened here would share your opinion of my closing speech. For the rest: I note for the record that you are repeating some of the behavior I have asked you to realize you're displaying, and which I've asked you not to repeat. More specifically: ignoring serious arguments, opinions and questions from your fellow Wikipedians. Putting words into other people's mouths (aka bad faith assumption) -- I said I want to prevent an editor behavior RfC against you. Twice.) Attacking others where you should have defended yourself, conceded, or remained silent. It is disappointing to see you still do not take this seriously. It would really be for the best if you would review past events and reassess the arguments and responses. Please reconsider. AvB ÷ talk 16:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Levine2112, you really should reconsider. I'm somewhat amazed, having returned from a month-long wikibreak, that this debate is still going on. I agree with Ronz, AvB et. al. that the material in question doesn't belong here, at least not until a verifiable sec source is offered. I think you should follow WP:DR advice and disengage. Or take it up to mediation or the ArbCom. But enough already with the talk page. Your efforts here crossed the line into disruption a long time ago. Other editors have been community banned for less. Suggest a refreshing chill pill and change of scenery for you. regards, Jim Butler 00:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I totally disagree with AvB about the behavior of Levine2112. In my opinion, Levine2112 has over time developed an exemplary line of arguments to support inclusion. He has stayed calm and addressed all the issues brought up in the discussion with references to WP guidelines and policies. Assuming bad faith, I can easily turn the table on the arguments by AvB: that a small group of editors (“the Barrett fan cub”) would go to any length to keep a legitimate piece of information out of Misplaced Pages.MaxPont 11:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Back Door Article (BLP Violations)

This discussion has long been over. This may be an attempt at a 'back door article' to run a smear campaign against Stephen Barrett. Please stop. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 01:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

What does a 'back door article' mean? -- Levine2112 02:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not interested in answering your question. This is getting dumb. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 04:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

We strongly recommend to delete all mention of the board thing from this talk page and its archives. This talk page should be reported to the BLP noticeboard if we cannot gain consensus to delete the BLP violations. Or we can take it straight to MFD. I must say, a back door article on the talk page is against the spirit of Misplaced Pages. Any thoughts. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 04:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by the intensity of your response. I went to BLP noticeboard to report your concerns, but it's already been discussed there. I support WP:MFD discussion if that's what you want. Whatever helps us reach consensus and write a good article. I'd prefer you simply respond to my survey above. The result would definitely help your cause if this is a BLP breach... so I think it's in your best interest to complete the survey also. Please give it a try.Metta Bubble 07:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose we can let things stand since the violations are interspersed and offset by comments from other editors. But that's just my opinion and I would not revert if someone were to replace all violations with a placeholder text. By the way, the BLP Noticeboard is mainly intended to help editors faced with undue opposition in removing BLP violations. It should not be necessary to go there for help regarding an article that's being watched by a sufficient number of reputable editors. AvB ÷ talk 10:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This should be reported to the BLP noticeboard. It has never been reported to any board in any concise context to delete the BLP violations on this talk page. Please, anyone can make a report. Or we can simply delete any mention of a board. I will report any Wikipedian if the edit gets reverted back to breaching the BLP again. 3 months of going around in circles is stupid. BLP violations is a very serious matter and will not be tolerated. Please, anyone, give it a try yourself and delete all mention of a board. We are putting everyone on notice. BLP violations will not stand. There is no consensus and it is against BLP policy. I mean. After 3 MONTHS, its time to stop. Thanks for your assistance. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 17:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not malicious content, they are called facts. Things that are, for a variety of reasons, in somewhat short supply in this article to the point of being grossly misleading, bad for the credibilty of the encyclopedia. Similar types of facts which are quite ordinary in WP and expected in other biographies even when far less relevant to the person's various careers, notariety and legal/authoritative status. And "putting editors on notice", etc sounds tiresomely POVish, threatening and uncivil.--I'clast 01:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the aggressive tone in the postings above could be interpreted as frustration by editors who begin to realize that they have lost the debate. MaxPont 11:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Please Note (no third-party refs)

There are zero 'third-party' published sources to satisfy BLP. Anyone who has alleged there are third-party refs to satisfy BLP has been repeatedly debunked because they continue to fail to produce any third-party refs to satisfy BLP when there is no high quality (third-party) refs. The refs that are presented are detractor refs and primary refs that FAIL to meet BLP policy. They are using the talk page to run their (appears to be agenda driven) 'back door' article campaign against Barrett and BLP policy. End of discussion. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 19:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Refactored from survey, as per survey rules disclosed in advanced. The following is not a yes/no question ॐ Metta Bubble 06:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

16. Why are some editors making false statements they have third-party refs to satisfy BLP?

• Is it time for some editors to admit they have a bias and they are seemingly being dishonest? Hmmm. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 00:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we all agree that the above comment is totally uncivil and inappropriate? -- Levine2112 16:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Breaking news

Perusing Yahoo! this morning and I found this:

Chiropractors Claim Court Victory Against Infamous 'Quackbuster' - The entire article is informative, but for our immediate purposes, an excerpt from the eighth paragraph:

Under Negrete's intense cross-examination, Barrett admitted that he had not been a licensed physician for more than a decade and had failed the neurological exam, preventing him from being certified as a specialist.

-- Levine2112 16:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The tagline is the most informative part of all:

SOURCE: World Chiropractic Alliance

— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

If you look even closer, you'll notice its just another press release from Negrete, distributed by World Chiropractic Alliance.

Yes, we're already well-aware of these press releases from Negrete criticizing Barrett. Nothing new here. This doesn't change anything. -- Ronz  18:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, just a repetition of Negrete's previous press release a couple years ago. Nothing new and Barrett has just written (Levine2112 can confirm this): "We plan to ask the Pa. Supreme Court to review the case." -- Fyslee/talk 07:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Where can I confirm this? (Otherwise, this seems to be a new development; Barrett tried for an appeal but was denied.) -- Levine2112 21:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. It was the wording I was referring to, which is practically identical to a previous press release from Negrete, a very adversarial source who will naturally only report the part of interest to himself and his clients. -- Fyslee/talk 08:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

He's retired, isn't he? Why would he keep a licence. And how "intense" would the questioning need to be to elicit that - not at all. Midgley 09:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

According to the press release quoted by Levine "Barrett also admitted, under questioning, that he misrepresented himself as a licensed physician in a previous court case." Is this true? What was the case? Is it notable? robert2957 10:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't true. This type of "journalism" is an important reason why these "articles" will never be reliable sources for Misplaced Pages. It also beautifully illustrates what is allowed in the USA under the flag of personal opinion (but not as objective statement of fact/truth). It's also a nice illustration of the California Supreme Court's section 230 ruling in Barrett v. Rosenthal, allowing anyone, organization or private person (here the WCA) to repost unedited material spreading such opinion and even outright libel. As a thumb rule I would say that Misplaced Pages cannot use any material republished under this ruling because it is someone's personal opinion by definition. Unless it's a very special opinion authored by a very special person. AvB ÷ talk 13:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

MANY thanks for the reply. Can you tell me where I can find out that this isn't true? Thank you. robert2957 13:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

"Isn't true"?? You're asking for us to prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the one claiming it is true. Since it is coming from an adversarial source, you should be more skeptical about any claims coming from that source.

When it has been published by reliable, neutral, secondary sources in context, it might be worth investigating. Until then anything we do with it would be OR, and discussing it here may well violate BLP and most certainly makes the talk page a discussion group, which isn't its proper use. When such good sources are found, then we can take it up and discuss whether and how to include it. Maybe after a couple years that might happen. Come to think of it, a couple years has already passed since the first time I read this in one of Negrete's previous "press releases." (This one is pretty much a duplicate.) That it hasn't been considered worthy of comment by reliable sources says alot. -- Fyslee/talk 16:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to know how AvB knew that it wasn't true. If he is saying that it is not true then he must be in a position to prove this negative. I am not trying to turn this into a discussion group. Just to find out if anyone here knows something that might be worthy of inclusion. Or not. I am sceptical myself about this since I have never doubted Stephen Barrett's good faith. robert2957 18:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Having gone through the previously offered sources time and time again, it's pretty easy to spot Negrete's press releases. -- Ronz  18:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Robert's question is certainly relevant since I responded with an opinion ("not true"). My sources: In short, Barrett has been a licensed MD for almost 50 years - and he still is one now. Do I need to say that a licensed physician cannot misrepresent himself as a licensed physician? Now a word about Fyslee's and Ronz's responses. Fyslee is right, e.g. regarding whether or not this can be mentioned in the encyclopedia (it can't, per policies such as WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR) and whether or not this can be discussed on the talk page (probably not and I would not be surprised if someone removed it per WP:BLP). Ronz is also right: to the informed eye it's Bolen/Negrete all over again. AvB ÷ talk 20:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

New source

Court Victory for Chiropractors Against Quack Buster, First Amendment Rules - by Donna Porter. This one doesn't seem to be published by chiropractors or from any adversarial group.

Barrett admitted that he had not been a licensed physician for more than a decade and had failed the neurological exam, preventing him from being certified as a specialist

This is a third-party source, I believe. Remember, we all agree that it is true that Barrett isn't Board Certified. Barrett has confirmed this. Barrett's attorneys have confirmed this. This secondary, thrid-party source now gives this verified content the weight needed. Thoughts? -- Levine2112 16:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

"Sources: This story was adapted in part by a press release from the World Chiropractic Alliance". 'nuff said. -- Fyslee/talk 16:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Copy of chiro attack source (recycled old source)

Sources: This story was adapted in part by a press release from the World Chiropractic Alliance. It is mosty a cut and pasted copy of the chiro attack reference. Levine, when are you going to understand the chiro refs are attacks references in whole or in part? This is out of bounds, policy-wise. Levine, do you agree with Misplaced Pages policy? :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 17:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think that "adapted in part" disqualifies it as reliable secondary source. Also, QuackGuru, you are still being uncivil. Given your RfC, I am not the only ediotr who feels this is a problem. Please chill out. -- Levine2112 17:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Recycled chiro attack refs are disqualified. You seem to have a slow learning curve understanding policy. Hmm. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 17:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from being uncivil. Second, this article isn't recycled; it is "adapted in part". That means that while it sources some of the Negrete press release, it also contains original journalism; hence it is a third-party source. -- Levine2112 17:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It was adapted in part is exactly the same as recycled in part. It is in part (recycled from a detractor) from an attack reference. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 17:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The recycling of such information amounts to coprophilia. Just because it gets excreted and eaten again, ad nauseum, doesn't make it any more reliable, even if it thereby becomes a third, fourth, fifth, or sixth generation source. It's still the same old s*** -- Fyslee/talk 17:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

So you are agreeing that this is a third-party source" then? Coprophilia? Gross. -- Levine2112 17:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) It's rather irrelevant if it's first, second, third, fourth, or hundredth. We still have no context. We only have it second hand from a biased sourced who only reports his version. A repetition of that source doesn't make it any better quality. -- Fyslee/talk 17:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Nothing new here. Let's stop with these ad nauseum discussions. Repeatedly asking the same old questions over and over and over again when there's no new information while ignoring previous discussions violates WP:CON and WP:CIVIL. -- Ronz  18:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

New source = new discussion with new questions. What I find remarkable is that from the survey above, we all agree that it is a fact that Barrett is not Board Certified. My question is: How did we all arrive at that conclusion? I would think that all of us know this information is true because we trust the sources which have reported it; hence WP:RS and WP:V have been satisfied in all of our eyes. -- Levine2112 21:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I don’t think Fyslee understands fundamental media logic and how it relates to Wiki Policies. Even if the originator of a claim is a biased attack source a reliable secondary source can pick it up, fact check, put it in context, and produce an article about it. Once that is done we have a RS. Such an article doesn’t have to be objective, few (if none) articles are. The new article Levine introduces is obviously written by an uninvolved person, though the publisher, Associated Content, might need some scrutiny before being accepted as a RS. MaxPont 12:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting theory. In practice, however, a usually reliable source can print crap articles and a usually crap source can produce impeccable journalism. Once a publication has built a reputation for fact checking etc. it is seen as a reliable source in general. However, it is still possible for Misplaced Pages editors to reject specific articles (confusingly, also called "sources") from a usually reliable publication or accept specific articles from usually unreliable publications. Content can even be reliable in one context and unreliable in another context (that's why partisan sources can be used in articles about themselves).

I don't know anything about AssociatedContent.com, but this "article" by Porter is clearly not a reliable source. It really shouldn't take a genius to recognize the tell-tale signs of tabloid reporting at its narrowest. AvB ÷ talk 14:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that there is anything which clearly demonstrates that this source isn't reliable or that it is "tabloid" journalism. I am really frustrated here now. It seems taht any source which I present, you will just reject. What I don't get is that most of this article is from first-party sources - Barrett's websites. However, you reject the first-party sources which verify that Barrett is not Board Certified. Please let work to forming a compromise. -- Levine2112 22:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It's obvious that you find this an exemplary reliable source. I see it as sloppy journalism, biased reporting, poor fact checking, etc. One of the characteristics of a reliable source is a good reputation for fact checking. If associatedcontent.com has such a reputation, it will lose it soon if this is its current journalistic level. For one thing, Porter manages to misquote the first thing I checked: calling CFS a fad. Barrett did so years ago, which was not well received by CFS patients. I knew he had updated the site to reflect current scientific understanding and would have been surprised if he had gone back to his earlier opinion. He hasn't.

You are once again misrepresenting me: I do not "reject first-party sources"; wiki editors are expected to reject certain primary sources (such as court records) when not discussed in reliable secondary sources. It is true that a number of editors here have rejected everything you have presented as reliable secondary sources on the BC info so far. But not "just." - I for one always give reasons. You should not be surprised to see me reject a new source doing the same thing as other rejected sources. AvB ÷ talk 16:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Alarm bells

I get alarm bells ringing whenever I read an article or section of an article written primarily from court documents. Certainly we should have something about the litigation, but if we're finding that we have to guddle through primary sources, this probably means that little has been written in reliable sources about the litigation. So we're effectively being investigative journalists. I suggest that the bulk of the court documents, and the statements that rely on them alone, should be pulled. --Tony Sidaway 16:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The type of investigative journalists demonstrated here violates OR and NPOV. -- Ronz  18:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed most of the section on litigation because of these concerns, which seem to be covered by the Biographies of living persons policy. Basically we regard use of articles as a basis for investigative journalism as an abuse of the encyclopedia. People who want to carry out this perfectly legitimate activity should use their blogs. --Tony Sidaway 18:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 18:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I have been mainly watching all of this because I find the conversations exhausting to keep up with at times. But I reread the article and I have to say it shows a more even balance article. I am learning policies better now and I have to say that from what I have been learning slowly is that these removals from the article is finally a move in a positive way towards balancing this article to the rules the new editors are trying to learn. Thanks for being bold enough to take this step. I agree with the changes also. --CrohnieGal 19:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Tony, I think that would all be well and good if Barrett only had the odd bit of litigation here and there. However, Barrett is notable because of his litigation and therefore there is an argument to be made that primary sources are applicable. I cite WP:OR as a source for this:

• WP:OR "Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or legal cases)."

Thanks. ॐ Metta Bubble 12:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

One of many arguments already provided (straight from WP:BLP): "Material from primary sources should be used with great care. For example, public records that include personal details such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses, as well as trial transcripts and other court records, should not be used 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, subject to the no original research policy. See also Misplaced Pages:Verifiability." talk 13:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi AvB. Yes I know, that's why this is a complex situation. There is obvious disagreement about whether the secondary sources we currently have suffice for reliability, and so the issue is unresolved. I'm looking forward to more assessments of the situation from outside editors. I think the situation is far more complex than local editors have been prepared to admit. ॐ Metta Bubble 00:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

One of the reasons for highlighting this important language was that you were quoting WP:OR in response to Tony's WP:BLP argument. Please note that WP:BLP sets additional requirements. "There are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or legal cases)" -- Per WP:BLP, this does not apply to BLPs.

Complex? Maybe, but the individual hurdles to be taken before the disputed content can be included are pretty simple. Three months ago I insisted on independent, reliable, secondary sources. None have been provided. It's true that there are editors here who believe they have provided such sources for the disputed content. It is also true that their opinion has not achieved consensus. It is unlikely that this will change. The dispute is essentially over. There is no consensus to include the disputed text The arguments against inclusion are strong and policy based, while those in favor often go against WP:BLP. AvB ÷ talk 01:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi AvB. Aren't you just demanding your version of the facts is true? Aren't there other editors here who think there are reliable enough secondary sources (see the survey)? So hence, I still say it's complex. I'm 100% we won't resolve this until there's some recognition of each other's views as being fairly made and in good faith. ॐ Metta Bubble 09:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No I am not. WP:BLP is what it is. Many editors have recognized that the views of Levine2112 were fairly made and in good faith at the start of this discussion round. The fact that certain editors believe the sources are either sufficient or insufficient to satisfy WP:BLP does not automatically make that the objective truth and I do not believe I have claimed otherwise. What I do claim is that I am applying a routine community-supported approach, while Levine et al. are not. Be that as it may, even that is not the point. The whole point here is that we do not agree and the discussion has long stopped being productive. It has become abundantly clear that a consensus that any of the provided sources are secondary and reliable is not in the cards. It is even contested that they are secondary since they all recycle attack material representing opinion from Bolen and/or Negrete. A consensus to include the disputed content is not in the cards. BLP material needs a consensus to include. Even the chances of a compromise have now hit rock bottom due to the strong impression of POV pushing. As indicated by ArbCom (if I remember correctly), we do not have to compromise with POV pushers (I'm not saying you are one by the way, and I appreciate your open and non-adversarial approach - with the exception of "shout" type assertions followed by questions to that effect). AvB ÷ talk 09:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Avb. My apologies for accusing you of shouting. I was merely refering to your previous post and not a general tendency. You raise some good points I hadn't fully considered. I agree with your assessment on a few points and I disagree with your assessment on a few points. Firstly, I think we are getting closer and closer to consensus (and I also note that consensus is never permanent). Secondly, I also think you overstate the BLP issue. The majority of editors (as I read the survey) have said they don't think it's a BLP issue. So they could easily argue that it's unfair for a handful of biased editors to whitewash any article they feel like, by simply claiming it's a BLP violation with enough vitriole. Note though, I'm not asserting this is what's happening here. However, I am observing that it appears to be asserted by a few. So in my considered opinion, outside comments from editors uninvolved in any quackery/pseudoscience type articles are warranted in order to resolve a complex issue. Clearly from our edit histories (both yours and mine, and most of the editors here) we don't have a team of disinterested editors here yet. I'd like to see more involvement from demonstrably neutral editors. Hence, I think we should persue attracting such editors. If you feel strongly eough about your position that it's gone on long enough I would have thought an arbcom case is the appropriate way forward. ॐ Metta Bubble 23:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Apologies accepted.

We've had two RfCs on the matter, the second was largely ignored. Questions have been asked in a number of WP forums, including the BLPN. That attracted the attention of e.g. JoshuaZ and Tony Sidaway (who, while at it, cut the criticism section, citing several of the reasons I gave three months ago in this discussion). It has been discussed to death. Several uninvolved editors have come and gone. Many participants in the discussion have given up. The verdict of opponents has always been along these lines: it can go in if sourced in reliable secondary sources enabling us to decide its weight (or notability) -- and in the context of those sources to prevent e.g. WP:SYN. These arguments firmly based in policy and have not been refuted. A number of editors have asked Levine2112 to stop the ad nauseam approach that has kept the discussion going to a limited extent.

Re the viability of a possible argument that opponents of the disputed language are "biased" (POV pushers): A number of these editors are neutral or more on the side of Barrett's opponents in the multicolored light of personal experience. That includes me and I for one would strongly resent being called "biased". Perhaps it helps to know that I have an illness that, according to Donna Porter, is termed a "fad illness" by Barrett (she's wrong, by the way - it's one of many mistakes -- or tendentious journalism?). Also, the argument would not hold simply because the editors in question ar not known for whitewashing (or endlessly campaigning for it on talk pages and in other forums) but, on the contrary, for their strict position on whitewashing. Finally, I do feel strongly that it is better to exclude disputed BLP information than to include it. Regardless of the person. If that introduces bias into the encyclopedia, it is erring on the side of caution. It is true that POV pushers may try and devise tactics based on this principle. But that's not a reason to change the principle. It's just one of the reasons to keep POV pushers in check.

I certainly would insist that a real critique of Quackwatch should be mentioned in this article. What says a lot to me is the detractors' incessant use of personal attacks instead of legitimate concerns. (In fact it's possible that some legit concerns have been voiced; if so, they're consistently being drowned out by the attacks.) Legitimate concerns untainted by personal attacks would stand a good chance of being discussed in acceptable sources and making it into Misplaced Pages.

WP:BLP... forbids the use of court records that have not been discussed in reliable secondary sources first. Some editors have a somewhat less strict interpretation, e.g. feeling that the policy should only apply to contentious/harmful/overly negative/overly positive material on a living person; or that content violating BLP in articles does not necessarily violate BLP elsewhere in the encyclopedia. But even they have not come out in favor of including the disputed BC content, presumably because they see it for what it is: not neutral information but, especially when contextomized and synthesized into a brief CV, an attack formulated by an individual detractor, Tim Bolen.

The onus of demonstrating that the material can go into the article is on those who want to include it. They need to generate a consensus. I do not have to do so. If they feel strongly about this, they should attempt a new mediation. In the meantime, the focus of criticism on Levine's contributions on this talk page has shifted from policy and common sense based arguments to the community's patience being exhausted by disruptive editing. If I feel strongly about something, it is Levine2112's behavior. I don't feel strongly enough about it to start a user conduct RfC. But an arbitration request regarding the content dispute (presumably about the interpretation of WP:BLP, WP:OR, WP:WEIGHT to name a few) carries with it the risk that the ArbComm will share the opinion of a number of editors that Levine2112's ad nauseam approach is disruptive. AvB ÷ talk 11:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I resent you calling my civil discussion about policy "ad nauseum" and even suggesting that an ArbCom is remotely needed for my behavior. I have civilly presented a policy-based rationale which the large majority of editors here support. And still there are the two factors with BLP that you have consistently overlooked: 1) Getting the article right 2) Privacy. For #1, we know and all agree that Barrett is not Board Certified, so that isn't the issue. #2 is a presumption in favor of privacy; whereas Barrett has said that he is public with this information (and in fact resents when his detractors claim that he has concealed this information). With regards to sources, I (and others) have presented a plethora of reliable secondary sources. That some of them are from organization which Barrett has criticized doesn't make the slightest difference, because we are only using them to verify that which Barrett himself has verified for us: he isn't Board Certified. There is no orignal research issue whatsoever here. Barrett has flat-out told us that he isn't Board Certified. His lawyers have echoed this. His detractors verify this as well. So simply stating that he isn't Board Certified is not a matter of original research. No way, no how. Finally, the weight of this content is plainly obvious. Barrett is a dispenser of medical advice to the critics. Of course his complete medical credentials are relevant. Furthermore, Barrett's lack of Board Certification has been a subject in several trials, online/offline articles, and research papers. I have never called your equal and opposite opposition to this content "disruptive". I would suggest that if you don't want to discuss this any longer, then you do just that. Otherwise, please let's work together to settle on a compromise which can satisfy all parties here. Thank you. -- Levine2112 22:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Levine2122. It was me who suggested Arbcom. But more as a way forward in seeking neutral viewpoints. My apologies. I believed Arbcom would either accept or reject, but in either case we could enjoy a talk page free of accusations.

Hi Avb. That I recognise we all have bias is nothing personal, just my own viewpoint. I believe denying personal bias is in itself a form of bias. Tony has made suggestions on all sides, so I disagree with the implication that he is somehow siding with you. I'm pretty sure I've read most of your arguments in earlier conversations, so I'll restate my viewpoint also: "No consensus" should not be used to trump disputes involving identified biases. The survey shows all users agree there is conflicting biases here. Hence demonstrably neutral viewpoints (in the context of this article) are a good way forward. I suggest more WP:RFC, WP:3O, or even WP:VP. ॐ Metta Bubble 03:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)

Levine is once again either misunderstanding or misrepresenting what I said. Example: I said: "... the risk that the ArbComm will share the opinion of a number of editors that Levine2112's ad nauseam approach is disruptive." Levine said: you are "calling my civil discussion about policy "ad nauseum" and even suggesting that an ArbCom is remotely needed for my behavior."

Levine, one cannot ask the ArbCom to resolve the content dispute. But one can ask for guidance regarding the way the various parties have applied policy and community standards. I was warning that it could carry a risk for you. Seeing that you do not feel it is a risk, and seeing that you do not believe a formal (MedCom) mediation will be helpful, all you've left now is ArbCom. Trying to keep discussing the BC thing, repeating the same old things, here on the talk page or elsewhere, is disruptive.

Metta Bubble, denying personal bias is in itself a form of bias -- definitely. I know my own biases and will never deny them. In fact I'm proud of them. But they are vastly different from what is being suggested here, contradicting my own statements and hence a blockable AGF violation, one not to be repeated. You should take a better look at my edit history. The very fact that it contains months of Barrett discussion (an article I had not edited before - or rarely, don't recall) defending against POV pushing demonstrates the degree of the disruption here. I am totally fed up with it. This is not about two battling groups of biased editors. This is about POV pusher (all of them extremely antagonistic re Barrett, regularly repeating Bolen hate speech and clearly believing their POV is NPOV) wikilawyering ad nauseam against the insights of reputable, experienced editors (a number of them with a personal POV unfavorable to Barrett). It is not something that is easily recognized by the POV pusher, but is instantly seen for what it is by neutral editors. Labeling neutral editors as "biased" as soon as their verdict goes against the wishes of the POV pusher will not solve that problem. I am a neutral editor who has said it's enough. More of this is disruptive. You suggest we need new editors. I suggest we need new arguments. The existing ones have led to a "no consensus" outcome and newcomers have not brought new arguments for a while. I've only spent some time discussing things with you because you have come up with a new meta-argument for involving new, unbiased editors (not a new argument in the discussion itself). New arguments are not disruptive. New (or existing) editors repeating existing arguments are. So feel free to involve as many editors as you can - but also note that we are not waiting for any votes here. New arguments, new reasoning, new compromise proposals, that sort of input may be helpful. But it is vastly more likely that it will result in more of the same. And that would be disruptive.

You may have noted that I posted a new proposal myself? It's a compromise of sorts, recognizing that the inclusion of the license info in the Bio section was also prompted by criticism (this time mentioning the full defense, instead of part of the criticism as in the BC thing). My proposal leaves both out. AvB ÷ talk 13:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

PS Where am I implying Tony sides with me? I'm not even sure I would like him to do so. This is merely about the arguments provided, referring mostly to Levine2112's opinion regarding "expert" editors. He did not accept these arguments from me - perhaps he will accept them when coming from Tony. Did you look up my arguments? 22 March 2007. AvB ÷ talk 13:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Avb. Where you said, "and Tony Sidaway (who, while at it, ". I'm sure we'll be revisiting Tony's deletion when the page is unprotected, so can you please post a diff with your arguments about this alarm bells issue? I still think your edit history verges towards pseudoscience topics (like mine does too). But no big deal. I like your suggestions so far. I'll check out your new proposal below. Thanks for that, and I appreciate you discussing this with me. ॐ Metta Bubble 15:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

About Tony: I can see how you got that idea, but the connection in my mind (in addition to the above) was: illustrating how attracting attention from uninvolved editors can easily go the other way.

My edit history, found under "user contributions", is much more comprehensive than just pseudoscience issues and the wannabe_kate utility typically misses the important work where an editor doesn't visit individual pages very often (other than mentioning one's average number of edits per page).

Some diffs/links from 22 March:

Biography - remove unsourced statement per WP:BLP and WP:NOR/WP:WEIGHT - in view of the latter, only reinsert if sourced in other than primary sources

rv: unsourced statement per WP:BLP and WP:NOR/WP:WEIGHT - these sources (1) do not support the assertion (2) do not show that this is in any way important. DO NOT REVERT without discussion on talk

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Stephen_Barrett/Archive_8#Board_Certification

AvB ÷ talk 16:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I am in favor of Mediation. Don't forget, I was the one who had initiated the original mediation. And for the record, it was I who sought out third party opinions for the RS and BLP issues at their corresponding noticeboards. I was also the one who filed at least one of the two RfCs. And I have also reached out to several other venues for dispute resolution. Clearly, I would like to see this issue resolved. AvB, I am not pointing any fingers of blame, but this whole debacle began when you removed the long standing text. Granted, looking back, I can see how it could have been worded better and that is why I have suggested a multitude of compromises. Again, I would like nothing more than to have this dispute resolved amicably. -- Levine2112 17:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

"AvB, I am not pointing any fingers of blame, but this whole debacle began when you removed the long standing text." -- That's obviously how you're looking at it. From my side of the screen, it began when you reinserted it again and did not accept my explanation on the talk page, unlike other editors working on other (unrelated) articles who accepted similar interventions by me. I'm not the one who aborted the MedCab mediation; I emailed the mediator when he wanted to continue by e-mail, and never heard back from him. Ronz tried to restart it. But if you're in favor of formal (MedCom) mediation, pursuing that would make a world of difference in terms of superfluous talk page discussion. AvB ÷ talk 22:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Avb, "attracting attention from uninvolved editors can easily go the other way. " What other way? In my mind there is only two ways: towards writing an encyclopedia, or away from writing an encyclopedia. Right?

The general impression was that Levine was looking for external input in a non-standard way, calling it WP:3O but in fact forum-shopping. The most important aspect being that he "counted" all editors that seemed to agree with his stance as a "vote" while ignoring or debating all editors who did not seem to agree. I gather it was not his intention to get editors like Tony here; this type of intervention regarding this type of policy violation is quite predictable. Tony is one of the many editors who have influenced my understanding of what makes Misplaced Pages tick so it is hardly surprising that the same authoritative arguments are used. These arguments are very hard to refute because they are supported by the community. AvB ÷ talk 14:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I see some editors disagreeing with you in those diffs. Rightly or wrongly, they stated their arguments and said they didn't follow yours. Overall, I saw editors fundamentally disagreeing about the application of policy, just like now. Then, I saw you citing Jimbo Wales as a precedent, which as far as I'm concerned is one of the truly horrible things about wikipedia (editors citing Jimbo as god). There's really nothing new there for me except the Jimbo thing. I reckon I've got a really good grasp on your point of view and Levines. However, I haven't made the leap from viewpoints to facts. I see you're pretty open to the wikiprocesses so I'm hopeful about mediation. ॐ Metta Bubble 23:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that disagreeing is not enough. Arguments need to be refuted. Most weren't; they were ignored, drowned out in repeated questions, etc etc. Most importantly, my edits and arguments were standard WP routine, not at all remarkable. That would not be readily apparent to less experienced editors. Of course editors who cannot get their views into the encyclopedia due it will fervently deny that it is standard procedure, either believing they're right or knowing they're wrong but trying anyway, giving themselves away with battle cries and untoward tactics.

I did not cite Jimbo as God; I wrote that I did not need Jimbo for these arguments, but that reading the Langan precedent would help Levine et al. understand the reasoning. I tried to show editors who believed this approach was not mainstream Misplaced Pages that they were wrong; in fact it is being applied all over Misplaced Pages.

By the way, if editors are planning to try and refute Tony's edit using the same arguments in favor of inclusion already proffered (but not refuted) in the BC discussion, their line of reasoning may well be deemed disruptive straight away.

As to "leaping" from viewpoint to fact: that's not leaping at all; it's basic NPOV. We provide proportional coverage of viewpoints based on what's happening in the real world. We do not assign space to a POV based on editor opinion but on reliable sources. Once we have assigned, say, 10% of the article content to a specific POV, we don't fill it with just any information. Each POV consists of attributed opinions, real or perceived facts, and more. We weigh the relative importance of each POV component, using secondary sources to guide us. We leave out or summarize the issues that are given little weight in reliable secondary sources. AvB ÷ talk 14:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur that leaning towards summarisation is appropriate.

Don't forget to provide reliable sources. AvB ÷ talk 19:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

In regards to inclusion of the litigations, I don't see how you can cite one policy segment and claim it trumps another policy when, fundamentally, there is disagreement on the extent of applicability of both policies (BLP RS). I simply don't think this is as cut-and-dried as you make out. There's multiple ways of framing Barrett's notability. How much Barrett is considered notable for his litigiousness or for his advocacy has direct bearing on this issue. Hence I think Tony deleting the court summaries out-of-hand was mistaken. It's easy to say "BLP is what it is" but that is not an argument of policy applicability.

You're now running into terrain that has already been covered in this discussion. AvB ÷ talk 19:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Though I find no evidence suggesting this issue has been discussed adequately. As always, I love reading specific diffs on the situation. My current position is that including the information Tony deleted comes under this definitionn: Citing court documents to discuss court cases about a litigious subject. And hence, that falls within my understanding of WP:BLP WP:RS WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Is there any other policies you think we should consider in discussing this? ॐ Metta Bubble 04:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Interested Parties? Avb?

On another note, does your history at co-cure affect your ability to be completely neutral here? I notice co-cure maintains healthcare critiquing pages... ala Stephen Barrett. Weren't you effectively in the same business? ॐ Metta Bubble 16:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No. 1998 2007. AvB ÷ talk 19:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Question for Metta Bubble, you say here that you are here as an uninvolved editor with this being your second revert. Now, you gave Levine a barnstar. You obviously seem to have been invited here, were you? You made that survey for others to take with you allowing yourself to refractor. I am confused, are you a neutral editor who just happened across this article or what? I would also suggest you read the archives from past conversation since this whole thing restarted which is archives 9 & 10 so you understand all of what has been said here over all of this time. I left myself for awhile because it is exhausting already. Thanks your for your time, --CrohnieGal 20:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Crohnie. Funnily enough, I've edited this article since before you joined wikipedia. Your questions show a lack of research on your part, not mine. You bonded with Avb after arriving at wikipedia and I have no intention of insulting you with "ring-in" accusations. I request you do the same research before accusing me. No offense taken though.

Quite frankly, I smell a rat here. I think there's long-term conflict of interest problem here that may require Arbcom intervention. Fyslee doesn't hide his conflict. Ronz has only recently stopped his blog. Shot Info? QuackGuru? Levine2112? How well-placed my barnstar was, time will tell.

However, it also seems User:Avb has a real-life interest in this article, which is compounded by Avb flatout denying this when I asked him. Now it turns out he was an administrator on a site that maintains a good doctor list critiquing healthcare providers. I mean, hello? If that doesn't set off some alarm bells with you, it should. Enough to lift your rader a little and consider whether you're being played -- just a little. ॐ Metta Bubble 02:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Sooo close, but I don't think this quite deserves to go here yet. I recommend that you ask I'clast about COI issues as he has been gungho in pointing the finger but rather lacking in intestinal fortitude to follow up with the appropriate channels. I can only hope that you are willing to lead the charge!. Shot info 02:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC) ]

Here's a suggestion: don't link to sites which identify, or claim to identify, Wikipedians against their wishes. It's strongly frowned upon. I'm talking about your link to Ilena Rosenthal's claimed ID of User:Shot info, which I've removed. By the way, Ilena Rosenthal has been quite vocal in claiming to identify every Misplaced Pages editor she's butted heads with (which is quite a few) with some real-life antagonist of hers. Generally (at least in her claimed identification of me), she's been way off base. COI accusations are a quick road to nowhere on this article. You're confusing having an opinion on a subject with having a conflict of interest. MastCell 02:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough about removing the Shot Info link Mastcell. My apologies Shot Info. That was poor judgement and hardly an essential part of my post. ॐ Metta Bubble 04:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Mastcell. I'm sorry to say it but your reply is based on a mistaken amplification of my assertion. I asserted that Avb has an interest in this article and that he previously denied that interest. I do not assert whether he has a conflict of interest or not. Nonetheless I am curious about it. I would like an explanation why he denied having an interest in the article at all. I will assume it was because he didn't want me to think he was incapable of reasoned discussion. Either way I think we deserve an answer beyond "No".ॐ Metta Bubble 04:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding any discussions of possible COI, especially about real life activities and names, they should happen privately with the appropriate admins. But before going that far, be fair enough to discuss it privately (email) with the person involved. Discussing such matters openly can be a bannable offense. -- Fyslee/talk 07:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Using someone's personal affiliations against them is a personal attack

It is a clear violation of NPA policy to use "someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views - regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." Just because someone shares another person's POV, even if that person is someone who in someway may be considered in violation of COI here (or has problems elsewhere), that fact must not be used against them. -- Fyslee/talk 08:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind being criticized or explaining myself, but this should have been done in private. Yep, it's a personal attack. But the harm has already been done so I'm going to defend myself to some extent. Metta, please contact me by email and I will tell you all about it. This is worth a genuine apology. Or perhaps the following suffices. It is something you should have been able to find out yourself, and the impression that you haven't done so does not give me a lot of confidence in your intentions.

The Co-Cure Good Doctors is an international index of physicians recommended by individual CFS/etc patients for their knowledge, insight and compassion in treating these illnesses to the degree possible. Self-referral is also possible, but such docs are not vetted and simply listed as self-referred. Doctors are removed after a genuine complaint from one or more individual patients of the same doctor, or when a doctor asks to be removed. That's all. Since this is about doctors diagnosing and treating what Barrett calls fad diseases, I think he would call it a Bad Doctors list (except for fibromyalgia entries). From my perspective, Barrett does good work steering patients (often chronic patients who can't be helped by regular medicine) away from the quacks preying on them and their money. I am less enthusiastic about other aspects of his work. For one thing, his true anti-quack material (and there is a lot) won't be reaching many patients with "fad" diagnoses due to the very fact he calls them that instead of e.g. posting some helpful material for patients to decide where they are on the spectrum from physical to mental to imaginary disease (which, in the case of CFS, is interesting since its "official" diagnostic criteria have expanded the patient population to include the latter two, especially in the UK).

If this is not enough for Metta, I suggest that they email me. This line of meta-questioning should stop right here. AvB ÷ talk 11:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph about a CSICOP award

There seems to be a very vehement edit war about this:

He has been named among "Other outstanding skeptics who received multiple votes or at least one first-place vote" beyond the top 10 outstanding skeptics of the 20th century by Skeptical Inquirer magazine.

The reference given is http://www.csicop.org/articles/19991214-century/

"Skeptical Inquirer Magazine Names the Ten Outstanding Skeptics of the Century."

What's all that about? What's the big deal? --Tony Sidaway 02:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

This has been simmering for a long time, overshadowed by the certification issue (one tempest in a teapot at a time). The strong SB-CSICOP association is not OR, it is COI (&vanity) as well as ludicrous for WP; SB didn't win, place or even show (or even 1st, 2nd, 3rd after the list where he is a big supporter (mutual admiration) within the organization. I really can't fathom its (little n) notability here other than as promotional for a vitriolic critic that has a demonstrated mixed record on science issues, often less well advertised on the serious science misses while the hype band and cult of personality plays on.--I'clast 02:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

All from an editor who agrees that that lack of board certification is notable. Curious how notable is only notable when certain editors apply some OR to it all. Shot info 02:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The certification board is a national body which SB had no control or influence on, the CSICOP methodology and reporting has neither the standing nor the personal independence that the Psych/Neuro board did. The fact of a lack of board certification is not OR. There is the overwrought question (given other WP biographies' similar interest) as to the secondary pedigree(s) and claims of a presupposed "conventional righteousness" but not notability about the fact's existence. This kind of exclusionary behavior about a notable minority (DC) brought about decades of legal warfare in Wilk et al.--I'clast 11:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh I dunno. CSICOP is a pretty well known organisation that promotes scientific skepticism, and if its fellows and consultants name someone in the top eighteen skeptics of the twentieth century I think that's undeniably significant, because it tells you how well he is regarded among his peers. --Tony Sidaway 11:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Ordinarily I might agree if the subject weren't so closely interrelated (a "favorite son") with the organization and so far from the planned award population. Given the rather bifurcated nature of the "also rans" from the "top 10" list, *not* a "top 20" list, this seems OR to say listees are top 18 of the century as well as the rather thin "at least one vote" note. It really does make the WP article look peacock lightweight, incestuously partisan and redundant. I am going to suggest that he needed to be on the original "top 10" list to be encyclopedic here. That he *is* a fellow of the CSI seems the more encyclopedic part, already mentioned in the Bio.--I'clast 11:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of the degrees of others

I have been wondering for some time why anyone would criticize Barrett for exposing diploma mills and the "degrees" they hand out to so many quacks. Isn't that a legitimate activity? Healthfraud and quackery don't happen in a vacuum. People who are engaged in such activities usually have many other forms of wrongdoing in their history, and it is a logical part of exposing their often dangerous nonsense to also point out the whole pattern which characterizes their modus operandi. So what's wrong with him criticizing their "degrees"? Let's have specific examples of where he gets it wrong. -- Fyslee/talk 06:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for someone to provide an example of what they mean when they criticize Barrett for criticizing the degrees of others. -- Fyslee/talk 17:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Our job here is not to perform original research like what you are requesting here; but rather to present verifiable content. Barrett does "expose" institutions which he considers to be diploma mills through his site CredentialWatch. He uses this same site and others to "expose" people misrepresenting their credentials - including Board Certification. Of course, Barrett's own lack of Board Certification is notable. -- Levine2112 21:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes I think you want to be blocked for disruption. In fact I'm thinking it now. Please don't push your luck. Please stop beating this dead horse (BC). Enough is enough. Please stop accusing others of doing things they haven't done (requesting OR). Enough is enough. Please stop this pedantic tone that would irritate a newbie and insults reputable, experienced Wikipedians ("Our job here is not to perform original research"). What audience do you think you're playing? Please go study our policies in the light of what you have learned here in the past few months. By now you should have known that OR is allowed on talk pages. E.g. to help inform the debate. But since you insist on RS, perhaps you could provide some RSs describing how Barrett gets it wrong when criticizing diploma mill "degrees"? Or do something else to show you are of net worth to the encyclopedia? AvB ÷ talk 21:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

What I am saying is that Misplaced Pages pages are not a discussion forum. Please don't tell me to stop discussing things when it is other editors who are asking for discussion. You insinuations are extremely rude and especially uncivil here. Please stop. Now then, to further address Fyslee's question, my answer is this: that Barrett criticizes other people's credentials opens himself up to have his credentials criticized. That's all. I am not saying that Barrett's criticisms are right or wrong; as there is no right or wrong here. Just opinion. But facts are facts and we all agree here that Barrett is not Board Certified. How did we all come to this conclusion? How did we all verify this information to be true? Certainly there must be a reliable source(s) which we all are depending on. -- Levine2112 22:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Can someone else please explain that this behavior is not tolerated? Thanks. AvB ÷ talk 22:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Given how much he enjoys asking the same questions over and over and over and over again while ignoring any answer (except those that confirm his bias) any explaination is largely irrelevant as it will be ignored while he jumps on some implausible point to support his POV. Shot info 22:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF. -- Levine2112 22:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

That was a "postulation" which is (according to editors who fail to AGF themselves) is different to an "assumption". It is strongly suggested (like a large number of other editors have suggest to you here to date) that you read the policy yourself. Then read the others. Shot info 23:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

You are hardly postulating. You are describing how I will act/react. You are assuming bad faith. Just please refrain from doing so. That's all. Thank you. -- Levine2112 23:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This shoe has been selected, purchased, packaged, taken home, and now, fits very well. Feel free to change your behaviour and read policy. Shot info 23:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

What would be nice is for you to contribute to this discussion page in a meaningful way; something other than criticizing other editors and more along the lines of content discussions. I would appreciate that. Thanks again. -- Levine2112 23:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

What would be even nicer is for you to read policy and contribute in a meaningful way. BTW, did your friend the "Linux-User" (Gee, I wonder who this was...) get his job with IEEE as you mentioned at the start of your set-up, or did he just join (with the appropriate degree) as you mentioned at the end of your set-up? Of course, if you AGFed you would have had to agree that your line of questioning was irrelevent, but you haven't been one to follow policy then...and now. Your edits (your many, many, many, many, many edits) stand for themselves. Shot info 23:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, in fact he did. Thanks for asking. You should check out the movie he is interviewed in, "Revolution OS". It's fascinating. What this has to do with this discussion, I have no idea. -- Levine2112 23:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Joined as a member or employee? Your story changed remember. This relates to AGF and your failure to follow it, coupled with your failure to understand policy, coupled with your failure to accept any information not confirming your POV. BTW, I emailed Moore several months ago (at least the director, who you claimed that you knew). His responses were very enlightening needless to say. Shot info 23:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This is all very disruptive. If you would like to continue this, please take it my talk page. I am glad that you emailed my friend. He's a good guy. -- Levine2112 23:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Mention of Barrett's own lack of board certification would only be relevant if his criticism of the degrees of others was made while misrepresenting his own or pretending to be something he is not. So far we have no evidence that he has done so. He has never made a big number out of his certification because it was a nonissue.

My purpose for starting this section was in response to him being criticized for criticizing others. I figured that such a criticism must be based on some specific evidence and I'd like to see if anyone had an example of him making a big number out of someone else's lack of certification, and what the context was. If some immoral inconsistency were then to exist in his criticism, I'd be very interested in criticizing him for doing so, but so far no one has provided a specific example from Barrett's writings.

If people here are going to criticize him for criticizing others, then please provide specific examples of him accusing specific persons and doing so improperly. Otherwise drop the criticism and let him make proper criticisms when necessary. Frauds and their diploma mill degrees deserve getting exposed. Why would anyone here defend them? -- Fyslee/talk 23:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

That's the whole point. That he isn't Board Certified, isn't a criticism. It is a biographical, verifiable fact. Some may criticize Barrett for criticizing Board Certified doctors even though he himself is not Board Certified. That, however, is not what we are doing here. See the difference? -- Levine2112 03:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The whole point is that it's a non-notable verifiable fact, and is only notable as part of BLP violating criticisms using very poor sources. It would be notable - and I'd be the first to support its inclusion - if he had been guilty of hypocritical and improper criticism of other's credentials while misrepresenting his own, which has not been shown to have happened. I'm asking for proof that that has happened. If no proof is forthcoming, we are left back where we started - with a verifiable fact that is not notable enough for inclusion. That should end these months of disruptive and fruitless discussion. Accept that fact and that you have no consensus. Drop it. Continuance lessens your credibility and is simply disruptive and a massive BLP violation. -- Fyslee/talk 07:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It is notable that Barrett is not Board Certified regardless of whether he criticizes others for lacking board certification or for being board certified by a body which Barrett doesn't recognize. Of course he does both of these activities, so that only makes it more notable. However, that would be in the sense of criticism (i.e. the guy who criticizes others for having "dubious" board certification, isn't even board certified himself.) That is not what we are doing here. What makes Barrett's lack of Board Certification credentials notable is that there a SOOOOO many sources discussing it, that Barrett is a doctor, and mostly because Barrett provides health advice to the masses. Of course his complete verifiable medical credentials are notable. -- Levine2112 07:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Fyslee's point of view & OR “inviting” (demanding?) others' point of view & OR about Stephen Barrett's point of view & OR. hmmmm.

I am not sure what brought this up, it seems off topic & potentially contentious - it doesn't appear to be a current part of the SB biography. Maybe Dematt's comment on survey question #5? In the past I thought better of QW (including Dr Barrett) efforts on discussion of credentials - although I felt QW was overly harsh and sometimes greatly misleading about individuals, I felt I could identify and separate the facts from QW bias to get a better background on various figures. Eventually I came to realize that even I was having trouble identifying some gross biases in QW articles. I less frequently consider QW biographic background articles now, they are often just too dangerous and unfair for my taste. I will cite a (Dr Barrett associated) QW hosted bio article by Saul Green for convenience and its dissection pp. 21-29 by an author with real scientific credentials.

Many of today's prestigious medical schools had curricula and degree history that might be, um, surprising. Although altmed credentials are definitely a great area of vulnerability, concern and caution, one risks throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I think that one also has to deal with a number of legitimate educational issues such as distance learning, evolving (claims of) modalities, the life cycle and (d)evolution of commercial educational enterprises with respect to former students and degree holders credentials. These kind of issues appear to include Dr Barrett's legal education (and claims of expertise).

One thing that is missing in SB's biography is his apparent claim to legal expertise and the distance learning (correspondence) legal education that he claims from the now defunct LeSalle (SB's CV) which also had a less than glorious demise, being subsequently involuntarily closed down by the FTC. Perhaps WP editors could develop some self or 3rd party references on his claims of legal training and expertise there since that was an issue in the court cases.--I'clast 10:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

That's an excellent point, I'clast. And a good answer to Fyslee's question. Barrett criticizes people for presenting themselves as specialists if they got a degree or certification from an organization which Barrett considers "dubious". However, the irony here is that Barrett has presented himself as a legal expert and as one judge noted about Barrett: "His legal expertise is not apparent." Barrett did attend a year and a half of correspondence legal eduation from La Salle; a diploma mill in all senses of the word. This was the university that used to advertise on matchbooks and in the back of comic books. I am not making this up. Read about it. -- Levine2112 18:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

My opinion on this hasn't changed, and it appears I'm not the only one. I repeat: since there's no consensus to add the material, why keep pursuing it here? Why don't you take it to mediation or arbitration if you feel strongly about it? thanks, Jim Butler

Because the Bio section is still very one sided and inaccurate as well as being promotional, about a controversial individual with varying degrees of limited professional credentials (legal, medical and scientific), greatly asserted at different times in one form or another. An individual who has major strikes on both notable science/medical and civil rights issues (BvR, among others) without any acknowledgement whatsoever in the Bio, where the results of some of his work (including personal attacks) *can be* retrospectively measured in damaged lives, careers and scientific progress.--I'clast 20:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks I'clast; I understand the arguments for including the information, but that wasn't the question I was asking. Please see my comment below under the section header "Disruption of talk page". thanks, Jim Butler 17:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course your POV flies in the face of WP:BLP but given that you view the SSE as "scientific" and the CSI as not, then well, your bias is quite evident. Time to return that degree you claim you had... Shot info 22:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

My bias is toward reality, sometimes less politically correct, perhaps best for those who literally need to save themselves or a billion or a few (it is sometimes interesting how big those little heads get). Kaufmann is a well credentialed scientist, parts of whose article has been independently sourced in WP discussions with *current*, accepted WP:RS, WP:V medical school research for those whose scientific/medical reading or literacy is a few decades behind the curve. Here at the SB bio, "Wikiality" and reality seem to have a separate existence.--I'clast 23:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Pretentious? Moi?

Fyslee says that "Mention of Barrett's own lack of board certification would only be relevant if his criticism of the degrees of others was made while misrepresenting his own or pretending to be something he is not." The following is taken from a section headed "Board Certification What Does It Mean?" by Stephen Barrett M.D. Emphasis supplied.

Board Certification What Does It Mean? Stephen Barrett M.D.

"(The) scope of modern medical knowledge is vast, most medical school graduates take additional training before entering clinical practice. Those choosing to become specialists take at least three years of residency training ...The recognized standard-setting organization is the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS, which is composed of 24 primary medical specialty boards and six associate members: the American Hospital Association, American Medical Association, Association of American Medical Colleges, Council of Medical Specialty Societies, Federation of State Medical Boards of the United States, and National Board of Medical Examiners. ...

Medical specialty boards require high standards of training and performance and ensure them by rigid examinations. Successful applicants receive diplomas and are considered "board-certified." ...

In 1995, Medical Economics magazine reported that more than 75 boards not ABMS- or AOA-affiliated had issued certificates to thousands of physicians. Although a few of these self-designated boards are run legitimately and may eventually achieve ABMS or AOA recognition, most do not require residency training in their specialty. The author stated that "some physicians use fringe board certification to attract patients, who usually don't know the difference. . . . And only a handful of states restrict the advertising of board certifications or specialties." Certification by any of the following suggests that a pracitioner is involved with dubious methods:

American Board of Chelation Therapy

American Board of Holistic Medicine

American Board of Environmental Medicine

International Board of Environmental Medicine

Most physicians identified as specialists in the Yellow Pages have completed accredited specialty training. However, telephone directory publishers rarely attempt to verify credentials, so self-proclaimed specialists may be listed also. The ABMS Verification Service provides a simple way to check whether a doctor has ABMS-recognized certification. "

Now, while I am sure we all admit that Barrett is guilty of no pretence when he tells us that the examinations are rigid, surely anyone reading the piece by Stephen Barrett M.D. from which I have quoted above would assume that the author was himself board certified ? Alright, he does not say "I am board certified" but this is would be assumed by any reader. Hasn't the time come for Barrett supporters to become Quackwatch supporters and make a move towards getting that website run by someone a bit less ridiculous ? robert2957 07:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

He was answering a specific question. Your opinion of him....is it conducive to building Misplaced Pages? He's not perfect. Should that fact be used to divert attention from the good work he does? Hmmm....we're getting off-topic here. Back to editing and keep this stuff off of Misplaced Pages. -- Fyslee/talk 07:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

We're not supposed to judging the "good work" but reporting on verifiable, relevant facts, not expurgating/denying them.--I'clast 10:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the question to which he was responding: "I live in a Florida city that has a high percentage of retired people and as a consequence, a large medical services population. In their advertising it seems almost all the MD's are "Board Certified", but the board is never mentioned. Somewhere, I heard that there are a few boards considered to be "legitimate" that require a high level of experience and recommendation, and who have passed stringent exams in their specialty. Somewhere I learned there are boards whose main purpose is to allow the use of "Board Certified" after the name. Could you comment on this? Is there a way to tell the difference?" robert2957 10:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

What stuff? This is Barrett's own words. Since there is a great deal of discussion "out there" about Barrett's Board Certification, aren't we doing a disservice to a researcher who wants to know whether or not Barrett is board certified by not including this verifiable information here? -- Levine2112 07:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

In that context, it's even less relevant, unless you want to link the Board in noting that he is not Board Certified, and if we were to include that statement. In that context, it would be almost relevant, except that he could not now become Board Certified even if he wanted to, as he's retired. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I am unsure of what you are saying here, Arthur Rubin. Please clarify. Thanks. -- Levine2112 17:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Noting that leans against noting that he's not board certified unless we were to both include that statement of his and if we were to link board certified to that board. Otherwise, there's no relevance. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

As a dispenser of health advice to the masses, Barrett's complete and verifiable medical credentials are highly relevant. -- Levine2112 20:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Only if that's what our sources say. ॐ Metta Bubble 00:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. That is exactly what sources like this one is saying. -- Levine2112 00:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe there's been multiple discussions on how this source is unsuitable for our use because it's self-published, unreliable, and partisan, correct? --Ronz 01:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Correct. There has been multiple discussion. However, it was never agreed upon that this source is self-published, unreliable, nor partisan. -- Levine2112 01:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

And round and round and round in circles we go, violating CIVIL, CON, and TALK with in the process. Please stop. --Ronz 01:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Haha, this is funny, there is no consensus, so until there is a consensus that there is no consensus, that means it can be used. It's almost as good as I'clast's tortured reasoning that easily obtained information for a biography should be dropped in favour of information that isn't. Shot info 03:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the source Levine. I found the information on page 13 onwards. Pleasantly surprised to see they cite their sources and the ABMS. Are there other sources too? ॐ Metta Bubble

Proposed 1st paragraph of Bio

Barrett is a 1957 graduate of the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and completed his psychiatry residency in 1961. He also completed 1₂ years of legal studies by correspondence through LaSalle Extension University in 1968. He was a licensed physician until retiring from active practice in 1993, and his medical license is currently listed as "Active-Retired" in good standing. He testified as an expert psychiatric witness in some court cases but never achieved board certification in psychiatry. A longtime resident of Allentown, Pennsylvania, Barrett now resides in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. He has said that his appreciation of medical science probably began with a college course in medical statistics.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by I'clast (talk • contribs).

No. This ignores three months of discussion regarding the BC thing. The same arguments apply to a number of other changes also proposed here. No need to reiterate everything here. AvB ÷ talk 12:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

PS Where are the sources? AvB ÷ talk 17:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well written draft. Here is a suggested amendment (in bold):

Barrett is a 1957 graduate of the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and completed his psychiatry residency in 1961. He also completed a year and a half of legal studies by correspondence through LaSalle Extension University in 1968. He was a licensed physician until retiring from active practice in 1993, and his medical license is currently listed as "Active-Retired" in good standing. He testified as an expert psychiatric witness in some court cases but did not achieve board certification in psychiatry. A longtime resident of Allentown, Pennsylvania, Barrett now resides in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. He has said that his appreciation of medical science probably began with a college course in medical statistics. MaxPont 17:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)