Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Valjean (talk | contribs) at 07:27, 19 January 2010 (→Interesting interview with Barrett: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archives

Archives

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

added a search box for the talk page and the archives

since there are so many archives, and since new editors are told to check past discussions, I thought a search box would make it much easier to do so. --stmrlbs|talk 01:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The archives are mostly nonsense and I don't see any new editors who are having problems with searching the archives. QuackGuru (talk) 01:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I just tried out the search box; it seems to work properly and and be quite helpful - why would we remove such functionality? --CliffC (talk) 03:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I fixed the template so that it works for topics with multiple word names (like "Stephen Barrett"). It is very easy to add, and it sure makes it easier to check on past discussions. --stmrlbs|talk 05:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, now that *is* useful. Much better than trying to remember the syntax every time I want to search all subpages. I took out the Template: part as unnecessary (though not worth changing unless one is making an edit anyway. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, 2/0. I keep forgetting that Template: is the default, therefore I don't have to specify it. When I was testing it in my own userspace, then I had to specify where the template was. But, yes, this sure makes it a lot easier, imo - especially for new editors who are not familiar with how to use the prefix part of the Misplaced Pages search. --stmrlbs|talk 03:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

J

Does anyone know the source of this middle initial? It's not listed on his Quackwatch bio, can we put the reference next to the initial? Whatever source it came from, maybe it has the full middle name? Tyciol (talk) 21:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. It's "Joel". I found it on the medical licensure website, which is about as official as it gets. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent spamming

Given how long the spamming has been happening, it may be helpful to blacklist the link, or give it to XLinkBot (talk · contribs) for automatic removal. --Ronz (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the blacklist would be most appropriate. I lack experience in reporting there, so if you feel up to it, I'd encourage you to go for it. MastCell  19:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

According to its instruction page, the spam blacklist is only intended as a measure of last resort. Given that most of the damage seems to be coming from new and unregistered users, requesting semi protection is probably the best first step.

Then again, there is precedent for the Spam Blacklist to be used against woomeisters: The infamous whale.to is blocked by the global blacklist. The "Bolen Report" website seems just as retarded.

— Hyperdeath 22:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

If we could predict when it might show up, I would agree with sprot, but the site is out there and every couple months someone else decides to "improve" the article with some link. This might no longer apply since the ArbCom, but autoconfirmed editors have also been known to add links to the domain, which gets us into dispute resolution but avoids XLinkBot. Anyway, I asked at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#bolenreport.com, we can try something else if the kind folks there think that blacklisting is not appropriate. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

List of accounts

It's difficult to find who's been adding the links. I've found four accounts:

• 4.233.98.20 (talk · contribs)
• 24.94.70.168 (talk · contribs)
• 66.91.134.18 (talk · contribs)
• TimBolen (talk · contribs) - quackpotwatch

The quackpotwatch link might cause too much trouble to blacklist, given that it is used in a few active talk pages. --Ronz (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Both quackpotwatch.org and bolenreport.net should be added to the blacklist. Does the blacklist only trigger when active links to the sites are added, or will it trigger for inactive mentions like we're doing here? -- Brangifer (talk) 02:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Editing a page with an active blacklisted link doesn't work as long as the link is active.

I looked at the contributions of both those ips, but didn't see them add any links. --Ronz (talk) 03:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right, so I removed them. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Blacklisting prevents "new" instances of links. Links already "active" in the archives should not prevent editing. --Hu12 (talk) 07:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that blacklisting prevents saving an article with the offending link. It does not determine whether the link was already there, and block new instances. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

BLP violation

I keep getting my edits reversed saying that they are libelous. They are not libelous, they are fact. One of my sources listed is to a finding of a court case. The other was from lawyer statements from another court case. No Suggestions or compromises offered, just an edit. 70.239.3.74 (talk) 02:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

healthfreedomlaw failes WP:RS. You descrition of the court ruling is inaccurate and POV on a number of points including that it was not a defamation lawsuit by the point that ruling was reached.©Geni 03:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Further, this ip was warned of WP:BLP. A simple search of this talk page, provided at the top of this page, shows that these sources have been rejected multiple times, and the information as well, all per WP:BLP. --Ronz (talk) 03:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I was clear that I was only talking about the defamation lawsuit in the first part. The link talks about Barret losing that case. Before that on the link there the information is about Barrett losing his appeal. I was accurate that Barrett lost the case. I was accurate in describing what happened in the case from the source ( the lawyer in the case). The second case was also clearly described as a defamation lawsuit. 70.239.3.74 (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Your edit claimed that Barrett was "not licensed because he had failed his certification exam." That is false. At the risk of spoon-feeding you information which you should really have already uncovered through basic due diligence, licensing and board certification are two different processes; licensing does not depend on board certification. You also wrote: "He also admitted that he had no formal legal training. This is important because up to that point he had served as an expert witnessin several trails." That is misleading, inappropriate in tone, and borderline false; expert witnesses often lack formal legal training, since they are not lawyers but experts in various non-legal fields. A separate issue is your repeated use of inappropriate sources, but regardless of sourcing, the content of your edit is misleading and in some cases frankly false. If you'd like to move the discussion forward, I'd like to see some indication that you've read and at least tried to apply Misplaced Pages's policy on biographical articles. MastCell  03:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Well, 70, you were accurate, in part; this explains why we only quote reliable secondary sources, rather than unreliable secondary sources or generally reliable primary sources. He did lose the defamation lawsuit; but only quacks (ummm, alternative medicine practitioners) consider that his statement that he was not certified is either an admission nor a statement that he was not licensed. And he was ordered to pay Ilena $400,000 in legal fees, but that was overturned on appeal. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

According to the trial, he was not licensed because he failed his board test. Please cite your source that his legal fees were overturned. Also, I added even more references to my edits. One is the largest Chiropractic newspaper. 70.239.3.74 (talk)

1. We don't have the trial records, only misleading regurgitations from them that have been reworked by a spin doctor hired to smear Barrett, so this "information" isn't properly sourced.
2. He was and is currently licensed, but wasn't "board certified". There is a huge difference that the spin doctor has blurred, twisted, and then exploited to get people like you to believe his version. It's a false version. Note that about 2/3 of psychiatrists at the time weren't board certified, so he was in good company, and his lack of board certification was never relevant during the entirety of his career. There are no known reliable sources that made an issue of it, so Misplaced Pages's rules won't allow us to do so. The only one who has made an issue of that fact is that one spin doctor, who has made a career of attacking Barrett with untrue and misleading conspiracy theories. Your wording indicates that you have gotten your "information" from that source.
3. The chiro rag isn't a reliable source for such "information" as it is just repeating what it got from the same source of flat out misinformation. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Evil: someone blacklisted the only primary source document. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.42.221 (talk) 07:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I reverted your reposting of this per the above discussion. Please do not readd, thanks, --CrohnieGal 14:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting interview with Barrett

The Smack on Quacks -- Brangifer (talk) 07:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

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