Talk:Stephen Barrett

Archives
October 2005 – July 15, 2006 July 20, 2006 – July 27, 2006 July 27, 2006 – Sept. 18, 2006 Sept. 18, 2006 – Oct. 28, 2006 Nov. – Dec. 2006 Jan 2007 Dec 2006 – February 2007

Board Certification

This source which was written by Stephen Barrett's lawyers says:

Dr. Barrett is a retired psychiatrist, having completed three years of accredited residency training in psychiatry. It is not necessary to be board-certified to practice psychiatry.

Therefore, according to his lawyers, he is NOT board certified. However, this doesn't say that he failed his exams. Thus, I supply this article from ChiroWeb which quotes opposing counsel:

At trial, while on the stand, Barrett had to admit that he not only gave up his license in 1994, but that he was, in fact, not a board-certified psychiatrist, because he had flunked the examination that was required to receive certification.

Now we have established that not only is Barrett not board certified, but that he failed the exam.

As for the date and the portion of the exam, I don't know where that came from, but I am sure it wasn't pulled out of thin-air. We can research back in this article's history and see from whence it sprang. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, apparently the date and the portion of the exam came straight from the horse's mouth... just a figure of speech, no deprecation intended. ;-) See here that user Sbinfo states:

Dr. Barrett responds: I took the certifying exam in 1964 when about 1/3 of psychiatrists were board-certified. The exam had two halves, psychiatry and neurology. I passed the psychiatric part but failed neurology because it included topics unrelated to either my training or my interests. Unlike most residencies, my psychiatric training program had no neurologic component. Since there was no reason to believe that certifcation was necessary, I decided not to re-take the exam. Sbinfo diff

I think that should confirm everything which was deleted. Any comments or shall we re-instate it? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The first source is original research since it draws on a court document and you have not provided a secondary source showing that this aspect of Barrett's career is in any way important. Please see Jimbo's intervention at Christopher Michael Langan for an illustration. The second source is a partisan website, not a reliable source to help us gage the importance or meaning of this detail in Barrett's life. He has never claimed to be a board-certified psychiatrist. The article, after my edit, no longer said anything about this point. This completes the WP:NOR/WP:WEIGHT aspect, the point here not being whether or not it is true, but how it is reported in reliable secondary sources.

The WP:BLP aspect is also illustrated by Jimbo's intervention at Christopher Michael Langan. It is apparent from Barrett's own comments that he does not at all agree with this description of his career. After my edit, it did (since it now agrees with his own description). AvB ÷ talk 18:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow your logic here. Barrett says himself that he failed his board certication exam. Do you agree that this is true? That should be all of the source we would need... the other sources only help but aren't neccessary because Barrett himself is stating this fact. Of course this is important. This is as important as any of his degrees or accolades. We are not misrepresenting this fact... in fact we are stating exactly what Barrett himself said. If anything, this satisfies BLP - specifically WP:SELFPUB and BLP (using a subject as a source) - and Barrett himself by clearly stating this fact and citing himself as a source and showing everyone that he is not hiding or misrepresenting this fact. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a pity you do not follow my logic. I have explained it to the best of my ability and would say that Jimbo's explanation also counts. Once again, the point is not whether something has happened but whether it should be included the way it was, and that we should use reliable secondary sources to guide that assessment. If you and I were the only editors discussing the inclusion of this sentence, this would be the time to turn to WP:DR. But perhaps we're not, so I hope others will want to chime in. Anyone? AvB ÷ talk 18:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

PS 1 You would be right to quote Barrett on this, but only if he had said it in this specific context, i.e. where he is describing his own resume. It's common sense, really. Not many people include failed exams on their resume. AvB ÷ talk 18:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

PS 2 You say "of course it is important" - that's exactly the point. You think it's important. But what editors think does not count. The question is, what are reliable secondary sources saying about this? AvB ÷ talk 18:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It's the old issue of what material derived solely from primary sources is appropriate. Note that WP:RS#Types_of_source_material, WP:SOURCE#Reliable_sources and WP:N#Notability_guidelines_do_not_directly_limit_article-content have been updated since the last time I recall discussing this issue. --Ronz 18:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

See also WP:NOR#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources AvB ÷ talk 13:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Please spell out clearly why this sentence should be deleted, which policies specifically, and the relevance of the Langan article here. I am not understanding your point and am requesting further explanation. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

As the editor trying to include the material, the burden of evidence is on you. --Ronz 18:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

While I think the material fulfills the "descriptive claims" criteria of a primary source, I agree with Avb that the "undo weight" issue, especially in light of WP:BLP, is more important here in making this a quality encyclopedia article. --Ronz 19:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not trying to include it, but rather keep it. AvB deleted it and I would like a clear explanation of his rationale. That's all.

Anyhow, BLP states with regards to using a subject as a source the following:

In some cases the subject may become involved in editing an article. They may edit it themselves or have a representative of theirs edit it. They may contact Wikipedians either through the article's talk page or via email. Or, they may provide information through press releases, a personal website or blog, or an autobiography. When information supplied by the subject conflicts with unsourced statements in the article, the unsourced statements should be removed.

Information supplied by the subject may be added to the article if:

• It meets verifiability, NPOV, and no original research policies.
• It is relevant to the person's notability;
• It is not contentious;
• It is not unduly self-serving;
• There is no reasonable doubt that it was provided by the subject.
• A blog or personal website written by the subject may be listed in the external links/further reading section, even if the subject is not used as a source.

Barrett is clearly concerned that he is being misrepresented by people who state that he is concealing the fact that he failed his board certification exams. He has sued people for saying that. He wants to let the world know that he is not hiding this fact. By including this information here and sourcing Barrett as the primary source, we are in fact satisfying Barrett's wishes. We wouldn't be violating BLP, clearly he is a reliable source on himself, it is relavent to his notablity, it isn't contentious (it is a fact) and it certainly isn't unduly self-serving. If the burden of evidence is truly on me, then I believe I have satisfied this burden.

How does Undo Weight figure into this? That he failed his board certification exams isn't a minority viewpoint. It is a fact. It would be one thing if we were stating that he was hiding this information. We are not stating that. We are only spelling out a clear fact of his qualifications. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I cannot help it if you do not follow my logic. I have already explained in great detail so for me it's now a matter of consensus building or you and me going to WP:DR. That only leaves your statement that Barrett wants this in the encyclopedia himself. Well, Levine2112, I would certainly not object to the inclusion of this information in the part of the article's criticism section (is there such a part? I haven't even read it in full recently) where his detractors get to voice "that he is concealing the fact that he failed his board certification exams". Adding it to his resume surely is not his intention here. That would be contextomy and is exactly what we're talking about. Without the right context, this piece of information needs to stay out of Barrett's resume in the encyclopedia. AvB ÷ talk 19:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Not only is there a criticism section, but the criticism section includes a subheading entitled "Qualifications and Objectivity." I can think of no better place for this information to be included. --Warrior-Poet 19:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime, then, I will include this information in the crtitisms section. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I would advise you not to do that, Levine2112. As I have told you, this would be OK with me if the criticism section contained the information Barrett wants to offset. It doesn't, and adding at this point would be nothing more than WP:POINT. If you do this, I fear your behavior on this talk page is on its way to become disruptive. You know how important BLP is to the encyclopedia. And you probably know that I practise 1RR so I have already used up double my self-limited number of reverts in the interest of NPOV, NOR and BLP. AvB ÷ talk 20:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Levine2112, I see you have added this information to another part of the article. I am giving you the opportunity to revert yourself. You have not provided sources showing the reader why the information would belong in the place where I deleted it, and you have not provided sources showing the reader why the information would belong in the place where you have now inserted it. I am disputing your insertion and you should immediately remove it per WP:BLP and other policies until we have reached consensus on the talk page. AvB ÷ talk 20:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Right now, I don't see anything disruptive in my action. I didn't add it to the criticism section to make a point. I added it there per the suggestion given above. While I don't think that this is being used as a criticism of Barrett, but rather a verifiable biographical point, I do see some logic in adding it to this section. Barrett has sued many people and organizations for misrepresenting this fact. Clearly, it is a notable fact for Barrett, for his opponents, and for the general public. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you did not add it per my suggestion which was conditional and the condition has clearly not been fulfilled. This is just another example of disruptive editing: your ignoring information given three times already. You do not seem to understand the situation. I am once again giving you an opportunity to self-revert. You have ignored all reasons to delete and given not a single reason to include. And I resent the "disengage" advice below. It is baseless. I am not personally attached to Barrett and have no feelings about this one way or another except for the resentment just noted. I am defending the encyclopedia. I do not want Jimbo to get a phone call complaining about this article. AvB ÷ talk 20:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I can help you understand the undue weight aspect though. Quoting from the policy: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." The viewpoint we're talking about is not whether or not something happened, but how important it is. To assess that importance we need reliable, secondary sources. I expect, if you find such sources, that they will show that this may be important in the POV of Barrett's detractors, but it is not important to most people. AvB ÷ talk 19:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Right now we are in the first step of WP:DR... discussion. There is no section here called resume. A resume is a self-serving document and would fail many Wikipedia policies. We are dealing with a section entitled "Biography". In 1964, Stephen Barrett took the board certification exam for his chosen field, Psychiatry. He failed the neurological portion of the exam. He has never retaken the exam. This is biographical. This is on topic with a subject who is a notable doctor. This isn't a criticism. This is a fact. This is relevant. It is not as if we are stating something off topic with the subject, i.e. his kitchen walls are painted green. I still haven't seen a clear explanation for deleting the passage. I am open to change my mind. Otherwise, we should reinstate it. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Please reread what I wrote. We have no reached a consensus. You say you do not understand my logic. I do not know what else I can tell you. I said we're now ready for consensus discussion with the other editors active here, and otherwise it's time for WP:DR. As for reasons to delete, I've given you plenty but I don't need any. The burden to sufficiently source it source for inclusion is on you. AvB ÷ talk 20:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I have given you just that. Please either comment on my reasons to justify inclusion or move to the second step of WP:DR... Disengage for a while. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I just read through the article. I have to admit I don't think it is necessary to put in the board certification information, it just doesn't seem to fit in with the rest of the article. Also, was another consensus taken about the use of Quackpot.com? I see it's back in the article. I thought that the use of a self made site like this one is, it is called an opinion piece by Tim Bolin, was not allowed. I am getting confused by these rules I think but I thought I would ask. I hope everyone can talk calmly about these things. --Crohnie 20:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Levine2112, you have not even started to refute my arguments against inclusion. The only real argument for inclusion you gave was the thing about "Barret wants this himself". The rest all boils down to "it is true so I can include it anywhere in the article," which does NOT trump policy. You are wrong in thinking you as a single editor get to decide whether such BLP-related information can be included. You are simply edit-warring instead of reaching a consensus here, and that is WP:POINT and disruptive. You are also endangering the encyclopedia by including material. Try to build a consensus before doing anything. And remember that I am not not the only editor here. In fact I'm going to bed after reporting this. AvB ÷ talk 21:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your arguments against inclusion and have repeatedly asked you to clarify. You have refused to do so. I have quoted specific policy which in fact supports inclusion so please don't write this off as e trying to make a point. That shows a lack of good faith on your part. Please follow my lead and quote precise policy which justifies your deletion of this material. I am open to change my mind if you would just explain to me a valid point about policy. There is no endangerment of the encyclopedia by including a cold-hard relevant fact. Please don't blow this out of proportion. I am not edit warring, so please don't accuse me of that. I am not being disruptive, so please don't accuse me of that. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually in favor of mentioning the boards issue briefly, as Levine did; my concern is that it needs a reliable source. Citing User:Sbinfo's comments on Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Provided it can be sourced, I think it's relevant enough to include it. Oh, and Quackpotwatch needs to go. MastCell ^Talk 21:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable about the boards if there is a reliable source. Then it would fit in where it was originally. As for Quackpot.com, it is also footnote #27. --Crohnie 21:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for picking that up. Levine, can you provide us with an useable source for the boards thing? If so, maybe we can come up with a way to briefly include the information that will be acceptable to everyone. MastCell ^Talk 22:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure. The two sources I cite at the top of this discussion thread are good. One is a legal filing by Barrett's lawyers which state that he is not board certified (but still could practice as a psychiatrist regardless) and the other is an article published ion ChiroWeb which quotes Barrett's opposing legal counsel. Further, as I noted before, BLP (using a subject as a source) states that Sbinfo's discussion of this matter is a usable source. I think all three of these sources together make it pretty rock-solid. Other sources which may not be as reliable include: Chiro.org, Medscape, Alternative Cancer, World Chiropractic Alliance, and Health Freddom Law-- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

What is not being disputed:

You keep acting as if it is disputed that this is a rock-solid fact and as if I have not explained that's not the point under discussion. You keep acting as if you are being asked to provide sources that prove this really happened. Please try to understand that it is not disputed that Barrett is not board certified and has failed the neurology part of the exam. The legal filing alone is sufficient evidence of that. What also cannot be disputed is my removal of the material. I'll summarize my main point for you once again:

What is being disputed:

The editor who adds text is responsible for correct sourcing. In biographies of living persons this is a sine qua non. What is disputed is: your edit that includes this information without citing reliable secondary sources.

Explanation:

In all cases where Wikipedia editors need to determine how important the primary source information is in relation to the remainder of the article, they need information on the relative importance of the material. Deriving such information from the primary source itself is an "evaluative claim" which is explicitly prohibited by WP:NOR. If such secondary sources do not exist, it is Original Research pure and simple. We need to allow Wikipedia readers to see why the information was important enough to be included. This point stands alone and does not need Jimbo. I only quoted Jimbo's Langan intervention as an example for you to peruse if my explanation would not suffice for you. Is there anything in this explanation that you do not understand? AvB ÷ talk 11:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

I just reverted a deletion of this discussion by ArthurRubin. I assume that the deletion was accidental as this discussion is ongoing. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It must have been an edit conflict or database crash. I was going to refer to Jimbo's intervention in Christopher Michael Langan as a reason for exclusion of his board status, but User:AvB already did, and I don't need to repeat his well-founded (granting Jimbo's questionable interpretation of WP:BLP, but he is Jimbo, after all) argument. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you point me specifically to Jimbo Wales interpretation? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Christopher_Michael_Langan#WP:NOR_-_removing_original_research.2C_do_not_re-insert_unless_you_have_a_source_other_than_original_research, Talk:Christopher_Michael_Langan#Original_research.

The point is that it's OR to put together information from primary sources without having any sources that indicate the information is at all important. Basically, he's saying without secondary sources, we're at risk of introducing bias by our selection of information. It's an extension of WP:NOT#IINFO. --Ronz 23:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't know that we should apply that precedent here. A number of Barrett's critics (rightly or wrongly) harp on the fact that he's not board-certified. I'm not saying we need to start citing those particular critics in the article, but the issue of board certification has been brought up outside of Wikipedia, so I don't think it's OR to briefly mention it, even under the above definition. But I don't feel too strongly one way or the other. MastCell ^Talk 23:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

From my perspective, the issue isn't as much OR, as it is NPOV and NOT. It helps resolve the very common POV disputes we've had in Barrett-related articles while guiding editors toward better sources. Of course, I've been making similar arguments for a long time, reminding editors of the problems that occur when secondary sources are not available, or are not up to standard. --Ronz 00:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

We certainly seem to agree that such problems exist. When they are being ignored, this often goes against the spirit of the rules, all the more so when even experienced editors in the best of standing can't agree which rule it violates, or violates the most. How do we know a piece of information is important, relevant or notable? From critics? Perhaps - if their POV is published in reliable sources to the extent that it appears notable enough. AvB ÷ talk 12:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

What are your issues with NPOV and NOT specifically? Do you feel that what MastCell and I are suggesting - a brief mention (similar to what I authored today in the criticism section) - violated NPOV or NOT in some way? Here is what I wrote today:

Stephen Barrett is not board certified. In 1964, Stephen Barrett failed one-half (the neurological portion) of his board certication exams and never re-took the exams.

If we look at what Sbinfo wrote here, I believe this is factually accurate and rather neutral. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You asked for help understanding others' perspectives. I gave them. Do you understand any better now? --Ronz 00:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Honestly no. I mean I understand the Langan point, but like MastCell, I don't think it is applicable here as there is no OR or interpretation or extrapolation of what Barrett has said. We literally have Stephen Barrett himself saying that he is not board certified because he failed one of the two parts of his exams in 1964 and opted never to re-take them. Above you say that this isn't an OR thing for you either, but rather NPOV and NOT. Can you please explain your position? I am sorry if I am being dense here; I just don't see the issue with retaining this factual information in the article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe MastCell has said exactly that. As to "interpretation or extrapolation of what Barrett has said", that is not the issue. This is about an "evaluative claim based on primary sources". The secondary sources provided by you cannot be used to evaluate how important this information is - they are not reliable per WP policies, and the Medscape ref are attack letters posted there by individuals not under editorial control of Medscape. Thus you stand empty-handed. It would be more helpful if you tried to find reliable secondary sources. AvB ÷ talk 11:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

As for policy, I have only looked at WP:ATT cursorily, so I am mostly functioning on the old WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOT. To my eyes a WP:OR/NOT contention might be satisfied by the status of ChiroWeb as a notable critic. WP:RS, V would be satisfied separately by the court records and Dr. Barrett himself. "...did not pass" may be a less grating phraseology. Also Dr Barrett does involve himself in issues where the neurology component is near or present.--I'clast 14:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Mainly in response to Arthur Rubin: I think the salient point here is that Jimbo has shown (or at least seems convinced) that good, experienced editors have not fully understood WP:NOR as it relates to such situations. Other editors would perhaps want to use notability guidelines instead of WP:NOR to judge the use of a primary source without any secondary sources, but I think Jimbo is correct. His recent intervention was no novelty or precedent; it simply reascertained something that had been flying under the radar of many editors for a while. Here is my interpretation (but note that I'm waiting for Jimbo to respond to my question regarding this line of thinking): Jimbo's intervention follows both the spirit of our rules and the longstanding WP:NOR policy language, which specifically indicates that "making evaluative claims" based on a primary source is Original Research. Evaluative claims include attempts to determine, from a primary source, how important or relevant the information is in relation to the subject and the remainder of the article. As such, it was OR in the Langan article to include a description of a court case without citing any secondary sources that could be used to determine the relative importance of the information. Information that was completely supported by the primary source, but has not been published in any reliable secondary sources. (Jimbo also explained how WP:BLP was another reason to delete such information but his OR verdict stands alone.)

The Langan situation is clearly linked with the current problems regarding the adoption of WP:ATT and relegation of WP:NOR to a place in Wikipedia history. I don't believe anyone else has flagged the following up (but I might be missing something here, since I have missed the entire WP:ATT discussion and implementation even though all original policies were (and are) on my watchlist): the WP:NOR language regarding "evaluative claims" seems to have been deleted in WP:ATT). Imagine Jimbo, having just heard the complaint from Langan, removing the section, checking the current text of the policy for minor changes, only to discover WP:ATT for the first time, with its Bible interpretation example that seems to miss the entire point of his Langan deletion per WP:NOR. Just guessing here of course, but it would explain a thing or two. AvB ÷ talk 11:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't read through WP:NOR in a while. WP:SYN is the relevant policy, though the case here is a rather subtle case. --Ronz 16:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to think about that one a bit. I certainly didn't intuitively recognize it at such. I've seen several other ideas that also might apply. Considerable overlap I guess. AvB ÷ talk

I am not aware of any synthesis going on here, especially since we have a first hand account of the biographical information from Stephen Barrett himself. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts here.

--> This is about the Langan fiasco, now becoming somewhat off topic I guess. AvB ÷ talk 16:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

As for the evaluative claim based on primary sources which AvB refers to, the varying accounts of Barrett's history with the board certification exam (Did he claim to be board certified? Did he pass the exam? Was he forced to admit this only under oath? What happended here exactly?) has been a main issue in several libel suits which Barrett has filed. Barrett has sued several individuals and organization for committing what he believes to be libel by misrepresenting this issue. Clearly this is a notable bit of evidence (and I would think that Barrett himself would love to have the record set straight here). Now then, we have several sources - including legal documents and attorney interviews - which document both sides of this legal case. These are each strong secondary sources which serve to bolster the evaluative notability of this fact's entry into this article. Any other thoughts? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to reiterate, I do not accept these sources as reliable. AvB ÷ talk 16:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Just so the rest of us understand, you don't consider a legal document written by Barrett's attorneys reliable? Further, Chiro.org, ChiroWeb and the WCA all are notable publications. So now we have four notable sources attesting to the notability of this factual information provided fromthe most primary source of all relevant to this article, Stephen Barrett. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That is not what I wrote. I would call the "legal document written by Barrett's attorneys" reliable, especially since this is the article about Barrett and you're citing a site under his editorial control. But it is a primary source with the associated problems. Chiro.org, ChiroWeb and the WCA are all secondary sources but I do not consider them reliable. If it's so notable, all you have to do is cite a a couple of books, newspaper articles, etc. The policy quoted may vary, but the violation remains the same: using a primary source without notability information from reliable sources. And even if I were to accept these sources, all they show is that Barrett's detractors like to mention the point in the most negative terms they can devise; the absence of reliable sources shows that mainstream thought is not interested in this partially flunked exam. AvB ÷ talk 17:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

...or that mainstream thought is not aware of this fact. Chiro.org, ChiroWeb and the WCA are all reliable sources per WP, however, that is not the issue here. What is at issue here is that they are notable sources, because all we are trying to do is to qualify Barrett's primary source statement as notable. Here we have three outside sources - all notable within their field - discussing Barrett's failure to pass his board certification exams. So let's recap. We have a the primary source saying that he didn't pass the board cert. exams. We have three notable publications disussing Barrett's failure to pass the board cert. exam. And we have a document drafted by Barrett's lawyers discussing the libel lawsuit that he was filing because this fact has been misrepresented. In essence, we have it all. I move for immediate reinstatement. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Bonus notability... The Free Market News Network also published this story. The Association for Network Care covered the same story in their official newsletter, as does the National Health Federation. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

"...or that mainstream thought is not aware of this fact." Exactly my point. It is only notable in the context of material posted on the Internet by his detractors. If we had an article on e.g. Bolen, I guess it might be mentioned there, in the form "x says y, Barret responds z". It's just one of the problems with primary sources and the use of unreliable partisan websites to get a story from. It remains undue weight, it remains OR, it remains out-of-context/selective quoting (referring to the two edits I reverted and your addition to the Criticism section), it remains WP:SYN. On top of that it remains something also unacceptable under WP:BLP since everyone can see that the edits so far reverted would not be acceptable to Barrett, therefor controversial, and therefor inadmissible anyway. AvB ÷ talk 17:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Just clicked on your bonus links. Completely unacceptable as reliable sources. Also, one of them kinda links to another of your sources, only the link does not work for me. AvB ÷ talk 17:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

We do not need to establish reliability in this case, because we have Barrett himself stating all of the facts: in 1964 he failed the neurology portion of his board examination and never re-took the exam. There is no OR. To claim that there is OR if flat-out wrong. What you asked me to do before was to show that this statement is notable by giving you secondary sources. I have given plenty of them at this point, some more notable than others, yes, but certainly a few of them pass WP notability... especially the WCA, Chiro.org, and ChiroWeb. Remember, we are not using these to establish information... Barrett himself established that. We are, per your request, using these three sources to establish the notability of mentioning that Barrett did not pass his board cert. exam. Clearly this is notable, as we have several notable publications discussing Barrett's history with his board cert. exam. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

What is being synthesized here? We have a direct quote from Stephen Barrett recounting this information. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This is about using reliable secondary sources as a way to establish the relative importance of the primary source information you want to include, so that we do not have to rely on evaluative claims which is OR, and quite a few other violations, and to prevent selective quoting. I am not talking about notable sources but about reliable, secondary sources per WP:RS and WP:V. You're now going around in circles, and I find myself explaining the same points over and over again. Can we agree to not agree and let others have their say if they want to? I'm logging off for the weekend. Surprise me when I'm back. But please do not act as if I'm retracting anything. You might want to formulate a compromise. bear in mind that selective quoting and WP:SYN should be avoided. Taking a fact out of a lawsuit and inserting it into a biography is out of context, WP:SYN and more. Ask Ronz if you do not understand WP:SYN. AvB ÷ talk 18:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The lawsuits surrounding this isse establishes the notability. In fact, as for extremely reliable secondary source, you can find discussion of Barrett's board cert. exams in the Fonorow suit and in the Mercola suit. These establish that Barrett was willing to sue people who claimed that he misrepresented himself as having passed the Board Cert. exam but then had to admit under oath that he hadn't. Basically, this information is so notable, that us leaving it out would be entirely negligent. Okay, so let's recap. We have Barrett himself stating the information which we want to include... that he took the board exams in 1964, failed the neurology portion, and never retook the exams; we have at least three notable publications discussing Barrett and the history of his board cert. exams; we have a filing drafted by Barrett's lawyers for a lawsuit against people and organizations who may be commiting libel for printing a misrepresentation of Barrett's history with board certification; and now we have mention of Barrett's history with board certification in two official court documents. What more do you require? After all, we say that Barrett's "media appearances include Dateline, the Today Show, Good Morning America, Primetime, Donahue, CNN, National Public Radio, and more than 200 other radio and television talk show interviews" and the only reference we have for that is his own website. I would love to hear from others on this. MastCell? Ronz? I'clast? ArthurRubin? Anyone else? Please chime in. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

How about this, he graduated in the late 50's and did his residencies in the early 60's. He is not board certified but was board certification as important back then as it is these days? If I remember correctly, board certification was not that important back then. How about someone checking into this? Just a thought, --Crohnie 18:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Crohnie, I appreciate your response. Do you first agree that we have at least established notability surrounding this issue and have good reason to include it in the article? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I don't, I think first that we need to know whether cerification was necessary or done with great frequency back then. [1] Here is one I found which in my opinion shows that it was not done back then. What do you think? --Crohnie 18:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I've already chipped in my 2 cents. I think it's notable to mention briefly. We should use the lawsuit deposition as a source, rather than User:Sbinfo's comments on Wikipedia. You are correct that board certification was not widespread until fairly recently - certainly at the time Barrett took the exam, probably a minority of psychiatrists were board-certified. Board certification is not necessary to practice any kind of medicine, but licensing is (Barrett's online detractors often conflate the two, which is one problem I had with Quackpotwatch). But hell, it's come up in court, it comes up from Barrett's detractors online - it's notable enough for a brief mention. MastCell ^Talk 19:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

My idea of a bried mention is as such:

Stephen Barrett is not board certified. In 1964, Stephen Barrett failed one-half (the neurological portion) of his board certication exams and never re-took the exams.

Provided that those points are covered, it can even be worded more succinctly. I believe it should go under the Biography section as this is biographical information. While this can be used as a criticism, I wouldn't say that it is being used in that way. It's just simply stated information which is notable. Sound good? Thoughts? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been keeping up with this talk page and have read the pros and cons about this. I still think that if it was not common to be board certified back in his days that it is not notable nor needed.--Crohnie 19:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Bear in mind that one may take their Board Certification exams at any point in their career. Barrett was practicing up until the early 90's, giving him ample time to retake the exam. Citing a statistic about the relative importance of being board certified in 1964 would constitute a WP:OR violation. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand that he could have if he wanted to. Also I am not suggesting at all adding information about board certifications back then. I just think that if was common practice by most in his field then it could be notable with the info you have provided. --Crohnie 19:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I didn't know all these court stuff, detractors or the rest of it until my brief time here, and it is brief. My understanding is this was mentioned in one court appearance, but do we know why? As for the detractors, why does this make it notable? A lot of people and companies have detractors that are known by most everyone who watches the news or reads a paper but I don't see this senario in the same arena. --Crohnie 19:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me fill you in. From my understanding, Barrett under oath stated that he was not a board certified physician becasue he failed his exams. Whether Barrett was "forced to admit" this or stated it freely is the matter of contention which factored into several lawsuit filed by Barrett. Barrett claims that it was libelous to state that he was forced to admit this under oath. He maintains that he never misrepresented his status of not being board certified. Some of these lawsuits are still ongoing, some have been dismissed and one has been settled out of court. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Where does he maintain it was libelous and what does this have to do with anything? You say, if I am understanding you correctly, that this "forced to admit" was in one court and that he has been in many, so did the cases get thrown up because he was not board certified? --Crohnie 19:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

In this filing Barrett maintains that he had been misrepresented. There was a press release sent out by opposing counsel that Barrett was "forced to admit under oath" that he had flunked his exams. While Barrett doesn't argue that he didn't pass his exams, he maintains that he wasn't forced to admit this... that he stated it freely and has been open with this previously. Because Barrett feels that he had been misrepresented here (and in other instances), he filed libel lawsuits against a variety of people and organizations (some of whom wrote the alleged libelous statements and some of who simply republished these statements). Most of the cases have been dismissed for various reasons (lack of motive, lack of damages, etc.), however at least one is still on-going. I hope that this helps clear up the history. Also, we cover the lawsuits quite nicely in the Barrett article proper. Imagine that! Our encyclopdia article is a good resource! We must be doing something right. ;-) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I read your link and it says a lot more than just about certification. Basically what it shows is what Barrett was accused of by his detractors and his rebuttal. I don't see how this legal document makes the case to add about Dr. Barrett not being certified. Sorry, I still don't think this is notable unless board certification back in his time was really going on with most of his peers. Yes, the article is quite informative. --Crohnie 20:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure it says more. But the fact remains that Barrett's board certification was part of the contentious issues. Hence the lawsuits, the accusations by his detractors and his subsequent rebuttal. So much has been written about Barrett's history with board certification that to not give it at least a mere mention in this article would be negligent. According to Barrett, at the time he took the exam, 1/3 of psychiatrists were board certified. Of the two-thirds who weren't, we can only guess how many took the exam and failed. Anyhow, if Barrett's figures are correct, then 1/3 is significant. Regardless, Barrett could have retaken the exam at any point during his 30 year carreer when more and more of his peers were becoming certified. He elected not to. I really don't think any of this is needed for the article. I agree with MastCell that we only need a short mention. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

First let me say I am a new editor still learning the rules here, and there is a lot to learn. But what you are saying is the detractors which from what I see is personal online sites are making a big deal out of this. The legal papers posted so far that I have seen don't say too much to make this important to add to the article. Saying he's not board certified make it sound like he was practicing without a license to me. But I'll defer to some others, including your imput, about all this. --Crohnie 20:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Board Certification is optional for a doctor. A doctor can practice with out it. This is well-known and pretty basic, however this should be made clear to those not aware of this by following the Wikilink to board certification.

Don't forget that it was Barrett himself who thought that clarifying this issue was so important that he was willing to sue for libel over it. He also so it fit to clarify his history with the board cert. here at Wikipedia. Clearly, this is an important issue to him. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

All the writing on this page alone is proof positive that this is notable enough for inclusion. Yes... it is pretty much common knowledge that having board certification and a medical license are two distinct things... that should not hold us back from including this here. I do not see what issue is but for the record I am in favor of including this factoid. TheDoctorIsIn 23:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. I think this issue is being totally overanalyzed - the sentence that Levine proposed to include seems to be a perfectly reasonable and fair addition. --Warrior-Poet 05:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Conformation bias anybody? Shot info 23:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I was being sardonic with my "proof positive" comment. Maybe nest time I will use a emoticon. <-; TheDoctorIsIn 17:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

If ex-psychiatrist Barrett felt it was an important issue, then it certainly should be included here. My concern is that if Barrett had ever testified in the legal arena as a so-called "expert" in psychiatry when he was a practicing psychiatrist but failed his boards and didn't disclose this tidbit to the parties involved, isn't this a form of fraud or deception? It is especially concerning if he was paid as an expert witness to do this. Afterall, people's fates were decided based on his so-called "expertise". If he failed his boards, doesn't that call into question his "expertise"? This certainly seems notable enough to be included.

I am also certain, given Barrett's history of thoroughness when reporting on others, that he would want information such as this to be included in an article.

BTW, what was the result of recent discussion as to whether or not Shot Info is Stephen Barrett's son? Was there ever any closure on that? Steth 17:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be deceptive if he said he was board-certified and wasn't. Or if you produced a reliable source calling it deceptive. As far as User:Shot info, I think the closure was along the lines of "stop harassing him". MastCell ^Talk 17:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You can always ask, and look at my talk page, and review the pertinant data over at the ArbCom. But as for "closure", there was never any "openure". Feel free to request a COI or Checkuser through the formal channels though :-) Shot info 22:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Shot_info isn't Dr Barrett's son[2][3]. The actual COI opening was from shot_info's AN on me[4]. Because of even a loose reliance on one of shot-info's repeated representations, some later shown to be self contradicted elsewhere, along with some very interesting correlations, convergences and coincidences, there were legitimate initial concerns about a filial QW connection. This is no longer the case in my last COI filing with respect to shot_info, an important aspect of which does reduce any COI from such a magnitude. Some favorably oriented toward QW were impressed by a partial list of my original work in February. I have not been rebuked in any way by the admins over my work. Shot_info's relationship to User:Ilena remains adminstratively unresolved and I do stand by my last update[5] about this matter after my last COI filing.--I'clast 23:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Barrett VS Clark

This sentence, "On July 25, 2001, the judge ruled against all three plaintiffs regarding Rosenthal only." makes no sense in the context of where it is. The sentence before it has more than three named and the sentence also seems incomplete. Does anyone else see the confusion with the way this sentence is written? --Crohnie 14:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree it's not very clear. AvB ÷ talk 17:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Would someone make the correction please? I don't know the background of this section to understand what is trying to be said.--Crohnie 12:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)