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 March 2007 – April 2007 April 2007 April 2007 – June 2007 June 2007 – Aug 2007 Aug 2007 – Sept 2007 Sept 2007 –

Blocked/banned editors

Arbitration Committee banned Ilena has posted to this article/talk page. Arbitration Committee banned Ilena and SSP indefinitely blocked Scrotel both have used the 75.83.171.237 IP address. See User Talk. NielsMayer and Nielsp have been blocked indefinitely as sockpuppets of Scrotel. See SSP report. If you are aware of any attempts to circumvent these bans/blocks, please consider making a report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. -- Jreferee t/c 18:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious, but what brought on your reasons to make this post? If it's something that can't be discussed here I understand, just curious if there is something the editor's here should be aware of. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Moved to talk for discussion: dismissal of claims

Given all the past discussion we've had, I moved this new addition to the article by a new editor. Seems pretty trivial and getting off-topic:

The Court did affirm both the dismissal of plaintiff Barrett's claims, finding the statements in question to be non-actionable statements of opinion, as well as so much of the lower court's decision that awarded defendant attorney's fees for prevailing on her Anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss. The court did, however, direct that those fees be reduced to reflect its ruling permitting Polevoy to proceed with his claim as outlined at http://www.internetlibrary.com/cases/lib_case331.cfm. Stephen J. Barrett, et al. v. Ilena Rosenthal 9 Cal.Rpt.3d 142, A096451 (Cal. App. Crt., 1st App. Dist., October 15, 2003) reversed 40 Cal.4th 33, S 122953 (Cal. Sup. Ct., November 20, 2006)

--Ronz (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree Ronz, plus isn't it close to a WP:BLP problem? Plus, previous conversations have stated to leave Bolin out of the articles esp. it shouldn't be put in this way with only one side stated and Bolin's site is banned so I feel it should be left out. I think it goes off on a tangent that is not needed for the article like you say. Just my opinion of course. --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

writings of Barrett

In reply to "Sorry but I don't see what this has to do with Dr. Barrett. Please explain on the talk page before reinserting". As it states, the three chapters were written by Barrett. That is what it has to do with Barrett. Should it be under "selected publications" instead? Bubba73 (talk), 22:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If it belongs anywhere, that would be the location, though the individual chapters should probably be identified. --Ronz (talk) 23:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That said, it might be best to have a reliable source to meet WP:UNDUE, showing that it is notable in Barrett's career. --Ronz (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how these writings of his would be any less significant than the ones already listed. In fact, since they were selected for the book, they might be more significant. Bubba73 (talk), 00:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The book was reviewed in the Sept/Oct 2007 Skeptical Inquirer. I thought I'd seen the review online, but I'm searching for it again. Bubba73 (talk), 00:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is a review of the book. " a collection of classic articles written by the pioneers of the critical-thinking and debunking communities. ... but this anthology easily stands upon its own merits with contributions from scholars including Susan Blackmore, Michael Shermer, Stephen Barrett ... " Bubba73 (talk), 00:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't mind information that is produced by Barrett being included as "He has written XXXXX" in his bio. What Bubba has produced above does suggest to me that the info is notable to Barrett's audience. However, isn't encyclopedia.com just a mirror for Wikipedia (so it probably isn't a RS). Shot info (talk) 04:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The encyclopedia.com link I gave is an online version of the Skeptical Inquirer review of the book, and that page isn't a mirror of WP. SI doesn't have that article online, and I couldn't get it through FindArticles.com either, but I found it there. I present it for the notability of the book and Barrett's chapters in it. Another quote from the review: "Paranormal Claims comes with endorsements from Ken Frazier, James Randi, and Ann Druyan, which speaks volumes (excuse the pun), for the importance of this book". Bubba73 (talk), 04:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You can buy a copy of the review for only $9.95: here. Bubba73 (talk), 05:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The link you provided review of the book on the bottom says it's copywritten. So wouldn't that make this all unusable unless another source is found that isn't protected by copywrite? --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That means that we can't use the text of the review (or a major portion of it) in our articles. But that was not my intention. I posted a link to that review just to show the notability of the book and the articles/chapters in it, some of which were written by Barrett. Bubba73 (talk), 15:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Blatant WP:BLP violation

Anything further from either of these editors remotely along these lines should result in a block: [1] and [2]. --Ronz (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I kind of remember a lawsuit involving King bio where the judge described Dr. Barrett as such. . . Why are you suggesting a block?TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I remember that also. However, it's only reasonable in context, and the context is not provided here and is not relevant to this article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

So if I give the context of the trial then say (refactored) something along these lines (end refactoring), then that would ok?TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Quick answer: Given the previous discussions on this matter, not very likely.

Complicated answer: Tell us exactly what you are proposing to add, what sources you propose to use, and how WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:LEAD, and especially WP:BLP will not being violated. --Ronz (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Just as soon as you tell us how this line "Numerous sources have cited Stephen Barrett's Quackwatch as a credible or reliable source for online consumer information." does not violate WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:LEAD. 71.191.42.242 (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

We used to have a list of such sources, including Consumer Reports, NIH, and a few state Attorneys General — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

American Cancer Society could be added to that list. Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 07:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No doubt when one actually look at what the sources say, it won't be quite the same as how it's worded here. But probably best not to dig up the sources and cause a stink, even if it's not true as worded, we all know it's accurate, which is good enough for me! 71.191.42.242 (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Consumer Reports, NIH, and a few state Attorneys General? Please provide the references or links. Perhaps we can improve this article. Quack Guru 22:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Accurate? I certainly don't KNOW that, and I'm not about to BELIEVE it without WP:RS.DigitalC (talk) 09:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Townsend Letters are a RS

The Townsend Letters have been published for about 25 years. It is primarily published by people with MDs and PhDs.. I don't see how this could not be a WP:RS. You'll have to demonstrate it. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 23:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

That ref is not RS. No evidence has been presented. QuackGuru 23:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Added to BLP/N here. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 23:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime, the best thing to do is to leave it at the last consensual version until you hear back opinions from BLPN. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

BLP violation

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_Barrett&curid=782849&diff=215393929&oldid=215386169 QuackGuru 00:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

no consensus according to the editor who added the material

ImperfectlyInformed has acknowledged there's no consensus. Read the comment as well as the edit summary. This controversial change was made without consensus according to ImperfectlyInformed. QuackGuru 06:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Guess what? A double-negative makes a positive. "There was no consensus ... that Townsend Letters was not a RS". Anyway, see here for the discussion. ImpIn | (t - c) 06:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There is the issue that there is no consensus to use this ref. And the views of a tiny mirority is a WP:WEIGHT violation. QuackGuru 06:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyedits

I reverted two edits which I think need discussion and agreement before implementation. The first one - a change to the lead - actually changes the meaning of what is sourced. The most common legitimate criticism of Barrett is claiming that he lacks of objectivity. The second one - a deletion of entire critics opinion - was done with an ES stating that too much weight is being given to a critic's opinion. It is but a mere sentence and it is sources to a published work. I don't believe that this is any violation of WP:WEIGHT. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed the following: "For example, nutritionist Dr. Colgan claims that one of Dr. Barrett's books, The Vitamin Pushers, hardly discusses supplements but is rather "filled with derisive statements about individuals and organizations in the health care and natural foods industry" and lumps scientists with obvious charlatans indiscriminately." as it gives to much weight to a single persons opinion. The statement of which this is an example remains, and the source supporting it remains too. Why not turn the ref into a proper citation and add that opinion as a quote? --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

In fact the reference does not provide enough information for me to find the source. Where was it published, for example? --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

While the reference could be improved, this quote provides a much needed example of a critic who in fact finds Barrett to lack objectivity and describes exactly why the critic feels this way. I think it should remain and agree with you that the reference itself can be improved. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless the sourcing is improved it should be removed per BLP. Also, it has weight problems if the quote is put into the body. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Please describe the perceived Weight issue. Also, we may want to consider how this was handled at the Colgan article. It's more of a he-said/he-said issue there. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the changes to the lead as well, especially, "Heavily criticised by those in the alternative health movement." What portions of the article support such a change to the lead? --Ronz (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

A number of practitioners and supporters of alternative medicine criticize Barrett and Quackwatch for its criticism of alternative medicine.[23][25]

Some alternative medicine practitioners and nutritionists have responded to Stephen Barrett's criticisms.[45]

The above two sentences is duplication and the Colgan ref is dated.

The previous lead was better. Stuff like "Heavily criticised" is way too dramatic. QuackGuru 18:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Good spot. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

WEASEL WORDS

I had deleted:

"Numerous sources have cited Stephen Barrett's Quackwatch as a credible or reliable source for online consumer information."

This was reverted with the following explanation:

"but doesn't appear to violate WP:WEASEL. Feel free to discuss on talk page."[[3]]

Implicit endorsement of faulty logic.

• The word "clearly" and other words of its kind are often a form of handwaving which asserts that a conclusion has been demonstrated. Wikipedia articles should not be making arguments in the first place. Simply state facts, cite the sources of them, and let the readers draw their own conclusions.
• Many people think... is often a lead-in to a bandwagon fallacy. It wasn't put there to establish the context of the following statement, but rather to lead the reader to accept a conclusion based on a claim that "many" others believe it. Cite recognized experts to establish the truth of a statement; don't allude to an anonymous crowd.

The Quack Watch article states:

"Numerous sources cite Quackwatch as a practical source for online consumer information"

The weasel is not half as fat as on this page. Don't get the wrong ideas, this sentence is of totally inferior quality compared to the actually sourced sources.

Gdewilde (talk) 06:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

So what exactly are you asking? Personally I don't think that a comment about Quackwatch does not belong in the lede of a biography of a living person. However your edit above seems to be arguing what exactly? Shot info (talk) 06:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Medical information is weaseled away under consumer information. I just read the sentence then I wonder what doctors claims quack watch is credible medical advice? I think the links are down there some place. It would be good to have them where the question comes up. That is all.

You are right about repeating the homepage in the biography lead. I think the legal battle doesn't need to be there either. This would be enouhg IMHO.

Stephen J. Barrett (born 1933) is a retired American psychiatrist, author, co-founder of the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF), and the webmaster of Quackwatch. He runs a number of websites dealing with quackery and health fraud. He focuses on consumer protection, medical ethics, and scientific skepticism.

Or even:

Stephen J. Barrett (born 1933) is a retired American psychiatrist, author, co-founder of the National Council Against Health Fraud.

Nice short neutral and clear, then stick the menu under it. Unnamed websites dealing with quackery is not what his note worthiness is based on? Or is it? Gdewilde (talk) 19:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, the first one is my personal preference, only per WP:LEAD rather than anything to do with weasel words. How about Stephen J. Barrett (born 1933) is a retired American psychiatrist, author, co-founder of the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF), and the webmaster of Quackwatch. He is best known for consumer protection, medical ethics, and scientific skepticism in which he operates a number of websites that deal with quackery and health fraud. The rest of the information is in the body of the article and only the main information (ie/ actually about Barrett) should be in the lede. Incidently if you read the article, you will see that Barrett is probably best known for Quackwatch.org (a website). So notability is assured there. Shot info (talk) 00:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I would be against saying that he is best known for consumer protection, medical ethics, and scientific skepticism. That is unverifiable. Instead, how about this?

Stephen J. Barrett (born 1933) is a retired American psychiatrist, author, co-founder of the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF) and the webmaster of Quackwatch. He runs a number of skeptic websites dealing with consumer protection, medical ethics, and health fraud.

-- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

See WP:LEAD for some helpful information on how to properly write the introduction section. --Ronz (talk) 19:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:LEAD says the controversy is relatively important. I initially called it weasel wording but it's mostly poor sourcing that is disturbing the flow of the read. Must mention who endorses such questionable writings. It's part of the controversy. The sources are not that disappointing. Gdewilde (talk) 05:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't particularly like Quackwatch / Stephen Barrett for some reason, but the statement in the lead is supported by the article. I don't think it is an example of weasel-wording. However, I am bothered by this common idea that things in the lead supported by the article don't need to be cited. A name should be applied to the the praising organizations and cite that statement. II 22:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, it can be seen from your edits that you don't like QW or Barrett, nevertheless writing for the enemy is always useful to help edit from an NPOV perspective. FWIW, WP:LEADCITE is a useful piece of info to help us avoid cluttering up the lede with cites. Shot info (talk) 07:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

MD NetGuide reference in lead

That reference really doesn't seem to work. It loads up a page with no information for me. Does it really work for you, Fyslee? II | (t - c) 07:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It works for me, clearing your cache might help. --CliffC (talk) 11:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like some browsers don't display the content properly, though the information is there and the browsers actually load it. --Ronz (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Adding the ref here for convenience.

-- Fyslee / talk 19:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Cleared my cache, still doesn't work. Ronz is right, though, because I can see the information in the page source. Nevertheless, probably best to put a different source in the lead. II | (t - c) 20:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Websites describing Quackwatch do not always claim it is credible or reliable.

Forbes: "great for the uninformed." Consultant Pharmacist: "relevant..poorly organized..." US News & World Report: "Worth a Click..." It comes up on the healthfinder.gov search engine, but the "reliable" claim is tempered by the fact that it only comes up on third party websites - some of which do not endorse Quackwatch. Cunningham and Marcason from the American Dietetic Association are quoted as describing Quackwatch as "useful." Southwest Public Libraries do not endorse or recommend Quackwatch - they give it zero stars. National Network of Libraries of Medicine offers Quackwatch for additional information. VCU Libraries does not endorse Quackwatch, they are simply listed as a source. U. of Kentucky's link did not say anything about Quackwatch on my click. Petergkeyes (talk) 06:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Instead of listing every single term used, I have edited it and just used the term "useful" as a reasonable compromise. None of the sources would have mentioned Quackwatch if they didn't think it was useful. We don't need to list all the accolades. -- Fyslee / talk 04:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

References

(Please leave this list at the bottom of the page. Thanks!) --Ronz 22:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Barrett v. Rosenthal

That article seems to me to be a POV fork. I see no reason why it cannot be included here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not a POV fork. I like that article. It has very few references but there are other articles in mainspace like that too. However, I'm not sure if it would survive an AFD.

It is already mentioned in this article. There was much discussion. The amount it is covered in this article is enough. QuackGuru 04:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what the POV problems might be (you don't explain), but as one who researched and helped draft the tight and neutral "defamation lawsuits" section of this article, and as one who is interested in Section 230 immunity, I strongly oppose merger. Barrett v. Rosenthal is a thorough opinion relating to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. It's an important case and has a stack of citations independent from the subject of Stephen Barrett. Cool Hand Luke 04:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Fork yes, inasmuch as the overly large section of BvR was removed into it's own article - something that often happens in Wikipedia. Jossi, I would like to see why you think Barrett v. Rosenthal is a POVFORK. After all, (re)inclusion into this article would imply that it needs to be massively pruned to satisfy WP:WEIGHT. Shot info (talk) 05:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering how can one tiny court case have such a big article. Is there many references citing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in regard to Barrett v. Rosenthal or is this a tiny article that has somehow survived in mainspace. Soon I will remove the merge tags. We are not going to dump an inflated article into this article. QuackGuru 05:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend you leave it QG until there is a clear consensus for the merger. It won't hurt anybody if it stays up there for a few days or even a week or so. Shot info (talk) 05:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, it isn't a "tine article". BvR set some massive precident in the US effectively protecting anybody who republishes information (or even claims to be republishing info) from libel. Shot info (talk) 05:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I think there are enough reference to merit an article. It's the Supreme Court of California, and it was unusual because the California Court of Appeals had broken with most Federal courts since Zeran v. America Online, Inc.. The lower court refused to extend immunity to what it termed "distributor liability" for defamation (as opposed to publisher liability). The outcome of this case was therefore anticipated by those who wondered whether California would take a fresh and novel approach to interpreting Section 230. As it turned out, they didn't. I could work on it if you like. Cool Hand Luke 05:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Has any similar articles went to an AFD. What is the notability standard for these court cases. QuackGuru 05:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know, but I think it would pass (and I tend to be a deletionist anymore). If you nominate it, I'll fight to keep it, and there are an embarrassing number of possible sources from major newspapers to scholarly legal articles. I'll work on it this weekend, 'kay? Cool Hand Luke 05:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyone could AFD it and if it is speedly deleted you would not have a chance to work on it this weekend. In 24 hours it could be deleted. QuackGuru 05:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyone could, yes. I'm telling you to please not do that because I have a lot of things to do now, and don't really want to drop everything to defend the article. Incidentally, Zeran is a much more important case and that article is in even worse shape. Cool Hand Luke 05:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

←They should be kept as seperate articles as the content of the lawsuit one would dominate the Barret article. Both are notable, and I don't see any POV problems. I understand the suggestion as being consolidating related information, but I think here this would do more harm by overwhelming this article. Verbal chat 07:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I also think they should stay separated as they are notable on their own and merging them would over take the other. I also support Luke in working on the article. Luke go for it, this I totally support. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Sections lack dates

Was reading through this article to get context for something else, and I noticed that the sections "Consumer information" and "Defamation lawsuits" don't mention when any of the events described take place. When was Quackwatch founded? There is no indication (apart from in the references or in other articles) as to when the other events described in this section took place. The section "Defamation lawsuits" similarly fails to give any dates at all for when the events and lawsuits mentioned took place. The article would be improved a lot if someone went through it and asked themselves what year each event took place, and rewrote some of the sections to give such date context. Carcharoth (talk) 02:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

List-like sourcing

The final paragraph of the "Consumer information" section has too many sources added as separate footnotes:

"Some sources that mention Stephen Barrett's Quackwatch as a useful source for consumer information include website reviews,[26][27][28][29][30] government agencies,[31][32] various journals[33][34][35][36][37] including The Lancet peer-reviewed medical journal[38] and some libraries.[39][40][41][42][43][44]"

Firstly, there should be no need to aggregate as many as 5 or 6 references for a statement within a single sentence. Just one or two good references should be enough - usually the most reliable or the ones spanning a period of time. Even when lots of references are used, it improves the readability of an article if the multiple references are consolidated into one clickable footnote, if possible. There are a few tricks available to help do that - hopefully some of the editors here will know those tricks. Carcharoth (talk) 02:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Content removal due to BLP concerns

In this edit, I removed a section, because I had concerns relating to the Biography of Living Persons policy. The section relied heavily on primary sources, which was a problem, because the persons mentioned in this section were non public figures, and in instances such as this, content from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source. PhilKnight (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I made this change to cleanup the lead. QuackGuru (talk) 03:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think NPF applies here. The lawsuits are directly tied to his notability. 70.71.22.45 (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Barrett v. Rosenthal (Merge or AFD)

There are more BLP concerns currently in mainspace. The content at Barrett v. Rosenthal relies heavily on primary sources. This is a possible BLP violation of non public figures. QuackGuru (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the assertion that Barrett and Rosenthal are not (at least limited) public figures. But that may not be entirely relevant to the possible WP:BLP violations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The article relies heavily on primary sources. I think it would be best to merge it into Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. QuackGuru (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I wikilinked it for you. B v R is already mentioned there. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It is already mention there. That is why it would be the best to merge the content using reliable sources. In any event, relying heavily on primary court case sources for non-public people is inappropriate. QuackGuru (talk) 04:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't this already discussed about 3 sections above? Unless there is something new to actually discuss - the previous consensus stands. Shot info (talk) 05:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No specific reason has been given to keeping an article with references from primary sources. To establish notibility the text should consist mainly of secondary sources but not primary sources. The new argument that has not been directly replied to is the problem with relying heavily on primary sources. This is a BLP issue. Since B v R is already mentioned in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act we could simply redirect it as another option. QuackGuru (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

redirecting wouldn't fix a BLP issue. 70.71.22.45 (talk) 19:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Question about Edit

Concerning Ronz's edit of my editI can understand why Joel Kauffman's review of Quackwatch should be on the wikipedia entry for Quackwatch, rather than here...

However, as per Ronz's comment that this has been discussed before, there are 13 archives of discussion here. Can someone tell me where it was decided that a partial quote of Stephen Barrett's answer to the question of bias on his site is supposed to be more "objective" than the full answer that Stephen Barret gave and has up on his website. I would like to read where this was discussed, decided, and by whom.

thanks.

Stmrlbs (talk) 23:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Board Certification

concerning the edit of adding the Barrett's board certification notice:

1. The "American Board of Medical Specialties" is a valid source for board certification. If Barrett was Board Certified, he would be registered there.. and you can bet that the "Board Certified" would be on his curriculum vitae. As you can see, there is no note of board certification.
2. At Journal of Scientific Exploration just last week, Fyslee said that we can include the fact that JSE is not indexed in Web of Science based on it not appearing on WoS. The same principle applies here. Barrett is not listed on ABMS. Fyslee's words at JSE: The included sentence is a simple, easily falsifiable statement. Anyone who can show that it is indexed can just remove or modify the statement, using a citation as evidence for justification to do so. Now let's apply the same standards to Barrett: The included sentence is a simple, easily falsifiable statement. Anyone who can show that Barrett is board certified can just remove or modify the statement, using a citation as evidence for justification to do so.

since QuackGuru reversed my edit in less than a minute (I'm impressed with the speed of the reverts on this article), I will redo the edit with the added statement used by Fyslee for JSE.

Stmrlbs (talk) 18:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This board certification issue has been used as an attack against Barrett, within Wikipedia as well as elsewhere. Because of this, it is considered a WP:BLP violation. --Ronz (talk) 19:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It is also not worthy of the lead, if anywhere, as it isn't an issue regarding his ability to practice, licensure, etc. Verbal chat 19:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Just want to note that Ronz has accused me of being libelous on my page. I have asked him to address these type of comments here. In order for my comments to be libelous.. they must be untrue statements. The fact that Stephen Barrett is not Board Certified is a true statement and is not libelous. Board Certification is a matter of public record.Stmrlbs (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find that it is a warning, correctly placed on the editors talk page, and I suggest you follow it. I'd have used the BLP one myself, but consider this your BLP warning if you like. Verbal chat 20:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Dispute that veered into a distraction. Continues here.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Professional and Educational background is quite pertinent for a person that has made his name by representing himself as an medical expert. Stmrlbs (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC) In what sense has he represented "himself as an medical expert"? Please give an example. He was considered a medical expert on the subject of psychiatry while testifying in his professional capacity. He testified in numerous cases regarding patients. In other situations he's considered an expert in quackery and health fraud, which isn't exactly the same as a medical expert, but which often, but not always, requires extensive medical knowledge, which he unquestionably possesses, in common with many other MDs. Note that being a medical expert in court doesn't even require that one is a licensed medical professional. There are experts who testify in court proceedings on medical subjects who aren't even MDs, much less board certified. The establishment of such expertise is apparently a matter subject to other criteria than the mere possession of a medical degree or board certification. -- Fyslee (talk) 20:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC) from Barrett's website, Stephen Barrett, M.D., Biographical Sketch: Stephen Barrett, M.D., a retired psychiatrist who resides near Chapel Hill, North Carolina, has achieved national renown as an author, editor, and consumer advocate. In addition to heading Quackwatch, he is vice-president of the National Council Against Health Fraud, a scientific advisor to the American Council on Science and Health, and a Fellow of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP). In 1984, he received an FDA Commissioner's Special Citation Award for Public Service in fighting nutrition quackery. In 1986, he was awarded honorary membership in the American Dietetic Association. From 1987 through 1989, he taught health education at The Pennsylvania State University. He is listed in Marquis Who's Who in America and received the 2001 Distinguished Service to Health Education Award from the American Association for Health Education. An expert in medical communications, Dr. Barrett operates 23 Web sites; edits Consumer Health Digest (a weekly electronic newsletter); is medical editor of Prometheus Books; and has been a peer-review panelist for several top medical journals. He has written more than 2,000 articles and delivered more than 300 talks at colleges, universities, medical schools, and professional meetings. I think it would be a good guess that since Quackwatch is Barrett's website, that Barrett wrote that about himself. I think Barrett's medical and educational credentials are very appropriate, especially since his notability is linked to his ability to evaluate different modularities of medicine, and this is definitely linked to his medical and scientific background. Stmrlbs (talk) 04:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC) I agree that Barrett likely wrote that about himself, but I disagree that "his notability is linked to his medical and scientific background." His medical career is totally unnotable, and his work as a researcher the same, with only one notable moment to my knowledge. No, he's notable because he's outspoken, totally non-politically correct, controversial, an activist, a famous scientific skeptic (in the top 20 of the 20th century), initiates the exposure of quackery and health fraud in a few instances, and mostly does in-depth journalistic work on quackery and health fraud cases already noted by the FDA, FTC, BBB, news media, etc.. His work is also published in magazines, journals, the television and other news media and various official reports, and then he also writes and edits books. To top it off, he has learned to use the internet to spread his message, and has harnessed a large group of individuals who will help him in that endeavor. (All done very simply and cheaply.) THAT'S what makes him notable. Hardly anyone knows him as a doctor or as a scientist. -- Fyslee (talk) 04:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC) While I was writing the above, I see you added some crucial words, which demonstrate that you understand my point, even though you hadn't read it yet ;-) You're absolutely correct. Without his medical and scientific background, he wouldn't be so well-prepared to do what makes him notable -- "his ability to evaluate different modularities of medicine." THAT'S still what makes him notable. -- Fyslee (talk) 04:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC) then you agree, Fyslee, that his medical and professional background is an important part of his "notability" and his ability to evaluate various medical modularities and the credentials of the people that practice them. Therefore, I think that his Board Certification status is relevant to his notability and should be included. Stmrlbs (talk) 05:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC) No. Don't put words in my mouth. That is pretty much the opposite of my point, which is that it is NOT the reason he is notable. His notability is related to his understanding and criticisms of medical modalities that do not conform to the scientific method (IOW unproven or disproven methods), or are being marketed improperly. The certification matter is different and needs a RS so it can be placed in proper perspective. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC) ok, Fyslee, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. But.. let me get this straight. You think his educational and professional background have nothing to do with his ability to evaluate different types of medicine and other people's credentials? That all you need to evaluate other people's credentials and other medicine is to be outspoken,controversial, an activist, a famous scientific skeptic (in the top 20 of the 20th century), initiates the exposure of quackery and health fraud, and is published in the media? Actually.. I think a lot of people on both sides would agree with that evaluation, (and a lot of people would qualify) and that is why Quackwatch has not been recognized as a reliable source in Wikipedia. However, We are talking about what he claims to be, an "expert" and therefore able to judge/evaluate medicine and practitioners. Even if you don't think his professional and educational background is important, most people do think it is important for any person claiming to be an "expert" in a scientific/medical field. Stmrlbs (talk) 06:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Out of interest, hows this improve the article? Especially since it doesn't make any claim to "expert" status at all? (now do you see where OR is beginning to take you?) Shot info (talk) 06:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Stmrlbs, you're being quite disingenuous above. There is a large consensus that QW is a RS. -- Fyslee (talk) 06:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Now you're being disingenuous by ignoring what I have written. They are obviously related, and I answered your question, but since you have an ulterior motive and wish to use my answer for other purposes, and have done it twice now, including putting words in my mouth which I don't believe, I see no point in attempting to answer you again. You should have just answered my question to begin with, instead of leading us on a wild goose chase. This tactic reminds me of a another user, one who can't stick to the point. You originally made a claim and I asked the following question and made a comment. Stick to it and we'll be fine: "In what sense has he represented "himself as an medical expert"? Please give an example. He was considered a medical expert on the subject of psychiatry while testifying in his professional capacity. He testified in numerous cases regarding patients. In other situations he's considered an expert in quackery and health fraud, which isn't exactly the same as a medical expert, but which often, but not always, requires extensive medical knowledge, which he unquestionably possesses, in common with many other MDs. Note that being a medical expert in court doesn't even require that one is a licensed medical professional. There are experts who testify in court proceedings on medical subjects who aren't even MDs, much less board certified. The establishment of such expertise is apparently a matter subject to other criteria than the mere possession of a medical degree or board certification. Just answer the question: "In what sense has he represented "himself as an medical expert"? Please give an example." I'm only asking so I can determine what you mean by "medical expert". We need to be on the same page, and THEN move forward. -- Fyslee (talk) 06:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Fyslee, I gave you a perfectly good example of Barrett representing himself as an expert on his own website. It is not my problem if you don't like it.. but I think a neutral 3rd party would agree that Barrett is making statements about his expertise on that page. You are also assuming bad faith by saying that I'm leading you on a wild good chase and have an ulterior motives. As for the statement out of the blue that I remind you of someone else and "can't stick to the point", I don't know who you think I am, but if you try a tactic of alluding that I am some person that you've had problems with before, and make it part of this argument, I will take it to Wikipedia Admin. You asked to see an example of where Barrett claimed he was an expert, and I gave it to you. You seem to want me to allude to court cases.. I don't think that is necessary. He says enough on his own website to make that statement. Stmrlbs (talk) 07:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC) No, no, and no. Once again you're changing your original wording. What you provided didn't help, since he nowhere uses the expression "medical expert". He doesn't make that claim there, but you claim he does claim to be a "medical expert". That's a very special expression with a limited use. Just stick to your original point and you won't get into trouble. You used a term "medical expert", not just "expert", even stating that he "made his name by representing himself as an medical expert." Please provide an example of him doing THAT. What you provided shows him claiming to be an "expert in medical communications", not a "medical expert". I did make a point (he didn't) that he "was considered a medical expert on the subject of psychiatry while testifying in his professional capacity," and that was never considered a problem, and his lack of board certification was never a problem. The rest of my comment makes it clear that his medical knowledge and experience are sufficient to give him the proper starting point to make the types of judgments he makes. And when that comes short in some situations, as it inevitably will, he has a host of other professional friends and specialists, including board certified ones and Nobel laureates, whom he can draw upon for help. That's why Quackwatch is far more than Barrett. BTW, "in 1986, he was awarded honorary membership in the American Dietetic Association", so they considered him an expert on that subject. He's considered an expert in quackery and health fraud (my words), and we have plenty of RS that establish that fact. THAT is his unquestioned area of expertise. If you want to claim expertise for him, then THAT is it, and he's often considered the world's most notable expert on those subjects. When it comes to the subject of him being used as a RS, it isn't his own opinion of himself that cinches the point for us, but the opinion of other RS, and they certainly do that! He's in very good company, and none of them even mention his lack of board certification, since that isn't necessary for what he does. It's irrelevant. Raising the bar too high only creates a straw man for you to criticize. That's not fair or right. Now if you are really going to continue to belabor this point, stick to documenting your own statement that he "made his name by representing himself as an medical expert." Find a statement where he does THAT, and let's look at it together. Since this discussion has long since had little relevance to improving the article, but is rather you misusing this talk page to criticize Barrett, you are welcome to come to my talk page with your evidence. If you don't have evidence of him "representing himself as an medical expert", then I suggest it's a straw man which you have been using. It has been used by others, but I've never seen the claim documented. -- Fyslee (talk) 13:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Miriam Webster's definition of EXPERT: having, involving, or displaying special skill or knowledge derived from training or experience Fyslee, if the training and experience needed to be an 'expert' on Quackery and Health Fraud is not science and medicine (and law, now that you bring fraud as a field that Barrett is an expert in), then what is the training and experience needed? Stmrlbs (talk) 02:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC) You haven't documented your claim yet. Get busy. I'm a skeptic and you have made a questionable claim. You must document it or drop it and any line of reasoning based on it. As to your question above (about "expert", not "medical expert"), you know the answer, and I'm not going to answer it for you, especially when you for the third time attempt to put words in my mouth (I definitely don't agree that it "is not science and medicine (and law,..." Are you a Scientologist? You don't seem to be able to stick to the subject, but insist on twisting things in a very obvious manner. You aren't even sneaky about it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC) I've documented my claim. And I'm tired of your insinuations that I'm a puppet (scientology/"remind me of someone else"). I've started a new section to start fresh as this discussion is going nowhere. --Stmrlbs (talk) 02:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC) No, you haven't documented your claim. Read your pricise wording. You haven't emailed me either. This is indeed going nowhere, and the hat is standard practice for this type of situation. Our comments are still here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Please tell me what you think this situation is and where it says an editor (not an admin) can just hat a whole conversation with other people's comments without notifying the other people involved. I do not want my comments hidden, and you never talked to me before you did this. As far as emailing, if you have something to say to me, say it to me on my Talk page. That, I know, is standard practice. --Stmrlbs (talk) 05:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC) I want to get to the bottom of this and have started a thread here. This discussion is personal and circular, which violates WP:TALK, which is why I put a hat on it. That's standard practice here. END OF DISCUSSION HERE. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Please respect WP:BLP and WP:BATTLE. Editors can and do get blocked for repeatedly violating them. Seems to happen a lot with Barrett-related articles, where editors try to bring disputes and conflicts from outside Wikipedia.

There has been extremely long and thorough discussions on the board certification issues. The only editor contributing here that may not be aware of Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-04-05_Stephen_Barrett is Verbal. --Ronz (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like this mediation was never resolved? this from the documentation on the mediation: "Barrett contends that he has never tried to hide this information. Offering this info at Wikipedia was Barrett showing how open he was with this information."

This is another reason that this is not a case of WP:BLP.

Stmrlbs (talk) 22:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

No, the mediation was never resolved. That's irrelevant. What is relevant is that it lists multiple policies and guidelines that are violated with every attempt to include this information. Most important of them, and the one most strictly enforced, is WP:BLP.

"Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." - WP:BLP.

The material is most definitely contentious, given that it's used to attack him. So, yes, it is a BLP issue.

The material has never been sourced by an independent, reliable source. Instead, when editors have actually offered sources, they all come from poor sources that are attacks on Barrett from people looking to defame him. So yes, it is a BLP issue. --Ronz (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Ronz, my source was the "ABMS" - the American Board of Medical Specialties (recognized as the "gold standard" in physician certification). This is a reputable, reliable source. Stephen Barrett has said himself that he has never tried to hide this. So.. why are you?

actually.. I think this should go to arbitration. I think an unbiased 3rd party should decide

Stmrlbs (talk) 23:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration would not be a bad idea. Perhaps it will have better results this time. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

"my source was the ABMC" Yes, I looked. This tactic of trying to introduce the material has been tried and failed. Without a source demonstrating that this information is important, knowing that this information has been used to attack Barret, it's a BLP violation. Placing it in the lead section is especially problematic. Personal arguments and insistence is not reason to include the information, but rather an additional reason not to include the information per WP:NPOV and WP:OR. --Ronz (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Another discussion on this has been going on since February here: User_talk:Levine2112#question_about_a_past_mediation. Again, Verbal appears to be the only editor unaware of this discussion. --Ronz (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If you are one of the editors who are in favor of excluding the factual information regarding Barrett's lack of Board Certification from this article but you also are in support of the inclusion of JSE not appearing in the Web of Science at that article, please discuss why. What's the differences between the sources, the information to be included and the article topics, and how is this relevent to your different feelings for including/excluding material in each article? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Since this question was not answered here, I have reposted it below in its own subsection.

The Board certification has been discussed at length but I will repeat my reasons for why it should be left out. At the time that Dr. Barrett was an active doctor, board certification was not at all common practice. [4] and [5] This was discussed here and other archives but this is the first one I found. A search of the achives will probably find more discussions. I also found this. [6] As for "American Board of Medical Specialties" this, Barrett has been retired for a long time so I would think this wouldn't have him in it. Just for the record, I too lurk Levine's talkpage and saw the multiple discussions that went on without comments from me. I say leave it out still. It's not important for his time and can be a possible issue with WP:BLP because it is used to damage the doctors reputation. I am now out of here again. I do not want to participate in the same old arguments and the behaviors this article always seems to bring out. Thanks for listening though to my input. Oh, as to Levine's question above I have no comment at this time because I haven't a clue what it is about, sorry --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably should be asked why is it notable? Then after we sift out the original research - we are left where we have been for several months. Shot info (talk) 06:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Crohnie Gal, your links are to good studies on Board Certification, but I'm not quite sure why you think they support your point? Both links are different prints of the same study: Achieving Board Certification in Psychiatry: A Cohort Study, and this study concludes that:

The results of this study suggests that most recent graduates of residency training programs who attempt the ABPN process are likely to become board certified, and the majority will do so by passing both components on the first attempt.

As far as to the percentage of psychiatrists that were board certified at the time Barrett was in practice, I have seen Barrett's comments on that, but not much else. So.. imo, this is to be taken with a grain of salt without some stats to back it up.

Again, as far as damaging Barrett's reputation, I'm talking about the phrase "but was not board certified". The sentence

"Barrett is a 1957 graduate of the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and completed his psychiatry residency in 1961."

would be changed to:

Barrett is a 1957 graduate of the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and completed his psychiatry residency in 1961, but was not board certified.

That's it. It is a fact, and it is appropriate given what Barrett is notable for, and he has said himself, that he has never tried to hide this fact.

--Stmrlbs (talk) 23:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

---

Just so no editors are left out, Ronz seems to want to discuss the mediation on my talk page, too - here: User_talk:Stmrlbs#Talk:Stephen_Barrett Stmrlbs (talk) 07:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Question

If you are one of the editors who are in favor of excluding the factual information regarding Barrett's lack of Board Certification from this article but you also are in support of the inclusion of JSE not appearing in the Web of Science at that article, please discuss why. What's the differences between the sources, the information to be included and the article topics, and how is this relevent to your different feelings for including/excluding material in each article? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I have not taken a stand either way on the board certification issue and don't intend to do so now. However, one obvious difference between these two situations is that Barrett is a living person while the Journal of Scientific Exploration is not. Thus, presumption in favor of privacy applies to Barrett but not to the Journal. MastCell ^Talk 23:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the entirely valid response, MastCell. From BLP: When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. That Barrett is not Board Certified is sourced, it is neutral (provided that we are not using this material to make any conclusions), and given the nature of the subject's notability it is certainly on-topic. In terms of privacy, let's remember that the subject himself came to this very discussion page to confirm that he had not passed one-half of his board certification exam and has never retaken the exam. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as the validity of the 2 sources, ABMS vs Web of Science, the ABMS Board Certification is a well defined type of classification, in that it is clearly defined what a person needs to do to get certified, and the information is publicly accessible. The Web of Science is not so clearly defined.. How does a publication get into the Web of Science? I was surprised to find out the Economist is not in the Web of Science (the Social Sciences Citation Index) and yet this is a very reputable publication (and used as a reference by news media, etc.). Daniel B. Klein, Economist, and chief editor of Econ Journal Watch, wrote a paper on the Web of Science selection process "The Social Science Citation Index: A Black Box—with an Ideological Bias?", and said this:

Over the years ISI has issued various statements about how journals are selected for inclusion, usually mentioning many factors. But these statements are scanty and noncommittal. No single factor is sufficient, but many are presented as important or even necessary. However, examination of the journal lists and other forms of probing reveal that many of the criteria that seemed to be necessary are not, in fact, necessary. ISI has not even seen fit to issue statements specific to the diverse indices, such as Science Citation Index, Social Science Citation Index, and the Arts and Humanities Citation Index, where numerous basic differences would seem to call for criteria tailored to the rubric covered. Thus it is no wonder that ISI receives so many inquiries asking for clarification of the process. It is also noteworthy that the people chiefly interested in discerning the criteria, namely journal editors and publishers, are people disinclined to question or criticize ISI. Like pharmaceutical companies seeking approval from the Food and Drug Administration, the parties most likely to have first-hand knowledge of the process, including its disappointments, are those least likely to make noise about it. So far as I know, there has been no scholarly inquiry, examination, or criticism of ISI’s journal selection practices

So, I think the Web of Science is a much weaker source, because of its lack of clear definition of what it means to be included in the index (other than status), and the fact that the information is not publicly accessible (from what I could ascertain.

that being said, I certainly think that if the editors hold that the negative, exclusion from the Web of Science is a valid source, then definitely, exclusion from ABMS is a valid source. Plus, like Levine2112 pointed out, the statement from Barrett himself.

Stmrlbs (talk) 00:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

So where are the sources that say that this is notable? Otherwise it's just an exercise in OR. Shot info (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

IIRC, Barrett did not come here to "confirm" the matter, but to straighten out the libelous way in which the fact was being used by TB and his supporters here at Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia's talk pages are not RS, we can't use them. The other source, TB's twisted account of something that may or may not have occurred in a court case (and we don't even have the transcript!), is certainly not a RS. TB is notorious for fabricating things, often creating very detailed but bogus conspiracy theories. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

@Shot info - go read WP:N and tell us how it applies here? 70.71.22.45 (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Go read WP:NPOV, then WP:OR, finally WP:RS particularly the sections on primary, secondary and tertiary sources - once you have these sources they tell us the notability of a particular point. If you cannot get the sources to show something is worth including (ie/ "notable") then it isn't worth including (per WP:WEIGHT). This is editing101 here but I'm glad you asked. Also, perhaps you should (re)read WP:V and then perhaps you might get an understanding why more experienced editors know that posts here on Wikipedia talk pages are not sources to be used in Wikipedia. Shot info (talk) 00:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

OH come on! I just "(re)read WP:V" as you linked, and came across WP:SELFPUB. Maybe YOU should go (re)read WP:V including WP:SELFPUB. When u say "notability of a particular point "Within Wikipedia, notability refers to whether or not a topic merits its own article." but we're not talking ABOUT whether "a topic merits its own article"! But thanx for the "shot"gun approach to alphabet soup policies, u may as well have put WP:X, WP:Y, and WP:Z in there too 70.71.22.45 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC).

Not our proplem if you you don't understand policy. Maybe you should just try harder? Shot info (talk) 00:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

@Fyslee - WP:SPS says that we could use barrett's posts as a source if we could confirm it was barrett 70.71.22.45 (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Take it to RS/N and get a decision. I have never had any objection to including the material IF it could be sourced properly and included in accordance with our policies. The attempts that have been made here to include the information have always been motivated by a desire to frame the information as a criticism, which isn't valid. It has never been an issue, and no RS has ever commented on it or raised it as an issue. Get a decision at RS/N, since this would be a highly unique and unusual matter. Reliable sourcing is required for nearly all material here, especially controversial stuff. The only way this information has been published was as a part of a very dubious source, so we don't have any context other than that. We need a reliable second or third party source. So go for it. I am just as interested as you in finding out what the community says about this. -- Fyslee (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Time to ignore those who want to use this page as a battleground

WP:BATTLE: "Wikipedia is a volunteer community, and does not require its users to give any more time and effort than they wish. Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other users."

Let's not get sucked into letting editors once again use this talk page to attack Barrett and try to Wikilawyer a way into introducing these attacks into the article. If editors want to add information, the burden of evidence is on them, per WP:V, to provide sources. Because these are WP:BLP issues, these need to be high quality references. The information should also adhere to all other Wikipedia policies, especially WP:NPOV and WP:OR.

If these editors continue to disrupt this page, I'm sure we can find an admin to apply arbcom enforcement here. --Ronz (talk) 02:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Ronz, I agree we need a 3rd party in here.

--Stmrlbs (talk) 23:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say but yes this is necessary at this point. The latest edits are getting personal about the editor not the edits. (I'm not posting links because I don't feel it is necessary to stir the pot.) I think the questions that have been asked have been answered now and in the past. I gave some links as requested, to some of the conversations in the archives but no response to them other than from Shot who makes the point about notability. I think it's best to give this a rest with what is going on here and at the RS notice board. Please, everyone, take a breath and a break, I am. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

yes, I did not appreciate Fyslee/BullRangifer implying that I am a sockpuppet/meatpuppet by bringing in oblique comments about scientology and saying "you remind me of someone else" in a deprecatory manner. This is an Ad hominem attack and certainly not in good faith.

--Stmrlbs (talk) 23:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Board Certification: Fresh Start

Last night, I went through some of the history of the arguments for / against the inclusion of Barrett's board certification status. I did find where 3rd parties did state their opinion:

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_1#Stephen_Barrett: look at the opinions of Wjhonson (one of the Wikipedians in the Mediation Cabal ), and Piotrus who is a Wikipedia Administrator. Basically, they both said:

"He is not board certified (citation), but he responds by stating that 'It is not necessary to be board-certified to practice psychiatry'"

in addition, Piotrus came here to add his comments to the talk discussion going on here at the time here:Talk:Stephen_Barrett/Archive_10#Wikipedia:Reliable_sources.2FNoticeboard to verify his opinion.

Since this seems to be reasonable to 2 3rd party administrator/mediators that are more objective than any of us, I am fine with making the sentence in question:

Barrett is a 1957 graduate of the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and completed his psychiatry residency in 1961, but was not board certified. When questioned about this, Barrett stated that it is not necessary to be board-certified to practice psychiatry.

to make it NPOV in the way the 3rd parties specified. --Stmrlbs (talk) 02:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree - but this has all been said before - need the tertiary sources supporting why it's important. Shot info (talk) 22:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree - WP:3PO is a valid and important part of WP:DR. Personally, I think the "why it is important" is rather obvious. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

what policy says we need 3rd party sources "supporting why it's important"? 70.71.22.45 (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:PROMINENCE. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

That Stephen Barrett is not Board Certified is not a viewpoint. It is a fact (a well documented one at that). I don't see how WP:PROMINENCE applies. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

We've been through exact issue before. NPOV applies. For those who don't want to check the archives:

1. There are an infinite number of facts that apply to Barrett. We only report those that have WP:PROMINENCE.
2. This argument makes the assumption that a "fact" is not a viewpoint. However, here on Wikipedia, we build this encyclopedia based upon what we can verify.

"Facts" have no special status. See WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." --Ronz (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Levine2112, you glibly state that it's a "well documented" fact. That's exactly the problem. It's NOT at all "well documented"! That it's a fact isn't questioned, but the sourcing is a big obstacle. The only sources that have mentioned it at all are hate sites that are blacklisted here. TTBOMK, no V & RS have mentioned it at all. It has always been a non-issue in real life and in cyberspace. That those who hate and libel Barrett have mentioned it, and that editors here who feel the same way do so, doesn't really cut it.

I'll repeat what I wrote above (with a slight tweak for relevance here): Take it to RS/N and get a decision. I have never had any objection to including the material IF it could be sourced properly and included in accordance with our policies. The attempts that have been made here to include the information have always been motivated by a desire to frame the information as a criticism, which isn't valid.

It has never been an issue, and no RS has ever commented on it at all, much less raised it as an issue. Get a decision at RS/N, since it would be a highly unique and unusual matter to use Barrett's very short talk page comment(s) as a source. In fact, it would require a policy change!

Reliable sourcing is required for nearly all material here, especially controversial stuff. The only way this information has been published was as a part of a very dubious source, so we don't have any context other than that. We need a reliable second or third party source. So go for it. I am just as interested as you in finding out what the community says about this. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)