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

Notability Again

If BC is not in itself notable what are we to make of the WP:NOTABLE guideline "The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standard of the notability guidelines." ? If this is so, the general notability policy is applicable to articles rather than particular items within them. This dispute has dragged on because criteria applicable to articles has been applied to sentences within articles. It reminds me of the wisdom of Aristotle who said that we should be aware that judgements are only as precise as the nature of the subject matter allows, and of Wittgenstein's assertion that philosophical problems are fictions generated by grammar. Or perhaps it is a Rylean category mistake. These analogies are not precise. A minor issue has been treated as though it were a major one. Editors have been using sledgehammers to crack a nut. It doesn't much matter whether SB's lack of BC is included or not. And Wikipedia guidelines are just guidelines. Not laws which, like Colonel Nathan R Jessep's orders, are always obeyed. All consensus should take is goodwill on the part of a few good men. robert2957 14:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I belong to a sizable group of editors who think that the notability guideline is useless and will rarely quote it in discussions. (Notability itself is not unimportant; the problem is the guideline itself.) Regardless, the part of the notability guideline you're quoting says that the guideline does not apply to the individual facts/etc. that make up an article. It does not say there are no other reasons (or even notability aspects for that matter) that may prohibit/allow/require the inclusion of specific facts/etc. -- it can't say so, since a guideline does not trump policies.

For the full range of arguments, most of them not based on the notability guideline, see the discussion above. Interestingly, one argument states that we need secondary sources to help us assess if it's a nut or something requiring a sledgehammer. When in doubt, don't include = when in doubt, use a sledgehammer?

Just as interestingly, opinions vary from "Barrett wants it in the article" via "trivial" back to "insidious attack". A number of editors seem to think it's eminently important to include it in the article. Others seem to think it's eminently important to exclude it. AvB ÷ talk 15:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

PS I have proposed to remove an equally trivial fact (the license thing) as a kind of trade-off, where the other party ends the otherwise endless attempts to include the trivial BC thing. It feels nicely symmetrical to me. Although within a month a new consensus will alter everything we agree on now, so in that respect it really doesn't matter what we do. But WP:BLP forbids this eventualist attitude in BLPs... Perhaps you can quote us a philosopher who shows us that this is the way out? AvB ÷ talk 15:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully we lay out the facts and logic clearly enough to achieve some stability this time. And next.

I'll paraphrase. Based on the notoriety, aggressive statements including websites, broad declamations, numerous denunciations, litigiousness, previous expert claims, medical, science and health commentaries & related claims, the current article misrepresents the known qualifications of Dr Barrett by omission(s) - a significant public health-related commentator in the late 20th century based on his long running & fairly successful PR efforts (and legal strategems) to *project* his MD (and opinions) as *the* voice of "mainstream" science and medicine in the 1970s through the 1990s.

A more factual article would clarify and dispel confusions that last to this day, a fundamental service of encyclopedias.

The "license thing" helps dispel scurrilous sounding claims by partisans where I note even QW-related sites have over a dozen webpages that discuss "de-l'd" directly using the newly minted hyphenated "word"(ahem) and dozens of webpages graced with at least one particular partisan (treated like a dread disease - say, like TB :). (go to QW's "Search Our Affiliated Sites" and enter the hyphenated "word" or partisan's name). This is not to mention their (both sides) ongoing legal and political warfare. (I am weaseling with "scurrilous-sounding" because I have seen comments & questions about the continuity of the license between 1993 and now, but no evidence either way, and observe BLP in reference to any partisans who might be just as "sensitive" or litigious).--I'clast 21:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It's very simple.

• The "delicensed" claim, which you some editors want to include in the article, is a lie. Best evidence is that he retired in good standing.
• The "not board certified" claim, which you also want to include in the article, is merely misleading. You claim that its absence is also misleading.
• Neither claim is supported by a reliable secondary source. The first is not supported by any reliable source.

— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Question: do you mean the first or the second? Thanks. AvB ÷ talk 12:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Wrong about me and my intent, Arthur. I have never supported "de-l'd", I only explained the situation without using Google searchable names and inflammatory words. (Given "... "incomplete data, obsolete data, technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo", asmong others, I do, however, see some irony.) The "not board certified" is complex but I disagree; the legal studies part is the clearest omission. I earlier said I am doing something about getting a more reliable secondary source for the "not board certified" discussion (...if dead trees will move less slowly) that should help the suddenly fastidious. I think sometimes some editors confuse me with parties that are quite dissimilar with much different backgrounds, interests and personalities.--I'clast 22:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It's amazing where OR and especially SYN, will take you. Shot info 03:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably unwittingly, I'clast is trying to make Wikipedia into a crystal ball by making it say what they see in their crystal ball. It could be true. It might be happening. When it comes to a certain scientist (no, not Barrett) I (almost) can't wait to infuse Wikipedia with what my crystal ball is telling me. (My crystal ball = what I view as my superior talents/skills/experience/etc of science, politics and mass psychology in a specific area and most others as a "true belief"). But that isn't how it's done here. AvB ÷ talk 12:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no crystal ball in observing the common types of biographic data discussed in this section, just uninformed readers when we fail. I have no idea what (which parts) shot_info is commenting on here, it could well be Arthur's mistaken SYN about me, other than similar edits by shot seem to follow me around.

As far other places, I do make note that popular political beliefs are often substituted on science issues (and I do take action). That's not a crystal ball, that is usually an extra helping of WP:V on various science matters, sort of a Wikipedia NPOV-SPOV that bulldozes a lot of common bs here. I have actually had better luck collaborating with many mainstream doctors about this than most non-medical editors. I am not saying it is easy, it's hard work technically but I often have been able to dig up the current research (past few years, decade) from authoritative sources (well ranked medical school sites, govt authorities) that still surprises the less currently informed or those relying on more (convenient) proprietarily influenced sources (e.g. pharma detail staff, heavily advertised articles & journals).--I'clast 13:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

We're probably on the same page in terms of educating docs etc. on "controversial" issues. But it takes time. What is learned or accepted by individual physicians rarely percolates back through the system; what is needed is (painting with a very broad brush) such things as (1) awareness (among students) of the other side in (real) controversies (2) in the longer run, for the controversial to become mainstream, enter textbooks, etc. (Even the most partisan attackers have a place in this process, cf. e.g. AIDS activism). However, WP editors can't do much re Semmelweis type paradigm shifts when it's too early. Wikipedia policies are based on the assumption that once such a shift has materialized and an "authority figure" ignores it, anything from consumer organization to reliable sources will be writing about it. If this doesn't happen, it's time to go and discuss policy and community standards. Not to fill the Barrett talk page with wishful thinking.

-- stepping off soapbox now, resolving not to discuss this here for a while apart from the occasional oneliner, or the long-awaited advent of new acceptable sources. AvB ÷ talk 15:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Pls note, what I am discussing for the Biography section doen't require a crystal ball or a paradignm shift - just a basic description of his educational and professional background, legal and medical, skipped in the rush toward highly detailed, and occassionally less independent or substantial, accolades.--I'clast 00:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to make it clear that I have never supported saying that Stephen Barrett was "de - licenced". I don't want to get mixed up in that contoversy. I am saying this because a post from me heads this section. I have never questioned the good faith of Stephen Barrett. And finally, I shall be retiring from editing this article for the time being. It is taking up too much of my time. In a couple of months time I shall come back to editing the Wikipedia. I believe there are changes to be made to the articles about Neville Chamberlain and atheroma, to name but two. →До свидания товарищи! robert2957 07:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Integendeel! Tot (spoedig) ziens, kameraad! AvB ÷ talk 12:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I corrected my comment about "de-licensed". It wasn't I'clast, who I was replying to, or Robert. However, there are still differences between that claim and the Board Certification question, and I believe there can be good faith arguments on either side. In fact, I've made arguments on both sides. There cannot be good faith arguments on "de-licensed", at this point, as reliable primary sources indicate it's incorrect. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. How do you feel about the fact that the Bio section, first para, contains a defense against the de-licensed nonsense? Like board certification info (and certainly a lack of it), this is not information we routinely add to bios, and seems to somehow acknowledge the bogus de-licensed criticism. Its only function is to debunk that criticism.

It seems that no one is interested in my compromise where both the disputed board certification info and the active/retired license info are left out/removed. If so, I'm inclined to work towards moving/including both criticisms (with full context) in/to the criticism section. Detractors say x, Barret says y. For the delicensed nonsense, the Quackwatch site suffices; for the board certification hype (I mean, do detractors really believe that Barrett's being board certified would have changed anything?) that would mean accepting say the Donna Porter article as a reliable source for this item only. A consensus seems possible. Or would the editors currently arguing it's an acceptable source suddenly decide differently? AvB ÷ talk 22:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think including Barrett's lack of Board Certification in the criticism section would be fine, except then it would have to include that he took and failed the Board examination (as that is part of the criticism). What source are you going to cite as Barrett's response to this? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps editors could be persuaded to accept Barrett's defense on a Wikipedia talk page? To tell you the truth, I personally have no problem detailing the whole thing in the criticism section; as I've said earlier, my main objection would be that the section is too long, but if it would end the impasse I'm all for it. Then again, when floated earlier, the idea sort of flopped. AvB ÷ talk 22:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Essentially it would says something to the effect of: Barrett failed his Board examination and thus was never Board Certified. His critics cite that this disqualifies Barrett's claimed expertise; however Barrett responds that lacking this qualification never affected his career adversely. Yeah, it's poorly written, but does this cover all of the points essentially? If so, I don't see why a polished version should be too much longer. This of course is all citable from reliable primary and secondary sources (especially since we are treating this like criticism and thus Barrett's critics are certainly reliable sources of their own criticism). -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll reserve my opinion for now; let's wait and see if others weigh in. (But note that "reliable" in "reliable sources of their own criticism" isn't quite the same thing as "reliable" in WP:RS etc.) I'm turning in for the night. AvB ÷ talk 23:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think one thing which we can all agree on - given how many have written about Barrett's lack of Board Certification being a detriment (the lawsuits, the news articles, the reasearch papers, the notorious borderline libelous press releases - is that this is an extremely notable piece of criticism. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you're both on the right track. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 00:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

My view on this hasn't changed since the last time I said my view on this hadn't changed. The reasons are the same I've been voicing for months: the dearth of good sources, undue weight and WP:BLP. I wouldn't agree that the criticism is notable simply because the critics voice it; see WP:SELFPUB. I don't foresee my take on this changing until or unless better sources are found. thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 16:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

So criticism that is self-published is never notable? If that is the case, the Quackwatch can never be used as a notable source of criticism. Regardless, the criticism - Barrett's lack of Board Certification makes him less qualified of an expert witness and a medical critic - has been asserted by many sources. Of the source which I have listed, at least five of them are quoting or summarizing another party making this criticism (so SELFPUB isn't an issue). Please understand that this is an entirely different proposition than what we have been discussing for the past three months; as this is a proposal to introduce this information as criticism (completely in context). Make sense? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say that self-published criticism is never notable, but sometimes it isn't. We don't go including everything Barrett writes, either. Unless you can provide a non-partisan, reliable secondary source for the criticism you quote ("Barrett's lack of Board Certification makes him less qualified of an expert witness and a medical critic"), I don't see that it passes BLP or undue weight or WP:V. Now, Levine2112, surely you know by now this isn't going anywhere, so why do you continue? When there is no consensus to add material to an article for BLP reasons, it is poor form to keep the issue front and center on the talk page, and of course disruptive. Perhaps it would be good for you to disengage on this issue? If not, I'd support an RfC on your behavior and a block. Enough is enough. --Jim Butler^(talk) 01:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's time to seriously consider an RfC, if editors do not disengage. --Ronz 01:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Jim, you are completely misinterpreting what is going on here. This is a completely new issue that has been raised and suggested not by me, but by AvB. Many notable critics of Barrett's have cited that his failure of Board Certification makes him less qualified. (Before the issue was to not include this criticism but rather just the fact that he isn't Board Certified.) AvB has been pretty consistent in his/her feeling that by taking this fact out of the context (as a criticism), it creates a policy issue. However, now we are discussing re-introducing this material in full context as criticism, thus getting rid of the policy issues. I think a discussion of this will get us somewhere. I hope you and Ronz will see that. At this point, the reluctance to mediate this issue per WP:DR has been the primary blockage in reaching a resolution. I hope the dissenting parties (either by vote or by silence) will opt to participate with civility in this very realistic proposal. Threats of RfC is not a good way to begin, civility-wise. Please let's collaborate and settle this amicably. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Levine2112, I do understand that you want to present the BC stuff as criticism rather than simple biographical info. BLP and WP:V still apply, and my objections about the sources you've provided remain the same. Nor am I "threatening" an RfC. I am simply objecting to your behavior as is generally done on WP, and as I'd expect anyone to do if they objected to mine. thank you, Jim Butler^(talk) 23:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This has already been settled via BLP policy and no consensus. This is very exhausting. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 01:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

From WP:BLP#criticism:

The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article.

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

So let's take this point-by-point. This view of several critics (that Barrett's failure of the exam and subsequent lack of Board Certification takes a notch out of his credibility armor) is certainly relevant to Barrett's notability. The view of these critics are based on several reliable secondary sources (Dynamic Chiropractic and the WCA are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand). I believe we can work out a way to write this material in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material (especially if we include Barrett's rebuttal, as suggested by AvB above). We will certainly strive not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics; and given that the WCA and DC publication goes out to 60,000 plus and they represent organizations each with large memberships, we are certainly not representing the view of a tiny minority.

This criticism is sourced reliably and is about Barrett specifically; thus there is no guilt by association claims here. This material is noy biased nor malicious (at least no more than what one would allow from any criticism). Thus I am not pushing an agenda or a biased point of view; however since DC and WCA are offering criticism originally purported by Negrete, they are in effect a third-party source. Perhaps, the Fintan Dunne and the Donna Porter article can be used as well or in their place, as they too offer up similar criticism. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Round and round and round we go. Ad nauseum again and again and again. Please stop. --Ronz 03:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You all are being unbelievably difficult! I am starting to suspect that there is some ulterior motives at work here to protect Barrett from the valid, notable, and citable criticism. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. --QuackGuru 04:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Anybody would think the opposite is true given the overly high levels of criticism compared to other BLPs and the demand by the Anti-Barretts to include yet even more while deleting biographical material. Methinks the COI is on the other foot (which probably explains the reluctance of key figures to put their money where their mouth is...but this is an aside). Shot info 04:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I am neither anti-Barrett nor do I have any COI. As I have attested to several times now, I have no dealing with or about Barrett outside of Wikipedia. I had no idea who he was until coming to this article. I am not a practitioner of any alternative or allopathic medicine. I don't sell pills or supplements. I don't participate in blogs or forums about about Barrett. Nothing. Any COI claim on me would be unfounded and frankly, untrue. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Founder of NCAHF?

Right now the lead states he is "the founder of the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF)." I question that statement. He is at best a co-founder. The previous lead stated he was "a founder", which is accurate enough. This needs to be corrected. -- Fyslee/talk 08:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Request to make a small change as described above: {editprotected}

The article on the NCAHF agrees with you that he is a "co-founder", so I have changed the LEAD accordingly. SGGH ^speak! 19:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Fyslee/talk 19:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

If we are trying for a compromise, new proposal then......

Why don't we start back with what I originally suggested? That being:

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

It comes to the point and is generic in what it says. It also can be looked up if someone is interested. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

We cannot include the board thing against BLP policy. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 16:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a marvellous suggestion, Crohnie. I support it, yet I don't imagine it will gain a consensus (as evidenced by QuackGuru's response just above). Please note, however, that further above in "Notability again", AvB and I are working together to introduce this information in full context of the sources (as criticism), thus elimintating possiblie claims of WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:BLP. What are your thoughts? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the conversation between you and Avb which is why I posted this again. I have not changed my mind about this not being in the article. I just thought if something was going to be put in that this is generic. --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, I like your suggestion. I ought to afterall; run-on sentence aside, it is pretty much exactly what I have been suggesting for a while now. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

According to Crohnie: She has not changed her mind about this not being in the article. According to Levine: He likes this suggestion Crohnie has made. It seems Levine now agrees with Crohnie. Super! :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 17:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I like Crohnie's suggested wording to include Barrett's lack of Board Certification. I think that is pretty clear. I also think that it is pretty clear that your post here is just meant to be annoying. Please refrain. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Crohnie said in part: I have not changed my mind about this not being in the article. Crohnie's suggestion is, when in doubt leave it out. I too agree with Crohnie! It is pretty crystal clear. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 19:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Crohnie was suggesting to include board certification in the bio, so you I'm guessing you'll change your vote when you realise your mistake. I too think the information clearly belongs in the article somewhere, and it's pretty inevitable it's going in one day. I'm happy with Crohnie's suggestion. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 02:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Please take note of the title I have about this. I haven't changed my mind and I still think it should not be put into the article but others are making suggestions so I thought my suggestion is more generic then what has been proposed yet. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Archived

This talk page was becoming gigantic (446 kb!), so I have ruthlessly archived it. If there are any threads that were unresolved and need to be rehashed, please pull them from the latest archive. Neil ╦ 17:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

re: "science"

"He has said...he learned...difference between scientific thought..."."...distinguishing science from pseudoscience..." etc. I previously removed the quote part as contentious, self congratulatory, self promotional statements that have concrete counterexamples and critiques by far more accomplished jurists, scientists & doctors to the expertise implied in this assertion. (I left the medical statistics part as a sympathetic treatment of how he might have gotten his start.) Not even Newton or Einstein's WP biographies have such bold self statements after epochal breakthroughs.--I'clast 10:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Fyslee reverted to a POV statement without any discussion here. The problem is not whether we can verify Dr Barrett's quote (Fyslee's "justification" in the edit summary), the quoted assertion tremendously violates NPOV - a self congratulatory statement that implicitly construes the author's work and criticism as unusually correct or authoritative. A number of papers from more accomplished scientists (PhD professorial researchers, national awards, *scientific* papers) and national authorities, as well as the results from court, contradict this rather bold assertion of "infallibility" (that the author's capability to "distinguish science" is so notable where published failures to correctly distinguish the science (or legal arguments) are also notable, dramatic and current. In the example I'm looking at (the fundamental criticism been published for over 20 years, with rising levels of independent, authoritative confirmation, now from NIH and NAS), Dr Barrett's statements fail to notice that his "proof" drastically fails to repeat the original test(s) in several ways (a number of shortcomings), fails to even begin to adequately control the tests (ineffective controls for simple problems carefully cited before the biased tests even started, a biased investigator pompously screwed the tests up anyway, ignoring correct, expert advice), and that the newer (and highly biased) tests do not remotely cover the hypothesis, stopping short over 90% (99+%?) of the input (controllable) variable range. Stuff that repeatedly violates high school science lessons (duplication of conditions, control, gross hypothesis testing) in just single examples. That's scientific expertise and implied "infallibility"? Again, I'm looking at real scientists' and authorities' published work, with now verified statements. Still uncorrected over at QW after years.

A much more NPOV, yet sympathetic, treatment of the start of Dr Barrett's interest in his avocation is the med school statistics part.--I'clast 18:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Page Protection again?

Judging by recent edits, I think we need full page protection again. Agreed? --Ronz 17:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

1. We need to remove the "no court victories" per WP:BLP. It's not sourcable, and may not be correct.
2. We may need remove the board certification paragraph, per WP:BLP. It's been argued as a possible violation.
3. The change from "aims" to "claims" under the Online activism paragraph is actually a significant change, which may have been perceived as a spelling correction.
4. The change from "denunciation" to "denouncement" under Defamation lawsuits is a mistake, perhaps also in the guise of a spelling correction, as the target is not a valid (American) English word.
5. Request withdrawn The lawsuit section was removed as possibly being a WP:BLP violation, and should not be left in while the article is protected. I thought the lawsuit section should be there, but I'm pointing out it was deleted under WP:BLP, so possibly it should be removed. (changes made 21:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC))

— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree to the court victories; though this is 100% true. Thus far Barrett has indeed lost every one of his libel suits in court (or it was settled out of court).

Disagree with the Board Certification as it is valid and notable criticism from reliable sources.

Disagree with the claims/aim as it is actually more accurate and much more NPOV.

Agree to denunciation/denouncement. Not familiar with how or if this was changed or was originally inserted incorrectly.

Disagree to removing the lawsuit section as it is expressly permitted by WP:RS and lends itself to Barrett notability. Despite the misconception here, his lawsuits are not part of the criticism section. This is fair and accurately covered.

-- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The change from "aims" to "claims" indicates that they "claim" success. I don't think the web site says that. http://www.quackwatch.com/00AboutQuackwatch/mission.html reports: "Quackwatch, Inc. [...] is a nonprofit corporation whose purpose is to combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct." However, if the change was intentional, it doesn't need to be reverted under the {{editprotected}} banner. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry that I didn't wait longer for others' viewpoints before requesting page protection, but I thought it was best considering what was happening. --Ronz 22:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No worries Ronz. Arthur, please remove your editprotected request as it's never going to get consensus. Please make one request at a time, beginning with the most practical. I don't think any change is so crucial that we can't discuss it here properly first. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 02:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, under Wikipedia policies, even potential WP:BLP violations should be removed immediately, even on a protected page. However, #1and #4 (part of [2]) are agreed to by the editor who inserted them, so probably should be implemented without further delay.

#3 (part of [3] seems to make a "correct" statement into an incorrect statement. (See the Quackwatch mission statement for the probable source of that sentence.)

The others are probable WP:BLP violations, but I'm willing to wait.

— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 05:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

While we are on BLP, I think modifications of the Defamation Lawsuit section should be very careful and selective. Part of what originally set Ilena off was pro-QW "rewriting history" on BvR and her getting acknowledgement in WP that the decision in the original lower court and the SC opinion on her actions were not considered defamation, "As the lower courts correctly concluded, however, none of the hostile comments against Barrett alleged in the complaint are defamatory" and not "just a technicality". That seemed to be part of her acceptance on the BvR article.--I'clast 06:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Ilena is still banned, I believe, so what she wants/wanted in the article is irrelevant. That being said, much of what you want slandering about Barrett probably should be OK.— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

While we are on the topic of Ilena - more published criticism from Barrett's favorite critic: Anti-alternative "Quackbusters" Have Giant Court Losses on Two Continents. . . and yet another reference to Barrett's lack of Board Certification being a detriment to his credibility. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

According to BvR, Ilena doesn't do any critising, she is just merely recycling Bolen's criticisms. Not that the Anti-Barrett's here remember this... :-) Shot info 06:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That may be true in regard Barrett, but not in regard Wikipedians. Fyslee and I were libeled on her web site. (And that article is probable libelous even if it were published in the United States and even if the facts were correct.) Unless, of course, it's plaigerism. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

She retracted the libelous statements against me, and I didn't demand a formal renunciation, so there's no current case. However, Fyslee may have a valid case. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, this is a brand new article and not the subject of the BvR republishing case. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

And regardless, according to the determinations of the various courts (aka BvR) Ilena's comments are merely a recycling of Bolen's, so "another reference" really means the "refering to exactly the same poor sources that others have pointed out previously over, and over, and over, and over etc.". Pure genius really. Shot info 07:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the page should be unblocked. The level of "edit war" is not that high and it is better to reprimand POV-pushing editors here instead. MaxPont 15:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the multi-edtitor editwar the day the article was unlocked is justification for it to remain locked a little while longer. I'd like Arthur Rubin to remove his edit protected request above as because it is so broad unaccepted it kind of stalls any future edit requests from being accepted. A better approach would be to propose things we can agree on. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 00:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm withdrawing request 5, as I think the lawsuits should be there. We seem to have agreement on #1 and #4, but, as an interested admin, I can't make the change. I'm willing to defer #2, but #3 needs a source. Quackwatch states that their "mission" is as you specify, but the word "claims" also implies that they "claim" success. I haven't found that on Quackwatch. (I also don't see that as belonging in the Barrett article, but that's another problem.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I can see you think the wrong version was protected Arthur. It's always the wrong version. I do not accept your edit 2 Arthur, there are several editors who concur. And I do not accept an editprotected request for multiple issues. And I do not accepted that just deleting the edits that offend you is a solution to the article's needs. Edit protected is not a revert tool. As a janitor, you should know better. Again, I ask you to remove the edit-protected tag you've put on this talk page as it's stalling serious discussion. You can't seriously believe an admin is going to act on it given the replies you've received. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 00:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

No, there were a number of Levine2112's edits that I quite agree with. I've withdrawn #5, and willing to defer or withdraw #2 if you think it will help, but we have agreement from the editor (Levine2112) that #1 and #4 should be reverted, and I still think the subtle wording change he made in #3 converted a correct (but stylistically questionable) statement into an incorrect (or at least unsourced) statement, so I'm not willing to give that up. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

With regards to #2, perhaps it would help to include second party sources with the litigation section such as:

• Justices hand victory to free speech online - Howard Mintz, San Jose Mercury News
• Calif. Supreme Court Shields Web Republishers - Jessie Seyfer, Law.com
• How Web providers dodged a big legal bullet - Eric J. Sinrod, CNET News.com
• High court justices sound cool toward Internet libel case - Bob Egelko, San Francisco Chronicle

While these, for instance, describe Barret v. Rosenthal, the BvR case stemmed out of and is related to many of Barrett's other lawsuits (e.g. Barrett v. Clark). -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Anti-alternative "Quackbusters" Have Giant Court Losses on Two Continents Shouldn't this be removed from even this talk page since the article is written by a blocked editor and also advertises the sites that are not supposed to be here either? --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but maybe some want it kept here to document Levine2112's thinking about what sources are appropriate? --Ronz 18:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Call for criticism

Please discuss the criticism changes rather than saying "round and round". This isn't helpful and since this is a new discussion, it is entirely untrue. I have laid out the policy rather clearly; now let's discuss with civility. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I choose to respect WP:TALK, WP:CIVIL, WP:CON, WP:DR, and WP:DE by not repeating past discussions. --Ronz 18:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a new issue. Before we were discussing inserting Barrett's lack of Board Certification into his biography (Remember? This is where you said it was being used out of context.) Now we are including the full context (that this has been used as criticism) and we are placing it the criticism section under the apt "Qualifications..." section. If you have an issue with the new addition, let's discuss it here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No it is not new, given that I suggested it months ago providing we had new sources to draw upon. --Ronz 18:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Mere suggestion doesn't mean that this is old news. This has never been discussed in full as a consideration for the criticism section. This is legitimate criticism which has been a subject in numerous articles, several court cases (of which Barrett was on the losing end), and a couple of research papers. Please provide a valid reason not to include this information. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, no. I already have addressed this. --Ronz 18:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not just about you, Ronz. Let's give others a chance (those with less of a WP:COI here than you) to address this issue. It's only fair. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone have a COI here? Report it immediately. Give specific names and supporting evidence. Otherwise remove what's a false and uncivil personal attack. Thanks. --Ronz 22:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ronz, you know perfectly well about these COIs from the Barrett vs Rosenthal ArbCom. I will not repeat that discussion as the "COI-editor" doesn't want his real name exposed. MaxPont 15:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

There were no findings of COI other than Ilena. There were accusations of COI. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

But there was a broader statement (a sotto voce cautionary note for many?) at BvR of Principle on COI with an interesting and suggestive example, especially for certain kinds of individual editors:

5) Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, a guideline, warns: 1. avoid editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,... and then finally Bite: Can you explain 'why it’s a bad idea for a PR firm to be editing Wikipedia on behalf of a client?...passed 9-0

It might be said that ArbCom did not get into voting on the individual details of COI (vs POV) and rather opted for a more general note to all.--I'clast 12:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems Levine2112 is accusing me of having a COI, and MaxPont is trying to cover for the incivility. Am I missing something? --Ronz 02:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It's actually very instructive to see who cry "COI" then don't follow them up? Curiously it is the very same people who fail to follow other WP policies, not just COI. Now, why would that be... Shot info 22:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Arthur. You say "There were no 'findings' of COI other than Ilena.". This is plain wrong, and I'm not sure why you're misrepresenting this. The truth is there were multiple findings of fact at Arbcom including Fyslee being noted as a health activist and being cautioned about COI issues "to use reliable sources and to edit from a NPOV. He is reminded that editors with a known partisan point of view should be careful..." ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 01:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense and inappropriate, especially given your recent behavior. Please stop with the personal attacks now. --Ronz 02:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Not nonsense, but a complex discussion between perceptions (and precise, possibly unsettled, Wikilegalese) about "conflict" vs open, pronounced POV, that unfortunately flared up here and needs to just generally stop adding heat and fuel. I think Fyslee has gone to the sidelines and I think Metta Bubble will too if we can just cool the snowballing from other editors.--I'clast 12:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Levine2112, you've not followed up with your COI accusations. Please strike out your accusations if you aren't going to file a WP:COIN report. These are serious accusations, as Ilena (and those that supported her disruptive editing) found out. --Ronz 02:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ronz, that you call quotes from Arbcom nonsense only reinforces Levine's point. And I'm completely willing to back this up on the WP:FNORD noticeboard, so chill. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 06:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty funny given that editors defending Ilena splashed the COI brush around liberally only to fail to back it up. Prehaps you would like to be the latest to do so?BTW Fyslee wasn't cautioned over COI, nor was COI a finding of fact. This is an atypical misrepretation of an editor is was shown on the same ArbCom to have a long line of continual misunderstandings, misreadings and misintpretations. Very "unclear"... Shot info 06:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Using your logic, even Ilena wasn't banned for COI 'cos there's no such word as coi. Obviously the relevant terms used at Arbcom are partisan health activist engaged in incivility and use of unreliable sources"... followed by "cautioned to use reliable sources and to edit from a NPOV. He is reminded that editors with a known partisan point of view should be careful..." ... hmmm? COI? It's not rocket science. Are you taking yourself seriously? ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 08:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The nonsense I'm speaking of are your interpretations, especially in contrast to your behavior. Best stop kicking the dead horse. If you're interested in WP:COI, read through the WP:COIN archives. If you're going to make COI accusations, do so in a report there rather than harassing editors here with accusations you're not prepared to follow through. --Ronz 15:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Read the Arbcom report yourself. That Fyslee is a health activist was one of the findings. That he used unreliable sources (parts of Quackwatch and similar sites; the "finding" that Quackwatch is an unreliable source was rejected) and was uncivil were findings. That he violated WP:COI was not a finding. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ronz, that's rich coming from you! This topic's nonsense began with your all-too-typical use of WP:CIVIL as a weapon to harass and mangle discourse. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 00:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Arthur, that's exactly my point. You said Ilena was the only editor banned for COI. If you want to take a loose definition of COI like that, so Fyslee was cautioned for same. Again, it's not rocket science. You seem to want your cake and eat it too. That there's a ragtag team of imbeciles vapidly backing up this doublestandard only serves to prove there is likely a conflict of interest problem on this article. The fact is Fyslee was cautioned to stop editing from an uncivil and partisan viewpoint. Only an imbecile would deny this and I'm sure one will be along shortly to do so. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 23:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

(to Metta) Ilena wasn't banned for COI. Or else the ArbCom would have kindof used that phrase you know. Unfortunately for yourself, it seems you haven't read the details of the ArbCom, nor WP:COI for you to make your claims above. If anything, you need to stop taking yourself so seriously because your statements make you look stupid. Shot info 22:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

ABMS

The link to ABMS is misleading as they didn't exist when Barrett was "failing" his BC. Mind you this has been pointed out previously and I note that the editor in question has taken on himself to ignore this (again) to push his anti-Barrett POV. Shot info 22:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see ABMS site:

The official ABMS Member Boards and Associate Members are (year approved in parentheses):

• (Allergy and Immunology (1971)
• Anesthesiology (1941)
• Colon and Rectal Surgery (1949)
• Dermatology (1932)
• Emergency Medicine (1979)
• Family Medicine (1969)
• Internal Medicine (1936)
• Medical Genetics (1991)
• Neurological Surgery (1940)
• Nuclear Medicine (1971)
• Obstetrics and Gynecology (Incorporated 1930)
• Ophthalmology (Incorporated 1916)
• Orthopaedic Surgery (1935)
• Otolaryngology (Incorporated 1924)
• Pathology (1936)
• Pediatrics (1935)
• Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (1947)
• Plastic Surgery (1941)
• Preventive Medicine (1949)
• Psychiatry and Neurology (1935)
• Radiology (1935)
• Surgery (1937)
• Thoracic Surgery (1971)
• Urology (1935)

-- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

"From 1933 to 1970, the Advisory Board operated as a federation of individual specialty boards. In 1970, the membership voted to reorganize the Advisory Board as the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS), which was implemented that year". So in fact, Barrett didn't sit for anything to do with the ABMS, and the link is still misleading. Shot info 06:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It became the ABMS - same/same. This should be noted int he ABMS article. If not it is a shortcoming of that article, not ours. Regardless, Barrett never got Board Certified by ABMS. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Remember this little fact thing you keep harping about? Suggest you reread WP:OR to examine what you have done. And as for your second non sequitur, he hasn't been board certified by the UK, Canadian, Sri Lankan or Turkmanistan boards either. Shot info 06:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

He is an American doctor. Wonder what the "A" in ABMS stands for? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Pretty hard to be certified by something that didn't do the certifying. This is called SYN, remember? Shot info 07:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

What are you saying? I am unclear. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I do enjoy this tactic of yours, let the discussion go on, then say "I don't understand" - then wait for a repeat. Simply put, you have mislead everybody by only crying that you want 6 or so words in the article. Instead what you want is some OR to imply that somehow an organisation that did not perform such activities was the organisation that Barrett failed. All repeated above, and you are correct, you are unclear. Shot info 02:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Barrett took the Board Certification for his specialty and failed. The organization which represented his specialty became part of the newly formed and unified ABMS. Those who had been Board Certified by these parent boards were grandfathered in as ABMS. Regardless of whether Barrett took the test again after ABMS represented his would-be specialty (which he opted not to do during the next 20 years of holding an active license), Barrett was never Board Certified by ABMS; hence the Wikilink. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 08:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

So, yes, Barrett did not fail any certification associated with ABMS, except by you performing OR. Thank you for clearing that one up. Shot info 22:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Board Certification

Did I miss something? I just reread the article and the information removed by the first editor that protected the page is now back in. But this I find more disturbing is that the board certification is in the article, against the consensus, that is unless I missed something. Please read the article again to see what I am talking about. --CrohnieGal^Talk 00:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

See WP:WRONG. (And see, and possibly comment to, my {{editprotected}} request above.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that, Arthur Rubin. I hope other too will enjoy its tounge-in-cheek nature. It's always the "wrong version" when it's not your version, eh? Anyhow, now would be an excellent time to begin civil discussions long-sinced abandoned. Above, I comment on two things: 1) The policies which support the inclusion of the criticism related to Barrett's lack of Board Certification and 2) The policies which support the inclusion of Barrett's litigation history. Mostly, my policy explanations/interpretations were met with hostility and a stubborn unwillingness to discuss on a policy-level. Now perhaps we will be all more willing to have a civil discussion. I'd appreciate that. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The many levels of irony preceed you... Shot info 01:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Last time the article was protected it was also on the WP:WRONG version. Go figure. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 02:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Funny how that works. :-) So shall we discuss now? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Do I understand correctly that you, Levine2112 decided on your own, against consensus and the first editor who removed a bunch text prior to the protecting the page, to put all of it in anyways? I think it is now time to take the to WP:BLP. The new edits seem to me at least to be against policies and against BLP rules. Also the comments about COI without any proof or back up with difs, shouldn't they be immediately removed per WP:BLP? Sorry but I think I will leave for awhile. I learn policies and then this happens which doesn't seem right. I hope everyone will act with cooler heads and better common sense then what is being seen lately. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I was being bold. I was hoping that if I made all of the edits which I would like to see implemented, then at least we could reference a version which demonstrates this. It was dumb-luck that this version got edit protected, but let's use this time to discuss my changes in terms of policy. Follow Arthur Rubin's lead here, and let's discuss everything issue by issue, calmly and politely. Sound good? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I am adding a new reference noting the board certification issue for WP:RS, V. This source is independent of the chiropractors, with editors and editorial board (free sample version is Jan 2007) of mostly PhD and MDs with a number of medical school faculty including U Maryland and Harvard:

B. Horrigan, Quackbuster Loses in Court, EXPLORE: J of Science and Healing, Volume 2, Issue 1, Page 11 (January 2006) ...Barrett conceded that he was not a medical board certified psychiatrist because he had failed the certification examination. This was a major revelation since Barrett had provided “expert testimony” as a psychiatrist in numerous court cases....

I think this concludes the WP:RS and WP:V issue for board certification.--I'clast 21:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a larger quote with more context, given what you've provided sounds exactly like the sources that we've already excluded. --Ronz 22:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I cant find that article listed in the table of contents. For that page, I read "Do Addiction and Chemical Intolerance Share the Same Etiology?", Horrigan B, pages 9-13. --Ronz 22:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read the article, but it does appear that the "Chemical Intolerance" piece does discuss Barrett's lack of Board Certification. Click here to see a relevant Google search which demonstrates this. It certainly looks like third-party source which we can all agree to accepting. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

And round and round we go. We need context. We need to decide BLP and WEIGHT. Looks like it's a small sidebar based upon a Negrete press release, exactly like all the other unacceptable sources that we have to date. If so, then there is nothing new here. --Ronz 23:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

(As an aside, this EXPLORE: J of Science and Healing is a hilariously bad journal of quackery. The Jan'07 issue has a paper by Gary Schwartz. The currently available May'07 issue is a special about the now-defunct PEAR Lab.) --Ronz 23:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Your mere postulation that this is a sidebar, if correct, may just provide the context and weight you have been looking for. Again, we can only theorize until we learn more about the article, but perhaps it is discrediting Barrett's opinions on this topic by explaining that - for one - he isn't Board Certified. I don't know. Just a guess. If that were the case, then once again we have a source using this information as criticism. Please don't immediately inject your bias, and let's rather wait and see what more we learn about this article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry that you don't like my noticing that from what we have so far, this is no different from any previous source that we've discounted. --Ronz 00:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

If it's a sidebar, it's probably quoted from the infamous press release without review, and has no additional weight. If it's in the text, and not written by a person attacked by Barrett or whose profession is attacked by Barrett, and the journal is reputable (see above for an editor questioning that last), then it is probably allowable. But we need a larger quote to determine context. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Arthur Rubin here for the most part. However, just because someone's profession has been attacked by Barrett, doesn't explude them from ever being a reliable source of information. And actually, in response to Ronz, this is much different from the previous sources which you have discounted for some reason or antoher. Here, EXPLORE is a peer-reviewed scientific journal with an impressive board of editors and panelists. More than any source before, this one seems the most third-party of them all (though the Fintan Dunne, the chiropractic sources, the research papers and several others are third-party sources in terms of their relationship - or lack thereof - to the lawsuit being described where Barrett admitted in the stand that he wasn't Board Certified). -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) Rather than making uncivil comments, why not investigate if the source would be considered reliable while we wait for more context? I find the articles laughable, and of course, it's a journal about quack pseudoscience. Still, Wikipedia:Verifiability/Noticeboard could be helpful. --Ronz 00:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check that out. What uncivil comments?! :-( -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"which you have discounted for some reason or antoher" --Ronz 00:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

That's uncivil? Have you not discounted every other source I have presented? I was only responding to what you said, ". . .this is no different from any previous source that we've discounted." If you really think this is uncivil, I sincerely apologize and will gladly strikeout. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 08:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Please strikeout. If you'd like further explanation, we can discuss on one of our talk pages. --Ronz 15:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Its just like the SSE

Elsevier's new 'scientific' journal

"EXPLORE: The Journal of Science & Healing

"It is an interdisciplinary journal that explores the healing arts, consciousness, spirituality, eco-environmental issues, and basic science as all these fields relate to health."

Acupuncture/Acupressure • Ayurveda • Biofeedback • Botanical or Herbal Medicine • Chiropractic • Consciousness • Creative Therapies • Diet/Nutrition/Nutritional Supplements • Environmental Medicine • Holistic Medicine/Nursing • Homeopathy • Indigenous Medical Practices • Manual Therapies • Mind-Body Therapies • Naturopathy • Osteopathic Medicine • Qigong/Tai Chi • Touch Therapies • Spiritual/Transpersonal Healing/Prayer • Tibetan Medicine • Traditional Chinese Medicine • Yoga

But how much science?" [[4]]

answer, not much (where not much equates the the amount of a substance useful in homeopathy). So here we have another quackology source masquerading as "science" and parrotting yet another Bolenism. I'clast should save his pennies and purchase a few journals that have this thing called credibility. Shot info 03:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This is yet another perfect example of an attack reference. This is against BLP. QuackGuru 03:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Just because the journal may not agree with everything that Barrett says, doesn't make it an attack reference. Unless you have good proof that a purpose of EXPLORE is to attack Barrett, then we must accept Explore for what it is, a scientific journal published by Elsevier (incidently the world's largest publisher of medical and scientific literature) and - in terms of Wikipedia - a reliable source. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 08:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there anyway to see this article without having to sign up to the site? I see sign in and also a section for how much it would cost to have an article. I can't see anything here and I don't sign up to sites I know nothing about, sorry. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's a problem. I'm certainly not paying $30 for what looks to be just a section of summarized press releases. --Ronz 15:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, unless someone who actually reads the article can assert that it isn't a sidebar and isn't a recycled press release, it's not reliable. Considering the number of times the recycled press release has appeared in peer-reviewed (or at least, they claim to be peer-reviewed) journals and in news reporting services, I think we need someone to assert that they read the quote and it really is in the article, not in a sidebar, and not within a quote from Negrete.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 21:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC).

In the page image (p. 11), the news article is in leftmost columns 1 and 2 (of 3 for the page), slightly longer than one page-column total, and about half way through. The text of the paragraph is not a quote, much less a quote attributed to Negrete. Negrete is not even mentioned until the last paragraph.--I'clast 06:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

So at the moment, it's not an RS per WP:RS. Shot info 22:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

That conclusion would be ORiginal SYN or just whole cloth ;-D ?--I'clast 06:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

More like a shroud :-) Shot info 06:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Alternative health

I guess we better discuss what is the right version. For starters, I'd like the quotes around "alternative" removed unless we're going to include a specific quote. Can we agree on this much at least and get an editprotected? ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 02:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I see at least two places where "alternative" or "alternative medicine" is quoted. I agree that they seem extraneous and ought to be removed. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur, but correcting errors or following WP policy (as in my 5 suggested edits above) seems a higher priority than style problems. Remember, though, I seem to be closer to neutral than most. You really need Fyslee or QuackGuru to concur to indicate a start at consensus. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Please let's stay on-topic. There's other talk sections for other issues. The highest priority is forward progress, so minor requests are also useful...

The request is: Per WP:MOS and Quotation_mark#Emphasis_.28incorrect.29, please remove the quotation marks put around the phrase "alternative" medicine (in several places in the article). It is not actually a quote.

Can we go ahead? ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 01:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

As above, "alternative medicine." and "alternative" health practitioners don't need quotation marks. Please change. Requesting after no objection to this request for 7 days. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 00:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I made the change. I agree with Arthur Rubin that a more important goal than style issues is to find consensus on the tone and content of the article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

edit request

{{editprotected}} Hi there. I invoke the policy (guideline) that the wrong version was protected. The board certification thing was added against BLP and against consensus. Also the court litigation was agreed upon to remove by consensus. See alarm bells. Please revert back to before the large amounts POV, BLP violations, and against consensus edits were made.Click here. This will lead you to the right version to protect. Thank you very much. _-Mr. ^o G-_ 03:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. There is no consensus and this article will most likely remained lock until we can work out the issues here with civility. I have made several points just above telling why this new material about the "lack of Board Certification" criticism has a place in this article as with Barrett's notable history of litigation. Please review my policy point and let's discuss. Perhaps we can come up with a solution which will satisfy all parties here. Sound good? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It is a well established de facto principle that Adms enforcing edit blocks do so without looking at exactly what version is being locked. A block is never an endorsement of the current version. It is only from Quackgurus POV that it was the wrong version. MaxPont 11:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd reject this {{editprotected}} request, even though I have a similar one with 5 specifics above. However, I don't think even WP:IAR would cover this one. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

 Not done Call me crazy, but from a quick look at the article's history and the discussions on this page, I would say that there isn't any consensus towards the paragraph in question for the current version to go against in the first place. Other admins, feel free to revert to the revision in question, but I do not feel that it is appropriate to continue edit-warring over the article through {{editprotected}} requests. Shadow1 (talk) 15:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and protection is not used to endorse the current version, as MaxPont stated. The page was protected due to edit warring, not to make it the "official" article version. If you feel that a certain revision should be used, that's great, but discuss it, don't try to have an admin push the revision on your behalf. We're the janitors, not the judges. Shadow1 (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Shadow1 has it exactly right... the protected version is always the wrong version. A tongue-in-cheek meta essay (which incidentally is neither "policy" or "guideline") isn't reason to make a change here.--Isotope23 16:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree and would very much like us all to follow Shadow1's advice and discuss whatever revisions anyone believes should be made. Come on, my fellow Wikipedians! We can do this amicably. I have faith - good faith - in all of you. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The alarm bells conversation was unresolved. I have faith in resolving this issue. The last post on the topic, was:

I find no evidence suggesting this issue has been discussed adequately. As always, I love reading specific diffs on the situation. My current position is that including the litigation information comes under this definitionn: Citing court documents to discuss court cases about a litigious subject. And hence, that falls within my understanding of WP:BLP WP:RS WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Is there any other policies you think we should consider in discussing this? ॐ Metta Bubble puff 04:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC) ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 00:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

BLP Violations

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability. (copy of policy)

The board certification thing was added against BLP and against consensus. Further, the court litigation was agreed upon to remove by consensus and it was also considered a BLP violation. See alarm bells. Keeping BLP violations in any article is against BLP policy. Do administrators endorse BLP violations against policy or do they agree with BLP policy? We shall see. Hmmm. Please clarify the little thing known as BLP. Thanx. _-Mr. ^o G-_ 17:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Content should be sourced to reliable sources. . .

The content is sourced to reliable sources.

. . .should be about the subject of the article specifically.

It is.

Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association.

Nothing like that is happening here.

Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons.

Certainly, but we are dealing with a criticism - not malicious at all in nature. Additionally, we give the subject a chance to defend himself.

If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

I am not pushing an agenda or biased point of view. Just trying to get this article right by including notable criticism. So not that it was necessary but, I have provided several third-party published sources which demonstrate the clear relevance to the subject's notability.

-- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You have not provided any third-party references to clearly demonstrate any relevance to the person's notability. Primamy sources and detractor (attack) references are not third-party. You have not explained how they are third-party because they are not. For example, Barrett has criticized chiros. Therefore, chiro refs can never be third-party. End of discussion. _-Mr. ^o G-_ 17:052, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I have provided a "3rd party" source above[5] for WP:RS, WP:V on board certification. Time to move on.--I'clast 21:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Well-done -- that citation looks fine (cf. their editorial board[6]). I no longer have any objection to including the BC stuff. Thanks for finding that! Jim Butler^(talk) 03:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

How do you think it would be best included? As part of Barrett's biography - simply with no interpretation? Or as criticism (as we currently have it) with context from his critics and his reply in defense? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 08:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sticking close to the source, I'd say the current form is fine. And I don't see the problem with it being derived from a press release as long as a reliable source decided the release was notable enough to publish. I can't find any WP policy saying otherwise, and media often use press releases as a source of information. I'm assuming that the editors vetted it somehow and aren't randomly regurgitating press releases: if it turned out that they are, I'd change my mind. Also, though I did have reservations about the Chiro newsletter stuff not meeting BLP, this journal is obviously fine, whether or not some consider it too quackish or unorthodox or bad or whatever. regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 19:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Levine2112, I support your urge to solve the problem in a constructive way and I think that most editors agree here. However, IMO there is little point in debating with Quackguru, whose disruptive behavior already has led to a formal rfc [[7]]. Quackgurus refusal to accept an invitaion to a formal Mediation about this issue is IMO pure obstruction. I think that the best way is to ignore Quackguru and try to reach a consensus with the other editors. (One obstructive editor does not have the right to veto a consensus building process.) MaxPont 18:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop with these blatant personal attacks against editors. Thanks. --Ronz 19:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope this discussion stays on track. The point of disagreement is whether the source should be considered third-party, or not. I don't think it's fair to say that since Barrett has criticized chiro generally therefore all chiro sources are unreliable (this is my understanding of QuackGuru's argument). It's far too broad for my liking. Using that logic, you could exclude anything about anyone in any bio. What if someone criticizes newspapers? Does that mean we can't cite any newspaper for their article? Of course not. What if someone criticizes mainstream medicine? Does that mean we can't cite mainstream medical journals? Of course not. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 00:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to put that point together myself, but I couldn't seem to get it across as succinctly. Needless to say, I totally agree with you here, Metta Bubble. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a lot of Anti-Barrett COI accusations, does it not? Shot info 00:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Drivel. There isn't even a hint of COI accusation in what Metta Bubble wrote here. Please reread. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 08:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I have problems with you not recognising your own SYN efforts, your comments are drivel in themselves. Shot info 22:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Such a summary is not remotely SYN. ABPN can be worked in howsomeever, an article which already clearly shows the linkage between ABPN and ABMS as Levine discussed about ABPN and ABMS before.--I'clast 06:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Such a summary is SYN and exactly SYN, the link to ABMS is misleading as they didn't exist (or rather they did exist, but they did perform the "certification" per se) when Barrett was "failing" his BC. Feel free to use the real information, not a synthesis of existing information to push a POV. Shot info 06:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Colleges in biographies, merged or changed names, are often referred to by the successor organization. Although the test has surely changed (as has say, the SAT & name), pls feel free to enlighten us how the results (certification) of ABPN testing administered today by the ABMS is so notably different to the previous result (certificationn) directly by ABPN to the WP readers and how that is pushing POV by Levine. Perhaps you can help improve any text involved.--I'clast 08:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

So, you agree that if the SYN supports your POV to violate BLP, then it's all ok? Anti-Barrett much? "There is clearly no consensus to include the board certification, the statement has clearly been used to advance an agenda in the past, it has been stated that "back in the day" it was not unusual for people not to be board certified, and it very obviously did not hamper Barrett's career. Wikipedia is not here to help Negrete or Barrett, but we do have a policy on biographies which says that controversial content comes out until there is consensus for inclusion and wording." Shot info 09:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not even sure which area you are alleging SYN now, still on the relatively trivial organizational and name changes om ABPN and ABMS? I continue to show expanded 3rd party coverage of the BC statement. Also a QW site publishes and references the BC part without refutation. So why not WP?

I will respectfully analyze JzG's stmt, which I take as an independent, good faith, conventional view that may not yet be as current on some details here at WP SB-QW (he is usually attending other articles) and in the recent (2002+) journals (where Dr Barrett's science positions can sometimes be clearly seen to be at least obsolete, and by some scientists' analyses, more problematic).

statement has clearly been used to advance an agenda in the past An unfortunate association with the QP-Bolen mailings, but not germane to neurologically related areas of SB-QW commentary that also happens to be at least obsolete as well as the general need to well describe qualifications of such a prominent popular (but not especially scientifically notable or consistent) author on health-medical-personnel and nominally science topics. This article still seriously fails to describe his educational and professional achievements objectively and completely, or comparably to other WP articles.

"back in the day..." True, for the start of Dr Barrett's career, a level of recognition of expertise attempted but unattained. But by the 1980's, well within his career, with the rise of HMOs, other organizations and new standards, it was the new standard of expectation (at least for new medical graduates).

did not hamper Barrett's career... Not his QW career, most of us (readers of 1970s-80s popular press and group think promotions) didn't even know about it, we just read the expert psychiatric witness part which carries some suggestion of BC (although not absolutely necessary). For his psychiatric career, that would appear to be OR where details of his actual psychiatric career are relatively shrouded and subject to adversarial speculation.--I'clast 10:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

"When in doubt, leave it out."

There is clearly no consensus to include the board certification, the statement has clearly been used to advance an agenda in the past, it has been stated that "back in the day" it was not unusual for people not to be board certified, and it very obviously did not hamper Barrett's career. Wikipedia is not here to help Negrete or Barrett, but we do have a policy on biographies which says that controversial content comes out until there is consensus for inclusion and wording. Guy (Help!) 11:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. QuackGuru 00:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I plan to work on the doubt part.--I'clast 11:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

As is your right. Please just refrain from the ad nauseum that has littered this page for months now. --Ronz 02:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

the board certification issue is a BLP violation

There is no third-party references and there is no consensus after multiple long debates. Time to stop. Agreed? QuackGuru 17:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

"no third party reference" is your repetitious, unsupported partisan assertion, especially since the last reference met all prior objective specifications from several months discussion, including Arthur's conditions[8]. It is sad that old opinions based on seriously incomplete information are able to insist, persist and continue disinforming readers so long at Wikipedia, especially after what appears to be a complete frustration, if not abuse, of the consensus process by a persistant minority of strongly pro-QW partisan editors. As for reasonable agreement, much less collaboration, with an MPOV troll, that appears to likely be an impossiblity[9].--I'clast 20:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the new source hasn't panned out as being anything other than what we've had before, a press release from Negrete. Also, please stop with the personal attacks. --Ronz 21:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, for a couple of days, you can read the Explore article here. (I don't know why I waste time on this stuff.) Looks like it's a basic duplicate of the Negrete press release. Make of that what you will. The journal is generally adequate as a V RS, but I'm not sure if reproducing a press release makes the grade for BLP or not. No strong feelings about the matter. However, if there is no consensus to add, it's time to MOVE ON. Since there is a BLP concern, it may be against WP policy to keep the stuff even on the talk page. Raising the question again and again, just to keep repeating the phrase "SB is not BC" and getting it into the search engines etc, could reasonably be seen as bad-faithish behavior. 'Nuff said. thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 21:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC) (link removed - Jim Butler^(talk) 03:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC))

Thanks. This confirms my earlier comments. Can we assume that QuackGuru, Arthur Rubin, and Shot info all stand by their earlier statements against using this source? --Ronz 21:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not suprised. More detractor references. We have zero third-party refs and this has gone on way too long. It was given a try. This should be over not tomorrow but today. Enough is enough. Agreed? QuackGuru 00:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Today's improved "BC" reference source: from Forbes.com Notice that Wikipedia defines RS 2nd sources as sources with an editorial policy and a responsibility for fact checking. If such a source prints something THEY stand behind their article. It is beside the point that they got the input from a press release. There are estimates that large fractions of the articles in mainstream media are thinly disguised rewrites of press releases from big government and big corporations. Again the "BC" starts out with a supermajority, and although editors that see the merit of BC have been confronted with repeatedly changed interpretations and arguments on V RS policies, I am confident that we are going to work it out, both on the logic of references & sources and that the references & sources are improving on still recent news. There is a more fundamental discussion about excluding material that concerns the Koren trial, but that will await another morning.--I'clast 11:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

There is an extensive criticism of mainstream media building on the fact that up to 40 percent of mainstream newspaper articles are little more than thinly disguised rewrites of press releases or similar “media packs” from the large PR agencies. To use a press release as the foundation of an article is a common practice. We can like it or not, but by including it as editorial text the publisher takes responsibility for the claims and facts in the article. The newspaper stands behind the text, see WP:ATT. Wikipedia editors are not in the position to cherry-pick what articles we like or not. We have to accept that two secondary RS (Dynamic Chiropractic and Explorer) now have published the news item and stand behind it. MaxPont 12:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

So some editors no longer care that the these are Negrete's press releases? --Ronz 14:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS, V articles contain or reference the wrtten statements of a prevailing attorney at trial, more recently sustained upon appeal, substantially repeated again in writing, and as far as I can see, without even legal challenge from Dr Barrett. Negrete is an experienced licensed lawyer, not just some wannabe, involved in winning several court cases involving Dr Barrett. Reliable sources have used the prevailing attorney and his written quotes to varying degrees as primary sources.--I'clast 17:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

And that this information has been published by major magazines and scienitific journals adds much to the argument that the lack of Board Certification should be included. We are not just dealing with a press release from a "partisan" source anymore. This is EXPLORE. This is Forbes. Including Barrett's lack of Board Certification (either in his biography or with full context in the criticism section) is hardly arguable anymore. Every point of BLP is satisified now; furthermore, Barrett has come to Wikipedia and told us that this information is not private. It has been public for 30+ years. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

If any editor wants to include the board revisionism certification, they can go directly talk to the administrator who removed it.[10] Agreed?  QuackGuru  talk 00:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Really not necessary, but it is a good suggestion. I think now with the Explore and the Forbes articles covering this issue, even more editors are going to be pro-inclusion of Barrett's lack of Board Cerification. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

First, there clearly is no consensus. Second, consensus cannot overide BLP policy. Board certification revisionism is a BLP violation. Moreover, threre are exactly zero third-party refs. Third, the 3RR does not apply to BLP violations of any kind. Do we all agree with Wikipedia policy?  QuackGuru  talk 00:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Forbes and Explore are both third-party sources. That takes care of all of the BLP violations which you believe exist. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

They are not third-party refs. According to Guy the board cerification is revisionism.[11] We can't ignore BLP policy. Agreed?  QuackGuru  talk 00:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The situation is unchanged. We still have no third-party refs, only Negrete's press releases in various forms. --Ronz 02:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

How can you say that Forbes and Explore aren't third-party refs? This makes very little sense. These are each credible publications which both mention that Barrett is not Board Certified. There is no controversy surrounding that he isn't Board Certified. We all agree that he isn't. All of these other sources are just showing how notable of a fact this is. So now we have a scientific journal, three trade publications, a major magazine, several web-based publications, two research papers, two legal documents, and Barrett himself at Wikipedia all confirming that Stephen Barrett is not Board Certified. How much notability to you require to satisfy WP:WEIGHT? -- Levine2112 ^discuss

This has been explained before they are not reliable as third-party. Notablility may be irrelevant because it is revisionism. If there are any third-party refs in the future, you still can't include it in the article because it is revisionism. Most people were not certified and it was irrelevant. Thus, it is misleading and not a criticism. It is soley used to advance an agenda. Revisionism is against a little thing known as BLP. Agreed?  QuackGuru  talk 15:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

QG & revisionism rebuttal

In your opinion, multiple publications publishing a recently surfaced fact are unreliable, including mainstream publications and Dr Barrett's site. hmmmm.

Notability may be irrelevant because it is revisionism Wow, not even Russia was that confused about "revisionism" in the 90s (you could see their thunderstruck faces when a commonplace fact or practice in the US was stated, they were doing things 50+ years behind, and sometimes *quite* glad to revise). A statement of an until recently, little known *fact* is revisionism of a successful public self promotion that included convenient omission? Many readers *do* want such a "revised" edition of WP - I would have 30 years ago, exactly as I have read Dr Barrett's comments & biographies.

Yes, 99.99%+ of people were not ABPN certified in the 1960's and little doubt those that *were* ABPN certified thought their certification was quite relevant. This biography is promotional partly because it repeatedly asserts "top" expertise examples in a seriously unbalanced manner when there are other important 3rd party determinations of expertise missing. Like missing the 1/3 or so that did get certified in the area of greatest academic preparation for a medical profession, for an individual that broadly proclaims his sweeping judgment on medicine and science, even outside his field of specialization, that affects millions' health. Quite relevant.

Also the academic legal preparation is unmentioned. The continued factual lapses are seriously erroneous by omission.--I'clast 20:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Revisionism is a BLP violation and a synthesized critcism. Its time for all us us to discontinue talking about this rewrite of history (misleading criticism). Board certified has nothing to do with anything but to advance an agenda. Wikipedia is not the place for this.  QuackGuru  talk 01:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually YOU are pushing "revisionism", where the *current* 21st century fact set simply does not fit your POV, to present a "barbie doll" idealized figure in a caricature of nature's form. (Ab)Using an external personality's agenda as an excuse to protect the (vocal minority) "home team's" agenda against a supermajority is a better statement of the situation. Nowhere have I encountered factual resistance as here at fairytale land where two common type biographical facts, pertinent to professional background have been absent past mentioning.

Reviewing WP:BLP line by line, I have to strenuously disagree that "BC" is a BLP violation. Perhaps there is a maximally favorable or NPOV version best for you, such as Crohnie's Biography version, or the most complete context as the Criticism version, I could abide by either.--I'clast 05:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The best version for me is when in doubt leave it out. The criticism revisionism is against Wikipedia's BLP.  QuackGuru  talk 21:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-productive repetition.--I'clast 05:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

litigation

The extra long details about the litigation also has no consensus for inclusion. Time to stop. Agreed? QuackGuru 17:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Chopping out the facts most relevant to readers' needs for people that are trying to access and assess *current*, correct information seems to be a favorite pastime here. A positive consensus to include the material was clearly formed last year, before the additional QW partisans, still a small minority in the recent strawpolls, rallied to the mothership to once again rewrite history less factually, an increasingly bad habit here. Also see my answer above[12].--I'clast 20:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we show that there is sufficient consensus to change the consensus?--I'clast 11:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, if secondary sources are need for the litigation section, here are some which we can add to start:

• Justices hand victory to free speech online - Howard Mintz, San Jose Mercury News
• Calif. Supreme Court Shields Web Republishers - Jessie Seyfer, Law.com
• How Web providers dodged a big legal bullet - Eric J. Sinrod, CNET News.com
• High court justices sound cool toward Internet libel case - Bob Egelko, San Francisco Chronicle

-- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree there should be a litigation section. It shall remain. However, the current size of the section is extremely long and is overpowering the article. Oh my. First, all or most of the primary refs are out. Second, it should not be a huge section. This article is about a person and not litigation. If we can't agree, what is the next step. Its called no consensus. Agreed? QuackGuru 00:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

We're all aware of the details of BLP and NPOV now, so this should be easy to at least identify the issues. Primary refs need to be backed by others to determine WEIGHT. We need to identify partisan sources and have non-partisan sources for issues that are controversial or otherwise might violate BLP. --Ronz 01:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that any of the sources above can be qualified as "partisan". Agreed? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

That is not the point. We are talking about the HUGE size of the section. As it stands, the section is way too long. Agreed?  QuackGuru  talk 23:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the section is too large. It basically covers all of the cases in a very succinct manner. We could package everything up into paragraph form, but I fear it may not be as clear of a resource as it is now. I am guessing that adding commentary from secondary sources wouldn't be ideal to you, as it would make the section longer. Perhaps then, we can just use them as refs to qualify the data with reliable secondary sources and thus satisfy any BLP concerns which you may have. Otherwise, we can use these sources to expand on the issues and get some qualified insight. That being said, the Barrett v. Rosenthal article is probably a more appropriate place to expand on these subjects (or at least the cases related to B v. R). So - and sorry, just thinking as I am typing here - we probably would be better served using these secondary sources as bolsters to the existing sources. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The section is way too large. This is obvious. Start a new article if you believe it is notable.  QuackGuru  talk 15:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

No valid reason has been given to have such a huge section. A basic covering of litigation is all that is necessary. A summary is best.  QuackGuru  talk 21:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Secondary sources have been added. There is no policy against a large section, especially when there is a lot to cover. What is there is pretty cut-and-dry; no interpretation, no analysis, just the facts. These cases are all notable; some determining important case law (as evidences by many of the sources provided). The Barrett v. Clark series (Sherell, Fonorow, Rosenthal, et cetera) all amount to determining some of the most important Internet rights issues of our time. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with QuackGuru. It's true that Barrett v. Clark is a notable case, but it's only notable for deciding a particular issue of law after Barrett's claims had expired. The other litigation doesn't seem particularly notable in any way. Third party sources often cite his litigiousness, but we don't need to have a subheading for every case. Probably we can cover each one in a couple of sentences. Cool Hand Luke 17:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

All of the litigation listed are related to the same case, in a sense. They all are libel cases stemming from the publication or republication of the same or similar material. That being said, perhaps all of the cases can be summarized into paragraph form rather than going case-by-case. We need to show how pervasive these suits were. (Each is wholly relevent, but the there is something to be said about the sum total of the combined cases) Aside for Mercola (a notable figure in his own right who seems to have opted for settlement), the other cases all resulted in a Barrett defeat - typically because the statements were found not be libelous and that Barrett could not prove actual malice. We need to mention how Barrett v. Clark eventually lead to Barrett v. Rosenthal, which is certainly a landmark case in terms of Internet law, and we need to briefly discuss Barrett v. Rosenthal's outcome (then point the reader to the main article for that case). -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

litigation

I tend to agree with Levine here. > Levine said in part: All of the litigation listed are related to the same case, in a sense. That means they are all repetitive and can be shortened. Agreed?  Mr.Guru  talk  03:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Subpage for trial edits: Talk:Stephen Barrett/Temp

I'clast suggested above:

As a means of going forward, I might suggest a separate subpage for trial edits (and perhaps different versions) on the litigation section since article space is locked.

I think this is a good idea, and it would help focus the discussions by having a separate page which we can edit and refer to. --Ronz 18:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I am misreading the intention of this request, but I don't think that Barrett's pursuit of libel litigation is notable enough to garner its own page. I definitely think it needs to be part of Barrett's article as his libel litigation is in part responsibile for his notariaty. Above, I have listed four articles which discuss Barrett v. Rosenthal (and cases leading up to this landmark case including Barrett v. Clark). When the article becomes unlocked, my plan is to support much of the primary court records with these secondary (and third party) sources. If you would like to discuss how to implement these sources (as just backup sources, to give context, to give commentary, or in some other way), I am open to suggestions. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The idea, unless I'm misreading I'clast's comment, is to have a page separate from talk where we could work on the edits that we want to eventually go to the main page. It would be a workspace for us while the page is locked. --Ronz 02:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I've created Talk:Stephen Barrett/Temp for our use. It's a copy of the protected article minus the categories. I think I've followed WP:SUBPAGE pretty carefully, but wouldn't be surprised if I overlooked something. It has it's own history, but no talk. All discussion should be here. --Ronz 22:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

FAQ?

Given how often editor's are asking the same questions, and bringing up the same issues, would a FAQ be useful here? I'm not sure it would be, given most questions are about other editors opinions or previous discussions. Still, it's worth considering. --Ronz 19:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I am unclear what you are requesting here. Give us examples of questions which you believe are frequently asked and have set answers which we can all agree to. Where would this FAQ exist? On the article? On this talk page? Elsewhere?-- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The FAQ would be a page separate from this talk page, similar to an archive. I'm just throwing the idea out for consideration. I'm not sure I can think of good questions to use either. --Ronz 02:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Intelligent design (side bar to the right of the table of contents) for an example. Avb ÷ talk 14:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a request for help on this by my mentor. I'll get back to you when I know something. --CrohnieGal^Talk 00:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Names of children and spouse included, but failure to meet board standards is irrelevant?

Here is a retired medical doctor who has taken on a mission to denounce and discredit areas of medicine that in his judgment constitute "quackery," and there are editors who believe that his credentials, or lack thereof, are irrelevant to the article, but the names of his children are relevant? And this we are supposed to take seriously? --Leifern 00:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly having trouble taking these comments seriously. See previous discussions please. --Ronz 02:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Abstain. I'm neutral on including or excluding the children. However, if the relevancy cannot be demonstrated it can be removed.  QuackGuru  talk 02:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I move for removing their names. The information isn't relevant to the article, and considering the hatred (also quite evident right here) and threats aimed at Barrett, there is no justification for also exposing them to such things. -- Fyslee/talk 00:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Fyslee. Avb ÷ talk 14:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} I removed the names. Per WP:BLP, names of non-public individuals should only be included in articles if there is an extremely strong reason to do so, and I see none here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree per Carl, AvB and Fyslee. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikilink NCCAM

The NCCAM needs to be wikilinked to U.S. National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. -- Fyslee/talk 00:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Stemonitis 15:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Biography, completed prof'l background

Barrett is a 1957 graduate of the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, completed his psychiatry residency in 1961 but is not board certified. In 1968, he had completed 1¹/₂ years of a correspondence course in American Law and Procedure at LaSalle University Extension Division, Chicago. He was a licensed physician until retiring from active practice in 1993,...

It is literal, factual and NPOV minimalist, covering material of intrinsic encyclopedic relevance to give a more minimally complete précis on professional backround.--I'clast 12:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Zero sources for BC thing, no consensus, no go.
2. See also this counter-proposal. Avb ÷ talk 14:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

1. "zero sources" sounds seriously POV now, such a logic seems should silence some articles derived from presidential press secretaries, too. Simply the bare facts should be presented NPOV.
2. re counterproposal. A little fluffy with disparate level facts and excess detail. Parts of the med school clerk & internship years are often scattered, "completed" there is like an encyclopedia saying: "GWB, a graduate of Sam Houston Elementary School, completed 3rd grade in Mrs. Childress' class[13]. GWB later completed high school at Andover."
3. re licensing. Personally I think that the current article's sentence is lengthy, the first use of license is redundant, but the second use of license encyclopedically resolves a public issue that has been raised. Otherwise I am relatively indifferent to it and think that it is favorable to Dr Barrett.

Reworking your "counter proposal" accordingly:

Barrett is a 1957 graduate of the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons in 1958. He completed his psychiatry residency at Temple University Hospital in 1961 but was never board certified. In 1967 and 1968 he followed a correspondence course in American Law and Procedure at La Salle Extension University.

Barret worked as a psychiatrist, consultant and medical director in military, legal and hospital settings from 1961 to 1991. He had a private practice from 1963 until retiring in 1993. and his medical license is currently listed as "Active-Retired" in good standing.^[2] A longtime resident of Allentown, Pennsylvania, Barrett now resides in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

--I'clast 20:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying hard to find links to try to end this dispute. Really I don't care but I came across these sites, [14],[15] and [16]. So what I am saying is the above links should be taken into account with this on going dispute. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I do work hard on policy based resolution as you reference, i.e. Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion ...We include text in articles based on such policies as verifiability and encyclopedicity, not based on whether the text is popular among voters. I am directly addressing and identifying claimed issues in verifiability and encyclopedicity. I also periodically mention the supermajority, as both a reminder of perceived need for factual text and because I have the unmistakeable feeling that some in the very active minority here seek to foreclose discussion when their arguments are weak and (f)lag.--I'clast 05:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'clast, that's not really an improvement I'm afraid. But even if it were, you haven't indicated how you're going to persuade opponents to allow the sources [2] (Barrett in response to an attack from a Wikipedia editor) and [3] (a chiro source). Zero sources about covers it. Nothing new here, just a waste of time. Avb ÷ talk 21:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

re ..allow sources First, we are going to grind the situation analysis to the fine points because I maintain there are some disconnects on facts & policy interpretations being used at critical junctures that need definition to come into focus for 3rd parties. [2] including the discussion by Dr Barrett, here, has nothing to do with why he stated "not BC", and your mentioned "attack" seemed to deal with the trial's question of funding sources and the possiblity of implied COI, 1964 vs later BC frequencies, exchanges mostly with MD1954 rather than some kind of non-permissible "dr evel" statement. Dr Barretts statements are still admissible.

regarding ...[3] (a chiro source) My mistake AvB, when I scooped the text out of the archive in edit mode between two AvB signatures, I got Levine's nearly identical version with BC and those two refs and popped into the WP current editor, thinking you had dumped only the licensing part in that proposal, not both pieces as stated later. If you were willing to keep the chiro reference then (ok, you weren't), I wasn't going to argue now. The chiro reference (sh)could be replaced with either EXPLORE and/or forbes.com as non-chiro pubs coverage of Koren.--I'clast 05:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Zero sources? Thats irrelevant. Board cerification revisionism is a BLP violation regardless of whatever sources presented. And thats the end of that. Waste of time? Agreed.  QuackGuru  talk 21:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Empty cant[17].--I'clast 05:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

In view of the responses during the preceding 3.5 months, it may be impossible to persuade opponents that we can cite Explore or Forbes.com in support of this content. Explore's scientific reputation has become tainted by uncritically printing Negrete's unscientific press release. The cited part of Forbes.com is just a press release relay. Also note that my already low opinion of associatedcontent.com hit rock bottom recently. Avb ÷ talk 08:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Look. Dr Barrett and Negrete are not likely friends (well, see Falwell & Flint) and might get a date to the US Supreme Court one of these days. That's why we have policies and standards on news coverage. Essentially you all (try to) impeach multiple RS news media over several years (here, 2005 & 2007) with only ad hominem attacks on Negrete because you have personal disagreements, much greater than Dr Barrett's mere demurrals on importance or relevance, on simple facts, because now your "mainstream" news sources are "obviously" biased, stupid, unwitting or whatever alleged (s)pawn-of-the-devil accomplices. Instead of endless denials of others' WP:RS sources, I would suggest that if you don't like the news, (1) you try to convince Dr Barrett to win with better cases so that he is more likely to have the quoted interview or statment in the news after winning at trial and the ultimate appeal. This is one reason why some (including academics) perceive WP to have some serious POV, bias problems.

I try hard to develop facts and encyclopedic text. I *do not* feel that the basic Biography sketch remotely qualifies as NPOV encyclopedic right now. It is POV POS promotion, deletionsim and denial, one on top another on 2 simple facts that meet the policies on fair minded review.

Or (2) that meanwhile, if you are going to try to impeach an article from a "mainstream" source, I suggest you find a few WP:V contradictions - even on hard science facts it has taken me 4 hard contradictions with the promise of 6 more if needed to impeach an article from a cheesy "mainstream" source where the conflict was obvious. Why should you all now get such a big discount with mere ad hom hand waving allegations on multiple tier WP:RS sources (Negrete in writing. in official capacity upon favorable court ruling, reporter, editor, board responsibility) only? That's not good enough. The "not board certified" has been sourced through QW's Chirobase, Forbes.com, Dr Barrett himself here, EXPLORE (non-DC) among others, covering the trial in 2005 and the recent appeal court ruling in 2007 (sustained). These are indications of a serious bias and POV problem in operation here contravening verifiability and encyclopedicity as standard of article writing.--I'clast 10:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

First you do realize that anyone can release a press release for print, right? Also the new links above I got to check out one so far [18] this is a blogger site which to my understanding is not allowed. Also my understanding is that the press release being spread around also doesn’t mean inclusion according to the way I understand the policies of WP:BLP. Then add to the support that this should be allowed is because Dr. Barrett himself stated on Wikipedia that it was never hidden. I thought the using Wikipedia for a source for something like this is not acceptable. There are two editors here using a link written by Ilena Rosenthal,[19] with her website attached, being used to support all of this BC stuff. My understanding of her situation is that she is blocked for a year and indefinitely blocked for anything she has COI in. I asked about this earlier and all I got was a response that maybe some would like it to stay. According to the rules a blocked editor should not be quoted nor have any impact to articles she is permanently blocked from. And finally I posted this link, [20] Please take note of the date on the top. It says ten years and it is dated 2002 which if I am reading correctly the BC shouldn't be used because it is after the retirement.

It's time everyone to reread and rethink the notability, weight and verification and don't forget BLP rules. I think my links show why at least I do not believe this should be added to the article. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyone non-notable can issue a press release - they can be and are frequently ignored by the various news. We apply BLP and other policies develop WP:V and WP:RS material. What bloggers comments are doesn't matter to WP, yea or nay, we can't control what they say and we don't need to listen to them. I am not clear who you are saying used that link[21] where or before. Also I am not aware that her articles or news quotes are prohibited from quotation per se if she gets herself published in a suitable WP:RS source - given the problems and treatment that some experts have had at WP that might really shrink WP's source base. Do you have a link to such a statement or policy?

She was indefinitely blocked, which is not synonymous with a "permanent block". In the press of the RFAR near the end, she popped off about another conflicting editor's identity, possible association and possible COI in the wrong place and way, after stretching the admins patience. It was not her COI per se, of which she was most open - she had her own BLP treatment problems here, but rather her fiery conflicts, partisan views, and slow development with some WP rules (too accustomed to USENET) that got the one year and article edit prohibition. When she was provoked, she stayed provoked, and she was (easily) provoked immediately and constantly by editors that were her adversaries in other venues, something that several WP editors (and admins) tried to help stop unsuccessfully.

The "triple board" program has nothing to with Dr Barrett and a successfully acquired BC is something that now has to be maintained by applicable training, research or professionally related reading (back then BC tended to be more permanent), again all issues that have nothing to do with Dr Barrett or the BC qualification issue. The BC qualification issue is variously notable, including where an author asserts expertise (and strong opinions) on many related subjects (medical and psychiatric) that others, often more formally qualified , researched, or professionally distinguished in science and/or medicine, either greatly disagree or feel that implied (or asserted) expert opinion is lacking or the parties related standing is in conflict. This includes subject categories that were covered by the original BC exams. The BLP policy should be considered for tone and taste in writing about basic biographic (including BC) facts that are part of the author's life & career (also pertaining to a significant investment in time and money, for both training and practice) and pertinent to millions impacted by his numerous, forceful, controversial views. However, neither should BLP claims become a fig leaf or crutch for POV. The "press release" ceases to be a press release when it is sourced and altered for WP:RS publication, the lack of BC is verified multiple ways (author's direct quote, author's related site coverage, news coverage (especially notability) from multiple sources).--I'clast 18:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)

My opinion after reading Crohnie's post and I'clast's response: I'm not sure about the triple board article, but for the rest I do not see how I'clast's response even partially refutes Crohnie's points. A note about the item written by a blocked editor, linking to their attack site: I agree we might cite/link/quote it on a talk page (and possibly in an article) if it had been published in a RS, minus any attacks on WP editors or links to same, etc. If this editor ever gets published in a source we can use on anything but themselves, I'll be the first to admit I'clast had a point here after all. In the meantime, the link under discussion is clearly inappropriate as input for the consensus process on the talk page of Barrett's bio and completely useless as a source. It's one of the many things that (as argued by QuackGuru and Crohnie) should be removed from the talk page. Like the Chiropractic talk page, this page is regularly used to repeat attacks on Barrett by partisan editors. Avb ÷ talk 11:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought that I answered the underlying policy issues even if the answer is long winded. Pls reread it. Crohnie's points on IR are extraneous to the the material I am interested in for SB article space and I have no plan to use that link in the SB article as a reference.

I do not think that IR article is particularly unacceptable for the Talk page, rather news and a legitimate expression of a known pov that you are free to personally reject in whole or part. Again I have no idea *where* this link has been cited on talk (provide a dif please), to look at its context. I am very wary of the refactoring that goes on here on a basis that a cited page contains links are objectionable to some if the linked site is not WP blacklisted when the article contains legitimate related international news (whether the news is good or bad) that I was unfamiliar with.

It's time everyone to reread and rethink the notability, weight and verification and don't forget BLP rules. I have considered this at length and see no policy reason to not have brief, accurate rendition of Dr Barrett's professional background more or less as I am discussing. I think that categorizing discussion as attacks on Dr Barrett, unless the assertions are unsupported and defamatory, may be counterproductive. Let's try to get the professional background finished. Thanks--I'clast 12:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Re edit summary: IR link was proposed as a source, but is not even appropriate on talk page Re rereading: not necessary. Re rejecting a POV: I don't reject the POV expressed in that editor's associatedcontent.com post in whole or in part. Nor do I reject any POVs of Barrett's. I am here to document POVs, not to reject them. I am here to require the best of sources for a BLP. I am not editing any differently than I have done in scores of other articles. My arguments are no different than those of other experienced editors arriving here (JzG, Tony, JoshuaZ to name a few). I'm begging you, please give us some sources we can use. I do reject the incessant innuendo that ALL editors here have a POV that matches either the extreme of Barrett on one side and Bolen-Negrete-Rosenthal-unknown number of chiropractors-ear candlers-whatever on the other side. I'm begging you, please stop. That's all. Avb ÷ talk 13:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

PS Regarding any real news here (the Dutch court case I think): that's being covered by reliable sources in the Netherlands so it is available for use in Wikipedia. First impression: (1) The reliable sources (such as the Volkskrant newspaper) are either neutral or negative about the ruling. (2) Barrett isn't mentioned. Avb ÷ talk 13:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Doing a text search of Talk and the last archive for the "IR" link, I can't find an original reference about the IR link or related conversation so criticism of the IR link seems spontaneous, disparaging and distracting unless you (AvB or Crohnie) have a dif. This would also be an example of why deletionist refactoring is a problem.

"Personally reject" I mean simply disagree or ignore, not REJECT as in delete, this practice I disagree as going too far if the link is used in normal, good faith conversation (still no clue where and how the missing link was used).

I will state we are miles apart on the need for additional sources on BC and I have not seen such interpretation of requirements required before, formerly the mistaken notability argument. It is very pertinent, factual, newsworthy and multiply verified on normal biographical sketch information. I think the much pumped derivative RS position is largely argumentative ad hom with respect to coverage on Negrete - if he can't be beat on several tries in court or silenced in the news, his pertinent factual statements can be silenced here. This is effectively requiring an even higher level of notability (for whole WP articles?) and coverage on a minor news event for a pertinent, WP:V³ fact that may contradict a one-sided, monolithically Jovian Biography section on Dr Barrett.

The choice of words and phrases like "innuendo", "sources...begging you please stop" and "...chiropractors-ear candlers-whatever" in your reply don't build communication and trust. Although I agree there are not "two shoes", one size fits all for either "side", it simply seems to me the edits have often polarized to one degree or another with respect to QW and Dr Barrett even though we are much different as individuals, that all. No subscription needed.

I, like most Americans, am not literate in the Belgian or Dutch languages. As far as the IR article being grossly imbalanced or unfair, her translation/interpretation of the news seemed to reasonably parallel a "skeptic" site's view, near the end of the news (it's long, about 18:30 - 24 minutes in), where the American "skeptics" were espousing a questionable, if not unethical, scorched earth "legal" strategy - better to not pay the 30,000 Euro judgment (+ court costs) and disband a 125 year old group than to comply with the court's ruling (and fine). Perhaps you could identify better English language sources (elsewhere, not here) since you are multilingual and can verify for yourself the local coverage, which still likely will have different subject views than an international audience. However, I do view this whole "IR" link/delete business as an off topic distraction (no dif to a relevant discussion), unfavorable to my discussion of Dr Barrett's professional background, so I wish to discontinue any (distracting) IR related debates.--I'clast 21:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

diff.

If you need translations or summaries of Dutch sources (Dutch is the language of the Netherlands and the northern half of Belgium) as well as German (the language of Germany, most of Austria and parts of Switzerland) and French (the language of France and parts of Canada): feel free to ask me.

An acceptable source is all I ask. Avb ÷ talk 21:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the dif, AvB. The link's usage in Talk seems quite ordinary in nature.

re "acceptable source is all..." There is no real policy basis to require another source under WP:RS or BLP. Rather these continued source requests reflect a collection of shifting, individuals' personal preferences combined, arbitrary in their very nature, that maintain a glowing (one-sided), non-encyclopedic Biography section. First it was "WP:Notability", nope. Then RS for the DCA and/or WCA sources (fine at RS noticeboard), then RS for EXPLORE (an Elservier publication), and lately Forbes.com, on top of the author's QW site, Chirobase, and the author's allowable statements here, quite satisfying BLP, too.

Now another source? This has become just like a Charlie Brown[22][23] gag. You (all) should show definitive policy or impeach the sources with hard policy (line quotes) and WP:V facts, not just ad hom allegations that dismiss the RS sources (publishers) and personal preferences for the articles content and personages interviewed or covered, to continue the errors by (com)omission of basic biographical facts on pertinent, professional background for a basic biographic sketch. This type of information is ordinary in other biographies.--I'clast 11:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

"Impeaching" the sources: That has already been done. I refer you to the previous discussion. Regardless, it is not the duty of the disputing editor to show why sources can't be used. It is the duty of the including editor to show that they can be used and meet all relevant policies, especially WP:BLP (see e.g. the ArbCom's policy explanation in the Badlydrawnjeff case. And that has not been done. Not by you, not by anyone else. "Unscientific press release" is not an ad hom by the way. And neither is "... chiropractors-ear candlers": I was arguing that it is not a good thing to label certain editors as sharing the POV of Bolen-Negrete-Rosenthal-unknown number of chiropractors-ear candlers-whatever: i.e. as defenders of everything Barrett opposes. Avb^talk 23:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Previously the usual editors opposed to "not BC" wrote vigorously, but absent a real policy basis. I have tried to summarize this in the new section, "BLP & not impeaching a source, fine'," below. I think that using disparaging sounding terms, e.g. BNR chiro-ear candlers, to make a point is an error. I'm sorry if in the effort to adequately & briefly identify & describe the populations with adequate terminology on clear sides of an issue is difficult.--I'clast 12:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see the current discussion started here. The policy-based arguments to exclude the disputed text have never been refuted. That they failed to convince a number of editors whose collective editing pattern is quite recognizable was to be expected. No convincing policy-based arguments to include have been forthcoming. That they failed to convince another group of editors whose collective editing pattern is also quite recognizable was to be expected. I have seen a lot of arguments that tried to change WP:BLP into something it isn't, or even tried to undermine our bedrock policy, NPOV, arguing in favor of allowing sources that are simply not allowable. This discussion ended a long time ago without a consensus to include. Continuing it serves no purpose whatsoever other than to clutter up the talk page, drive away productive editors and stand in the way of progress editing this article. Avb^talk 20:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Refuted. Jimbo's Langan intervention appears to be Jimbo saying building the whole ~290 word lawsuit section *entirely* from primary sources about a contentious subject was not acceptable. Ok, this seems to have nothing to with your "BLP policy citation" where as few as three words of [augmentive] fact ("not Bd Certified") have several secondary sources, are slapped with one major extension of Wikilawyering. Another Wikilawyer leap appears to be your (collective) OR that transforms several diverse publications back from secondary sources (at least one) into a single primary source (Negrete), however edited without *any* credit to the publications/publishers (Forbes, Elsevier, APNews etc). Your argument to suppress an augmentive fact, is already covered for inclusion in BLP even for primary sources (these *are* multiple publishers as at least one secondary source!), in an ordinary summary of professional qualifications. Jimbo's intervention is the then twisted and magnified to jump up several notches exclusion or blessings is just convenient POV pushing by a certain group of editors.

The "unacceptable sources" argument to deny multiple sources(EXPLORE magazine, forbes.com, DCA magazine, WCA magazine), *on top* of the primary subject's self sources, has become laboriously overlawyered, at least doubly (over)stretched policy - ridiculous and abusive. A simple fact, an encyclopedic fact, a neutral fact, a noted fact (several times), an subject agreed fact, a (site cited) self published fact, a POV balancing fact. That's plenty good enough.--I'clast 11:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a request for help on this by my mentor. I'll get back to you when I know something. --CrohnieGal^Talk 00:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I have requested help about this from another editor who has posted here as an outside uninvolved editor. But please clear up one thing for me, are you saying that the IR article is allowable along as she isn't the one posting it? As for your saying a line by line policy quotes should be done about this, well, I will wait until either my mentor or the administrator appears with their opinion. For the record, I don't care about Barrett and I am very neutral about all of this unlike you who has a big WP:POV by your own admissions. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me answer your IR question in two parts. 1. Is *this* IR article from that source usable in the main SB article? No. It was simply part of a normal discussion between Levine and Arthur where the subject of IR had arisen and had an interesting point, that SB-IR was not the only public speech related case where QW style rhetoric or related lawsuits had received unfavorable legal results. 2. In principle, can an IR article be quoted or referenced at Wikipedia SB/QW? Oh, yes. If IR can get her material through the editorial processes at Time, Readers Digest (similar to Dr Barrett's original notability) or other recognizable publishers, the resultant material is much more likely to be briefly notable & acceptable here after normal WP policy reviews for WP:V, WP:RS, WP:BLP. I would predict most likely in the Criticism or legal sections. Ditto if a Time reporter quotes her. All subject to the normal editing processes here and Time.

Do I have a personal opinion? Like everyone, including you, yes, I do. I also have a pretty fierce and pragmatic SPOV that is fairly broadly informed with elements of penetration that have often been a surprise to recognized or supposed experts. You may think you "know" my point of view, you don't.--I'clast 19:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

First, you have made it very clear that you do not like Dr. Barrett. As for me, I am pretty neutral on this subject. I am in contact with my mentor now and hopefully I will have some answers or he will come here. I, of course had to update him on this article since this is not an article he edits or follows so I gave him some links to read. I think that the IR info should not be on the page according to what ARB said but her and articles that she is involved in plus article that are alternates, except ones about breast implants. To me it looks like you and Levine are posting on her behalf. I am sorry but that is what it looks like. I am trying real hard to WP:AGF but your comments are making this hard to follow. I will let you all know when I know something from the two editors I have written to. Please be patient with me, I am trying real hard to follow policies. --CrohnieGal^Talk 00:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Crohnie, that edit has some assumptions and aspersions. You may not be aware that your edits & history do not quite seem so neutral in a number of ways. You are the one who has raised the IR related link here, again. There is no proposal to use IR's link in the article and the "secondary boycott" to refactor a Talk page based on a contained link contained within a legitimate exchange seems partisan (and misdirected) to me. I do not post Ilena's links or philippics here, I never have (I first used that link on *this Talk page* to identify my request for a dif from you or AvB since you were fussing about Ilena's "presence" so much that the fuss has detracted from other discussions). I have collaborated with Ilena when she was here, as I have with Fyslee and other editors vigorously opposed to her. I have sometimes utilized Ilena's material and knowledge as a resource since she has significant background in USENET (ugh) but we are quite different. I probably have had much more technical agreement and commonality with some of her avowed opponents around here. When I was younger, I viewed Dr Barrett pretty favorably, I am still not comfortable addressing his name other than as Dr. Last year there were serious science, promotional POV and WP:V factual issues that needed to be addressed in Dr Barrett's bio, it has not been easy to adjust. If I sometimes sound aggravated around the SB / QW / NCAHF area, it probably has more to do with the general stress levels of the edit area, than Dr Barrett himself.

I never edited or spoke of Stephen Barrett publicly (internet, USENET, Wikipedia etc) until last year, here at Wikipedia only, and Ilena late last year (about October I think, I had not even known of her), here at Wikipedia only. Can you say the same?--I'clast 12:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

BLP & not impeaching a source, fine'

BLP is about privacy and protection of persons for harm. Dr Barrett is a public person, even saying, "I am the media," who has long sought the spotlight to forcefully project his views in medicine and science as some form of popular authority. He has severely criticized others' research (see Linus Pauling in the SB article), commercial offerings (see KingBio) and communications (see Koren and Barrett v Rosenthal) yet upon some legal challenges he has been decisively defeated at trial & appeal where his credentials have challenged for relevance (KingBio, Koren). It is only natural that an encyclopedia accurately reports on his professional credentials without the bias as currently written. Indeed it seems seriously irresponsible to do otherwise with WP:RS, WP:V facts that are not even close to BLP. He's not under age, he is a public person, a public commnetator by intent, he has been in the news repeatedly, he displays the most positive parts of his credentials liberally, he says he is not thin skinned, and he is known to liberally rebuke those whom he claims defame him, and yet here, himself he confirms this specific fact, "not BC". It is material relevant to their[SB's] notability, as SB, MD.

Per AvB's mention, my sense of ArbCom & Badlydrawnjeff was that is was mostly about limits of inclusion for marginal biographies' AfD & DRV; privacy and minors; privacy and otherwise private people caught in the glare of a one-time public incident; grossly unjust or indecent harmful publicity; and Jeff's heavy handed approach to administrators - nothing that applies here.

If AvB means to object to a fact, like "not BC" more recently caught in the glare of testimony in court, I have to say that a small, known *fact* exploding into greater view, is a much different kind of creature than a newly news (dis)covered person. Dr Barrett himself has said that this previously known (but not as-well-advertised) fact had been known (some? primarily NACM?) DCs for many years. The "BLP club" is being greatly distorted to silence simple, encyclopedic facts inconvenient to some editors' POV.

My comments about ad hominem pertain to Negrete, the person, as the prevailing lawyer in the course of his duties, issuing careful, legal, public statements on the results of a successful case of some public note. Your "unscientific press release" is simply a trivial, irrelevant redundancy stated prejudicially. Most news (articles), including press releases, are "unscientific", rather observational, hopefully verified information to varying degrees, anecdotal in nature - this almost seems like an attack on WP:RS policy for non-technical newspaper and magazine stories. Are you going to seriously try and tell me that most news seriously attempts hypothesis generation & hypothesis testing much less almost any form of active or repeated controls, sampling, measurement, statistical treatment and error analysis? "unscientific press release" is just prejudicial terminology.

Therefore the "contra not BC" editors' BLP claims appear to be empty, multiply stretched & greatly exaggerated assertions without effect on "not BC" fact being included in the Biography or Criticism sections.--I'clast 12:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

<1st Post attempt removed by AvB per WP:BLP (diff).>

I'clast, the current discussion to which you were referred, started here. QV please. In the meantime I have removed your post; it contains blatant WP:BLP violations. Feel free to reinsert minus the violations. You are most welcome to your opinions (for all I know they may be true) but inserting them here as a statement of fact without any sources, and probably based on the (type of) unacceptable sources disputed here, is WP:POINT. Please stop. Avb^talk 20:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I have read and answered why the Langan intervention a poor policy citation that I consider to be one of two grossly over reaching or twisted policy interpretations including OR. There is no excuse for continued factual denial in the biography.--I'clast 11:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

What you wrote in no way validates inclusion attempts or refutes policy-based arguments to exclude. The root problem is that about a dozen editors, generally quite experienced, accomplished and reputable, do not accept the sources brought forward so far. That means the info is unsourced: we can't link to those sources. It's a BLP issue, but even if WP:BLP would not exist, you still wouldn't be allowed to include it: any editor can remove such material straight away as original research. Just like most other editors, I'm now bowing out of the farce this BC discussion has turned into. Please note that silence, after all that's been said and done, does not imply a consensus to include. Avb^talk 13:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

::::I too am leaving, as my talk page says, I am taking a Wkik break. If anyone wants to get a hold of me go to my page and you can email me. The last comments to me were enough to make me take a time out and rethink whether I want to be an editor on Wikipedia. I expected things to be different then the regular internet, but I am disappointed. So good bye. I too, agree with Avb in saying my not being here doesn't mean I support any consensus, even the suggestion I made about BC. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go Crohnie[24]. Pls say hi to <name removed for everyone here. I'm sure we are all waiting to see you again.--I'clast 23:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I Googled the name above - apparently it belongs to one of IR's nemeses. I think I'clast needs to explain the reference. I'm not even sure it can stay here on the talk page. Avb 08:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

On second thought I'm removing the name to prevent it from being made searchable in search engines. Avb 09:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

So AvB, with the Langan objection mincemeat, sheer force of numbers, apparently in a base other than 10, and retreat are the reason and method of fact denial. The objection isn't OR, the objection itself is POV. My view of pedigrees is a little different also.--I'clast 14:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

OK folks. There is one more remaining area of the article to NPOV before we can all take a much needed wikivacation. Any thoughts.  QuackGuru  talk 01:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

To summarize my past comments: I'm concerned that we are giving undue weight to viewpoints that have little or no business being in an encyclopedia article. WP:RS, WP:NPOV (especially WP:WEIGHT), & WP:BLP - we're very familiar with these now. --Ronz 04:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like where we were about 4 months ago, when policy began being ignored and editors overwhelmed by an edit-flood... Or as it was put then, and later several times...round and around... Shot info 06:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Until we get it straight.--I'clast 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the following section should be removed, as per NPOV:

James A. Mertz, then-President of the American Chiropractic Association, wrote in a letter to Time in 2001: "The American public is being grossly misled by Dr. Stephen Barrett. While he positions himself as a protector of the public, his statements are, in reality, so one-sided that he simply cannot be taken seriously."[23] In the original Time article, Deepak Chopra called Barrett a "self-appointed vigilante for the suppression of curiosity."[12]

James Mertz POV could not be described as a NPOV, as he has a strong bias. I am sure that the same could be said about Deepak Chopra.

However, I do believe that his failure to be BC belongs in the criticism section - and is NPOV. DigitalC 20:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This is always the question: how to accurately present criticism in a NPOV manner. I have to agree that it looks like other editors may be favoring an NPOV Criticism version of "BC" since Biography has had so many disputes with rather esoteric interpretations and extensions of controverted rulings by mgmt, that it is time to refocus.--I'clast 23:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The BC is revisionism, a farce, and a BLP violation. Sorry, but, we appreciate it if everyone stops trying to bring back old no consensus discussions on this talk page. Lets focus on NPOVing the criticism section. Currently, its nonsensical and too bias. Agreed?  QuackGuru  talk 01:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No, not agreed. I don't agree that it is a BLP violation, and I do believe that it belongs in the criticism section, and is NPOV. DigitalC 01:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

An administrator removed it when the article was protected per BLP. After 100+ days, it has become clear there is no consensus. Though, we can agree to disagree. Agreed?  QuackGuru  talk 02:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Chopra is the most notable critic listed here thus far. Also, I think equating a critic with NPOV is difficult. If they are a critic, clearly they have an opinion. What is important is presenting the criticism from a neutral point of view, which we currently do. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Given the context of the Deepak Chopra quote, it's really nothing more than name-calling - certainly nothing that belongs in an encyclopedic article. Let's look carefully at WP:WEIGHT, WP:BLP, and WP:RS, rather than looking for critics whose names will be recognized. --Ronz 03:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Negrete's site as a source, court records as source

Regardless of the material this source is not acceptable. The site is an attack site and we don't link to it even to source the statement that the Earth is not flat. The court record linked to should be linked from elsewhere. Even so, it is a primary source without a secondary source. The other source does not cover the proceedings or the outcome. Hence, not acceptable even if Negrete's site was an acceptable reliable source. If you want to use it, post it on your non-attack blog or something and see if it is accepted. Levine, you are known for removing cites of blogs that host originally RS material. Why is this different? Avb 13:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Extreme undue weight

This article gives too much space to criticism, to the degree that it is overwhelmed by it, unlike in real life. The criticism comes from a tiny minority (even if this would include ALL chiropractors in the world). The praise comes from the academic world (with the exception of a few personal opinions). Or should we simply expand the space used to document all positive and neutral RS material on Barrett, in order to cover it as extensively and as detailed as the criticism and defamation stuff - just to get the article balanced again? Then again, that would bloat the article to truly unencyclopedic proportions. Thoughts? Avb 14:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hate to break the 70s-80s mind share (real estate) bubble, but the currency of that statement sounds like uncited OR, especially the academic part. You mean like small, related groups of academics like CSICOP, for whom Truzzi appears to have coined and defined the word, pseudoskepticism? (see also the scandal over the "Mars Effect") Over at the QW article, an independent professor cites the *rise* of alternative medicine as a factor in groups like QW's rise. Or perhaps we are talking about the criticism of extreme, small minorities like the CA Supreme Court 7(-0), out of tens of millions.--I'clast 17:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Mind share/OR/assorted straw men: Don't be silly. Once again, when looking at the balance of reliable sources and fringe sources/attack sites we can't publish, it is obvious that mainstream science, medical doctors, etc. overwhelmingly share Barrett's POV regarding much (if not all) of alt-med. Avb 23:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Mainstream science POV ceases to science when it is any POV, much less this individual's POV where the degree of intersection and confluence is a hot topic. Your (perhaps dated) OR on mainstream science "overwhelmingly share Barrett's POV" needs an explicit, current WP:V RS, because Dr Barrett *is* roundly criticized or contradictied in public publications (including some the most recent authoritative available) on a number of unrebutted science issues by real scientists and experts.--I'clast 10:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No, this is the status quo per reliable sources of which we have plenty. Perhaps outdated? Not on this wiki. Your overly enthusiastic OR on mainstream science, which I have called a crystal ball before, is what needs sourcing. And since you are the one who wants to include material, you are also the one to provide proper sourcing. Without sources, it's just editor opinion. I mean, no one is saying Quackwatch material is perfect. Mainstream science overwhelmingly shares Barrett's POV. But since you regularly insist I'm publishing OR on talk pages, I'll make it true for once in the hope that it will make you happy: even my rather young GP will recommend QW any day when faced with patients who want to stop taking statins per the recommendations of a certain osteopath on the Internet. Avb 15:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Summarizing my previous comments on this: If we can't meet WP:WEIGHT it should be removed. I think the criticism and lawsuits sections should each be reduced to a paragraph. The quote-mining is laughable and has to go. If editors here refuse to follow WP:TALK and WP:CON, then we need to work around them. --Ronz 17:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well said. Avb 11:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said earlier and as l'clast highlights below. It seems litigating after being criticized is Barrett's most notable claim to fame. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 17:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

And you've been asked to provide sources, but failed to do so. Repeating yourself is not a substitute for sources, and violates many, many policies and guidelines that have been pointed out here many, many times. --Ronz 23:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell being criticised and then litigating because of it is Barrett's most notable claim to fame. Hence I believe the sections are an appropriate size. Please work together or follow the standard dispute resolution processes. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 23:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Since when has he ever litigated for being criticized? Never! He gets criticized all the time and hardly even replies. He has only litigated when libeled, and the cases have been in response to ONE case of libel republished by many, and only a few got sued. An "osteopathic physician" (clearly identified in an earlier version of the same article) was wise enough to settle out of court for $50 grand.[25] Barrett criticizes people's methods or ideas, but they attack his person, IOW he criticizes in the East, and they attack in the West, which is an unfair response. Ad hominem attacks are not the way to respond. -- Fyslee/talk 23:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

"being criticised and then litigating because of it is Barrett's most notable claim to fame" --> Which sources gave you that idea? "Please work together or follow the standard dispute resolution processes." --> I guess Ronz means to work around editors who refuse to follow WP:TALK and WP:CON per standard disruption resolution processes. I know I will. Avb 23:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you both should re-read my comment. Sorry but you appear to have the meaning backwards. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 09:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

He has only litigated when libeled... a number of California and Pennsylvania courts would apparently beg to differ.--I'clast 12:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Taken in context (the difference between mere criticism and libel, and then suing for it), I believe my statement is correct. I know of no cases where Barrett has sued someone who merely criticized him, neither in California, Pennsylvania, or anywhere. Can you back up your statement that implies otherwise? -- Fyslee/talk 21:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I would think by now with BvR, the trial court's and SC's rulings and opinions, including the parting words of a California supreme court justice, all this would suggest more careful wording of your assertion to be accurate, e.g. "felt libeled". Apparently if Dr Barrett was libeled, it wasn't IR despite his litigation with her (or next stop US SC?), so your assertion appears inaccurate or misleadingly brief.--I'clast 22:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Now I see what you're getting at. Whatever. The point is that Barrett doesn't litigate for mere criticism. He gets criticized all the time, but as he himself stated, it's when the criticism (libel is a strong form of criticism) gets too personal and is false, then he considers it libelous and he then has sued. The point being that he isn't thin skinned and mere criticism doesn't move him. Are we on the same page? BTW, the court even stated that even if he was libeled, he wouldn't have much chance of winning, simply because he's a public figure. IR's statements weren't considered libelous, not because they weren't false, or had malicious intent, or because she didn't believe them, but because they were so far out in hyperbolous space that there was no risk of a reasonable person (hmmm....) taking them seriously, and thus they weren't considered harmful to Barrett, therefore no judgment against her in spite of her malicious intent to harm. IOW, if you lie a little and in a serious manner you might get convicted, but if you lie alot, loudly, and wildly, you won't. And if it's the republishing of someone elses big lies, you also get off, no matter how untrue or harmful their writings are. Weird! Internet law is definitely not the same as normal law. -- Fyslee/talk 23:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

"being criticised and then litigating because of it is Barrett's most notable claim to fame" --> Which sources gave you that idea? Avb 15:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That could be a decent partial summary of QW's (etc.) self described activities since a number of published writings in the 70's and 80's involving "attacking fraud" that involved individuals of different opinions & professions. (does anybody have a decent *full* bibliography link of QW and Stephen Barrett writings, especially a chronological index? It does seem hard to actually track down the old QW related historical writings, usually not indexed in normal guides & indexes, almost like they are hidden in plain sight. The lack of indexing and biblio seem especially odd for such notable "mainstream scientific" and medical scrwritings.)--I'clast 12:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Metta Bubble wrote: "being criticised and then litigating because of it is Barrett's most notable claim to fame" --> Which sources gave you that idea? Avb 23:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

In response to the same question on Metta's talk page, Metta indicated that I'clast had already answered it for her. Summary of the answer: Barrett has written this and there are reliable sources; they don't have these sources now but say they will be able to provide them later. In short, editor opinion, not verified information. Avb 09:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Jumping to favored conclusions, AvB? I said that I am having trouble tracking down some of QW's and its authors' *direct statements* for more complete answers. Also it seems very curious that QW doesn't have a good bibliography for its articles since notable individuals with a high batting average frequently have them on the web, even posthumously from admirers.

There are a *lot* of examples on QW related authors and entities that involve SB either directly or subsequently, but I have to admit is (unnecessarily) time consuming to *link* and reference the obvious for instant gratification that has been ignored anyway by some in the past. (a frequent problem in QW circles since at least 1969 with Pauling and Herbert)--I'clast 09:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a website, not a scientific journal, and thus should not be held to the same standard. Here's a good enough "bibliography"....;-), or were you thinking of something else? -- Fyslee/talk 09:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'clast posted the same response to my talk page where I responded to it in full. I'll post the relevant part below; anyone interested in the full story, please click here. Avb 15:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Iconoclast, although what you're writing is both unnecessary and uninformative regarding my request for sources, I'll discuss it anyway: "Jumping to favored conclusions, AvB?" -- Please don't call me that; I'm now Avb. Favored conclusion? No, just one of my favorite policies, WP:V. I remain interested in seeing these sources provided. Please do. I don't have access to anything that comes near, otherwise I'd dig this stuff up myself (I've tried). You'll be surprised how proactive I am when reliable sources document something you think I don't like. I think it would be fair to say that I like all information once it's sourced. Reliable sources are our sine qua non. We're moving towards an encyclopedia entirely constructed from reliable sources. BLPs are our first concern in this respect. Jumping -- I would be if I said that these sources do not exist. Also, it's policy to differentiate between editor opinion and verified material. "Editor opinion" is not derogative in any way; editor opinion may well be correct, but it only becomes verified material when reliable sources are provided. Regarding your criticism of QW, I wouldn't know; I asked for sources in order to learn more. All I'm getting here is more editor opinion. I would view what you and user:Metta Bubble are saying here as vastly more useful in building an encyclopedia if verified in reliable sources. Avb 15:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

remove self-congratulatory stmt *again*

I am removing QG's (re...)-re-insertion of the self-serving, self congratulatory quote again[26]. The statement is a WP:BLP/WP:SELFPUB violation: it IS self-serving, it IS contentious (even issues in current court cases I think, as well as the implicit assertion of authority), it DOES involve claims about third parties.--I'clast 17:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Reverted. My edit summary should have read: Not a WP:BLP issue, not self-published, please read the source and http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/inspired/ Avb 21:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Block reprinting in Spiked survey, a contentious, self-serving assertion, long self published and repeated, that have direct contradictions by real scientists, appears more like a blog without *any* editing is weak. ( "what inspired you", "in association with Pfizer" without any apparent editorial modification whatsoever ) Certainly weaker than EXPLORE's usage of Negrete's statement and verifying a multiply sourced 3 word fact from therein (not B-C). Very asymmetric application of WP policies here. If we could agree on the nature of this survey (or really just reader response?) as a lightweight source, "Bronz High School of Science" would be about equal to "not B-C", not gross self congratulatory propaganda where the "distinguish science" part in writings has been seriously at issue, including court, with trivially obviously fundamental examples available. It is still contentious and self serving, regardless of the source, and that is a direct reprint of a long standing self promotion. This is not a consistent policy usage at all.--I'clast 22:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

"or really just reader response?" --> Have you read the linked page like I asked? Not block reprinting in a survey; selected people were invited. Not at all self-published or the subject's own site. Asymmetric? Obviously required by policies. If Negrete is ever invited to write up his own opinion of himself for publication in such a source, you may well be able to use it in an (admittedly hypothetical) article on Negrete. Avb 23:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Self-asserted, similar to other QW related assertions. (1) it is an opinion about himself in an otherwise factual section, (2) the opinion is POV/contentious here and in the real world; (3) the quoted part tacitly asserts his opinion on science as expert and/or authoritative, any demurrals aside where his primary *academic* scientific credientials appear to be Bronx Science and a bachelors in Chemistry at Cornell; (4) the opinion appears quite promotional in nature. Maybe try out for another section, certainly not Biography. EXPLORE was edited V RS containing Negrete sourced material about a single WP:V(several routes) fact (not B-C) - whereas Spiked doesn't appear to edit his opinion about himself at all, the column ("center" bar?) is only labelled as "survey responses", hardly an editorial claim of responsibility. An invitation, like "we'll print what ever you respond" would sound much like a blog, as a thin tissue to present his opinion, about himself, in the otherwise factual Biography. That is quite unbalanced and inappropriate. Asymmetric - pushing an unedited opinion (response) into a (supposedly) factual Biography section in preference to a simple, encyclopedic V RS fact on Dr Barrett's professional background.--I'clast 10:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

(1) An attributed opinion is a fact (2) not contentious at all - no reliable sources say that Barrett says things about himself that he doesn't believe (3) see item #2. (I see Fyslee moved and enhanced the text - I support that edit) (4) promotional - maybe; which policy forbids us to note the subject's opinion on himself? You may want to find reliable sources criticizing Barrett on that specific point. As to your Negrete/Explore comparison, you completely fail to convince me. Different cup of tea altogether. Asymmetry: I consider Spiked! a reliable source for information on Barrett as provided by Barrett in what amounts to a mini-interview (one question, one answer); you consider WCA a reliable source for unsolicited information on Barrett as provided by Negrete. My opinion is subject to consensus but does not violate any policies; editing per your opinion would violate WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:WEIGHT, etc. As explained a zillion times during the BC discussion. (BTW, did you notice that Luke used several of my 22 March arguments? They have become mainstream fast over these four months; WP:BLP now includes specific language to support and enforce what you're thinking of as mincemeat. Granted, I was an early adopter, but I was not the only one as confirmed by my wiki radar at the time. Avb 14:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

(1) An attributed opinion is a fact yes, the *quote itself* is a fact, the quote's self gratifying opinion is still opinion and was especially promotional as presented in the Biography section;

(2) no reliable [secondary] sources...belief is misleading (SB's "true" self belief is not the WP topic, perhaps you have been reading tboo many less reliable publications);

(3)I moved the quote/opinions to a more relevant, opinion oriented section, Activism. This avoids inclusion of potentially misleading uses of opinions parading (with) as harder Biographic facts. The advertisement length, promo and relevance is still a discussion.

(4) Yes WP:BLP, as does WP:RS, does talk about "self-serving" and "contentious" material (which can have both local WP and real world dimensions) - not to be used, especially if one buys into your "secondary source reverted to primary source" strategm. (Spiked! appears to take less nominal editorial responsibility than EXPLORE)

(4a) your Negrete discussion slants the rules about V RS to aggressively exclude multiple secondary sources on an event, primarily reported upon by one participant, simple factual material of a common & basic encyclopedic interest - the terminal or maximal professional qualifications of an individual in areas further addressed in the subsequent career(s).

CoolHandLuke acknowledged primary (court) sources *can* be used but he says perhaps more carefully here, still considering (he is new and may struggle to find & context past buried conversations/details). Your March 22 position, quoting Jimbo's Langan deletion of a contentious *section* built completely on 8 primary sources, as a reason to arbitrarily drop *any* primary source usage that does not greatly flatter the individual seems partisan and not what CoolHandLuke was discussing.

(Personal attack removed) Spiked! (esentially a minimally edited [ "SB blog"], if any, & hardly a science/tech/med authority or specialty journal) coverage of Dr Barrett's positive opinions about himself, at great length, in contrast to simple, relevant facts about himself (both from literal secondary sources and himself), along with your original research (or proposal) for WP policy stretching, is highly asymmetric and I believe represents both point of view & actions similar to (Personal attack removed).--I'clast 12:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

#1, #2, #3: non sequiturs. #4: If you want to discuss Spiked! as a reliable source for information on Barrett, please do so in a separate discussion. Your arguments for repeatedly removing sourced text wereWP:BLP and WP:SELFPUB which do not apply. (4a) My Negrete discussion? You are repeatedly bringing up the BC thing in an unrelated discussion. My bad for letting myself be engaged in it. I'll ignore any such attempts from now on. You're also twisting my words again (my Langan example about not allowing court records that have not been discussed in secondary sources; you should really learn to reread when asked - for your convenience, here's the diff). Stratagem? Don't be silly; it's policy. Forum shopping? That's a pretty grave acccusation (disruptive editing/gaming the system). Please provide diffs. Avb 12:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That answer is a twisted wreck. You *always* deny the "not B-C" secondary sources' coverage for using the Negrete (primary) sourced material and create the laffey-taffy policy stretch for putative contextual OR where you apparently have no concept of "source based research" and encyclopedicity. It's only your (plural) "I don't like it". The relation of the Barrett quote (prominently displayed POV promotional opinion parasiting off the credibility of an otherwise factual Biography section) is to "not BC" (simple fact) is sheer asymmetric POV (Personal attack removed) on your part.--I'clast 14:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This is an attempt to restart the BC discussion without providing new sources, so I'm ignoring it. I will not ignore your attack on me though. You may want to take back "including hypocrisy". I for one assume you really believe what you're saying, however misguided it may be. Avb 23:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Repeat of a question you seem to have missed: Forum shopping is a pretty grave acccusation (disruptive editing/gaming the system). Please provide diffs. Avb 00:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Repeat of a question you seem to have missed: Please provide evidence of forum shopping. Please also provide evidence where I "insistently include Spiked!" Avb 13:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Removing as personal attacks (and WP:BLP violations) for now, at least as long as no evidence has been forthcoming. Avb 15:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

BLP & weight problems

The litigation section is littered with links to primary sources. This is a big BLP violation. Court document sources are not secondary sources. They will never satisfy BLP because they are primary sources. Moreover, the litigation section is way too big. Quotes are being removed for no valid reason. Hopefully, editors will comply with BLP policy in the future. Thats means removing all primary sources and links to websites which cite primary sources. I here here alarm bells again. Any thoughts?  QuackGuru  talk 21:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The Joel M. Kauffman is too bias. It must be removed for now. We can consider it being returned if it is neutrally written in tone. Agreed?  QuackGuru  talk 22:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Kauffman is an independent skeptic, academic and senior scientist with no prior record of discord with QW. Previous challenges to his scientific acuity simply showed him to be current with current medical research and science from top medical schools. Deleting his criticism would be simply POV vandalism.--I'clast 23:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

As has been pointed out to you before, there is only one source that Kauffman is a "skeptic" and that source is you. If he was a skeptic, he wouldn't be publishing in a dubious journal with little credibility. Shot info 23:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. In case Google is broken on your internet connection, two examples (of many) where Kauffman associates or identifies himself as a skeptic or a contributor to (or member of) a skeptical association or publication:

1. Raymond Brown, Joel M. Kauffman, 1999, "Identification of Photographs in Opaque Envelopes: ESP or Simple Probability", Skeptic Magazine, 7(4), 70-73 (1999).
2. To the Editor of NEJM

Joel Kauffman is clearly a skeptic on several public issues, where on at least one issue he, many recognized skeptics and Dr Barrett may have agreeable, if rather unpopular, skeptical opinions. His book Malignant Medical Myths indicates studied skepticism on a number of subjects.--I'clast 10:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You know, one of these days you should make reading a skill followed by comprehension. None of the top 10 links in google state that Kauffman is a "skeptic". Lots of conspiracy theories and lots of publications in junk science journals, still waiting on the "Kauffman is a skeptic" source...except that made up by yourself. BTW, heres a better link to Amazon [[27]] and the breathless review just screams "Read me for I am WOO!". Maybe if you stop wanting to shove your quite apparent POV and worship of CAM hacks into a Wikipedia BLP article, you might have a better time as an editor. Shot info 09:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The POV and superciliousness there are noted, as well as your conflicts of interesting views. I guess reading the book would just be too much to ask such a superior intellect before you criticize the author out of whole cloth. Just because I edit a subject doesn't mean that I worship it or them, I often help underdogs. Nor do I (mis)represent myself so inconsistently as you. I also doubt you know my point of view well, you might be surprised. Or just condescendingly indifferent.--I'clast 13:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

We here don't need to guess your POV, your POV is quite apparent both in what you do, and what you don't do. My POV (SPOV) is glaring obvious. Of course your faith in my (mis)representation can be aired in COIN but you don't have the guts to expose your many failings at core WP pillars in a public forum now do you? Shot info 23:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, court opinions can be used even though they are primary sources, see WP:PSTS, but these records must first be placed into a notable context by reliable secondary sources, per BLP. I think the use and interpretation of these records verges on original research, which is totally unacceptable for prose that impeaches the character of a living person. This section needs serious cleanup.

That said, there's nothing wrong with using these particular primary sources if they are the subject of reliable secondary sources. Wikipedia policy does not demand that we remove all links to primary court opinions. Cool Hand Luke 22:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The legal section cites a number of secondary sources for the section's material. The primary source links provide allowable, augmentive WP:V detail and are not trivial or privacy related records like parking tickets, b/d, etc. trial transcripts and other court records, ...unless cited by a reliable secondary source. Where primary-source material has first been presented by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to turn to open records to augment the secondary source--I'clast 23:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

James Randi article is a good example of how to approach these matters. Since I'clast seems to have a problem with BLP a good place to start learning is to review C._Alan_B._Clemetson and for him to ask himself, is this hagiographic? Shot info 23:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Good example of a hagiographic article, which actually is edited by I'clast (TheNautilus), among others. -- Fyslee/talk 23:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I have only 2-3 more edits than Fyslee and Shot_info there, one in direct response to Fyslee's request for more Wikified links (you're welcome), others to trim content or trivially correct spelling, link, format etc. However the principal, rather less experienced WP author, seemed to be previously feeling a little put upon by Shot and Fyslee, so I would be careful about Shot & Fyslee offering secondary pretexts here to disturb the new editor further, sounds a little ominous.--I'clast 10:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

More than being obvious, it shows your POV, CAB is a alt-med hack, that you cannot find fault with, but you are prepared to quote mine to the 1000th degree on Barrett. Shot info 09:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Shows both your POV and knowledge of nothing. In the 1980s CAB quotes were the mainstream voice used to deflect Pauling's assertions on vitamin C as insufficiently researched, as well as authoring several authoritative (mainstream) articles and publications (tomes) on vitamin C. Again, in case you missed it, I have not contributed any significant text to the CAB article, just minor corrections, wikification, spelling etc.--I'clast 14:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The example of an article which is very hagiographic, and that you avoid editing (because it is supportive of your POV) but you continue to grill this article is telling for your lack of NPOV here, and a subtle hint of COI. Shot info 23:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not other articles are hagiographic is not relevent to this talk page, and blaming other editors for their purported POV elsewhere is similarly unhelpful. See WP:TALK. Cool Hand Luke 00:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Simply put, we have one editor who seems to think we can ignore WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT while using the expresssion "hagiographic" (see archives). So the question is, why does he ignore policy making one article less "hagiographic" (when it disagrees with his POV) while allowing a more "hagiographic" article (which agrees with his POV) to stand? His answers are very illuminating and go to the heart of his problem, which is, he is allowing his POV to run riot over policy. Something AvB, Ronz and other editors (myself included) have pointed out. Shot info 01:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'clast may getting gang banged and lynched by a number of internet activists who link their sites to the QW related sites, bring their POV wars to Wikipedia, and interpret policy to fit their POV & needs of the moment. As for the CAB Clemetson article, it certainly doesn't involve WP quotes of CABC alluding to those who disagreed with his opinion or research as "rapists and murders" although he may have had more such data, nor does the CABC bio quote him congratulating himself at length on his education & medical/scientific authority, and professional achievements even though CABC *was* certified, had nationally recognized research, and his *scientific* opinion was quoted in national publications in good standing to even Nobelists. Beyond SB/QW articles etc, there are other articles with gross errors (and partisans) that due to lack of time I haven't gotten to yet that would command my attention first anyway even if I agreed with your assessment.--I'clast 11:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

"rapists and murders"??? Now you either can't parse a quote or you are misconstruing it so it fits your POV about Barrett. We both know you are intelligent enough to parse a quote if you really want to... Your lack of good faith is quite evident and is affecting your judgment and performance here. How about reading that quote in its context and trying to understand what Barrett was talking about, instead of taking it out of context and making a BLP slur about him here. I would have previously thought that this type of misquoting was below you..... You owe Barrett and everyone here an apology for such a cheap shot. -- Fyslee/talk 19:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we can use court opinions, but the section currently fails WP:BLP. Several of the law review articles don't cover Stephen Barrett in any substantive way. Barrett v. Koren only has primary sources in the form of court orders and a self-published explanation of his lawsuit prior to verdict. Barrett v. Clark is similarly poor, and Barrett v. Rosenthal was not even about Barrett. I'm not saying that these don't deserve mention, it's just that the dearth of reliable secondaries in the current article looks like a BLP issue. I'll try to find better coverage of these suits, but I think it's entirely appropriate to remove them in the interim. Cool Hand Luke 04:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

BLP/Weight issues are central problems here. Cool Hand Luke, I hope you can clean up and NPOV the litigation. Of course, this will be difficult.  QuackGuru  talk 18:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't figure out what happened to Barrett v. Negrete. Maybe it was settled with non-discosure agreement? At any rate, it doesn't seem to have much secondary coverage. And I can't find anything for Barrett v. Koren except items based on this POV press release and celebratory webpages like this. Cool Hand Luke 00:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Bolen

At some point in the restructuring of this article Bolen has been axed. It seems very strange to have painful amounts of detail about law suits against people republishing Bolen's opinion pieces and yet have nothing substantial about the relationship between Barrett/Bolen? One thing that jump to mind is was Barrett succesful in his libel case against Bolen, if not why is he suing all these other people for republishing his work. As it stands this is a huge gap in the story. David D. (Talk) 15:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It was strange how the Illinois lawsuits didn't even explain their Bolen link before. Almost all of this litigation stems from Bolen's letters being republished online. I also don't understand why Barrett didn't sue Bolen directly. Barrett apparently told the East Bay Express in 2001 that he couldn't find Bolen to serve him with process. Bolen disputes that claim in a letter to the editor, but it's clear that Barrett initially couldn't get service or perhaps jurisdiction over Bolen. Does Barrett explain this on his site? I find it mysterious myself—the primary reason he lost some of these cases appears to be CDA immunity, which wouldn't apply to Bolen. Cool Hand Luke 16:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect 3RR edit summary

I incorrectly commented in an edit summary that Maxpont was at 3RR. Sorry about that. Avb 12:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That quote is *not* a consensus version. It is POV pushing supreme of opinion into a factually built up Bography section with naked self promotion & proclamation, restarted earlier by QG. Please take the quote to Activism which is what the quote is about, for editing. This is the language of mainstream science and its neutral balance? Broad speeches about "quackery", "rapists", "murderers" etc. for those disagreed with as well as "contaminated with incomplete data, obsolete data, technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo."--I'clast 12:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't help it that mainstream science sees Barrett as a hero, I'clast. And I also can't help it that his detractors portray him as a villain or that Barrett sees what he calls overpromoters of questionable treatments etc. as villains. That's the man applauded by mainstream science. What counts on Wikipedia is the sources reporting on them. Avb 12:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You continually confuse "mainstream science" with loud trillion$ pharma pov and (sometime) 20th century US medicine as one body of knowledge vs grossly violated methods and current *authoritative* reports of science. (Personal attack removed) I don't portray Barrett as a villian, I have tried to get basic Biography material straight in the presence of numerous activists and Usenet warriors here, one or two facts in particular in many, many months. I think I am one of the few with no economic conflicts on alt med (actually personal financial interests would go the other way) or "skeptical" activist background. It might even be fair to say my persona here is created by the gross technical and activists/extremists' POV imbalances in WP, especially on altmed and QW related areas.--I'clast 13:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Attacks on the editor again. For the last time, this is about sources, not about editor opinion. After all that has been explained to you, you still act as if we have been asking for "current authoritative reports of science". Assuming you are right (and based on both US and EU publications I don't think you are) we at Wikipedia still can't do anything about it until reliable secondary sources have written about it, e.g. documenting that/how Barrett lost his erstwhile supporters. Avb 13:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Putting aside what is WP:RS for basic sourcing and *adding* verbiage, when something that is nominally WP:RS fails WP:V, such as a current change in news or science, we don't publish contradicted information and nonsense as straight V RS. QW clearly fails WP:V on a lot of hard or fundmental mainstream science issues, nonscientists (including many doctors) be damned. The case is complicated by both the pharma driven advertising in journals, including (later) impeached articles presented as "science", and the decades of self promotion by QW that have NOTHING to do with Science. Forget Bolen, Hulda etc, go read the f------ mainstream med school, NIH, NAS research conclusions, I do. If it fails current WP:V, a lot of QW "science" prattle is toast without significant rewrite and description to reflect current science!

Otherwise the encycloipedia fills with obsolete POV, trash and laughable nonsense.--I'clast 14:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This is one of the clearest examples of misinterpreting our core policies WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR I've ever seen. I don't think anyone should be editing here on such a basis. Avb 14:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually you misinterpret them to suit your fancy. Again look very carefully when I say if something flunks WP:V, it impacts the text even if not quoted directly. Feel free to disengage any time you like.--I'clast 14:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

My assessment of your interpretation of our core policies remains unchanged. I encourage you to seek input from an uninvolved admin regarding your interpretation. As to your advice to disengage: you are currently not among the editors I take my cues from. Thanks anyway. Avb 23:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

repeated BLP (legal?) violation

Back to using questionable sources with a little NPA and BLP vio thrown in? For those who so loudly proclaim their own privacy, I believe that this (again & again) repeated comment[28] seriously violates WP:BLP on a third party as well as violating WP:NPA on the (same third party) WP editor (the WP editor as previously determined by Fyslee himself). WP:BLP expressly states (WP:Self Pub, too): Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:...using it does not involve claims about third parties. That other BLP party already *has* publicly complained (obliquely) about his treatment at WP. It is also unfair to present one side of a confidential legal agreement only partially known through the statements of Dr Barrett, the plaintiff, about another WP:BLP, from the questionable site source using the archives to "time blink" and combine information in violation of Dr Barrett's legal agreement. The 3rd party BLP who Fyslee roundly criticizes, Fyslee publicizes material that which both Dr Barrett and WP say are not supposed to be published together. Next time the 50k and identity info are together or other related legal confidentially "busting" without a reliable source, we should get probably management opinion about this problem.--I'clast 12:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikilawyering again? FWIW, this has already been published on the Internet by a certain banned user (with full names and a full range of epithets), I'clast; one you seem to see as a reliable source on libel cases by and against "Quackbusters". Legal problems? I don't think so. But why not ask management straight away if you're so sure? Avb 13:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Still sounds like a gross BLP, RS & self pub violations as well as NPA about a WP editor. If you want to mail a link, I suggest no more "exposure" links here.--I'clast 13:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

More attacks on other editors, and more non sequiturs. (Where did I indicate I might want to mail a link? Where did I add an "exposure link"?). And once again skipping a question, making this a pretty one-sided discussion. Here it is again: Why don't you ask management straight away if you're so sure? Avb 14:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Fyslee did the exposure part, I suggested that your answer not publicly add to it & I suggested maybe mailing the links. The management part concerns Fyslee's games on 3rd party BLP.--I'clast 15:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the disruptions here are once again out of control. WP:DNFT WP:NAM --Ronz 16:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'clast, in case you missed my question, here it is again: Why don't you ask management straight away if you're so sure? Avb 00:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I discuss things first and try to resolve things agreeably.--I'clast 11:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'clast, I have not exposed anything that has not been public knowledge for a long time, even here. It has even been in the Mercola and Barrett articles, but was removed from the Mercola article because it came from Barrett's website instead of an actual trial transcript (which would of course be impossible, since it was an out-of-court settlement). That impossible demand was the ploy used to keep the facts from being included. No agreement between them has ever been broken by Barrett, or Mercola would have complained about the fact being on Barrett's site. Barrett could even use his name without violating any agreement, TTBOMK. Barrett has just been unusually and unnecessarily kind to Mercola by later rewording the site by not using his name. The Internet Archives are not off-limits as a source, and I have only used it here on the talk page for your enlightenment. You should study the development of that page during the course of the trial and afterwards. There hasn't been the slightest shadow of a BLP violation or breach of confidentiality. You just don't know the situation very well, probably because you weren't part of this old discussion when it happened before, and it did right here. Whatever the case may be, I am not attempting to include it in the article, just letting you know here on the talk page how things hang together. -- Fyslee/talk 22:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

(1) a ploy used to keep the facts from being included No inclusion of identity and (partial) settlements terms together was part of the confidential settlement that Dr Barrett mentioned in his article and that he would ask others to respect. (2) although Dr Barrett can be acceptable as a BLP source about himself (except, according to some parties(-ans), on "not B-C"), he cannot be directly sourced for a negative 3rd party BLP, even when the material concerns him(SB) too, (3) a published WP:RS V with it, fine (I am not aware other than the rumors of partial disclosure you keep casting and the QW/SB "blinking" links), show us, otherwise it is a dangerous 3rd party BLP violation even here in talk where that party has complained publicly about WP. (Danger, danger Will Robinson!) (4) you've probably let everyone know how you hang it out on this now over half a dozen times, kind of daring given RFAR. (5) ...Mercola would have complained about the fact being on Barrett's site - highly speculative OR of the dangerous kind on a BLP problem.

I actually would like to see SB's settlement for other reasons, so by all means I'll wish you good luck to get and link it, even as just a (legally acquired) augmentive primary document if nothing else is a problem (I really won't kick). But I think your 50k+name campaign needs to be suspended until WP:V RS is shown or at least *complete* original documents are available.--I'clast 11:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

So far this has been about discussion on this page, not about inclusion in the article, so your concerns are misplaced. There is no BLP violation of anyone, and your first point about the settlement terms is your own speculation. Your second point is the reason it was pulled from the Mercola article, and rightly so. We could still include the figure without the name in this article without any problem using Barrett as the source, and if we got the actual settlement (highly unlikely) we could then use it in both articles, name and all. All we have now is that the publication of the figure and all identifying information (name, profession, location, dates, etc.) were obviously not a part of the settlement. He later removed the name as a nice gesture. He didn't have to do it, and we are not bound by his preferences, but I have no problem leaving the name out since we aren't required to do it, just because we can. -- Fyslee/talk 19:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Domentation required for inclusion

Levine2112 fails to appreciate my recognition of the need for documentation (see my edit summary) of controversial inclusions and has removed the refs, which is a grave offense.

We have long had a list of undocumented items, with no proof of whether, where, or in what manner Barrett specifically criticizes them, and I have now provided that proof, which finally legitimizes their inclusion in such a list.

I have simply resolved a longstanding policy violation.

This is what the rules here actually require for inclusion (proof of his criticism and where it's located). So far, general and vague references (in this case just a link to Quackwatch) are not considered sufficient documentation for inclusion of specific material in any article, especially specific and controversial matters. It's another story for common knowledge, where references are not required.

The links are not counted in search engine results. They are a required service to readers, showing whether the inclusion of the item is indeed justified, and leading to Barrett's actual words (even though many of the articles are prepared with the advice and input of many advisors and experts, they do represent his opinion).

Wikilinks are not sufficient (in any sense at all) as documentation for his criticisms. They only lead to articles that tell about the subject, but not to his criticisms. This is the article about him, and thus inclusion of what he has written on his website is specifically allowed by the rules here, so don't accuse me of violating any rules (especially in light of the fact that your accusations against me (COI and linkspamming) in the RfArb were exposed as incorrect and misleading, which, BTW, can still count against you in any upcoming RfArb of your behavior back then and now). Right now we are providing a double service by including both, but it is only the references to his actual words that are actually required, wikilinks (not an absolute requirement) being a matter of style and service, not documentation.

Documentation is what is required and Levine2112 has removed it. Until he can show a rule that allows the inclusion of controversial claims and statements without specifically referenced documentation, they should remain. -- Fyslee/talk 09:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

There were discussions about QW POV/link farming and use of WP:SOAPBOX / questionable sources may need to be re-examined rather than such bland assertions (and threats?). Levine's COI??? RfArb? sounds like things are going thernonuclear when all the activist POV and potential COI here merge to a prompt supercritical primary.--I'clast 11:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You just love to fan the flames to create disruption and dissension, don't you?! This isn't the first time you've done it. Please stop. These are references in this (Barrett's own) article, which is an entirely different matter than adding links to other articles where the V & RS bar is set quite high, and properly so. The rules for biografies (a) specifically allow it, and (b) the V & RS bar is not as high in this situation. This is no worse than the long list of refs in the CAB article, and in this case it is required as documentation for inclusion in the list.

We all have POV here so we're even. Your insinuation of "potential COI" is absurd, uncalled for, and has never been proven. In the distant past there might have been a very weak possibility, but that was a long time ago. Barrett and I aren't exactly bosom buddies....and never were. Never met the guy or spoken to him. A shared POV does not a COI make. I have reworded my statement above to avoid any misunderstanding about the COI issue. Levine has made false COI charges against me, and now you're doing the same. -- Fyslee/talk 18:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Calm down Fyslee. (1) In my own editing I have not used that extensive of reference links to, uh, (baldly) favored source sites e.g. I use one reference to cover many specific items, but I could easily add a favorite dozen or two. (2) Stroll's references at CAB Clemetson are not extensively linked either, especially here where the link farm issue seemed unresolved. (3) Because of the ever darkening comments of several editors I was speaking to potential POV and COI more broadly, you are the least of my worries on POV and outside connections right now since at least your POV and interests are pretty well known to all. (4) We are not "even" - you write and share tons more of your opinion, link QW etc frequently, you are an activist of years & years standing with numerous sites linked to QW etc, not me. (5) My observation was that if the group of editors' darkening, hyper-defensive, antagonistic edits continue to such a lunch lynch with Levine, that things might get very unpleasant concerning such an artificial situation.--I'clast 04:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget, I'clast does like saying things like "I've had substantial capability to go to COI for weeks and I do think COI would be unpleasant, for you. " Of course, the fact that it is now several months since that infamous quote and I'clast still hasn't actually "gone to COI" is rather telling of his desire to tell people they have COI without this minor thing called "proof". Shot info 22:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:DNFT, I have patiently explained several times before now[29],[30], & [31][32].--I'clast 04:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

And yet, you still have the gall to accuse multiple editors of COI. Prehaps you should refrain because you have a growing list of claiming, then backing down. This is quite disruptive and doesn't help improve the article other than to betray your POV. BTW, I am more than willing to cooperate at a formal COIN discussion. Your reluctance to do so clearly shows that you are the one who needs to cooperate. Obviously because you don't have the facts, nor the guts to say "sorry" even when you finally had to admit you got it wrong [33]. Shot info 04:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

First, the link to the Quackwatch homepage provides a table of contents of all of the modalities which Barrett has criticized and thus is a sufficient reference for all. Second, per the ArbCom, Fyslee was found in violation of posting links to unreliable sites such as Quackwatch. Third, all of these links are primary sources and in order to satisfy WP:WEIGHT secondary sources are needed. Technically, until such secondary sources are provided, the whol list should go. Fourth, there is clearly no consensus to add all of these sources, thus per WP:CONSENSUS they must be removed. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

1. I concur that the QW home page is adequate documentation for all modalities listed there.
2. You've clearly misread the ArbCom decision. He was found in violation of posting links to unreliable sites (not necessarily including QW) during his first month of editing. No findings of recent violations. No finding that QW is unreliable.
3. They're allowable in the QW article. If Barrett isn't QW, then QW is a secondary source as to Barrett, so QW references are allowable here. If Barrett is QW, than the articles should be merged.
4. There is WP:CONSENSUS to add the sources, so they should be there unless they viloate a WP policy or guideline.

— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

If you concur that the QW home page is adequate, then please revise to be as such. Curious, how has WP:CONSENSUS been acheived when there is dissent about including the sources? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus. That said, I think we should leave the links. They're useful and will keep future editors in line. Lists often pick up a lot of dubious material over time, and we make the list more manageably verifiable by pinciting each item. Note that not all of these items are listed on the homepage—I believe that's what Arthur Rubin is getting at in the above comment. Those that are listed can just cite to the homepage footnote, but others will need to be cited more directly. Cool Hand Luke 06:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Are we really to here to make this WP article a directory/TOC for every Quackwatch article? WP is not a link farm. Let's just link the home page and perhaps reduce that list to only the most notable ones. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

No, but this list will only require linking to the home page and a few others for items like amalgam removal. Cool Hand Luke 06:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think perhaps WP:EL is getting confused with the requirements for WP:V (see the start of WP:REF. Shot info 06:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

When do we draw the line then? At what point do we say enough entires on the list? Enough entries on the list with links to Quackwatch? Let's just limit this list to the most notable ones. How was this current list developed? What was the criteria for inclusion? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Surely you have been on WP long enough to know the requirements of WP:V... Shot info 07:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The thing is that most of these criticisms are listed verbatim on the home page. The others should be cited per WP:V, but it's editorially nicer to just use one footnote for all of the modalities listed on the homepage. Cool Hand Luke 07:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing of biographies a different matter

None of what Levine2112 writes above (here) applies, simply because this is a biography and very different rules apply as regards sourcing:

• Primary sources are expressly allowed and required in biographical articles;
• There is no danger of "linkspamming" (which could be a legitimate charge if done in this manner in another article not related to the subject);
• None of the links figure in search engines since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags;
• Documentation for the subject's notable POV are required and thus only primary sources will do;
• Not all the links are to Quackwatch, and some of them are not easily found (if at all) on the index page;
• WP:EL (which has no application here) is getting confused with WP:ECITE;
• WP:SELFPUB is being ignored. There is no violation of that policy here;
• "Linkfarm" applies to external links, not to directly sourced and specific references in articles, especially when those links are not in list form, but are mere numbers in reference format. They do not disturb the readers' ability to read the text, yet can easily be found, which makes the article of much more worth to readers.

We are only documenting the specifics of Barrett's controversial POV. This current sourcing is a great service to readers, and we're dealing with bytes, not paper. Wikipedia should be more, not less, than other encyclopedias. -- Fyslee/talk 09:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think linking the different items in the list to where it is located on QW is appropriate and makes for an easier read to the outsider. I never liked just the list. When I saw the list with the added links and read it, it was much better and easier to access, never mind clearer to understand. I say put the list back with the QW links that show where on QW you can locate Dr. Barrett's information on everything. It wouldn't be over doing QW links since this is a biography about Dr. Barrett and linking to his site is allowed per WP:BLP.--CrohnieGal^Talk 12:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Crohnie has a point. Agreed.  QuackGuru  talk 19:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The bare list was bad, but since most of these items are verifiable on the front page there's no need to deep link. I believe this a a better solution editorially because it keeps the article size down and makes the references uncluttered. Everything is still verifiable—in fact, it's superior per WP:V because sites like the internet wayback machine will preserve the front page whereas the deep links may be lost. Cool Hand Luke 01:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The direct links point directly to the topic. Easier for the reader and is needed to comply with policy.  QuackGuru  talk 01:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Tell me what part of what policy demands direct links. If anything, WP:V counsels against dumping a truckload of self-published references into an article. Cool Hand Luke 02:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The homepage just doesn't do it for me. The readers deserve better. A not so easy to find links is not the way. What does it for me? Just one click is all it took! This should be easy to understand. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Removing the direct links creates an unreferenced policy violation. The homepage is not each specific topic. Each direct link is. Cheers.  QuackGuru  talk 02:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I said nothing about truth, I'm also talking about verifiability. If we were to go all-out and actually use reliable third-party sources, they would just characterize the criticisms Barrett has made. That would not only be acceptable, but it would be superior to what you've done. The home page is precisely the same; it characterizes many arguments he's made, and it's available in archival form to boot. I'm beginning to wonder if we should cite this list using only third-party sources to avoid potential WEIGHT problems. Cool Hand Luke 03:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The home page is not each specified topic. The Wikipedia community demands references or it creates a policy violation.  QuackGuru  talk 03:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

You really don't need to be patronizing. The homepage verifies that he has written on all of these topics. It says so. Verbatim. The ones that are not listed there are separately linked, so the whole list is verified. At any rate, you've convinced me that the list is an irredeemable WEIGHT/SYN problem. I'll try to source the topics he's well-known and cited for, and I will delete the rest. Cool Hand Luke 03:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Everything is referenced in accordance with policy.  QuackGuru  talk 03:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool Hand Luke, I am agreeing with your rationale and believe that in order to satisfy WEIGHT, we need to use third-party sources. For the ones which we can't find, those should be deleted. In fact, we went through this line of discussion in terms of Barrett's lack of Board Certification, and there QuackGuru agreed that without reliable third-party references, even an undisputed fact which Barrett's supports via first-party reference should not be included. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a biography and primary sources are not only allowed, they are required for sourcing the opinion of the author. It can't be any other way. I agree with CoolHandLuke that the index page is good enough for the ones listed there, while the few others can be deeplinked. -- Fyslee/talk 08:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Here are some policies I think apply to this: [34], [35],[36], and on this one I think the last paragraph applies to this article; [37] --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. Specific inline citations are the way to go. No syn, paraphrasing, etc. Just his words and where they are found. -- Fyslee/talk 14:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it OR to say

"When the pharmaceutical company Pfizer sponsored Spiked-online to conduct..." when the reference actually says something different? Shot info 06:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

What does the reference say? Rather than blanketly deleting, please amend to correct. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

What Inspired You? is a survey of key thinkers in science, technology and medicine, conducted by spiked in collaboration with the research-based pharmaceutical company Pfizer. Survey respondents hail from all corners of the globe, ranging in age from 19 to 93 and ranging in experience from new talents to Nobel laureates. Each of these individuals was asked: 'What inspired you to take up science?' The survey will roll through September, and the discussion will go live at a launch event in central London on Tuesday 10 October - book tickets here.

Discovering and developing a new medicine requires inspired scientists with the knowledge, skill and tenacity to overcome many scientific challenges. Such people are at the core of Pfizer's business - individuals who have the potential and opportunity to influence the future for us all. But in the future, there might be less of them. With fewer students pursuing science at A-level, at university or as a career, an understanding of what inspired leading scientists could provide a valuable insight into the current situation. While the views expressed in the What Inspired You? survey do not necessarily reflect the views of Pfizer, we are proud to partner with spiked to find out more." [38] Since the reference in question uses the work 'collaboration' and 'partner' (etc), "sponsored by" is OR. Shot info 07:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is Spiked-online italicized? What about: "Spiked-online, in collaboration with Pfizer, conducted a survey..."

It still comes across as an unnecessary mention of Pfizer, that's more promotional than anything else. --Ronz 07:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the italicisation. Dunno why it is notable that Pfizer is mentioned, other than it's another of these "FACT". Either way, if it's included, it needs to be included in toto otherwise it's OR. Personally I don't see why it's needed but I'm sure we will be reminded that its a "FACT". If editors want to promote Pfizer and allow WP to give free advertising, then by all means ... but OR isn't allowed. Shot info 07:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems on the edge of WP:SYN. I don't see why this is very relevant anyhow. We don't list the sponsors when, say, a politician speaks at the Republican National Convention. Partnership might be relevant to the survey, but unless Barrett is some sort of trustee or official with spiked online, Pfizer's involvement has de minimus impact on his biography. Linking him to Pfizer this way seems to be using two verifiable facts to promote a position. Cool Hand Luke 08:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's over the edge: WP:SYN to promote a critical minority position (Mr. Y is "in bed with" company X). This aspect will be discerned by readers who already have a negative opinion on Barrett, already harbor deep suspicions about the role of "Big Pharma" in health care, or are aware of the accusations of some of Barrett's detractors. Advancing this position can be a reason for some editors here to include it. Recognizing this, some other editors dispute its inclusion per WP:SYN and hence per WP:BLP. Many neutral editors who are not aware of the criticisms may not see it as criticism of Barrett (and hence not a WP:SYN/WP:BLP violation), but a plug for Pfizer that should not go into the article. On balance, I see only one reason to include this: criticism by a minority; if allowed, it should have sufficient weight as evident in reliable sources and I for one do not know of any reliable sources mentioning this point. Which leads us back to WP:SYN again. I see no policy problems with the various reasons to exclude. Therefore, the entire reference to Pfizer should go. Avb 08:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, you, I and probably a majority of other editors and readers can see this. But how long before "it's a FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACT" is dropped? As I stated, editors wish to have an ugly encyclopedia, so fine. It's all happy days in Barrettland :-) Shot info 09:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion proposal

How about just removing this whole section?

'Spiked-online, in collaboration with the research-based pharmaceutical company Pfizer, conducted a survey entitled "What Inspired You?" of "key thinkers in science, technology and medicine". They asked: "What inspired you to take up science?" Barrett replied that his appreciation of medical science:

"probably began when I took a college course in medical statistics, and learned what makes the difference between scientific thought and poor reasoning. Medical school brought me in touch with the rapid and amazing strides being made in the understanding and treatment of disease. My anti-quackery activities have intensified my interest and concern in distinguishing science from pseudoscience, quackery and fraud."[16]'

It really isn't needed in the article at all from my prospective. The rest of the items are enough. Sometime items don't really need to be in the article, which I just recently read in another articles talk page. I just don't think it is needed. Opinions? --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion proposal has my vote, I haven't seen other Biographies with so much soapbox self-commentary, not to mention the rather nonacademic source with Pfizer's commercial sponsorship and the ad. Pfizer, the largest pharma, seems somewhat controversial here given the altmed - pharma wars and various history & allegations concerning QW & Dr Barrett.--I'clast 19:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not. -- Fyslee/talk 20:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Pfizer's involvment has to be mentioned in the body (not iin the ref) to show context and weight; otherwise it should be deleted. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't. --Ronz 20:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It is definitely not Biographic section or quality material, soapy (box), fluffy (huge space hog) and (self serving) opinion based. It is about the his POV leading to Activism, POV that would not be notable otherwise. Move it or dump it (preferred). This is little more than a Pfizer ad page from a group of corporate paid bloggers, less than a tabloid.--I'clast 21:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion is fine with me. Another way of handling the controversy is to rewrite the text in an encyclopedic (sic!!!) more detached indirect style with something like: Barrett states that his interest in Q began with a statistics course xxxx. He believes that he represtents Science, xxxxx and yyyyy" MaxPont 21:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Ambivalent, but Pfizer's "involvement" does not have to be mentioned and probably should not be mentioned if it's retained (see SYN concerns above). I consider this source to be barely more than self-publication, and MaxPont's suggestion for rewriting it is the best I've heard. Cool Hand Luke 21:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Max's suggestion looks like a way ahead (fancy us being here to edit an encyclopedia!!!!!! :-). Shot info 23:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

"...editing an encylopedia" -Shot

Moved Spiked online quote on origins of acivism here per Max and shot, above:

When Spiked-online conducted a survey of "key thinkers in science, technology and medicine" entitled "What Inspired You?", they asked: "What inspired you to take up science?" Barrett replied that his appreciation of medical science:

"probably began when I took a college course in medical statistics, and learned what makes the difference between scientific thought and poor reasoning. Medical school brought me in touch with the rapid and amazing strides being made in the understanding and treatment of disease. My anti-quackery activities have intensified my interest and concern in distinguishing science from pseudoscience, quackery and fraud."

Let the collaboration begin.--I'clast 10:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally I don't mind how it stands as it is short and sweet. Nevertheless my recommended clumsy attempt is documented earlier. My only real opinion is that if additional info is added, it needs to follow the reference without adding in OR (like the Pfizer bit). Personally I don't think Pfizer should be mentioned, not because of trying to hide anything, but following what seems to be a common practise in WP by not introducing weaselling. Shot info 12:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Max's colaborative proposal, below, looks like a nice start on shorter & sweeter and covers the relevant content.--I'clast 12:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The inclusion of that material serves at least three purposes:

1. It goes to further documenting his notability as someone who is recognized as a "key thinker....in medicine."
2. It is an unusually clear statement of how he thinks and what motivates him.
3. It shows how the intimate relationship between critical thinking, scientific thinking, and quackbuster thinking has a synergistic and self-enforcing effect on him (and of course others like him).

The existing format of the wording under discussion covers these aspects and serves as a perfect ending to the section documenting his notability (bio section), right before the section dealing with his activism. All very good writing style and encyclopedic to boot. We're accomplishing all this in one fell swoop, which isn't always that easily done. -- Fyslee/talk 14:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a huge POV ad, Fyslee. Too long, contended on science, -tious on scientific - extraneous, self serving material included, also essentially self pub, page commercially linked, supported by largest pharma.--I'clast 12:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is my suggested rewrite (with comments):

• Remove the quote and rewrite in a more encyclopedic way that can reduce the controversy around the passage.
• If the promotional label “key thinkers in science, technology and medicine" is kept in the article, the origin of the label (the sponsorship from Pfizer) must also be kept. Better to remove both of them (or move the label to notability section).
• Make clear that this is Barretts own view, which is not necessarily a correct neutral description of his activities.

Barrett views his activism as a part of medical science. He claims that his anti-quackery activities are about distinguishing between science on the one hand and pseudoscience, quackery and fraud on the other. He states that his interest in the area began when he took a course in medical statistics, which he asserts taught him the difference between scientific thought and poor reasoning. MaxPont 09:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Which accomplishes another goal - to marginalize and hide his notability by totally deleting that part and then introducing editorial POV not evident in the original. All a violation of NPOV. The existing format violates no rule and presents the matter very nicely. -- Fyslee/talk 13:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is about Dr. Barrett so I don't understand why some are saying that it is Barrett's view. Of course it is, it's his WP:BLP. I say keep it like it was without the mention of Phizer. If everything was deleted because a pharma industry was involved, then we would have no encyclopedia to write. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

True, indeed MaxPont 17:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Fyslee, Encyclopedic texts should be written in a neutral somewhat detached style. A narrative text is preferred over lining up facts and quotes. No, I don’t introduce any editorializing POV. I only make explicit the true fact that those are his viewpoints and opinions. I try to write an encyclopedic text. Fyslee’s version of the text easily deceives the reader into believing that Barrett is the arbiter between what is proper science and what is pseudoscience. Also, the notability of Spiked online is questionable. It is not a well known publication and mentioning the source does not add any relevant information other than the label Key Thinker. The “notability” of Spiked Online should be mentioned together with other awards. (I will move it.) It is Fyslee’s version that violates NPOV. Remember, a biography is not a self-promotional job resume. MaxPont 17:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll buy that edit. A wise solution. -- Fyslee/talk 17:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, so now the notability is separated from the quote. Then it would be OK to accept a rewrite of the qoute to my proposed indirect encyclopedic narrative. MaxPont 17:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

That's where the risk of interjecting your own POV is a danger. Weasel words can implant into reader's minds something they did not have before reading those words. That's why a common method for avoid NPOV violations is to quote precisely the POV and attribute it. That makes it clear it is the POV of the person being quoted, and not the POV of Wikipedia or its editors. Unless there are compelling reasons to change a quote, then don't. All kinds of problems can ensue. -- Fyslee/talk 18:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Self serving POV and such words can implant into reader's minds something they did not have before reading those words. Leaving the ad quote out improves the article. Please focus on collaborating with Max to extract the biographical content without the spiked QW POV load. I would be interested for someone to take a Shot at some collaboration with Max on *brief* content extraction. Thanks.--I'clast 20:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Whaaaa? Shot info 23:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No Fyslee, you are using the term weasel words in the wrong way. Weasel words are vauge statements such as: "some people say", "it has been suggested that", "many famous professors believe". In this case we are using perfectly correct sourced and accurate statements such as "he believes", "he says that" (about Barrett). MaxPont 13:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I see you haven't followed the link above to weasel words. You are wrong. The quote is sourced properly and it is obviously his opinion, thus it meets NPOV requirements both as regards wording and sourcing. You are introducing weasel words when it is not necessary, and only adds the obvious suspicion (born out by simply reading the way it reads now) that the editor who wrote that is an adversary of Barrett who wishes to make sure that readers become suspicious about Barrett's own statement. This is an editorializing POV vio and needs to go. Using standard NPOV wording (by making it clear who says it) is the normal way to go. Period. -- Fyslee/talk 14:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The list

I would like to see the preferences of everyone about the list. Do you prefer a link to QW for every item or do you like the way it is, deep linking for some of the list and then just linking to QW for the ones listed on that home page. I am trying to make my own decision but would appreciate what others think of this. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Here are two policies for you to read. The WP:BLP and WP:SELFPUB policies apply in this case.  QuackGuru  talk 21:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I favor the homepage solution, not because deeplinking everything would be against a policy, but because it's more likely to gain a consensus (meaning something everyone can live with) at no cost to WP:V. Cool Hand Luke 21:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

First, Cool Hand Luke, your reasoning in my opinion is not a good reason to me to not deep link each item, sorry. I think that a consensus might be positive for the deep linking but of course this is just a guess on my part. I have really enjoyed your input to this article a lot though so keep up the great work. Mr. Guru, I'll try to reread the policies tomorrow, having a bad day today physically. I am leaning though towards deep linking them all for the following reasons, first, consistency, and I personally think it is clearer for the average reader. I would like others to also give there opinions here if they don't mind. --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how that's possible. At least two editors have expressed that they're absolutely opposed to dumping 32 links in the article. Moreover, their reasoning is not terrible. Such links do resemble a link farm. Cynically, it looks like an end-run around WP:EL, because no evidence is given that each of these 32 articles is relevant to his notability. Here's a hypothetical example to illustrates this argument: imagine that wikipedia editors create a list of over 30 editorial topics written on by a political blogger. Such "citations" would not be allowed as external links, and deeplinking all of them could reflect the biased piece selections of partisan editors who pick sources weakly associated with the blogger's notability in violation of WP:SELFPUB. This might be less of a concern with the homepage articles. At least Barrett himself finds the opinions significant enough to put on the front page. I don't think this argument wins, but I think it's a fair concern for editors to have. Out of respect for our fellow editors, this is an easy accommodation for us to make.

We should make articles easy to use for readers, but we are making a verifiable article, not a directory of Barrett's opinions. As long as WP:V is satisfied, we're fulfilling our primary duty.

Both editors opposed to linking 32 articles seem receptive to linking the homepage where available, and at least two other editors find that acceptable. I think this is a livable consensus solution. Cool Hand Luke 04:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I obviously favor deeplinking as a complete (and the only proper) solution to fulfill the obligation to directly and specifically source content. The second solution is a compromise that eliminates a valuable service to readers. Knowing the two protesters, who would love to not only eliminate the list but the entire article, I find such a compromise problematic, but when an admin backs them up, even while admitting that deeplinking does not violate policy, we're in deep shit here and a compromise may be the only way to save the list at all. Rather compromise than let those two editors get their way and trash the whole list. This must place any right-thinking admin in an uncomfortable situation, knowing they are backing up such intentions and lessening the quality of the article in the process. That is the only reason I have even indicated (above) a willingness to compromise, not because it's a satisfactory or good solution. We are doing readers a disservice by not deeplinking, but if Wikipedia is to live well below its potential and provide half-rate articles, that may be the only solution here. Grumble..... Consensus does indeed often violate NPOV, our most sacred policy! -- Fyslee/talk 05:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe in compromising on our core principles, of course, but this isn't a clear-cut case. I can't think of another article with a list of writing topics like this. It's not perfectly clear that we can even have such a list without some third-party indication of these particular topic's notability. I think the list is editorially desirable because it gives readers a quick idea of the sorts of things he writes about. It's a sidebar though, and his specific claims<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s"> aren't discussed. Deeplinks are useful here, but so are directories, and I think the analogy isn't crazy.

I would feel differently if there was an existing article that did something like this. But if we're plotting new territory, we might as well strive for consensus. Cool Hand Luke 08:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. Lets review. Mr. Guru did not agreed that without reliable third-party references the "BC' can't be used. In fact, it has nothing to do with references. The fact remains that it is misleading and was not unusual to not be BC. It was irrelevant back in the day and was also irrelevant to his career. Therefore, it is intentially misleading. Levine2112 is misunderstanding my conclusions of BC. The board certification thing is revisionism and a BLP violation. Therefore, it will always be against policy to include regardless of whatever references applied. In a biography article primary as well as third-party references can be used. The WP:BLP and WP:SELFPUB policies allow the direct references in question for inclusion. Nonetheless, direct references are also needed to verify the text. Additionally, a link to click to another link can be confusing to find and is not verifiable. The vague links are not the specified topic. What is the specified topic. The direct links are. The direct links are verifiable. A vague link is not each specific topic and does not benefit the reader. According to Levine2112 we should not include primary references and yet he has littered the 'defamation lawsuits' section overwhelmingly with primary references. Correct me if I am mistaken. The questions remains. Should we remove all the primary references from the litigation section or not. As far as the direct references (the list) that lead the reader to exact topic, is it needed to meet the threshold for inclusion. The homepage is not the same because it is not each specific topic. A not so easy to find link is not verifiable. You have to click on the first link to get to the homepage. Next, you have to search and then find the link. Then, click again. Primary references are perfectly acceptable to source the opinion of the author and deeplinking everything would not be against a policy. Consensus is based on policy and not something like, I don't like it. I want others to weigh in on both 'the list' and the 'litigation' or anything else that is relevant.  Mr.Guru  talk  22:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Why not remove the whole list? The paragraphs above and below explain enough so the list really isn't necessary, thought? --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, most of the list refers the reader to the home page which is repetitious. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Without the deeplinks that's somewhat true, but that is also the intention - to get rid of the list, get rid of Barrett's POV, and get rid of Barrett - IOW sabotage this article. So stop and think about what you are supporting. -- Fyslee/talk 13:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Your right but with some of the links going to the home page and some going directly to his article it is a hard read and inconsistent. I say go for a deep link for all of them or get rid of it because without the deep links it is a ridiculous to read. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

None of this addresses the WEIGHT issue. How do we know any of these articles are notable without a third-party reference to support each article? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I find this a bit puzzling. The same words are being used in the article, so how can using different refs be "ridiculous to read"? That could only be true if the list was in fact a de facto list of external links. If that's how you feel about it, I think policy should compel you to demand removal. I, on the other hand, think lists of characteristic topics are useful even without any direct links. Perhaps we should find a third-party source that let's cite a modest listing of topics he's covered. The source for this list would be a third party and wouldn't need to include any links to Barrett at all. Cool Hand Luke 20:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I find this more than a bit bizarre. We are once again forgetting this is a biography, and that WP:EL does not apply in this situation. Sourcing of biographies is a different matter. WP:V requires documented sourcing of material and biographies allow the use of self-published sources as documentation for the POV of the article's subject. We have a solution that works, fulfills all the rules, violates no policy, and now we're going to change course, venture into the Twilight Zone and try to find someone else's opinion about what the subject believes?!? Bizarre. Why not take the simple solution that works and meets policy? If we can't do it any other way, then let's just compromise and use the index page for most of the links and only deeplink the few that are found elsewhere....and then be done with this obstructionist effort and get on with other things. Strangely enough this is par for the course. Let's just compromise. -- Fyslee/talk 20:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I just reject the notion that the list is "ridiculous to read" as-is. Cool Hand Luke 21:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't see it that way either. It can be read as is. It's just one step removed (for all the ones only linking to the index page) from completely fulfilling referencing requirements. I suspect that's why Crohnie wrote that. Simple frustration, which is understandable when a compromise produces a lesser quality product. Whatever. -- Fyslee/talk 21:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Why allow a link farm to controversial, essentially self-published pages of questionable reliability, when *one* reference from the same source demonstrates WP:V, WP:RS and provides an overview for chunks of the list *and* provides access? I am all for a thorough, informative, *balanced* bio that even includes *some* access. Even in the bio, I don't see a need for spam linking - else who/what decides when to stop? 100 pages? 500 pages? This is not QW-WP, yet.--I'clast 21:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Plus without secondary sources, there is no way to show that any of this satisfies WEIGHT. Again, all we know of Barrett's writing these articles come from the primary source... Unlike the Board Certifiaction issue which had primary and secondary sources. BLP applies to positive and neutral content just as it does to negative content. If we are going to insist on secondary sources for Board Certification, then we must do the same for what articles Barrett has written. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Link farming refers to external links and has nothing to do when primary references are perfectly acceptable to source the opinion of the author. We do not insist on secondary sources for board certification because it is revisionism and a BLP violation regardless of sources presented. Levine has again ignored my previous conclusions about BC and has forgotten about an administrator had removed it under BLP policy. And there was never any secondary sources for the BC thing. POV attack references are not secondary sources. Again, primary sources for the authors opinion are usuable under current policy. Vague links to a home page makes is difficult to find the specific topic. Direct links are easier for the reader. Therefore, direct links will improve and create a higher quality article.  Mr.Guru  talk  18:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. -- Fyslee/talk 19:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Barrett confirmed first hand that he was not Board Certified. So if primary sources are usuable under current policy, why not include that Barrett is not Board Certified. BLP applies to positive and neutral contant just the same as it does to negative content. Otherwise, if you can't apply the same threshold accross the board, I think linking just to the QW homepage is reference enough to support that Barrett indeed authored articles about these subject. Regardless, this still doesn't show any notability. Why is it notable to mention that Barrett wrote an article on some subject? We need secondary sources to show each article's notability. Otherwise we are relying on OR to make the assumption of which of his articles are worth mentioning and which ones are not. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

More importantly, we are here to write an encyclopedia and a BLP, the current format and push to include this list of information is just plain ugly. I think the list should be pruned to a single line saying that "Barrett has authored on numerous...blah, blah" with the reference to the QW site (per Levine). I agree with Levine that the _detail_ of this information is not notable. Shot info 23:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Levine, I answered your question already. The BC is revisionism and a BLP violation regardless of who said what. It is misleading and has been used to advance the critics' agenda. As for the list. We are not relying on OR. The reason: Primary references are perfectly acceptable to source the opinion of the author. Deep linking is easier for the reader. Just one click is easier versus hard to find links. Therefore, deep linking will improve and create a higher quality article. Note. There may be a way to have one ref and have each link for readers to click on. Just add the links all in one ref. This could be a good compromise. Also it can be done in small for the links to take up very little room. We can have only one ref and include all the links! Agreed?  Mr.Guru  talk  03:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not know how to properly format the links into one ref in a uniform format. Just regular deep linking may be the best option. Any thoughts.  Mr.Guru  talk  04:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus to add deep links. I am in favor of limiting the list only to ones which have a third-party reference to lend Weight to the article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) You must be aware that that would place his criticisms of chiropractic right at the top of any list. Right now it is given equal weight, simply because weight is not a guideline that applies here. If you insist on weight being applied, then chiropractic will end at the top and be backed up by multitude third party references from V & R sources who happen to agree with him, and quite a few who don't. I vote for keeping the current format where they are all given equal weight. Thus no editorial POV accusations of bias can be involved. -- Fyslee/talk 18:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Is that supposed to be some kind of threat? Look, if Barrett is most notable for being a critic of Chiropractic, so be it. Personally I concur with the government of New Zealand - who found Barrett not to be a credible critic of chiropractic in any shape or form. Quote from the New Zealand Commission on Chiropractic - nothing [Stephen Barrett, then chairman of LVCAHF and current vice president of NCAHF] has written on chiropractic that we have considered can be relied on as balanced. But if that is what he is known for most and there are third-party references supporting that, then sure it should be included. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 05:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Here are two policies for you to read. The WP:BLP and WP:SELFPUB policies apply in this case. Primary references are perfectly acceptable when sourcing the opinion of the author in this particular case. Deep linking is easier for the reader to find the specified topic. Agreed?  Mr.Guru  talk  18:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. This is not presenting the opinion of the author, but rather giving a list of his writings whcih are of questionable notability without secondary sources to give each one weight. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Levine said in part: This is not presenting the opinion of the author,... If it is not the opinion of the author then it is secondary sources. If it is the opinion of the author then it satisfies policy. Agreed?  Mr.Guru  talk  18:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree still. There is a flaw in your logic here, for something can be neither an opinion and a secondary source. Granted, each article Barrett has written is his opinion, but the fact that he wrote said articles is not an opinion. Currently, the only sources lending to the notability of said articles are the self-published articles themselves. By only sourcing to the articles themselves or even to their listing on Quackwatch, we do not in anyway satisfy WP:WEIGHT. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

>Outdent< I checked the list and all but the Stem Cell/Embrionic article is linked to from the home page. I fixed it, but I still say that we need secondary sources to show why listing each one is notable and to provide weight to each article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with you Levine (although I do like your signature!). Yes, it is not a link farm, but it simplifies the process to be able to click on a link and go to his commentary about the specific point. In addition, this article is about Barrett, and his comments. Maybe we should add more primary sources, but I'm not completely in support of that idea--this article isn't completely about his critiques, it's about him. Personally, I like the links because it simplifies the wiki-experience. Is that so bad? Orangemarlin 23:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The references are there to support that he has written on the subjects listed. The Quackwatch site provides links to all but one of these articles. We are not here to provide a link farm for Stephen Barrett nor to make it one-click easy for people to read his opinions on different subject matters. If someone wishes to read more about a particular topic, they can simply go to the Quackwatch home page and click-thru. Two-clicks. Regardless, how do we know it is notable that he wrote any of these articles. Secondary sources need to be provided in order to satisfy WP:WEIGHT. Otherwise, this list ought to be deleted. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You've convinced me on the lists (not completely, but I'm not sure it's worth warring over). However, I'm not sure undue weight is violated since the discussion is about Barrett, not about these topics. OrangeMarlin^Talk 23:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

My feeling is that Barrett has written on many other subjects not listed here yet. Are we to list each and every subject which he has written on? This would be a long list indeed. What is the threshhold for inclusion of this list. I've dealt with lists before and they can easily grow unwieldy if we don't set steadfast inclusionary rules. Or is it more prudent to only list the ones where there is a secondary source to show notability? Another option is to just say that Barrett has written about many subject dealing with alternative medicine, etc. and just leave it at that. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Nice signature. I like the color choices - very apropos. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, in the context of editing an encyclopedia (which is what we are doing) we don't need to mention EVERYTHING (something that Levine should bear in mind with additions of criticism it should be noted). Hence I agree with his summation "Another option is to just say that Barrett has written about many subject dealing with alternative medicine, etc. and just leave it at that." with a reference to the relevant area (or even areas) within QW and other locations. Note that on particular subjects that Barrett has been particularly well known for, then special mention is warranted, but otherwise, (IMO) no. Shot info 00:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The areas for which he is particularly well-known for should have secondary sources demonstrating this notability. The rest should go. (With regards to the criticism section... Shot info should bear in mind that this section is short now and only includes criticism from 3 sources.) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP tells us what is in a BLP. It's that simple. The criticism is better...now...in spite of distributions and edit wars. Levine should bear this in mind when editing BLPs. Shot info 01:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

At this point I have no idea what you are talking about. It seems like you are point fingers at me just to point fingers. Let's not start that again. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but what exactly is so wrong, in a list of articles the man has written, with linking directly to those articles? Are you disputing the notability of those articles in the absence refs proving it? ornis (t) 02:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. We need secondary sources to demonstrate WP:WEIGHT, but I would rather just say he wrote many articles criticizing Alternative Medicine. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The WP:BLP and WP:SELFPUB policies apply to articles when written on a person. The discussion is about Barrett which satisfies policy. Link farming refers to external links and has nothing to do when primary references are perfectly acceptable to source the opinion of the author. Primary sources for the authors opinion are usuable under current policy. A vague link to a home page makes is very difficult to find any topic. Direct links are easier for the reader. Therefore, direct linking will create a higher quality article. At the very least we should link some of the difficult to find links. I'm convinced the links should remain in the article. However, linking some and not all of the difficult to find links could be a good compromise.  Mr.Guru  talk  04:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

(copy of WP:WEIGHT policy) NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source... By the way. Under current WP:WEIGHT policy we do have reliable sources. According to WP:WEIGHT policy mentioned by Levine2112 we can use primary references because they are reliable sources. Hmmm.  Mr.Guru  talk  05:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

See point three of WP:SELFPUB... it is not unduly self-serving. Hmm. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 05:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you mean a different policy that one that discusses self references within Wikipedia to Wikipedia? Shot info 05:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes and I have to say, I think this whole list is unduly self-serving. We have no way on controlling or regulating what goes on this list. Certainly, if we are to have a list we should excercise some restraint by only including those topics which have some kind of secondary source lending to the notability/weight of Barrett writing about said topic. Otherwise, let's can the whole list. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 05:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, in my own article construction efforts, I try to keep lists to 3, 4, mayybbbeee 5 lines, at 6 lines, I get ruthless. I try to keep the list's scripted^ref references to a minimum, where one reference covers several or many items, unless the reference is of a special quality (rare, super authoritative, hard to find). Although I might see where my point of view could benefit from a longer list, I don't do it because I think it is poor encyclopedicity and may reflect a need to change .--I'clast 05:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

We are talking about direct links for the benefit of the reader. No change to the text. Therefore, it is not unduly self-serving. In fact, it is very neutral in tone. Just links. Everything is in accordance with policy. Are direct links better for the reader? Are vague links harder for the reader to find the article? What is the best way to improve this article? Can we compromise on linking some of the links?  Mr.Guru  talk  06:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Direct links to each of Barrett's opinion pieces is certainly unduly self-serving. Additionally, point 4 of WP:SELFPUB states: it does not involve claims about third parties. Well, that's exactly what we have here. Given that this list violates at least two of the seven caveats of SELFPUB, I don't think that the policy can protect the inclusion. The links themselves shoulf be there just to support/verify the content. A link to the home page of Quackwatch which lists all but one of these articles is sufficient. Regardless, I am in favor of doing away with the cumbersome list and replacing it with a mention of articles with notability established and demonstrated by a third-party source. Otherwise, the reader has no way of knowing what the inclusionary practice was for the list and for which articles and topics Barrett is notable for. I am pretty sure you can find third-party references which support the notability of Barrett's writing on Chiropractic, Homeopathy and Alternative Medicine in generel, but until these third-party references surface, we have no way of knowing for sure.-- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

(ri) Which ones specifically? ornis (t) 06:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the links are self-serving at all, not in the context of WP:SELFPUB. Certainly not "unduly" when there is a list of points with a link to each. I agree with I'clast that the list should be shortened, but at that same time I agree with WP:V that claims should be referenced. Either the links stay or the list is shortened (with links). My preference, for a better encyclopedia, is a short list. Shot info 06:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

A good example of showing notability comes to us from Barrett's own Quackwatch - actually the Wikipedia article. Read the sentence: Quackwatch has also been cited or mentioned by journalists in reports on .... Something like this in place of the unwieldy list would be more appropriate and more in line with Wikipedia policies. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You are comparing apples to oranges. That section in Quackwatch discusses and documents the notablity of the website, a requirement for the very existence of the article here. Only tertiary sources will do for that purpose.

The list in this article has nothing to do with Barrett's notability. That has already been established. The list documents what he has criticized, and since sourcing is required, each item is sourced as required, using the only sources allowable and useful in this situation - primary sources. No one else's opinion counts. He has written his opinions in those articles.

BTW, thanks for admitting (in your edit summary here) that they are HIS articles, and obviously HIS opinions, which obviously means they are allowed as primary sources for this BLP, where other rules apply than in other types of articles. No policy violations here. Please stop obstructing the building of an article that is informative and a service to readers.

I have restored the list to the condition required by the WP:V & WP:ECITErules for sourcing here, since WP:EL doesn't apply in precisely this situation (documentation of the opinions of the subject of a BLP article in the article itself). -- Fyslee/talk 15:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The legitimate concept of a Wikified/reference linked, biographical list with some examples can be extended well past taste[39] into outright promotion and advertising of person & opinions from (technically) questionable sources filled with unreliable opinions often confused with reliable technical sources.--I'clast 18:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. The way the list is linked up now - aside from being just ugly - is certainly unduly self-serving to Barrett, nearly providing him with a Table of Contents of his website. This is ridiculous. Furthermore, none of the articles listed have any secondary sources to satisfy the WP:WEIGHT concern. What is to stop someone from listing every single article Barrett has ever written and providing direct links to each. Again, let's removed all of the articles and just say that Barrett has critically written about many forms of Alternative Medicine and reference it the home page of Quackwatch. Otherwise, we are giving much to much weight to each article Barrett has written when certainly most of them are not notable in the slightest. . . and if they were/are, then secondary sources should be easy to locate to support individual articles. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The list as "reliable sources"

(copy of WP:WEIGHT policy) NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source... In accordance with WP:WEIGHT policy, we have reliable sources. According to WP:WEIGHT policy primary references are reliable sources and acceptable. This improves the quality of the article. We can compromise by linking some of the hard to find links. If not, we will go by the most notable. The chiropractic reference will then be moved up to the top of the list! Agreed?  Mr.Guru  talk  03:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The links are reliable sources that the articles represent Dr Barrett's opinions, they are not reliable sources about the subjects. Hence one encyclopedic view might be to take a long list, even longer, flatten it to a 5-6 line paragraph with primarily the homepage link and a few more. The other is called link farming and advertisement at some point.--I'clast 11:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You write: "The links are reliable sources that the articles represent Dr Barrett's opinions, they are not reliable sources about the subjects." Precisely! We are in full agreement. In this situation (which has nothing to do with the subjects themselves), we are only documenting that he has written on those subjects and sourcing the claim that he has done so. We are not quoting from those articles, only using internal links. I would support your concern about a link farm if someone decided to expand the list to include everything he's written about. No one is suggesting or attempting that.

We are not even getting close to any violation of WP:SELFPUB, because we are not even using one word of the "material" from those self-published articles (which could be against the "contentious" clause there), only linking to them as embedded refs of equal quality, which means they don't disturb the flow of the article. Such linking is not forbidden and fulfills the requirement for verifiablity. -- Fyslee/talk 15:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Defamation lawsuits

A bunch of them were removed when the article was locked by administrator if you remember. Then there was discussion about how they should be presented. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The litigation section is way too BIG. I here here alarm bells ringing in my ear. Any thoughts?  Mr.Guru  talk  21:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

How about the suggestion that was said about putting them in a paragraph instead of listing? Just a though...--CrohnieGal^Talk 21:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The way I would write it is start up front with an explanation of his relationship with Bolen. It's poorly explained now, but it drove these lawsuits. Then I would explain the lawsuits simply. Something like:

Barrett filed suits against website operators and USENET posters reposting Bolen's letters online in several states, including Illinois,[cite] California,[cite] and Pennsylvania.[cite] Most of these were dismissed under anti-SLAPP statutes,[cite] or failing to establish the evidentiary burden for libel,[cite] or because of an interpretation of Communications Decency Act ("CDA") that gives users immunity from lawsuits when reposting libelous material online.[cite, but see also settlement] Barrett v. Rosenthal, a lawsuit that Barrett initiated with another doctor in California was appealed to that state's supreme court. The court adopted the majority interpretation of the CDA, granting immunity to defendants for reposting Bolen's letters online.

I'm probably over-reacting, but the coverage on these lawsuits is currently very repetitive and over-detailed. Also, does anyone know what happened on remand in Barrett v. Negrete? Is it still a live case? I should look it up in PACER but I'm close to $10 in charges. In any case, it hasn't been covered well, so should be excluded as OR. Cool Hand Luke 22:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

That's an excellent summary. It should be possible to cover the matter in two or three paragraphs (including the refs, and place explanatory notes in the refs to keep the article text shorter). -- Fyslee/talk 23:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, I looked into Barrett v. Negrete after all and the case is still live. Last entry in the docket was the magistrate judge's pretrial planning and discovery report April 10. Discovery is apparently ongoing right now, and the magistrate requests settlement statements by September 11. Unless the parties settle, the last pre-trial conference will be held April 7, 2008. The reason that it's taken so long is both parties agreed to stay the case pending the California supreme court's ruling in Barrett v. Rosenthal—not that any of this belongs in the article. Has little coverage; I say we keep this case out until that changes. Cool Hand Luke 23:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think a paragraph similar to what CHL has authored above would certainly work. Definitely, we should work our way from Bolen and the infamous press release and how that grew into several libel suits, give the results and finally landmark internet case, Barrett v. Rosenthal. Note that though the CDA finding provides immunity for the reposting of libel, the judges opinion in Rosenthal was that none of the statements were in fact libelous anyhow. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Nothing was libelous against Barrett, which is why the circuit court affirmed the motion to strike against all of his claims. The stalking comment (not against Barrett) was quite possibly libelous, but the Supreme Court does not reach the issue, nor was it competent to. That's why the majority does not weigh in on the factual question. It looks like Justice Moreno was just emphasizing that the court of appeals affirmed dismissal of all Barrett's claims; even he doesn't express an opinion about libel on the stalking claim. We'll never know because the issue is decided by law and can't reach a trier of fact. It might be worth a mention to state that the only remaining potentially libelous statement was actually made against Polevoy. Cool Hand Luke 00:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The judge's opinion in BvR was that none of her statements about Barrett were libelous. Nothing said about Bolen's statements. Bolen's original libelous statements are still the subject of court actions. Her wild and hyperbolous statements were so far out that no sensible person would believe them, thus they were judged as not causing any harm and she got off the hook, even though she believes them and intends harm (she still repeats them and embellishes on them, thus setting her up for further lawsuits without any CDA protection at all). -- Fyslee/talk 08:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Right. Justice Moreno affirms that nothing she said against Barrett (including claims repeated from Bolen) were libelous; that's how he reaches his additional finding that she was not in conspiracy with others. You're right that we can't really draw much of a conclusion on Bolen's remarks at all, and we shouldn't make such sweeping statements. It's still worth repeating from secondary sources that only Polevoy had any stakes in the California Supreme Court decision though. Cool Hand Luke 13:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Since this is the Stephen Barrett article, I think that the Polevoy detail would be better suited for mention on the actually Barrett v. Rosenthal article and not here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with CHL. A mention of the Polevoy details would fit into this article.  Mr.Guru  talk  19:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

At this point, we should comment out the litigation because of the servere weight problems.  Mr.Guru  talk  20:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Unlike the list of Barrett's articles, the litigation section actually has many secondary sources supporting what is said there. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Also the primary sources in the litigation sources are not (technically) questionable sources filled with unreliable opinions often confused with reliable technical sources, where the legitimate concept of a Wikified/reference linked, biographical list with some examples can be extended well past taste[40] into outright promotion and advertising of person & opinions.--I'clast 18:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The litigation section is extremely HUGE. I here alarm bells ringing in my ear. What next?  Mr.Guru  talk  03:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a proposal on the table to have the litigation section shortened to describe just the meat of the trials - the history, who sued who and why, and the results; all leading to the granddaddy of the cases thus far: Barrett v. Rosenthal. If you would like to help craft that, please participate constructively here and work to gain a consensus rather than telling us about the noises you are hearing in your head. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Pfizer

I removed it. This is simply a WEIGHT issue, as well as keeping the Barrett/big-pharma conspiracy promoters in check. --Ronz 17:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

We should avoid Pfizer weasel words.  Mr.Guru  talk  17:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Another example of weasel wording is changing numerous to most. We know Barrett has criticized numerous but saying most is just weasel wording and original research.  Mr.Guru  talk  17:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

No one is saying that Barrett and Pfizer are in a conspiracy together... at least not on this article. What is notable is that Pfizer sponsored the survey from which we are referencing. It takes no OR to see that. It is right there on the reference. Pfizer is much more notable that SpikedOnline and to leave it out is an egregious omission apparently being done to protect Barrett from the association. That is what is weaselly here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Saying it was done in collaboration smacks (or implies) of a conspiracy which is weasel wording and is obviously a weight problem.  Mr.Guru  talk  18:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that is an obvious conclusion you are reaching. Pfizer actually solves the Weight issue of mentioning such a "small-potatoes" publication such as SpikedOnline. It makes it seem more notable and worth mentioning. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The Pfizer collaboration is obviously weasel wording to imply Barrett is collaborating with Pfizer. The Pfizer reference is there to support inclusion but without the weasel words. We can keep the reference but remove the weasel.  Mr.Guru  talk  18:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to Levine2112's edit summary, the website is notable, and notable enough to have an article here (which settles any charges of lacking notability!). I've been on their mailing list for years. The survey is even more notable because of the interviewees, who are outstanding and notable persons in their own rights, including several Nobel laureates. That's what makes it all notable, not because it was done in collaboration with Pfizer. -- Fyslee/talk 19:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Pfizer is much more notable that SpikedOnline's survey. There is absolutely no reason not to mention it. No one is makign the assertion here in the article that Barrett and Pfizer are in cohoots; rather all we are stating is the fact that Pfizer sponsored the survey. It is clear from the responses here that some of the editors removing the Pfizer mention are in fact protecting Barrett from this association. This is called white-washing and is expressly prohibited by Wiki policy. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

We do not need the Pfizer weasel words to support inclusion. The reference is included to support notability.  Mr.Guru  talk  19:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

As regards the survey, "sponsorship" is OR. "Collaboration" is the proper word. Pfizer is one of many sponsors of the website and magazine, another matter entirely. As regards the bad faith charges of whitewashing, there is nothing to whitewash, since the only association is between Spiked and Pfizer, not Barrett and Pfizer. -- Fyslee/talk 19:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict x2) Fyslee stated it better than I was going to. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

"In association with Pfizer" would be the most correct way to word this based on the source. There is no implications by mentioning this other that lending to the over notability of this survey. Otherwise, why mention that this came from a survey at all? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

In association with Pfizer is implying Barrett is associated with Pfizer when he did the survey which is original research.  Mr.Guru  talk  20:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Pfizer-Barrett inference [41] is original reserach, *all yours*.--00:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Remedial Reading 101:

• "What Inspired You? is a survey of key thinkers in science, technology and medicine, conducted by spiked in collaboration with the research-based pharmaceutical company Pfizer." (emphasis added - Fyslee)

Now what part of that exact quote do you not understand? And it has to do with Spiked, not Barrett. -- Fyslee/talk 20:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Makes complete sense to me. Let's add the wording just as it says then: in collaboration with Pfizer. (Research based is superfluous for our purposed here). Also, I was getting the "in association with" from the top of the reference where it says in association with Pfizer (logo). I agree that it has to do with Spiked and not Barrett. I am not sure why QuackGuru is making that implication. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If "in collaboration with" is not preferred, "in parternership with" might find quotable resonance with some. From the same credits, Pfizer statement, "...While the [survey respondents'] views expressed in the What Inspired You? survey do not necessarily reflect the views of Pfizer, we are proud to partner with spiked to find out more...".--I'clast 00:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This is one of those pointless pieces of trivia that seem to litter the highly contentious articles because editors say "yes" with one hand and "no" with the other. The particular peace of trivia (like so many others...) can be easily seen in the reference when clicked on, adds absolutely nothing to the article, and casts a poor light on the editorial capabilities of wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Shot info 00:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

For notability, Pfizer is the heavyweight here, perhaps the primary mover & author (concretely stating *either* Spiked or Pfizer as primary is OR so far; Spiked *is* the publisher). Beyond the Pfizer presence directly noted as "in association with", "collaborative" & "partner" here, its lengthy presentation and careful description here suggest that about all we can reasonably, literally assume is that Spiked licked the envelopes &/or made the followup phone calls and wrote a few paragraphs. It is not sensible to say that Spiked initated various major committments & arranged the Pfizer VP's lead speech at the Chemical Society, identified, vetted, and lined up the 134 respondents (out of no-telling how many invites even with Pfizer's name and money driving attention), perhaps arranging transport, housing, and perhaps honoraria in some cases (common corporate & pharma practices in many areas). By various measures Pfizer is almost certainly the lead partner (Spiked? spake who?) but again my point is that it is OR to assume Spiked is primary in most senses, given the details so far. Both need to be credited. Without Pfizer's involvement, my view this is just another lightweight (non-notable) corporate paid blog with some printed advertising.--I'clast 05:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't think the mention of the survey should be included without mentioning Pfizer. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 05:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Pfizer did not has some type of involvement with Barrett. Therefore, it is irrelevant to mention Pfizer. Mentioning Pfizer is weasel wording. Spiked online conducted the survey and not Pfizer. Notability has nothing to do with Pfizer.  Mr.Guru  talk  06:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Unlike you, I have no fixed ideas about anything regarding Barrett & Pfizer. Pfizer clearly has a major part in the creation and publication of this survey as noted in the Spiked! website and Pfizer, #1$ in its industry, is far weightier and more credible than Spiked. Sourcing counts.--I'clast 06:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Naturally...

Other articles in Wikipedia would regard the sentence "Mr. X, in association with Mr. Y, said....." as weasel wording. Other editors would drop the bit between the comma's. The arguements to keep it in do smack somewhat of desperation, especially when the link is not wikipedia's to make, nor is this article about Spiked. The "in association with..." should be in the Spiked article, not here. Shot info 07:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

In other cases, "in association with" just euphemeistically means advertising or financial support. Here the article itself also speaks to "collaboration" and "partner" as well as other signs of active participation; Spiked! not showing the personnel resources to ordinarily carry out a number of related tasks, that are easy for Pfizer here. Here, "in association with" looks very modest, and quite different in scope of participation.--I'clast 07:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

So is the reference in regard to Spiked or SB. Other editors fail to make the connection in notability for the Spiked article itself. Use here is strange. I don't disagree with the parsing of the sentence (remember I agree with it back at the start) but I'm thinking that it is more weaselly to mention it here, and not specifically at Spiked itself. Without this, it implies that there is an importance of Pfizer to SB, rather than to Spiked. Obviously this isn't the case, which is why it is better to have it where it is relevant, at Spiked. Shot info 07:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Pfizer is probably not notable to WP's Spiked article, since Spiked apparently has many such corporate relationships unless Pfizer is the dominant one. Pfizer *is notable* in this survey series article because Pfizer has a big presence in research, having credibility and contacts throughout the biomed & scientific world, touching many of lives. Spiked!, probably, simply would not be a credible party to most invitees by itself or be able to dig up and chose all the candidates. I would say take Spiked & Pfizer at their words, "collaboration" and "partner" - if you mention/quote one, you clearly mention/quote both, at least the first time and maintain the full attribution in the references/footnotes to any separate paragraphs. As for SB-Pfizer connections (or aspersions), there is nothing here other than he is one party of interest to the Spiked-Pfizer survey, among 134.--I'clast 08:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

So you agree that the relationship of Pfizer to SB is irrelevant and yes that it is in context with Spiked. Explain why again it should be brought up in SB rather than Spiked? All the information above seems to deal with Spiked, not SB, he is just circumstantial. Shot info 08:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

...relationship of Pfizer to SB is irrelevant would be OR, too sweeping, and not specifically germane here. I said that there is no such imputation here of aspersion on or impropriety by SB with the survey. Simply the correct sourcing combines Spiked & Pfizer because of the literal (& liberal) wordings used by them as well as the nature and scope of the materials & followup required for the survey, etc. The combined sources are noted and notable at SB because the survey sponsor especially pertains to the notability, credibility and stature of the specific survey series, the 134 respondents, including Dr Barrett, and not the rest of Spiked magazine. We need to work out reasonably succinct, factual and accurate attribution to source (and weight) the sourced material (in two different sections/parts), I proposed what I thought was reasonably compact & complete attribution, above[42]. I am thinking use Spiked in collaboration with Pfizer... in the first sentence, use Pfizer in one or more of the refs in the first sentence and the lead to the later paragraph, and refer to "The Spiked survey..." implicitly back to the first, longer full form as above it.--I'clast 10:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

IMO the twisting of WP principles is sometimes taken to extremes. How can mentioning of a clearly stated partner in a collaborative project be Original Research? MaxPont 12:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi all, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_Barrett&diff=next&oldid=146985450 What is this? Reference tampering? Please help... somebody! Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  18:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It's called more complete attribution. Pls read the previous discussions. Zzzzz.--I'clast 19:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The change he complained about lost changed two references to one different one, without a good reason. Please use the {{cite}} templates if you change the references to add Pfizer (which I still feel is at most appropriate within the {{cite}} template.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Pfizer

The correct references are all included to meet the inclusion criteria. More importantly, please refrain from adding weasel words. Barrett is not a partner with Pfizer. Moreover, there is no relationship between Pfizer and Barrett. Therefore, is serves no purpose to include it in this article. It is irrelevant to mention Pfizer. Notability has been established by including the references.  Mr.Guru  talk  19:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where this Barrett-Pfizer stuff keeps coming from, the correct source attribution is Spiked and Pfizer, collaborating on the survey and content, where Pfizer likely did much heavy lifting. Spiked is the publisher with *very* minimal direct editorial content there, similar to Pfizer's. It has been pointed out before by others that your citation of WP:WEASEL is skewed. ... presenting opinion as such and leaving it strictly at that. Words characteristic of this stylistic phenomenon, such as "critics say..." and "some argue that...", are colloquially known in Wikipedia as Weasel words. Pfizer "in collaboration" and cited as a "partner" in the survey are WP:RS facts to the extent we accept Spiked magazine itself. Since the admins have locked the article for 2 weeks, I'll wish anyone ready for one, a good vacation (maybe me too).--I'clast 21:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the "reference tampering" bit, but it's just plain sloppy quoting. Y'all should know better. (corrected per I'clast's confession below - Fyslee)

The title is not "Key thinkers....", as implied below:

• entitled "Key thinkers in science, technology and medicine." (emphasis added - Fyslee)

The proper wording (without any refs here) is:

• The magazine Spiked-online named Barrett in a survey of 134 "Key thinkers in science, technology and medicine."

The title of the survey was:

• What Inspired You?

How on earth can this mistake be made yet again? Come on guys, this kind of carelessness is unbecoming, and now this inaccuracy is locked in place. -- Fyslee/talk 20:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Please make the changes explained above. This has nothing to do with POV, but only regards accurate quoting. Here is the correct code:

• The magazine Spiked-online named Barrett in a survey of 134 "Key thinkers in science, technology and medicine." -- Fyslee/talk 20:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

No so fast with the request[43], your assertions too have several problems. Please discuss to get a correct, agreed answer first, Fyslee.

Fyslee, there several problems with your assertions on "wrong edit". We're all a little sloppy sometimes. "entitled" - that's originally mine, not Max's, sorry. Named? where? "referred to" might be more accurate, maybe "called", we should work on verbiage and word choice here first. Using "entitled" as a trojan to revert other favored parts to even less accurate text, no thanks. Hopefully the admins are watching this very carefully. What Inspired You? is a survey of key thinkers in science, technology and medicine, conducted by spiked in collaboration with the research-based pharmaceutical company Pfizer. Survey respondents hail...[44] Work the text here first, please. Word improvement & phrasing there is a small thing, and we have plenty of time to do it right.--I'clast 20:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I will propose this text to replace ...respondents, [11] entitled "Key thinkers in science... with ...respondents[11] referred to as "...key thinkers in science....--I'clast 21:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC); ^{updated I'clast 19:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)}

First off my apologies to MaxPont. I saw his revert using the inaccurate wording and linked to it, not realizing it was a repeat of an earlier error. My only concern at this point is the mislabeling of the title of the survey. It was a survey of 134 key thinkers, entitled "What inspired you?" If you want to interject weasel words to ensure that readers question whether they (including the Nobel laureates) actually are key thinkers, then that is just another example of your POV editing. The weasel words are unnecessary editorializing. Why do you insist on walking in such "small shoes" (as the Danes would say)? A bit of fairness and largess on your part would be more becoming. Smallmindedness and pettiness are unbecoming. Assuming good faith of more than just the editors here would help things alot. You are creating potholes in a nicely paved highway. -- Fyslee/talk 22:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Fyslee, one of the problems I am having with the article and your view, is that you overstate Barrett's accomplishments without accurate context and importance, much less a human balance with anyone's true natural frailites. In general this is not wise, in critical health care issues this is dangerous, readers need an accurate article with facts, even if they are not all flattering. I feel there is a balancing factual deficiency that does not aid readers to accurately weigh(t) Dr Barrett's opinions as a mortal here. Not so very long ago my views of Dr Barrett would have probably more closely paralleled HHS' Eng. I don't think the fundamental problem is for me to "makee nice-nice", but for Dr Barrett to better distinguish and focus on what is false and dangerous or that we create an accurate article.

"Barrett named" was not a correct summary either of the Spiked-Pfizer survey and helped cause a slight confusion (also I recommend fixing the contributory capitalization & ellipsis errata, as suggested above). I made an early trial edit and mischose one word, that took a life of its own. We are continuing to refine that sentence here. As for Pfizer, it is part and parcel of the Spiked-Pfizer survey collaboration as stated in the survey's webpages. I think that Arthur and I were getting somewhere, and I am quite willing to work to improve the factual transition to the "key thinkers" quote some more. I have always found that extracting the facts accurately is important. But if the shoe fits, one should wear it, too. As for any perceived lack fairness and largess assigned to me, that may more reflect your beliefs, committments and long running activism than any real action or intent on my part. With an article like Dr Barrett's bio, smooth is *not* the primary objective, factual & accurate is. When I say this looks like an advertising link farm, please take me at my word - I am not aware of *any* other WP bio with that many wikified & linked references to the subject's opinions.--I'clast 10:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

"I don't know where this Barrett-Pfizer stuff keeps coming from" because the information is in Stephen Barrett, you know the article we are editing here. So if it appears in Stephen Barrett and not Spiked (magazine) then that means that it is more notable for one article and not the other. Why you cannot see such a basic function of Wikipedia is surprising (although probably shouldn't be given past edit warring). Given that editors are desparate to keep it in here and not here either means there is a POV fork going on, or the Pfizer issue is just not notable. Your call... Shot info 00:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Pfizer is also *listed* in Spiked (magazine) among 30+ sponsors, partners etc, but the detail there is inadequate and has nothing to do with source attribution. Here, the Pfizer source is part and parcel of its correct attribution with Spiked and notability of the survey.--I'clast 10:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Pfizer Promoting Controversy

{{edit protected}} Sentence to be restored > The magazine Spiked-online named Barrett in a survey of 134 "Key thinkers in science, technology and medicine."

According to Tim: The "quackbusters," we know, were originally organized, and funded, by the pharmaceutical industry. Insinuating there is a collaboration with Pfizer and Barrett has been used to advance an agenda and thus a BLP violation and weasel wording. For example, when referring to The New Yorker magazine we do not mention the sponsors because it would be weasel wording. This is also synthesizing a controversy. I believe in accordance with policy this edit should be reverted. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  01:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Please deny this request. Tim Bolen's accusation doesn't appear on this page and it is clear from the article here that the collaboration with Pfizer is with Spiked online and not with Barrett. QuackGuru has been told this many times and he is the only one here making this inference. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Please fulfill this request. We have policies for all us to adhere to. See: WP:WEASEL WP:BLP WP:SYN. Cheers.  Mr.Guru  talk  01:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The only agenda exists in your mind. It is clear from the wording that the association is between Pfizer and SpikedOnline and not between Pfizer and Barrett. Thus no SYN, no WEASEL and certainly no BLP violation. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

So why is it needed here and not here. As you have pointed out (and I'clast) "the association is between Pfizer and SpikedOnline and not between Pfizer and Barrett". Shot info 07:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

To describe the survey in full and to satisfy WP:WEIGHT. The Pfizer association demonstrates to the prominence of the survey and why it is given such a proportionate space in the article. I am not going to lecture you on the actual text WP:WEIGHT. At this point, I am sure we all can recite it verbatim. Suffice it to say, keeping the survey's association with Pfizer - an extremely large player in the health world - reference demonstrates weight appropriate to its significance to the subject, Stephen Barrett - a player in the health world. If QuackGuru concucts something negative into this, we can't help. He could just as easily read something positive in this - that Pfizer sponsored a survey that chose Barrett for a reponse could seem like a prestigious thing. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 08:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Chill about QG, this question has been asked of other editors and you are the only one to answer. So Pfizer has relevance to SB? Yes or no. Because in one breath you say no "the association is between Pfizer and SpikedOnline and not between Pfizer and Barrett", and in another you say yes "keeping the survey's association with Pfizer - an extremely large player in the health world - reference demonstrates weight appropriate to its significance to the subject, Stephen Barrett - a player in the health world". Either it is relevant to SB or not relevant to SB. Which is it. If Pfizer has relevance to SB, then yes, I agree, needs to be in Stephen Barrett. Shot info 08:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

There is problems with the wording of the sentence currently in the article. We have policies we should comply with. Right?  Mr.Guru  talk  02:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

We have been through stuff like this before such as the BC revisionism which was a BLP violation. Agreed?  Mr.Guru  talk  02:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

This is the same problem but a new sentence. This is another endless ongoing debate to include against policy material. This is a very serious matter. When in doubt leave it out. BLP says do no harm!  Mr.Guru  talk  02:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The current POV sentence in the article violates policy after policy. Articles must be written from a neutral view point. End of discussion.  Mr.Guru  talk  04:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

N Edit declined. Protected edits require consensus, which this one does not have. No opinion about the substance of the edit. Sandstein 05:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editprotected}}

Another request

We request an unrelated tag be placed upon the Biography section because there is unrelated content currently in the article. "in collaboration with Pfizer," is pointy and is unrelated to the specific Barrett survey. This article is about Barrett and not Pfizer. It has no relevance to Barrett. Read the above comments by Shot info for more details. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  19:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a tendentious edit request[45] by QuackGuru, relentlessly pushing again. He's had plenty of explanations that he is out & out misassociating the WP article with a notable source for an otherwise marginal quote that has dubious aspects on self statements and disproportionate quoting.--I'clast 04:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

We? QG's royal "I". No consenus exists to make partial attribution without most notable contributor. QG has been shown multiple times that this is correct attribution for the article, but insists upon his OR constructing an alternate, fictional textual interpretation as well as policy interpretation. Looks like out and out POV warring by QG, again e.g.[46], from the start [47], discussed in part here, RfC.--I'clast 04:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not edit inside my edits or remove the edit protected as you did twice.[48][49] Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  04:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is another edit request that got deleted in a retro edit. Both requests are for administrative review. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  05:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Above, QuackGuru may create[50][51] a visual image to future passersby that he is complaining about four edits by me reversing 4 requests that he made. This is quite incorrect and misleading, as usual for this editor. He has one request that is meritless, tendentious, erroneous POV pushing again (see above, check his edit history and RfC), that I commented on & moved to a link[52].

Three of the links presented by QG (two are identical repeated links of my edit at 20:47, 25 July 2007) concern Fyslee's quick edits after admin article protection. Fyslee's edits[53][54] formed *one net* request that was filled with even more errors and would have had the effect of restoring previous errata & POV to end run the admin's "The Wrong Version" of the Stephen Barrett article. Fyskee's edits had no consensus attempted, were pressing admins for a rapid change that might be mistaken for legit, and could have misled an unfamiliar admin that there was an error. I took pains to present the circumstances and improvements to their previous errata as well as improve my choice of one word[55][56][57]. Now QuackGuru is visually mispresenting Fyslee's one net edit and my one edit as three reversions above[58][59]. I cannot adequately express how time consuming & wearying straightening out these kinds of behavior from QG is.

Oh, yes. Please refuse QuackGuru's misleading, tendentious request above[60]. I do recommend serious consideration to the edit proposal below to simply correct various errata, previously discussed above, dif, replacing:

"Spiked-online, in collaboration with Pfizer,[10] quoted Barrett in a survey of 134 respondents,[11] entitled "Key thinkers in science, technology and medicine."

with:

"Spiked-online, in collaboration with Pfizer,[10] quoted Barrett in a survey of 134 respondents,[11] referred to as "...key thinkers in science, technology and medicine."

Thank you for taking time to look.--I'clast 09:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop making these requests without discussion. No admin could reasonably conclude there's consensus here. Let's just whip the passage into shape and forget about the tags. Cool Hand Luke 23:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I've disabled the editprotected request while discussion continues. Cheers. --MZMcBride 14:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's certainly continue discussions and not be too hasty to push a change without some relative consenssus first. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This has already been discussed. Now its time to edit. Just whip it into shape.  Mr.Guru  talk  00:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

No agreement has been reached about any of the eidts you are making. This is circumventing WP:DISCUSS. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The irrelevant weasel words have been removed in accordance with policy.  Mr.Guru  talk  00:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are misunderstanding WP:WEASEL. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it as a WP:WEASEL violation either. It does seem to be a rather weasely way of promoting a point of view that's been promoted here in the past in violation of WP:NPOV (especially WEIGHT) and WP:OR. Like many of the major disputes here in the past, it seems to insinuate and promote a pov. --Ronz 01:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Chill about QG, this question has been asked of other editors and you are the only one to answer. So Pfizer has relevance to SB? Yes or no. Because in one breath you say no "the association is between Pfizer and SpikedOnline and not between Pfizer and Barrett", and in another you say yes "keeping the survey's association with Pfizer - an extremely large player in the health world - reference demonstrates weight appropriate to its significance to the subject, Stephen Barrett - a player in the health world". Either it is relevant to SB or not relevant to SB. Which is it. If Pfizer has relevance to SB, then yes, I agree, needs to be in Stephen Barrett.

Since it is clear that Pfizer has no reason to be in the article (expect in relation to Spiked) it should be removed. WP:WEASEL has something to do with it, but another is probably WP:GAME especially with regards to your responses. Suggest you postulate some good faith. Shot info 01:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

If you are taking the opinion of advertising bloggers at Spiked alone, as far as we should be concerned, the opinion (not just news) of EXPLORER should be satisfactory too. Pfizer, whether as contributor, primary or secondary in the heavy lift technical areas, and/or as financial sponsor too or not, is truly notable. Even with Pfizer the quote block is still over long on the extraction, the quote is misplaced - it refers to notable background on his activism and is not biographic fact - it stealthly transfers credibility of an otherwise factual section onto his opinion (self assessment) - very POV. Either clean it up or delete the whole thing.--I'clast 09:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Spike on line and the Kauffman comments:

How about shortening it and removing "He received multiple votes or at least one first-place vote in "10 outstanding skeptics of the 20th century by Skeptical Inquirer magazine.[13]'. I think it fits into his biography with the paragraph below this and it also makes it shorter and easier to read with a better flow to it. Also, when I read that Pfizer is part of the Spike it reads, at least to me, that Dr. Barrett is in collusion with Pfizer which is not true. It seems everyone agrees that Dr. Barrett and Phizer are not in cahoots together so why is it needed?

The Explorer that is mentioned, isn't this about adding the BC info? If it is the consensus was to leave it out.

Let's talk about this and the Kauffman addition instead of warring which will only get the page protected again and get us all no where.

Please refresh my memory but weren’t the Kauffman comments removed when the page was blocked by an administrator stating that this section should be shortened?

Sorry but all this back and forth ot tit for tat, now has me confused about what editors are asking for. In closing this, please let's start new titles about these and discuss and then vote when discussion is done. I think this might be the best way to prevent the edit wars going on now and the wars that got this article protected a couple of times to begin with. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The Kauffman part was the subject of several previous *lengthy* consensuses, substantially altering or removing it will involve a lot of hardships and there appears to be another independent reference for Kauffman's QW article coming anyway. My point about EXPLORER is that given other editors' negative feedback on EXPLORER (an Elsevier publication which has a highly credentialed makeup with MDs, PhDs), the Spiked survey without Pfizer, is in a far weaker position and so should also be deleted.

From WP:RS, Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. As a solely credited author, Starr[61][62], as attributed, does not remotely meet any such criteria to be (WP) reliably "listing", much less originally "naming", "key thinkers in science, technology and medicine" by mixing well known figures with many controversial or unknown (high school age, 17) figures in science and medicine. Whatever his merits, Dr Barrett is certainly not a leading figure in science and technology (no research and related publication record) and he himself disclaims many medical related claims, presenting himself as a consumer investigator with only a few, old medical papers. The list of 134 itself seems a little similar to Galois' (ex)girlfriend showing up in 1833 with papers, as "du Motel Theory" (instead of Galois theory). When I say "controversial" figures, in a previous Spiked list that Sandy Starr aided, the first figure that I happened to look at was this fellow, whose treatment at Spiked contrasts sharply with his treatment at WP.

So, if the Spiked survey is to be WP reliable about "key thinkers in science, technology and medicine", here it has to be on the basis of Pfizer, which really does have standing as an advanced research related organization with real scientists and doctors, not some unknown IT industry blogger/reporter. Accordingly, I have removed the Spiked material as not reliable per WP:RS.

Please focus on Spiked-Pfizer. If you can figure a better, more accurate, more acceptable way to credit Pfizer, I am all ears. These were my best run at it in attempted collaboration with the other WP editors[63],[64] where I believe "quoted Barrett" is more neutral and accurate than "named Barrett".--I'clast 08:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason to add Pfizer to the Barrett article. Phizer is clearly identified when clicking on the link. The way it is said by you and others makes it sound like Dr. Barrett is in collusion with Pfizer, which we seem to all agree isn't true. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The Spiked (in collaboration with Pfizer) Barrett quote already is way over weight and greatly advances Dr Barrett's self-opinion, POV and agenda, but I might be willing to go along with the bare quote a la Fyslee's earlier edit in Activism. The "Key thinkers" phrase is wording that cannot be encyclopedically (WP:RS) assigned by Spiked / Starr, a "SpNobel prize" is you will. Only Pfizer has the credibility for anything remotely like that there. So, the encyclopedic choice is SB's bare quote with Spiked attribution only *or* the "key thinkers" attributed Spiked-Pfizer with a full technically RS attribution *or* we can put the gross overweight quote on a diet, delete it as agenda & promotion.--I'clast 11:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments about Spike

I think that this section, with the removal about what I said above, fits into the article about Dr. Barrett. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Kauffman

I need to research this better to give an intelligent opinion on it. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This is one of the most fundamental technical criticisms of Dr Barrett, as well as an individual with no (prior) targeting by QW. Kauffman has been the subject of several rounds of consensus and debate. The stealth deletion of it in the midst of other things and then trying to claim it as a de novo consensus would not be conducive to AGF. I *restored* the existing previous consensus, deleting it would be the new consensus item.--I'clast 17:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

To summarize my opinion on this: should be kept out as unimportant and shoddy research with serious ethical issues. Kauffman has less than zero credibility in writing such a report, and the choice of publishers shows that. --Ronz 18:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually his most serious material previously has been independently referenced in *current* mainstream literature and vetted *to real MDs here at WP*. A report on QW has no proper home in medical or science journals, it is not really significant in the technical sense (try finding the tons of articles etc in indexes at the library). What mention there is, is mostly popular media largely associated with a grandfathered uncritcal status for free/low cost content in pharma advert driven popular media. The choice of publishers more reflects the state of affairs in media and medicine. Your OR, "shoddy" and "unimportant", is POV, spurious, & not technically significant. Ethics? what, going outside of the conventional pharma influenced channels? don't make me laugh.--I'clast 11:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA --Ronz 15:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to keep it out until this is discussed per appropriate guidelines and policies. Arguments that include harassment, personal attacks, etc will be ignored in their entirety. If you want your opinion to be considered, follow WP:TALK. Thanks! --Ronz 15:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

This has been talk ad nauseum and there is no legit reason to keep it out. It is published criticism from a notable source. Thanks! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 15:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

No. The discussions haven't taken place. The reasons havent been discussed. WEIGHT and BLP will no longer be ignored here. --Ronz 17:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but it has, as you well know. YOu have been part of these discussion and we have shown that a published scientific journal (despite your OR opinion of it) satisfies WEIGHT and thus BLP. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you know better to claim that we've come to consensus on the WEIGHT and BLP issues on it. --Ronz 17:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Keep dancing. But no. Kauffman satisfies WEIGHT and BLP. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Learn to follow WP:TALK or be ignored. --Ronz 19:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Lawsuit section

I think the Barrett v. Rosenthal section should be moved to that article since it's not really about Barrett the way it is written here. Any thoughts? --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. This is a major case involving Barrett. It should be discussed here in breif and then point to the main article for more info. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok then a rewrite needs to be done since Dr. Barrett is only mentioned in the last sentence. I have no problem with this; I am just trying to share some ideas. --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I needs to be rewritten (discussed in brief), deleted, or commented out. This kind of nonsense should not be kept in mainspace in its present form. Any suggestions?  Mr.Guru  talk  19:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

In fact, the entire section needs to be rewritten. Agreed?  Mr.Guru  talk  19:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree! I also think that Barrett vs Rosenthal should be moved to that article. Of course this is just my opinion. --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggested consdensing the lawsuits above (see Talk:Stephen Barrett#Defamation lawsuits). There were some positive comments there. Do we have a consensus for this? Cool Hand Luke 20:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. My take: The section is far to large and gives undue weight. It is the result of gaming the system. That said, Barrett v. Rosenthal definitely should be mentioned. Beyond that I'm unsure. I haven't reviewed these issues in a while and can't recall if any aren't somehow related Barrett v. Clark and Bolen's rants. If they are all related then it should make for some easy condensing. --Ronz 20:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe consensus has been established to condense the entire litigation section. Feel free to edit it. Cheers.  Mr.Guru  talk  21:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree to the condensing. Also I think the Barrett vs Rosenthal should be in that article or rewritten to talk about Dr. Barrett and Rosenthal. As written, Barrett is only mentioned in the last sentence. Also, who directed it to the Barrett vs Rosenthal article or was it like this and I missed it? Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Three people doth not make a consensus. That being siad, I would like to see proposed rewrites here before anything is implemented or changed. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It should be considered that we comment out or delete the nonsensical litigation if it continues to remain in mainspace irrespective of discussion because in its current form it is violating WP:WEIGHT. Policy violations should not remain in mainspace. Agreed?  Mr.Guru  talk  23:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool Hand Luke moved most of the section into notes. I don't think this works, since the cases aren't independent. It is a good reminder that we could use notes to expand upon details that we don't think fit the article. --Ronz 01:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you tell me where the notes are? I would be interested in reading them since Cool Hand Luke is doing a lot of research for the article and for us. Luke, is it ok for me to read them? --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

In the reference section. They've been cleaned up quite a bit and look much better now. --Ronz 17:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Subpage for rewrite edits: Talk:Stephen Barrett/Temp

I have moved the litigation section to a subpage for the rewrite. Consensus is for a rewrite. Please edit away.  Mr.Guru  talk  00:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It's fine to put it on a sub page, but leave the litigation intact until we are ready with the rewrite. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no policy violation. Leave it until we have a consensus on a rewrite. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

We already have a consensus for a rewrite and there is a policy violation.  Mr.Guru  talk  00:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

But we don't have a consensus to delete it while we rewrite it. I certainly didn't agree to that (and I don't see anyone else saying to do that other than yourself). Please reinstate. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

We have established consensus to shorten the section. And thats exactly what I did. That was my rewrite anyhow. Cheers.  Mr.Guru  talk  01:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

We have consensus to rewrite the section; not to butcher it without discussion. Please revert. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

So, can someone confirm that all the lawsuits are related to Barrett v. Clark and Bolen's rants? --Ronz 16:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

All the cases are related. So, maybe we could do with a summary of Barrett v. Clark and how it resulted in further legal action, being sure to mention Barrett v. Rosenthal? --Ronz 16:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the most appropriate way to condense the information, besides just not mentioning the other individual legal actions, is to remove information not relevant to Barrett, like some of the names and the actions of others. --Ronz 16:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

We have condensed the section in the work area. Please review.  Mr.Guru  talk  00:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Much better. Pretty much what I was thinking. The references will have to be cleaned up, but I'd like to first hear what other's think of the content. --Ronz 02:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The current article in mainspace is nonsensical. I will add the rewritten and much improved article.  Mr.Guru  talk  03:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably not a good idea until other editors participate in consensus-building. --Ronz 03:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, we should not keep nonsense in mainspace.  Mr.Guru  talk  03:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Which references should be kept and which ones should we removed? Please review and decide.  Mr.Guru  talk  04:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite of Lawsuit section in main article

Honestly the footnotes are worthless without any context at all, and because QuackGuru has also seen fit to restore all of the individual links, I'm just reverting the whole change. Cool Hand Luke 04:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I did not restore all the individual links. The compromise was to deep links some. The reference section should not be used as a back door litigation section.  Mr.Guru  talk  04:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it should, but the sentences should be cited. Remove detail as necessary, but not context. Cool Hand Luke 04:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The reference section should never be used for a back door litigation section and a compromise was reached base upon policy for some deep linking which you helped on. Also you added info to the criticism section against WP:BLP policy because they are not secondary sources. And you also removed cited information from the biography section for unexplained reasons.  Mr.Guru  talk  04:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not using it as a back door. I was very ardent about pushing for condensing the section, but some context is needed to prevent it from becoming incomprehensible. A set of non-localized citations is unacceptable. Since many cases have multiple sources, it makes sense to give each case a single footnote that explains how these citations fit together. Confining all of this context to citations makes for a useful article and does not offend WEIGHT. Cool Hand Luke 04:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for reverting in full. I was mistaken about the deeplinks, and I agree with the other changes. Didn't notice how much the article has changed recently. I, however, still believe that the footnotes should be organized by case and theme to make them more useful. Cool Hand Luke 05:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. Now we can focus on the litigation.  Mr.Guru  talk  05:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The litigation is for the litigation section and not for the reference section. References should be kept in a uniformed format. Keep it siimple. I do not know what is the purpose of the back door litigation. You have asserted you are adding context to the references. The reference section is for the references and not an open door for a new litigation section. Adding context to the reference section is another litigation section that is obviously against WP:WEIGHT. Feel free to add the references to the appropriate place in the litigation section but the reference section needs to be cleaned up right away. I will revert and you can add the references to the proper place. Keep the reference section a reference section and not also a litigation section. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  05:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I recommend to carefully add the references to the precise place for guidance. This will help the reader. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  05:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is not a back door litigation section. Have I ever done anything in this article that would make you stop assuming good faith? Since you've basically removed all of the inline citations, again, I'm going to restore them, while continuing to work on them per WEIGHT. This doesn't look too bad to me though. Our policies allow explanatory footnotes. Our policies do not allow the mess you've made. Cool Hand Luke 05:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

(cross posted from QG's talk:) Why on earth do you accuse me of adding a "back door" litigation section? I'm trimming the footnotes every time to remove unnecessary detail, but some context has to be given or the citations have no meaning to the passage at all. If you insist on doing this, I'm afraid the litigation section will have to be longer to add that context, but I think that's an affront to our policies, especially WEIGHT. Moving this explanatory context to the footnotes is expressly allowed per FOOT, and I think you should stop reaction to every user's with reverts. I'm on "your side" forchrissakes. Cool Hand Luke 06:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I like how this is coming together. --Ronz 17:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AQuackGuru&diff=150775428&oldid=150719438

CHL, when I first saw the litigation section it was mainly the same content moved into footnotes which is unacceptable. It was still way too long. However, I did not know you were planning on trimming it next. Each litigation was still in bold which was still over doing it. Please continue to improve it. I word read up on WP:FOOT. This is a new policy for me. I still believe it needs a bit more trimming. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  22:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok. The first step was a rough cut, but I was trimming afterwards, even through the reverts. [65] [66] [67] I agree that more can be put on the chopping block, but most of these footnotes include both primary and secondary sources, so I think it makes sense to explain their relationship to each other in the note. Cool Hand Luke 23:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I was unaware you were working on it in steps. Now I understand. Keep up the great work. Thanks!  Mr.Guru  talk  23:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Koren, Privatera, Darlene Sherell?

I think we need to re-add the following cases as they don't have anything to do with Barrett v. Clark and are each notable in their own right:

• Barrett v. Koren
• Barrett v. Privatera
• Barrett v. Darlene Sherell

Also, I think we need to make it clear in Barrett v. Rosenthal, that none of the statements made by Rosenthal were even found to be libelous. In essence,it is a factual statement to say that Barrett has accuses mny of libel, but has never been able to make it stick in court. Make sense? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 15:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's probably wrong, and certainly. In one of the cases (Barrett v. Mercola, no longer listed or referenced in either copy), the parties settled out of court, and both parties seem to have agreed that Barrett was libeled. I agree that in Barrett v. Rosenthal, that the courts consistently found that none of the statements made by Rosenthal with respect to Barrett were libelous. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, if done as notes, the name of the case in question, as well as the link and title of the link, needs to be in each note (in /Temp; I think it's done that way in the body at the moment). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe we have and sources to meet WEIGHT and BLP for these cases, so they should be out. --Ronz 17:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The result of Barrett v. Mercola was settled out of court with no admission or proof of libel. Again, Barrett has never been able to make his libel claims stick in court. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Mercola and Koren are still in there. They stem from Bolen's publications, like the rest. From what I found on Mercola, the parties settled after an adverse early ruling against Mercola. Probably they decided not to risk trial, but the terms of the settlement stipulated no disclosure, so any speculation is OR.

Can you tell me what courts Privatera and Darlene Sherell were in? I'm pretty good at finding reliable secondaries on court cases because I have access to law bulletins and other specialized publications. They might also be related to Bolen. If not, I think another paragraph might be necessary. Cool Hand Luke 19:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You write that "the terms of the settlement stipulated no disclosure,.." Where have you heard that, because if there was any such agreement, it didn't cover the publication of Mercola's name or of the settlement amount ($50,000). Barrett had Mercola's name on his website (and still has the 50 grand mentioned with a clear description of Mercola), but later, without any obligation to do so (he, after all, sat with the best cards in his hand and had the upper hand), he magnanimously removed Mercola's name because Mercola wasn't happy about this fact coming up at the top of searches for his name. It was kind of Barrett to do so, but I still think he shouldn't have done it. Mercola screwed up and knew it, and he got off so cheap that he should have been allowed to fry a bit longer, just from the heat generated by the heat from the search engines....;-) -- Fyslee/talk 21:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You might be right. Barrett in fact still claims it here, but given the lack of reliable sources on it, we must leave such speculation about Mercola out per WP:BLP. Cool Hand Luke 21:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah the Sherrell case (with two 'r's) was in the U.S. District of Oregon. It's different from and predates the Bolen litigation. I still haven't found anything on Privatera. Cool Hand Luke 19:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts here. You can learn more about the Privatera case fromt he James Privitera article. Might be a good start. Thanks again! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is the only reliable secondary reference I found on Privitera so far: "Doctor's defamation action against medical book's authors and publisher is time-barred.; Barrett v. The Catacombs Press, No. 99-736 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 2, 1999)" - DEx 64356 , 10 pp. Health Law Week, November 5, 1999:

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled a doctor's defamation action against medical book authors and their publisher accrued when the alleged defamatory material was available to the public. Because that occurred more than one year before the doctor filed his action, it was barred by the statute of limitations.

Dr. Stephen Barrett, a psychiatrist practicing in Pennsylvania, had written, co-authored or edited over 200 publications related to consumer health. Barrett also maintained a computer web site called "Quackwatch," which provided information about health frauds and consumer decisions. Barrett's web site received international acclaim, with many awards and/or favorable mentions in the media throughout the world.

Dr. James Privitera and Alan Stang co-authored a book, published by The Catacombs Press, titled Silent Clots: Life's Biggest Killer. Within its pages, Barrett alleged, were certain defamatory remarks regarding him.

The first distribution of the book occurred on April 25 and 26, 1997, at a national convention of the American College for Advancement in Medicine held in Tampa, Fla., and attended by Pennsylvania alternative healthcare practitioners. On May 7, 1997, Privitera, Stang and Catacombs sold 108 copies of the book to Paul Cosman. On May 10, 1997, Cosman displayed and sold copies of the book at a seminar he organized in Coraopolis, Pa., whereupon Samuel Yareck of Monongahela, Pa., purchased 12 copies.

In the December 1997 issue of Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients, mailed to its subscribers, which included 154 Pennsylvanians, appeared a review of the book. This review provided subscribers with information regarding where and how the book could be purchased.

On December 18, 1998, Barrett brought an action under Pennsylvania's defamation law against, inter alia, Catacombs, Privitera and Stang. The defendants removed the action to a federal district court. Subsequently, they moved for summary judgment to dismiss Barrett's complaint, arguing that under Pennsylvania's one-year defamation statute of limitations, Barrett's complaint was time-barred.

The district court granted the defendants' motion. Previously, the district court had dismissed an action against two original defendants, (i) Darlene Sherrell, by order granting her motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (see 8 HLawWk 324, May 28, 1999) and (ii) CDS Networks Inc. by agreement of Barrett.

The district court noted that under Pennsylvania law a statute of limitations begins to run at the time a plaintiff's cause of action accrues. Barrett brought his state court action on December 18, 1998. That action was subsequently removed to the district court. Thus, the initial question for this court was whether Barrett's cause of action accrued prior to December 18, 1997.

The district court noted that at the latest, the book became available in Pennsylvania within days after November 15, 1997, the date the December 1997 issue of the Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients was mailed to, among others, 154 Pennsylvanians, where a review of the book provided subscribers with purchase information. Therefore, Barrett's cause of action had become stale.

In so ruling, the district court rejected Barrett's argument that the discovery rule tolled the statute of limitations until he became aware of the defamatory remarks contained in the book. The court found the discovery rule could not be applied where, as in this case, a defendant's alleged defamation was not done in a manner meant to conceal the subject matter of the defamation. Moreover, in the case of a media-public defamation action, where the defamatory writing has actually been published, there is an even stronger rationale for eschewing the discovery rule.

Sounds like Barrett had a bad lawyer, but it doesn't seem notable to me. They never reached the merits of the case because it was time barred, and not many sources seemed to have picked it up. At most maybe we can mention it in passing, maybe before discussion on Sherrell. Something like "Barrett has unsuccessfully pursued other defamation lawsuits before Bolen's alleged defamation.[Cite for Privatera] In Barrett v. Sherrell..." Cool Hand Luke 19:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the conversations are going well now and I like that. The article changes that are being changed and looked into sounds good too. I will do some research when I have some time to. Getting ready to move so time is going to be limited. If something important comes up, would someone please email me? Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, CHL. I think it should be mentioned as you stated it. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the Privatera suit should stay out per what Luke said; it never went to trial do to the time limitation. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticism - WP:NPOV and WP:BLP

If we don't have secondary sources to demonstrate that large sections of the article meet NPOV and BLP, then the sections should be removed. The many, many discussions in the past on this topic have tended to be highly disruptive, and are mockeries of the many policies and guidelines on how editors should work together. Such disruptiions need to stop.

We have no secondary sources demonstrating the opinions of Mertz, Kauffman, and Colgan are anything of any importance, much less meet NPOV and BLP. I've removed them. --Ronz 16:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a clear violation of policy when there is no secondary sources. All of them should be removed.  Mr.Guru  talk  23:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Saying they're "notable" doesn't make them so. --Ronz 01:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually they are all published by valid and notable sources. BTW, if we are to allow that ridiculous quote where Barrett compares all of his opposition to "rapists and murderers", I believe it is going to take much more criticism to present an NPOV article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 15:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

"rapists and murderers"??? Now you (as well as I'clast, who never apologized, but repeated his deceptive comment above) either can't parse a quote or you are misconstruing it so it fits your POV about Barrett. This is quite the Freudian slip. We both know you are intelligent enough to parse a quote if you really want to... Your lack of good faith is quite evident and is affecting your judgment and performance here. How about reading that quote in its context and trying to understand what Barrett was talking about, instead of taking it out of context and making a BLP slur about him here. I would have previously thought that this type of misquoting was below you..... You owe Barrett and everyone here an apology for such a cheap shot. -- Fyslee/talk 20:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding? In one breath, Barrett compares those who he calls "quacks" to rapist and murderers. If you are seeing anything else, then it is your own lack of objectivity getting in the way. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Metta Bubble was the one who originally included that quote and by using the same type of reasoning you are using attempted to twist the actual content of the article to make it look like it meant what you are saying. That was some time ago. The subject and context needs to be considered when parsing the whole paragraph. That's where you go wrong. You focus on the wrong words and make it mean something Barrett doesn't even believe, which is quite convenient for you since you would like to believe that he holds such extreme and bizarre POV. Here is the whole quote in its context from the FAQ:

How do you respond to accusations that your writing is unbalanced?

Balance is important when legitimate controversy exists. But quackery and fraud don't involve legitimate controversy and are not balanced subjects. I don't believe it is helpful to publish "balanced" articles about unbalanced subjects. Do you think that the press should enable rapists and murderers to argue that they provide valuable services? The information Quackwatch provides is not filtered by editors who are too timid or believe it is politically incorrect to provide the naked truth about theories and methods that are senseless. When discussing conflicting viewpoints, we indicate which ones are the most sensible.

He is discussing quackery and fraud (doesn't mention quacks or frauds). He isn't discussing people but their "unbalanced subjects". He discusses how he covers controversy and "unbalanced subjects" and how he believes that the press and "editors" should cover them. If a subject is invalid, he doesn't give the one advocating the subject the time of day to make their case and reargue (using deception) that they are providing a valuable service. He then chose an extreme example to make the point, since that gets the point across easier. He could just as well have chosen other examples (and maybe he should since malicious minds love to twist his words). The examples are not the point. The point is that invalid information ("unbalanced subjects") doesn't deserve equal coverage. No one (Hitler, used car salesmen, rapists, murderers, village idiots, the President, your mother-in-law, Kevin Trudeau, Royal Rife, Hulda Clark, hawkers of useless and dangerous products and methods, school teachers, anyone and anybody, etc.) should be given equal time by others (Barrett, the press, "editors") to reargue their case if they are using invalid and deceptive information to do so. He and Quackwatch aren't writing an encyclopedia and do not follow NPOV. They boldly tell it like it is and "indicate which ones ("viewpoints") are the most sensible." They "provide the naked truth about theories and methods that are senseless." He just wishes that editors would do the same.

Since we aren't quoting the whole paragraph, to avoid this problem we should leave that last sentence out, since it was originally included as a means of attacking Barrett, and is still being interpreted by I'clast and Levine2112 in a manner meant to attack him. The point gets across just fine without that sentence. -- Fyslee/talk 05:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

First, Fyslee, stop attacking the editor. Stick to the content. Assume good faith. Second, Barrett is clearly saying that just as the press shouldn't give equal time to the opinions of rapists and murderers, Barrett doesn't have to do the same for those who he calls quacks and frauds. You can try to twist this, but this is what the average reader will get from this statement (and I believe this is in deed what Barrett intended). Barrett's quote shows his extremist criticism towards people he disagrees with; and if this quote is going to stay, then we are certainly going to need to hear from the other side to satisfy NPOV. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, well, now we can agree since you now see the point. Previously you claimed that "Barrett compares all of his opposition to "rapists and murderers"", which of course he doesn't. You correctly sum it up: "just as the press shouldn't give equal time to the opinions of rapists and murderers, Barrett doesn't have to do the same for those who he calls quacks and frauds." The opinions are not given equal time, and so it should be. Let's move on. -- Fyslee/talk 10:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Twist it however you want, but it is clear to all that Barrett is making a direct comparison between rapists and murders, and those he calls quacks and frauds. It will take a lot to establish NPOV here with such a hateful quote. Wow. It's amazing how much hate Barrett can dish out, but he sure can't take it. . . dare to say something bad about him and he'll sue you - albeit competely unsuccessful judging by his track record. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 14:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but if I am correct the above comments should be removed immediately under the policies of WP:BLP I think the comments are out of line and should be removed immediately. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but NPOV and BLP require more than just saying sources are "valid and notable". But we've been through this all before, so I'll stop repeating explanations that have been made many, many times by many, many editors. --Ronz 17:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure. That they are published by reliable sources and thusly cited is what Wikipedia requires. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll let others decide whether we should keep these at all, but if we do keep them, it's important to provide context that these people all had oxen gored by Barrett, and are not quite third parties. Kauffman's self-promoting claim of exposing "fraud in medicine" requires special context, given that his viewpoints on what that fraud is are decidedly marginal. I've done that in this series of edits. THF 22:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Attack references do not belong in this article per WP:NPOV and WP:BLP.  Mr.Guru  talk  23:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

They are not attacks. They are valid criticism. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The criticisms so obviously lack credibility that I can't imagine why Barrett supporters are so excited about getting them out. The Kauffmann one probably violates WP:WEIGHT as it stands now; I'll trim it down. THF 00:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

They are bias references and also bias criticism. See WP:BLP for more policy details.  Mr.Guru  talk  01:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Whereis Kauffman's bias? He seems to be extremely objective to me. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Kauffman is publishing in an alternative medicine journal, not a real science journal, and has an axe to grind, as Barrett is a defender of the conventional medicine Kauffman attacks. Questionable WP:RS. Certainly insignificant WP:WEIGHT, as Kauffman's opinions about what constitutes valid scientific evidence doesn't reflect the academy's. THF 12:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

A search of the journal for Kauffman's contributions (many!) reveals he writes about and believes all kinds of nonsense and fringe stuff. His claims to be a skeptic are in stark contrast to his actual actions. He is a perfect example (it could hardly get any better...) of what Carroll refers to here:

Commenting on the labels "dogmatic" and "pathological" that the "Association for Skeptical Investigation" puts on critics of paranormal investigations, Robert Todd Carroll of the Skeptic's Dictionary argues that that association "is a group of pseudo-skeptical paranormal investigators and supporters who do not appreciate criticism of paranormal studies by truly genuine skeptics and critical thinkers. The only skepticism this group promotes is skepticism of critics and [their] criticisms of paranormal studies." [emphasis added - Fyslee]

That quote describes Kauffman and the JSE quite accurately. Such "skeptics" are very uncomfortable in the company of real skeptical organizations, so they resort to calling them pseudoskeptics, thus revealing that they themselves are supporters of pseudoscience. -- Fyslee/talk 13:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

"Not real science" "Fringe" "Nonsesne". These are all your opinions on Kauffmann and should have no bearing on whether he is qualified to criticize/comment on Barrett's activities. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 14:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If (I haven't checked) the estabilshed opinion is that Kauffman is a pseudo-skeptic as described in those references, then he is not a credible critic of Barrett, even if he would otherwise be a WP:RS. JSE is an explicitly non-peer-reviewed journal (as "peer review" is conventionally defined), so the article is only a reliable source if Kauffman, himself is. So, I'm afraid, we need to investigate. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be an established opinion on Kauffman, just speculation from editors here. JSE is "a peer-reviewed Journal following the customs and standards of academic journals but designed specifically for the scholarly study of anomalies". -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I really consider these remarks POV ad hominem. I've previously vetted some of Kauffman's article (e.g. LDL / statins details), related & referenced further in his book, as very current medical science to the real WP MDs. Even if JMK gets booted by some pseudoskeptic(s), he's still a real scientist doing real analytical service, challenging the mooing, scared sacred cows. Also I delivered the academic JLME article today for an extra layer of goodness and corroboration on JM Kauffman's "Watching the Watchdogs at QW, as below.--I'clast 11:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics

I've removed them all again. We've been through this many, many times. If we don't have a source that allows us to determine WEIGHT, then it should be removed per BLP. --Ronz 19:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Now Ronz, I've gone way over the policy requirements here to provide an academic journal sourced, The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, by a full fledged academic, that takes ~30 lines to directly address Kauffman and his article, in discussing systematic bias among the strongest CAM critics (ahem). Incredibly academically notable given the publication biases on CAM. Fine'.--I'clast 01:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Where is this reference? --Ronz 02:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Some editors seem to be confused on this issue. I'm saying that BLP and NPOV have not been met. Saying that we previously had consensus on this (by ignoring NPOV and BLP) is not a substitute for properly addressing NPOV and BLP. We have no consensus! Is it time to lock the article again to stop the edit-warring? --Ronz 02:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this article is that notable. It's a symposium paper, for one. The coverage of Kaufman is reproduced below:

Example 3: The anti-CAM literature

I have said that Dr. Schneiderman is not alone in the approach I have criticized, and that these issues represent a systematic bias among the strongest critics of CAM. Dr. Schneiderman's recommendations of reliable information sources on CAM are useful in supporting my contention. Those that he says are "the best currently available sources for gaining accurate information about alternative medicine" are the website www.quackwatch.com and "publications like the Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine and Alternative Medicine Alert." [52] I have often found Alternative Medicine Alert useful. The other two sources I primarily turn to in order to find further examples of systematic bias.

For example, in 2002, Joel M. Kauffman, of the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at the University of the Sciences in Philadelphia, published a website review of Quackwatch. [53] For the review, Kauffman, a self-proclaimed member of a "local skeptics group," used eight webpages on topics with which he was familiar, and these he "examined minutely... to make generalizations about the website." [54] The topics were "Tips for Lowering Your Dietary Fat Content," "Low Carbohydrate Diets," "Chelation Therapy," "Glucosamine for Arthritis," "Magnet Therapy," "Homeopathy," "Dietary Supplements," and "Stanislaw Burzynski and 'Antineoplastons.'" Kauffman says that "all eight pages from www.quackwatch.com ... were found to be contaminated with incomplete data, obsolete data, technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo... Hostility to all alternatives was expected and observed from the website, but not repetition of groundless slogans from mainstream medicine...." [55] A good example was the website's use of a Danish study of chelation in which the investigators used a solution different from that used in chelation therapy -- a dietary supplement including iron, the chelating properties of which "guaranteed a lesser effect" -- and used a sample including 70 percent smokers "despite the fact that it has been shown that smoking will neutralize the effect of chelation." [56] When the study was investigated by the Danish Medical Society's Committee on Investigation into Scientific Dishonesty, it was found that "the double-blinding was broken," and that the investigators falsely claimed to be using the correct solution. [57] Additional flaws were cited from a variety of peer reviewed publications. [58]

The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine provides a similar opportunity to see the result of "hostility to all alternatives." It was this journal that Dr. Schneiderman cited concerning the waste of time involved in studying acupuncture. The article was a repudiation of the 1997 NIH consensus panel on acupuncture. [59] The Scientific Review is published by Prometheus Books, another good source of such examples. The problem is not limited to a few critics or sources. The problems that one finds in the most adamant critics are simply more obvious. Similar bias is frequently visible in most mainstream publications.

It is not surprising that poor arguments do not influence CAM practice. Worse, consistent and predictable bad arguments reduce the credibility of medical research in the eyes of CAM proponents. Yet, when rigorously designed studies yield negative results, they have led to changes in practice. For example, Moertel and colleagues' excellent study of laetrile, published in JAMA in 1981, [60] marked the end of the widespread use of laetrile as a stand-alone cancer treatment by most CAM proponents.

I don't think that one citation proves weight, but this does seem to be a reoccurring style of criticism. Cool Hand Luke 05:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

As I noted in this edit, the article was produced from a point-counterpoint style of symposium presentation. Should therefore be careful not to give undue weight because even the organizers of the event regarded these doctors as partisans of a sort. Cool Hand Luke 05:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that that, CHL. I hadn't seen that previously. I think we can all agre that the Kauffman criticism should remain in the article, having passed the rigors of BLP, WEIGHT, and NPOV. Much gratitude. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 05:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

First I don't see anyone agreeing that this meets weight issues never mind BLP. After what Luke posted about the article, I think it needs to go. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding the source which CHL has given us. It provides coverages of another source. This just adds to the notability/weight of the original source, which is from a published, peer-reviewed journal. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 15:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:WEIGHT, these partisan and bias critics need to go.  Mr.Guru  talk  16:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Barrett is a partisan and biased critic. Are we to remove every time his opinion has been used on Wikipedia (by your rationale)? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You have exposed your own POV and your own bias opinion about Barrett. Barrett is not in any way what you claim he is. That is your opinion. And only your personal opinion. We are here to improve an article and not make our own judgement calls. The controversial alternative medicine references (lacking credibility) do not satisfy multiple policies, per WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:NPOV. Do you understand Wikipedia policies?  Mr.Guru  talk  17:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

QG, and others, your numerous edits utterly deny that there are strong, rational, informed critics of QW and Dr Barrett, including highly qualified scientists, like Kauffman, who have documented the very basis of their reasoning and criticisms as well as have been independently & specifically referenced by notable other scholars. Where an unrelated, academic Symposium participant, professor Hufford, goes on record not only about QW and Kauffman, but quotes Kauffman on specific articles by Dr Barrett, as an outstanding example the following year (2003) about "mainstream" claimants/groups that are sources of systematic biases about CAM. This latter paper also goes on to mention publication bias, which has been a major problem for even highly qualified authors, like professor Kauffman, to make even the most elementary observations about glaring deficiencies in the science & arguments of supposed, self-styled and/or self-advertised medical "mainstream" partisans. The Kauffman paper carefully identifies such glaring deficiencies.

As for WP:RS, JSE, by stated academic purpose, is precisely the kind of publication that addresses such situations. Also Reliable sources are authors ...regarded as trustworthy...in relation to the subject at hand Kauffman is a credible, life long, technically qualified, academic researcher capable of preparing WP:RS articles in areas related to his background and long standing interests, to identify several glaringly deficient articles in Quackwatch "contaminated with incomplete data, obsolete data, technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo".--I'clast 19:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Just your opinion, backed with hostility against other editors. Please stop. --Ronz 00:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

No, a clear exposition on QW's (lack of) scientific rigor, balance and fairness by a real scientist in a journal set to handle controversial material that is outside the scope of most "mainstream" journals, WP:V vetted in a number of cases for medical science by others, and now after substantial hard work to meet onerous demands, even a WP:RS source that clearly backs criticism of 8 QW articles as good, academically legitimate criticism.--I'clast 11:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this citation is questionable from the get-go, but at the very least it seems POV to cite Hufford when the doctor he was responding to—who cited Quackwatch as a good site—is left out. The editors of this journal thought these speakers were two sides of the same story. It would be a little strange if we, as Wikipedia editors, decide that the journal was wrong. Cool Hand Luke 04:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The citiation is questionable and WP:BLP says do no harm. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  04:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The citation is academically sourced, qualified, extra WP:V on several items, and now secondary sourced by a WP:RS academic paper. Solid analytical, academic criticisms for the Criticism section, way beyond the call of duty. All I hear here, is "I DON'T LIKE IT", way too many times. --I'clast 11:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Kauffman and the Journal of Scientific Exploration

Copy from Wikipedia article. Some observers regard the JSE as a legitimate attempt to explore the frontiers of science,[6][7] while others view it as a forum for scientifically objectionable or dubious ideas.[8] Some academics have also noted that JSE publishes on anomalous issues, topics often on the fringe of science.[9] Michael D. Lemonick wrote an article about the Society for Scientific Exploration called Science on the Fringe for Time Magazine. [10] The reference from the JSE is a fringe science attack reference. It should be deleted. Attack websites are not welcome in this article. This is in direct violation of WP:BLP.  Mr.Guru  talk  04:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Reminder about the deep links

The deep links keep being removed, but it should be noted that these links are only citations for the topics that aren't straightforwardly listed on the QW homepage. In other words, they're absolutely necessary to verify those criticisms. Notice that only a minority of topics are deeplinked to avoid the perception of linkspam. This was a compromise solution, and it's one that some editors barely accepted for concerns about failing WP:V. Without links on traditional Chinese medicine, et al I'm positively sure that the block fails WP:V. Please restore to that version or give a good reason not to. Cool Hand Luke 18:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

1) We really do need secondary sources to show why any of these topics are notable. WP:V is only one factor. Again, I think we should go back to only listing the notable (as judged per a reliable secondary source) topics. 2) The only direct link which I removed are the ones that are linked to on the Quackwatch homepage. Please don't restore. We really need to satisify notability and cut down this list to only the most notable; otherwise, there are many other topics which Barrett has written about which could be added to this already unruly list. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that it's a issue per WEIGHT. I suppose, then, that you're doing editors a favor by not trying to remove the list wholesale; gives time to get secondaries for the listed topics. Fair enough. Cool Hand Luke 18:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You got it. But this topic has been open for months now and still no secondary sources. Further action? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Secondary sources, when describing Barrett, usually provide a list of the kinds of "quackery" he watches. We could probably cast a net over most of these from secondary sources, but I don't see it as a priority at this time. The list is editorially useful as-is. I think readers can immediately apprehend his style of criticism from this list of topics better than any other kind of third-party editorializing. Cool Hand Luke 21:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

(copy of WP:WEIGHT policy) NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source... In accordance with WP:WEIGHT policy, we have reliable sources. According to WP:WEIGHT policy primary references are reliable sources and acceptable. This improves the quality of the article. The compromise was reached by deep linking some which complies with WP:SELFPUB.  Mr.Guru  talk  23:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

No. We can't list every single thing which Barrett has ever written about and call them notable enough to be in an article. There is no criteria and thus no limitation and leaving the list as such is a clear violation of WP:LIST. We need to pare this list down to only those most notable and that have secondary sources or the entire list needs to go. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 15:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus has been esablished among editors based upon policy. Per WP:SELFPUB, primary sources are appropriate. Also it is best for the reader to read first hand what Barrett has to say.  Mr.Guru  talk  15:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I never agreed to any consensus. Either has I'clast. Or MaxPont. Sorry. No consensus. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is based upon policy. Please do not ignore policy. Do you agree with Wikipedia policy?  Mr.Guru  talk  17:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Please reread my points and stop accusing me of ignoring policy. Thanks! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:SELFPUB to understand the rules. Consensus has been established and deep linking some was the compromise. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  22:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Where is this compromise made? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The compromise was made on this talk page. It was originally CHL's idea to deep links some. I agreed to the compromise. Do you agree with compromising.  Mr.Guru  talk  22:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No. Not to that compromise. I agree to removing all of the topics except for the ones that can be shown to be notable with some kind of secondary source. Per {WP:LIST]], we need to set guidelines for the list or remove it entirely. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

THF said in an edit summary on 21:44, 12 August 2007: Restore extensive footnoting. If we're going to have this list, it should be well-referenced; no justification for deleting information. I agree and we have set guidelines now.  Mr.Guru  talk  23:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

What guidelines do you suggest? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

See WP:SELFPUB. Its a good start. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  23:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

There are no guidelines there pertaining to WP:LIST. Your confusion stems from SELFPUB defending the ability to use one's self to demonstrate one's opinions. And certainly each one of these articles is individually just Barrett's opinions. However, a list showing what Barrett has written about is not a demonstration of his opinion. It is a demonstration of his work. As we can't list everything Barrett has ever written about here, we thus need to set up some guidelines. Make sense? One guideline I think we should implement is narrowing the list to only those with a secondary source demonstrating the WEIGHT of the article. Meaning, let's find other completely independent sources which refer to Barrett's article and demonstrates the article's notability. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Its best for the reader to read exactly what Barrett has said. We are here to improve this article. Agreed?  Mr.Guru  talk  00:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Creating an unwieldy and unregulated list without guidelines doesn't improve the article, but rather quite the opposite. Agreed? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Deep linking some does improve this article. Why do you object for allowing readers to read what Barrett has said?  Mr.Guru  talk  00:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I am talking about cutting down this list, not about deep linking. Please keep up and let me know what guidelines you suggest for shortening this list per WP:LIST. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought the compromise was a good idea to settle this matter. Again, why do you object for allowing readers to read what Barrett has said? Cutting down the list would degrade the article. What is your objections to deep linking some. This is an improvement to deep link some.  Mr.Guru  talk  00:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:LIST cutting down this list by setting some criteria for inclusion will improve the article. You seem to be going in circles now and I would rather prefer another editor's thoughts here. Otherwise, QuackGuru has not demostrated any valid reason for keeping such a long, unchecked list which without guideline is free to grow and grow and grow and become even more unwieldy than it already is. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This is better for the reader to have some deep linked. Why you object to the reader going to Barrett's website. Reading first hand what Barrett has to say is an improvement for this article. Cutting down the list would be degrading the article. What you are trying to do is bad for this article. A compromise has been reached which I suggest you respect. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  02:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

No compromise has been reached. You have not been able to even point to one. You have not addressed the concerns of WP:LIST. Please do. And then give me your suggestions for criteria for inclusion on this list. That would be most helpul. Thank you!!!! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

A compromise was reached based upon policy. No need to continue this. What is better for this article and for the reader, you object. The article has been improved by deep linking some. What you want to do to this article is pantently on the wrong side of improving this article. I do not see why you do not understand that deep linking some is an improvement.  Mr.Guru  talk  02:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Please point me directrly to this compromise which you speak of. Regardless, you have not address the WP:LIST issue. I am not discussing deep linking so I have no idea while you are still stuck there. Please keep up. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Read the above comments from the previous discussion on this topic on this page. Also, read the comments by CHL above. A compromise was reached and we do not have to address anymore issues.  Mr.Guru  talk  02:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I have read it thoroughly and I don't see any agreement with the compromise you are suggesting exists. I see that you agree that we need some inclusion criteria per WP:LIST. Let's please move on and discuss this. Otherwise, the list should be expunged. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I consider your comments to be boring to try to get me to continue or otherwise the list should be deleted. We do not continue the discussion for you to get a different result. No thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  03:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Litigation summary error

In this sentence: Many of these were dismissed under anti-SLAPP statutes,[48] or for failing to establish the evidentiary burden for libel, or because of an interpretation of Communications Decency Act ("CDA") that gives users immunity from lawsuits when reposting libelous material online.

The second part (which I added italics too) is an incorrect summary. None of these cases were dismissed due to the interpretation of CDA. CDA was mentioned in the context that if any of the material had been found to be libelous (which none of it ever has), then the CDA would still protect the republishers. I thinkt hat we need to make it very clear that none of the material was ever found to be libelous. (Unless I am wrong. . . in which case I would like to see a source stating that a Barrett libel case was dismissed due to CDA. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The court did not reach the issue becuase it concluded the CDA would block liability even if it was libelous. The court in Barrett v. Fonorow never determined whether they were libelous because it dismissed solely under this interpretation the CDA, just as it's written. If you like, maybe you could rewrite it like this:

or because of an interpretation of Communications Decency Act ("CDA") that gives users immunity from lawsuits when reposting libelous material online, so that courts need not determine whether repostings constitute libel.

This is highly criticized caselaw, as the inflamatory headline in the Chicago bulletin illustrates. Nonetheless, this is the same interpretation that insured Dr. P would lose in Barrett v. Rosenthall without determining the libel issue. Cool Hand Luke 19:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I think your summary here is fine. It should be made clear that libel has never been determined in court in any of the Barrett cases. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not true to my understanding. The case with Mercola was settle out of court but was a libel case, correct? I thing going back to summarizing cases instead the long list of cases looks better and reads easier. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Mercola was settled out of court. There was no admission or proof of libel there though to our knowledge. Again, Barrett's libel claims have never held up in court. This needs to be made clear in this article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a misleading WP:SYN. It's difficult to tell without the full transcripts, but the judge in Mercola may have ruled that libel had occurred, but hadn't decided on damages, before the case settled. Another judge found that Barrett was libeled, but that there was no remedy in law. Is that a "win" for Barrett? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Speculation on Mercola doesn't count. Which judge found that Barrett was libeled? Was it appealed? Did it hold up? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"Libel claims have never held up in court" has the clear implication that the libel claims were false. Because of that, it would require proof, or would, itself be libel. Perhaps "No court judgment for libel has been upheld?" — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure. That works for me. Want to re-insert or shall I? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Arthur. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

References

bias sentence

Barrett's critics have accused him of bias, lack of objectivity, and lacking the expert qualifications they say he claims. This needs to be rewritten. Some parts are fine but other parts are highly POV. Any thoughts.  Mr.Guru  talk  20:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It's leftover from before much progress had been made on NPOV issues. The WP:LEAD section needs to be updated to summarize the current article. We might want to wait until the article is more stable, though anything that hasn't been in the article in a long time and currently isn't in dispute should be removed immediately. I think mention of "qualifications" is safe to remove, "bias" should probably be at least reworded, while "objectivity" will probably remain. --Ronz 21:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The sentence is wholly accurate. Barrett's critics have in fact accused him of all of these things. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

But there's the issues of BLP and WEIGHT. Some of use here do not want to be caught ignoring them. --Ronz 02:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

There are no BLP or WEIGHT issues with this statement whatsoever. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 05:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

There are serious WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT issues here. According to what reliable sources can back up these stemements.  Mr.Guru  talk  16:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Your attempts at Whitewashing this article have gotten out of hand now. Please desist. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I said in part: According to what reliable sources can back up these stemements. Please provide a reliable reference for editorial review or it needs to be rewritten to satisfy policy.  Mr.Guru  talk  16:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

They are all there in the criticism section. I can add a lot more criticism if you'd like. Or we can link to more criticism as a reference to that link. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"Your attempts at Whitewashing this article" that sounds like a personal attack. Please stop. Also, I'm unaware of any policies or guidelines on "whitewashing". However, I am aware of policies on harassment, disruption, point-making, gaming the system, etc. All those certainly apply to your accusations of "whitewashing". --Ronz 17:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop personally attacking me, Ronz. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"Please stop personally attacking me, Ronz. Thanks" Sorry, it's not a personal attack to point your your personal attacks and other policy and guideline violations. Best you report me cause I plan on keeping this up whenever you disrupt this talk page as you so very, very often to. --Ronz 00:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually , a number of Wikipedians are deleting the ear candling chiro type references in the criticism section because they fail WP:RS. In any event, I did not read anything in the references to support the bias sentence in the lead. As good editors, we can do better. Cheers.  Mr.Guru  talk  18:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources for the criticism are all there. We are here to represent all significant viewpoints in this article and that Barrett's critics say that he isn't qualified, lack objectivity, et cetera. . . is in fact a significant viewpoint which needs to be represented here per WP:NPOV. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources for the criticsm are not there. I do not know which reference you are referring to. Your comment is your opionion. You have not demonstrated which reference to justify the sentence for inclusion in the lead. Sources must satisfy WP:RS or they fail WP:NPOV, per WP:WEIGHT and WP:LEAD.  Mr.Guru  talk  22:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No. We are dealing with critic's opinions. Not mine. Please stop confusing the two. As far as their opinion about Barrett's bias, lack of objectivity, and lacking the expert qualifications, you can find each one of these criticisms dealt with in the Criticism and Litigation sections. Thus, per WP:LEAD, this sentence provides an excellent summary of these parts of the article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I looked. I did not find it. Thus, it fails WP:LEAD and WP:WEIGHT. Your comment is a your personal statement that is not backed up with any WP:RS. Please explain which specific references we should be reading and where it is located in the references. Generally saying criticism and litigation section does not sattify anything. The critic's opinion must come from a secondary source to satisfy WP:BLP as well as WP:RS.  Mr.Guru  talk  22:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It's covered in each of the four pieces of criticism cited in the criticism section and the Bolen statement coverage in the litigation section. "Bias" and "lack of objectivity" comes mainly from the Ladd article, but can also be found in Kauffmann. The "lack of expert credentials" is mainly from Bolen and is very much the reason for all of the litigation (delicensed, et cetera). There are many other critics who support these opinions and can be included as further references. Either way, WP:LEAD is completely satisfied as well as WP:WEIGHT with what we have here. The criticism is clearly labelled as such, thus there are no BLP concerns. The criticism and litigation are very well sourced, thereby satisfying RS. Not much else to say really ont his topic. Let's move on. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Most of the criticisms fail WP:RS. Therefore, the bias sentence fails WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV policies. Exactly which reference explains about Bolen that is also a reliable seconday source. What is the ref #. Keep in mind Bolen is not a reliable secondary source. A secondary source must explain it or it will be remove from the WP:LEAD. Please tell me very specifically which references are secondary sources or revert your edit. Cheers.  Mr.Guru  talk  23:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said, the Ladd article covers "bias" and "lack of objectivity". We all agree that this is a valid RS. (Kauffman supports this too and is very much a valid RS, but some here are reluctant to agree for some reason.) The "lack of expert credentials" can be sources in most of the legal and news sources covering the litigation section. Each of them discuss the case, what was said by Bolen and why Barrett believed them to be libelous. (To date, however, none of Barrett's libel claims have ever held up in court.) I could give you the reference number of these, but I think you get the idea. (Interesting though, Barrett's own response to Tim Bolen - Who is Tim Bolen? - mentions and thus supports that Bolen charged that Barrett is "de-licensed". Certainly being "de-licensed" would be a lack of expert credentials and thus that part of the lead sentence is support by Barrett himself per your favoriate policy, WP:SELFPUB.) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB is for citing Barrett's opinion and not the critic's. You are misunderstanding policy. What exactly is the ref # of this Ladd article. The Kaufman ref fails WP:RS because the journal is described as fringe science. Also the lead should be neutrally written.  Mr.Guru  talk  23:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Barrett cites his own opinion of the critics opinions. He says they are false. (He also says they are libelous. . . but the courts don't seem to agree with Barrett). I'm sure you can find the Ladd reference and read the article. It mentions Barrett's lack of objectivity and biased reliance on only the negative studies. Kauffman is a RS. It is published in a peer-reviewed journal and has been refeneced in other journals. (From reference #50 though: The California lawsuit, filed in state Superior Court in Oakland, also accused the defendants of calling Barrett "arrogant, bizarre, close-minded, emotionally disturbed, professionally incompetent, intellectually dishonest, a dishonest journalist, sleazy, unethical, a quack, a thug, a bully, a Nazi, a hired gun for vested interests, the leader of a subversive organization, and engaged in criminal activity," the complaint says. And from the CASP portion of #50: Quackwatch appears to be a power-hungry, misguided bunch of pseudoscientific socialistic bigots," is an "industry funded organization," and is being sued by many doctors and health organizations. and On October 9, 2000, Rosenthal posted a message to a newsgroup which referred to Drs. Barrett and Polevoy as "quacks." From #52: Between January 6, 2001, and May 22, 2001, Intelisoft posted on its website 10 articles authored by Patrick "Tim" Bolen. The articles contained several disparaging claims about Barrett, the gist of which was that he was a liar and a charlatan. Hmm. I think saying that his critics have called him bias, lacks objectivity and expert credentials is a much more neutral way of saying all of that. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The lead should be NPOVed. A quality written encyclopedia article does not have the type of language you like in the lead. I will revert to a simplified and neutrally written lead, per WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV policies.  Mr.Guru  talk  00:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely no justification for you to do so. What is written in the lead now - specifically in this sentence you are questioning - is completely defended by WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV. Jeez, it's not like we are saying that Barrett's critics have called him a "Nazi" or "a hired gun for vested interests". The article needs to respect the point of view of Barrett's critics as well as his own POV. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

From WP:LEAD: The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. Need we continue this or does that end it? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The controversies should be briefly described according to WP:LEAD. And thats exactly what I did. Cheers.  Mr.Guru  talk  00:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The criticism isn't the controversy. The controversy is all of the lawsuits which Barrett filed which is covered in the lead sentence following the one we are discussing here. And yes, that sentence does as decent job of summarizing (though "mixed results" is a little misleading as thus far all of the judgements have been against Barrett's claim and the only "mix" comes from one case which was settled out of court). -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

By your own admission, you said it is a "controversy," thus is should only be briefly described in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Thats what I did. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  00:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about now, but this appears to be going in circles. I'd love to have some outside thoughts here. Otherwise, QuackGuru has not demonstrated any valid reason why this sentence in the lead should change. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I have already demonstrated why the lead should be neutrally written, per WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD policies. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  01:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

But you haven't demonstrated that the sentence in question doesn't abide by those policies. Until you can there is no need to go in circles. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe I have. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  01:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The article does not include any other mention of "qualifications" or "bias" so neither belongs in the lead section per NPOV and LEAD and BLP. If it isn't in the article anywhere else, it certainly doesn't belong in the lead. --Ronz 01:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It sure does. Please read the conversation above thoroughly. You will understand. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Now you're accusing me of lying about what is and is not in the article, and of not reading the comments above? The words are not contained elsewhere in the article. They will be removed from the lead per NPOV, BLP, and LEAD. --Ronz 01:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Would you rather us change it to the actual words used by the critics in the article? That would be much more harsh. Regardless, Ladd article accused Barrett of lack of objectivity and bias wuite plainly. Bolen, by saying that Barrett is de-licensed or reminding us that he is not board certified is saying that Barrett doesn't have the qualifications he claims he has. Again, this is criticism and it is stated clearly as such in the article. If it needs to be stated clearer, please feel free to expand on the criticism and litigation sections, but as of now, these criticisms are well-covered in the article. And no I am not accusing you of lying. That is a petty claim and thoroughly unwarranted. I would expect more from you. Please stick to the topic at hand (if there is anything else to say). -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record, here are the exact things which Bolen wrote which Barrett sued for:

BLP VIOLATION:

Levine2112's long list of Bolen's libelous and untrue statements removed by me. It has long since been established here that Bolen is not to be quoted directly or indirectly. They were written by Bolen, a non-credible source in a series of one-man email newsletters and posted on his attack site which has been totally banned from even being linked at Wikipedia, except in the unlikely event a biographical article about him ever were accepted here. The previous article about his attack website was deleted in an AFD. The long list that I have removed is so contentious that its contents are still the subject of an ongoing court case. Many of them have been labelled by a judge as "scurrilous". They are poorly sourced, contentious, and untrue, and are therefore removed per BLP. -- Fyslee/talk 08:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

BLP Note: the list above expresses factually what statements Barrett had sued for in this one particular case. Nothing written above should be taken as a statement of fact necessarily.

Anyhow, I think this alone covers what is said about Barrett's critics in the lead. However the Ladd and Kauffman sources provide much more credible citations and cover the three points made in the lead. Regardless, Bolen's criticism has become the most notable, if not infamous at this point. Notable, not necessarily credible. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

None of this is in the article. Therefore, it is not even close to being notable. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be briefly described, especially when it comes to "controversy." We should not put too much WP:WEIGHT on controversy according to policy. Its time to WP:NPOV the lead. Agreed?  Mr.Guru  talk  03:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

No. There is no agreement. It is all in the article. But hypothetically, if it weren't in the article then we should add it. But it is (as I have shown over and over and over again, even giving you exact quotes and reference numbers), so there isn't anything else to talk about. I consider this matter closed. You can continue to discuss it , but I am done here and my position stands. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:LEAD. This should be easy to understand. You mentioned it is a "controversy." Therefore, it can be briefly described in accordance with policy. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  04:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I mention that "what" is controversy? Read my response closely before you answer. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 05:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, I'm allowed to briefly summarize the text. This is called NPOVing the article. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  05:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually what you are doing is called whitewashing. Please desist. It is already summarized. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Well. At the moment it is already summarized. I NPOVed the lead. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  06:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Levine2112... Mr. Guru's massive edits here are unprecendented... more discussion is necessitated. TheDoctorIsIn 07:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Two of the items Mr. Guru removed should, IMHO, be removed. Mertz's comments have been sourced only to a separate attack site, and "Barrett's attempt to use the" CDA is just wrong, even just looking at the note. The bias sentence in the lead seems adequately sourced, however. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Online activism

The list includes two-time Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling (for his claims about mega-doses of Vitamin C[33]), the National Institute of Health (NIH) Center for Alternative and Complementary Medicine, as well as integrative medicine proponent Andrew Weil.[34]

I think this sentence should be removed per WP:NPOV. If we don't have a source or two that we can use to make such a summary of what the list does and does not include, then we shouldn't mention it at all. Alternatively, we could try to come up with some inclusion criteria for such a list, such as listing all sources, individuals, and groups that are listed both on Quackwatch and have their own Wikipedia article. --Ronz 21:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

See WP:SELFPUB for the inclusion criteria of these sentences, I think.  Mr.Guru  talk  21:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That only applies if this is a direct quote. The issue isn't that he has these lists, but why certain items from those lists deserve to be included in this article. --Ronz 22:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

We can include this because these are good examples and we don't have any alternatives. Sometimes we can IAR to improving an article, according to the co-founder of Wikipedia. Do you agree with the co-founder of this project who guided the community in its first year? Cheers.  Mr.Guru  talk  22:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem, besides NPOV is that I don't think they are particularly good examples. --Ronz 02:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

They are fair examples and we do not have any alternatives to use. I understand this is controversial material but so is alternative medicine. The reader understands this.  Mr.Guru  talk  02:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Pfizer again

Do we all agree that Pfizer sponsored the Spiked Online survey? Why can't this be mentioned? Having Pfizer attached as a sponsor adds to the survey's weight. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see previous discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stephen_Barrett#Pfizer Thanks for asking.  Mr.Guru  talk  23:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see an answer to my question there. Do you agree that Pfizer sponsored the Spiked Online survey? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This shouldn't be mentioned because its irrelevant to Barrett and its WP:WEASEL wording.  Mr.Guru  talk  23:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not WEASEL. You don't understand WEASEL. If it shouldn't be mentioned, then why mention Spiked Online even? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Spiked Online did the survey and not Pfizer.  Mr.Guru  talk  23:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not asking that. Do you agree that Pfizer sponsored the survey? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Your question is irrelevant becuase Pfizer is irrelevant to this article.  Mr.Guru  talk  00:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Pfizer is just as relevent as mentioning Spiked Online. No. Actually, Pfizer is more relevant than Spiked Online. Spiked Online is "small potatoes" compared to Pfizer. Pfizer's involvement as a sponsor should be highlighted in some way. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This has been used to advanced an agenda. Barrett's critics has said the drug industry is paying the consumer advocates. This is patently untrue and WP:LIBEL. Pfizer is not relevant to Barrett in any way. Please stop.  Mr.Guru  talk  00:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

No one here is making that claim. That argument is irrelevant. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The Pfizer claim is propaganda. It is completely irrelevant and yet you continue to reinsert it. Why are you pushing this when it has been used by Barrett's critics to advance an agenda. Please explain or stop.  Mr.Guru  talk  01:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read previous discussions and build upon them. Failure to do so, especially when done multiple times, is not only disrespectful to the editors here, but violates WP:TALK and WP:CON, as well could be taken as WP:GAME. --Ronz 01:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I certainly read through the old discussions, but QuackGuru seem to be deliberatley going in circles here. No one here is claiming that Barrett and Pfizer were in cahoots with regards to this Spiked Online survey. The description that Pfizer sponsored Spiked Online's survey shows only an association between Pfizer and Spiked Online. What it adds is to the notability of the survey as Pfizer is a huge fish compared to the minnow that Spike Online is. That QuackGuru's only reason for not stating this fact is that he/she is trying to protect Barrett from an association that is not even being made or remotely expressed really invalidates whatever points he/she is attempting to make. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Pfizer is unrelated to this article because it is unrelated to Barrett. Please stop trying to add unrelated content. Pfizer is not a huge fish because there no relationship to Barrett. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  01:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Essentially then you are saying that Spiked Online is unrelated to Barrett too then. SO why mention it? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Spiked Online did the survey and not Pfizer. Spiked is mentioned because they were doing the survey.  Mr.Guru  talk  02:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Jeeze, talk about round and around from Levine yet again.

From above (unanswered by Levine):

Chill about QG, this question has been asked of other editors and you are the only one to answer. So Pfizer has relevance to SB? Yes or no. Because in one breath you say no "the association is between Pfizer and SpikedOnline and not between Pfizer and Barrett", and in another you say yes "keeping the survey's association with Pfizer - an extremely large player in the health world - reference demonstrates weight appropriate to its significance to the subject, Stephen Barrett - a player in the health world". Either it is relevant to SB or not relevant to SB. Which is it. If Pfizer has relevance to SB, then yes, I agree, needs to be in Stephen Barrett.

Since it is clear that Pfizer has no reason to be in the article (expect in relation to Spiked) it should be removed. WP:WEASEL has something to do with it, but another is probably WP:GAME especially with regards to your responses. Suggest you postulate some good faith.

Shot info 02:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The one going round and round here is QuackGuru. But to clarify, Barrett is notable in the field of healthcare. Thus if Road and Track magazine question Barrett about his taste in automobiles it wouldn't be notable in this article. But here we have a survey sponsored by Pfizer - certainly a large player in healthcare. Not mentioning them here takes away from the notability of the article. WEASEL has nothing to do with it, especially if we are crystal clear that the association for this survey is between Spiked Online and Pfizer. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that Pfizer has nothing to do with Stephen Barrett. Can I suggest that you stop gaming the system and refrain from inserting material that belongs in Spiked Online and not in Stephen Barrett. Shot info 02:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

No gaming. Please assume good faith. What Pfizer has to do with is that it was the sponsor of the survey which Barrett responded to. That's all. Pfizer's association with the survey is notable. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:DNFT Shot info 02:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Pfizer is not notable in any way. There is no relationship to Barrett. It has nothing to do with Barrett. What relationship does Pfizer have with Barrett? Nothing!  Mr.Guru  talk  02:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

My point exactly. The only relationship here in this survey is between Pfizer and Spiked Online. Pfizer's association with the survey makes Spiked Online's survey more notable and thus Pfizer's assoication with the survey is worth noting. That's all. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You are not making much sense. I do not understand exactly what you are saying. Anyhow, do you agree with me now?  Mr.Guru  talk  02:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

QG, can I suggest that you don't feed the WP:SPA? Shot info 03:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Alternative Medicine magazine

Is anyone going to have a problem with an article which was published in this publication? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

At first impression, it seems like another ear candling chiro attack reference/website. Probably fails WP:RS.  Mr.Guru  talk  03:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

So any source which disagrees with Barrett's stance on medicine is an attack reference? I think that is a wildly unfair (and incorrect) interpretation of WP:RS. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 05:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, you may want to take a look at WP:BLP. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  05:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)