Talk:Stephen Barrett/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Interest questions

<personal attack and BLP violation removed by AvB> ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 16:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No. <links removed by AvB 26 June 2007. Content: web pages showing scope of 1998-2007 work: CFS/FM/MCS/GWS/auto-immune conditions> AvB ÷ talk 19:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Question for Metta Bubble, you say here [1] that you are here as an uninvolved editor with this being your second revert. You made that survey for others to take with you allowing yourself to refractor. I am confused! are you a neutral editor who just happened across this article? I would also suggest you read the archives from past conversation since this whole thing restarted which is archives 9 & 10 so you understand all of what has been said here over all of this time. I left myself for awhile because it is exhausting already. Thanks your for your time, --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

However, it also seems User:Avb has a real-life interest in this article, which is compounded by Avb flatout denying this when I asked him. Now it turns out he was an administrator on a site that maintains a <link removed by AvB 26 June 2007> list critiquing healthcare providers. I mean, hello? If that doesn't set off some alarm bells with you, it should. Enough to lift your rader a little and consider whether you're being played -- just a little.deleting, this response was in reply to a question that has since been removed ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 02:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems you're missing Crohnie's points. (1) She says you were not "uninvolved" as claimed by you (obviously in the sense of someone not under suspicion of chosing sides in the dispute). Your response confirms that; yet you act as if it somehow proves her wrong. (2) She says you gave Levine a barnstar (in the context of presenting here as an uninvolved editor). You ignore the point, instead talking about others (both chronically ill) getting on well, as if we have done anything remotely similar to what you did (such as one of us playing the uninvolved, spontaneously surfacing editor when the other is looking for support from a neutral editor). As if that changes things regarding your claim to be uninvolved. (3) She asks if she is correct in thinking you were invited to make that edit. You ignore the question, instead stepping up your criticism of me (I smell a rat) - !AGF/NPA. (4) She commented on your survey, but you ignored it. Would you care to address these points now? Can you state for a fact that you had not been invited?

Instead of addressing the issues brought forward, you continued something where you hadn't done your homework.

You also ignored what I wrote. You didn't even click on the links I gave. Or perhaps you didn't understand their significance, but you didn't ask. AvB ÷ talk 19:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Avb and Crohnie. It is verifiably true I was an uninvolved editor in this dispute before coming here recently. I haven't ignored your links. They simply show nothing. I addressed your issues above. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 22:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It was my impression that Levine was looking for someone both sides could trust. It was my impression that you have been invited.

You have not answered my question: Can you state for a fact that you had not been invited?

What do you mean, my links show nothing? They show that the website has always been about diseases Barrett calls fad diseases. Or didn't you know that? AvB ÷ talk 00:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Sooo close, but I don't think this quite deserves to go here yet. I recommend that you ask I'clast about COI issues as he has been gungho in pointing the finger but rather lacking in intestinal fortitude to follow up with the appropriate channels. I can only hope that you are willing to lead the charge!. Shot info 02:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC) [[2]]

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

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

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

I have refactored the part about myself above and replaced one word~, which makes Metta Bubble's statement accurate and non-actionable. No need to make waves. -- Fyslee/talk 21:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

:::: I've restored what I said about you. It is not acceptable for you to edit talk pages like this. Please stop. If what I said is incorrect I'm open to discussing that. If you want to take action on what I said. Take it to the appropriate channels. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 22:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC) my comment no longer applies as the user has restored my postॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 01:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:REFACTORing is standard practice, especially when BLP issues are involved, and they do apply to editors, especially when they also come in the form of personal attacks, which your misleading statement was. Place yourself in my shoes. If I lied about you, how would you feel? You claim to be a Buddhist, IIRC, but you are anything but peaceful. Please do not repeat the false charges that were never proven in the RfArb. Some people seem to believe in "guilt by accusation", but that's not the way it works. Please reword it to "POV". That would be accurate. -- Fyslee/talk 22:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

To me it is a BLP violation. I know best about myself. The charges were never proven. Read the rules. I can -- and all editors "must" -- immediately remove potentially libelous statements and unsourced negative information. BLP applies to all living persons, including editors, and applies to all of Wikimedia publications, including personal userspace. 3RR does not apply to removal of such information, but does apply to the one who includes or restores it. I request that other editors help me keep this deceptive piece of opinion out of Wikipedia. -- Fyslee/talk 23:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Your question only rated a "No", but I gave you more than that (and you're misrepresenting it). I also gave you two links. You didn't even click on them, or perhaps you didn't understand their significance, but you didn't ask and you are acting as if I didn´t give them.

Just to prevent the uncalled-for type of accusations you've also been making about talking back-channel: My interest in the article is to make/keep it neutral per WP rules. Of course I am interested in the article; most editors are interested in the articles they edit. If it hadn't been on my watchlist, I wouldn't have noticed someone fact-tagging contentious unsourced content here, which brought me here to remove it per WP:BLP. In fact I am only about 95% neutral. My opinion of Barrett's work is, on balance, somewhat negative due to his approach of real illnesses as "fad" diseases. But I have to admit these views are based on the literature and I have to accept that science has to advance a notch or two before more is known about these diseases. Furthering research is much more important than trying to get preliminary stuff into the encyclopedia as if it were evidence-based. I have no feelings re Barrett as a person. I have been taking an interest in Wikipedia BLPs ever since I arrived here. I learned from run-ins with mainstream editors where I was representing a minority, and minority editors where I was a mainstream one (mostly bios of scientists or cranks researching or dallying in topics I'm familiar with). But never have I seen those representing a minority clamoring this loudly that they are, in fact mainstream while the mainstream person is not. AvB ÷ talk 12:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

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

affiliations

It is a clear violation of NPA policy to use "someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views - regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." [3] Just because someone shares another person's POV, even if that person is someone who in someway may be considered in violation of COI here (or has problems elsewhere), that fact must not be used against them. -- Fyslee/talk 08:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Since this is about doctors diagnosing and treating what Barrett calls fad diseases, I think he would call it a Bad Doctors list (except for fibromyalgia entries). From my perspective, Barrett does good work steering patients (often chronic patients who can't be helped by regular medicine) away from the quacks preying on them and their money. I am less enthusiastic about other aspects of his work. For one thing, his true anti-quack material (and there is a lot) won't be reaching many patients with "fad" diagnoses due to the very fact he calls them that instead of e.g. posting some helpful material for patients to decide where they are on the spectrum from physical to mental to imaginary disease (which, in the case of CFS, is interesting since its "official" diagnostic criteria have expanded the patient population to include the latter two, especially in the UK).

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

Thanks for sharing that information. It's a shame this was such a mud-fight to get a statement on this. I agree this should stop right here, which is why the alarm bells conversation is preserved in the section above. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 22:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

This is all readily available from the website hosting the list.

I do not understand "which is why the alarm bells conversation is preserved in the section above."

For the rest, you misunderstand how serious this is. You've just made it worse by misrepresenting what happened here (I did not give this info because there was a mud fight. I gave this information because you were throwing mud at me. Twice. You said a lot of damaging things about me that were not true and needed a defense. Do you understand that what you did was wrong? AvB ÷ talk 00:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought you wanted to leave it? And then you come with this accusationn of starting a mud-fight? I asked you a serious question about affiliations that was totally reasonable. Then your friend comes in and starts throwing unfounded accusations at me about being a meatpuppet. I've had fyslee deleting my comments from this page and posting other comment (including my signature) that I never even posted here. It's hard to take you sincerely when you distort things like this. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 01:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The alarm bells section is a totally different conversation and warrants a different section header. I couldn't care less what this section is called as long as it's civil. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 01:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Are you angry? I do not believe you are in a position to be angry with me.
2. You're twisting my words. According to you, I said that I wanted to leave it. What I said was: "This line of meta-questioning should stop right here."
3. Yes, you started a mud fight with (1) a personal attack and (2) a BLP violation. (I've just removed them, please note that restoring them without discussion is a blockable offense)
4. You asked me a serious question, I gave a serious answer (No) and, superfluously, some links to illustrate.
5. Then you said "I smell a rat" and started about COI and ArbCom. More mud.
6. I am not responsible for what other editors do or say.
7. I distort things? Like what? Diffs please. AvB ÷ talk 01:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

1. no. 2. just my interpretation. so are you nonw saying you don't want to leave it? 3. the information I posted was obtained from your own user page so it hardly constitutes a BLP violation. 4. the question is answered. 5. yes I do smell a rat. that's my opinion and you've said worse things yourself about levine2112 so don't play innocent. 6. I agree. 7. see answer to question 3. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 01:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

2 I will leave it when you have answered all my serious questions and have stopped prompting new ones. 3a I removed that information from my user page a long time ago and you are not supposed to use it. This is a blockable offense. 3b The BLP violation and attack were not copied from my old user page. 5a Rude and incivil, especially since you had misinterpreted the website you quoted 5b talking about a COI and ArbCom is a personal attack. 5c Do you mean you still smell a rat? If so, please explain. It sounds as if you're still accusing me of a COI that needs ArbCom intervention. 7 I distort things? Like what? Diffs please. -- Please answer. AvB ÷ talk 01:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph about a CSICOP award

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criticism of the degrees of others

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Fyslee's point of view & OR[4] “inviting” (demanding?) others' point of view & OR about Stephen Barrett's point of view & OR. hmmmm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pretentious? Moi?

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

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

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

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

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

American Board of Chelation Therapy

American Board of Holistic Medicine

American Board of Environmental Medicine

International Board of Environmental Medicine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed 1st paragraph of Bio

Barrett is a 1957 graduate of the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and completed his psychiatry residency in 1961. He also completed 1 ^1/₂ years of legal studies by correspondence through LaSalle Extension University in 1968. He was a licensed physician until retiring from active practice in 1993, and his medical license is currently listed as "Active-Retired" in good standing.[2] He testified as an expert psychiatric witness in some court cases but never achieved board certification in psychiatry. A longtime resident of Allentown, Pennsylvania, Barrett now resides in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.[3] He has said that his appreciation of medical science probably began with a college course in medical statistics.[4]

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

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

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

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

Barrett is a 1957 graduate of the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and completed his psychiatry residency in 1961. He also completed a year and a half of legal studies by correspondence through LaSalle Extension University in 1968. He was a licensed physician until retiring from active practice in 1993, and his medical license is currently listed as "Active-Retired" in good standing.[2] He testified as an expert psychiatric witness in some court cases but did not achieve board certification in psychiatry. A longtime resident of Allentown, Pennsylvania, Barrett now resides in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.[3] He has said that his appreciation of medical science probably began with a college course in medical statistics.[4] MaxPont 17:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Very good suggestion. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see the sources also please. I'm not sure about the word "achieve" either. I also note editors the division on whether board certification can be included. Nonetheless, working towards a better wording is a positive step. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 03:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed changes to Bio section (draft)

Barrett is a 1957 graduate of the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and completed his internship at the Highland Park General Hospital (Michigan) in 1958. He completed his psychiatry residency at Temple University Hospital (Philadelphia) in 1961. In 1967 and 1968 he followed part of a correspondence course in American Law and Procedure at La Salle Extension University (Chicago).

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. Longtime resident of Allentown, Pennsylvania, Barrett now resides in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

AvB ÷ talk

Whose proposal is this? Aside from leaving out the lack of Board Certification, I think this otherwise a good suggestion. Here are my suggestions:

I forgot to sign (may be contagious). AvB ÷ talk 21:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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. Longtime resident of Allentown, Pennsylvania, Barrett now resides in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

-- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

In myu opinion, the BC thing and the license thing do not belong in the article for similar reasons. Leaving both out is intended as a compromise of sorts. AvB ÷ talk 21:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Disruption of talk page

Why the continued attempts to discuss adding the BC material? It's obvious that there isn't going to be any consensus to do so (as repeated discussion, a MedCab case and an RfC have shown). So why continue trying in this venue? The proper course per WP:DR is either disengage or take it to the next level (mediation, arbitration). thanks, Jim Butler^(talk) 17:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The talk page is the proper venue for discussion. We have followed WP:DR to the letter. A new mediation might be a good solution, but our last mediator didn't think it would be helpful given the incivility here. Arbitration is not meant for content disputes but rather eidotr behavior; so that isn't a viable option. I have tried disengaging, but when I did, even more NPOV problems popped up in the article. I believe as of now the article contians content that is not neutrally presented; especially with regards to the biography section (which ought to be entitled "Accolades" at this point). I believe that if we all remain civil, discuss Wikipedia policies, and propose compromises that consensus can be acheived. Let's all work together to reach this goal! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm only talking about the BC issue, not other aspects of the article. I feel comfortable saying that I have thoroughly considered and understand your arguments, but don't agree with them, and absent new sources I don't foresee changing my mind. Given that other editors feel the same way, the change you want simply isn't going to happen in the near future. Maybe later, if a good source appears, but for now it's a hopeless cause. That's why continuing to push the issue is disruptive, especially since you've been doing so for so long. So why continue? Why not focus on other aspects of the article? regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 18:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess it comes down to this: What if you're wrong about Wikipedia policy? I contend that you and the other editors here not supporting inclusion may be. The large majority of the editors who have voiced their opinion on this matter agree with inclusion and don't see any policy violations. Given the good possibility that you may be wrong about policy and I may be right, why should we disengage from these conversations. If anything, these conversations can help us all learn Wikipedia policy better. Remember, I am totally open to the possibility that I am wrong too. However, given the amount and quality of the sources which all together confirm and show the relevance of Barrett lack of Board Certification; given that all editors here can at least agree that the proposed content is true; and given that the large majority of editors support its inclusion, I currently tend to think that I am correct. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure it's possible that I (and those who agree with my position) are wrong. But in a BLP situation, the default is to leave it out if in doubt. The idea is that if I'm wrong about keeping something out of the article, the potential harm is less than if you're wrong about putting it in. So even if you think you're right, others simply do not agree with you, so it's disruptive for you to persist with this futile cause. thanks, Jim Butler^(talk) 21:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This article script continues to drift, in reverse, into Hollywood movie fantasy. With the deletion of BvR and King-Bio, major losses on Dr Barrett's legal theories/positions, the plantiff's propositions thoroughly repudiated in the court systems, are not even noted. Losing 7-0 at the California Supreme Court is a very notable situation. The stalled board certification is not an isolated problem here and Levine is not being disruptive to point out the "Polly Annish" failings of the current Bio section.--I'clast 06:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

messages for Levine2112 (shows no sign of stopping his massive disruption) Your are creating massive disruption on the talk page of the Stephen Barrett article. I hope you realize (after repeated discussion to exhaustion) there is no consensus among editors. We do not continue to debate when it has become obvious we cannot reach consensus after a very long and lengthy discussion. The discussion has been about 3 months old and over 400 Levine2112 talk page edits. Its time to stop. Now, please stop or you are more than likely to be blocked or restricted from editing. I wish to prevent you from being on the wrong end of a block. If you listen to my advise you are more than welcomed to continue collaborating on Wikipedia. If you refuse to learn from your mistakes (talk page disruption) and persist in disruption you will be greeted with a block. I recommend you take a wikibreak. Have a nice day. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 02:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It takes two to dispute. Sorry. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your apology for your massive disruption. Your recognition of your disruptive behaviour is important. Now then, you can take this off of your watchlist for a while or move on. Thank you for your cooperation. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 02:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it. Why the harassment of Levine? Didn't he (Barrett) fail his boards? Didn't he come here, state that he did then clarify what happened? If Barrett is OK with this information, then why isn't everyone else? It's not Levine's fault that Barrett failed his boards. It is a fact of Stephen Barrett's life. So what's the big deal. It's OK with Barrett, so why the protectionist push? AvB seems OK about including it.

This discussion could have ended a long time ago if the fact that Barrett failed his boards was included in a simple, non-threatening way like Levine and AvB have suggested. Why does Mr.G, think that threatening Levine will cause him to suddenly see it Guru's way. Does Guru expect Levine to thank him for the suggestion and 'friendly' advice? What do you think the naughty committee would think about your 'suggestion' Guru? Steth 02:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

QG's continued threats should be noted, Levine is not the disruptive party. Levine, as well as a previous supermajority, is saying that board certification is encyclopedic; to me the minimum point after multiple accommodations. Its absence and the "QW negative block" are a serious problem.--I'clast 06:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Levine is the disruptive party, as he's continued to make arguements agsinst Wikipedia policy, after it's been explained why they are against Wikipedia policy. The details or the merits of his (other) arguements are no longer relevant to that problem. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Please chill out, everybody. A few weeks ago we had a structured Dispute Resolution and Levine2112 asked for external input via the RfC. Then it turned heated and nasty. There are several culprits on both sides but I am going to point finger at Quackguru, whose behavior is under formal investigation [5] Quackguru is not in the position to criticize others. The long line of attacks on Levine2112 are unjustified and IMO a sign that the other side feel they are losing the argument. MaxPont 15:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone here has almost 500 edits to this page since March 22, over 20% of all edits here during that time. A majority of that editor's edits simply repeat the same arguments over and over and over again, ignoring past discussions. This is disruption, plain and simple. --Ronz 16:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

more messages for Levine2112

You have been previously warned about your disruptive behaviour at the talk page of the Stephen Barrett article. You are continuing to push this matter after a warning. I wish to prevent you from being blocked but you have not listened to my advise. You new post has caused more disruption after the discussion of the BC has been rejected by no consensus a long time ago. Please stop pushing for the BC issue to continue or your editing priviledges may be revoked or restricted. Again, the board cerification thing has been rejected as no consensus among editors. We have already been through this before. You are aware there is no consensus but you seemed to have ignored this fact. Now stop. I hope you take this valuable advise to heart. Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 19:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Levine is not the disruptive party. WP:BLP policy has been discussed, vigorously and selectively asserted to the promotional exclusion of balance and the crumbling of 2 of 5 pillars - the Bio section fits neither Wikipedia is an encyclopedia...is not...a vanity publisher and Wikipedia has a neutral point of view,. That Bio section remains quite adulating, incomplete and inaccurate. Never minding the dynamics of the primary court records - WP:RS part of WP:BLP debates, Levine did point out the individual's sourced statements about certification, separately allowed under WP:BLP. With a previous supermajority for including such material, Levine has points that are a fine grind with small changes in the back & forth and the need to answer questions and challenges that are either repetitive themselves or only small changes. So there is a lot of duplicate verbiage. Also some attitude that I have seen here risks abuse on WP:CONSENSUS as well as the attacks on Levine.

Some of the smallest improvements to veracity here have taken almost infinte patience for otherwise minor edits. The still not balanced (and incomplete) Bio section still presents as an Augustan authoritative figure, as blemish free, a highly controversial author with many legal and scientific positions that have unraveled in this millenium with significant losses in both areas. Unbalanced includes promotional trivia without meaningful significance ("at least one vote"). Far beyond sympathetic treatment, continuing into the other sections, the descriptive phrasing implicitly promotes Dr Barret's views including dismissal of any who disagree, out of hand, e.g. "rapists and murderers". An interesting view for a much promoted author who makes sweeping, conclusory health judgements while persistently (decades) muffing (or ignoring) input numbers approximately 10 - 100 fold off among other "...incomplete data, obsolete data, technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo" as well as going down in flames, 7-0, in a landmark California Supreme Court decision, also currently unmentioned.--I'clast 00:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

A Thought Experiment

A thought experiment might break the SB BC logjam. Let us imagine that a particular prominent doctor had passed his boards first time. Let us further imagine that it is generally considered that this same doctor is regarded by all responsible authorities to be a man of thoroughly unsound judgement or a quack. Would it be appropriate to say in a Wikipedia article about him: "Although he passed his boards Dr. X is generally regarded by most responsible authorities to be misguided in his medical opinions."? Or would it simply not matter? Does this thought experiment lighten the darkness? robert2957 18:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I like it. But I've already been there - Changing perspectives is one of the ways I test my opinions (or biases of you will). As you may have seen, I've asked Levine2112 to try on the other side's moccassins. I would never have asked him that if I hadn't done the reverse myself already. So, overlooking the weaknesses of the experiment and taking on its essence: I'm happy to say, my answer stays the same. The sentence can go into the article when reliable secondary sources have written that and the amount of attention it is given by them makes it sufficiently notable to be included. Our policies are based on that concept. In fact the relevant WP policies have been designed to keep crank stuff out. We will be behind the times when major paradigm shifts take place. But not for long. We can wait until things become clear. We do not have to identify today's Semmelweises or today's witch doctors. They will be identified for us. And then... we write.

As a thought experiment, you really don't want me to go any further. Working from memory alone I have an enormous number of examples for you, examples that will put me squarely on the side of those who have suffered from evidence based medicine, Major Deity syndrome (a mental disorder of some MDs), and much much more. Those who have, rightly or wrongly, identified their own Semmelweises and seen them suffer at the hands of what is claimed to be science. If, say, a number of CFS advocates (representing 800,000 patients) dismiss a doc as a man of thoroughly unsound judgement or a quack on their web sites, it doesn't go into the encyclopedia unless they make the papers, or (since wise Wikipedians have lots of leeway) write a reliable article based on verifiable information. I have seen a deletionist include a partisan minority article attacking a mainstream scientist for that reason alone. But if a doctor has testified in court cases for years, being instrumental in imprisoning innocent people or taking their children away due to the bogus diagnosis of Münchhausen by Proxy (it exists, but in these cases the dx was wrong)... a professor claiming things based on bent statistics, a kind of Intelligent Design in reverse, juggling figures to derive conclusions not about a creator but about a murderer... and his testimony is summarily dismissed after many years... Or how about my dad dying at 39 due to a medical error which never made the papers because we forgave the doc, seeing him heartbroken, and believing he would not let this happen again if he could help it, ever...

Wikipedia is there to neutrally describe what we know. Not to crucify people or make them into saints. WP:TIGER. AvB ÷ talk 21:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly I agree completely with AvB with regards to the thought experiment. I too would be in favor of including this into the hypothetical Dr. X article when reliable secondary sources have written that and the amount of attention it is given by them makes it sufficiently notable to be included. In terms of the Stephen Barrett article, I feel that we do have several reliable secondary sources that demonstrate the notability of Barrett's lack of Board Certification. I really appreciate this thought experiment, Robert2957. AvB, please understand that I have put myself in your shoes the whole way through this dispute and have tried my best to understand your rationale. As you say, Wikipedia is here to neutrally describe what we know. Well, we all know that Barrett is not Board Certified. I don't think adding this verified fact to this article is tantamount crucification of the man. It's a well-documented fact which Barrett himself say that he has been public about for over thirty years. The proposed re-insertion of this is worded about as neutrally as it can be - simply stated: Stephen Barrett is not Board Certified. No judgement either way; just a statement of a verified fact. If you can understand that position, then you are truly standing my shoes too. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

My view on your rationale is very simple. You believe the things you say about Barrett, Bolen, Negrete, chiropractic, etc. It must be quite unpleasant to see editors here view things the same way Barrett does. I, on the other hand, couldn't care less what Bolen et al. say. This is the way the world works; different people use different tactics to right the wrongs they see. Much of WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:RS has been devised to prevent biased editors who think they are neutral from skewing articles with their personal views. It all boils down to sources. In cases like Barrett's, it must feels pretty unfair that the sources viewed as reliable by Wikipedia have given so little attention to his opponents and/or his shortcomings. NPOV means Wikipedia is biased towards the majority viewpoint. The net effect of this all is that neutral editors look biased in the eyes of editors representing a minority. If the latter demand equal time/space (in line with their beliefs), they look like POV pushers in the eyes of neutral editors. But you should realize that any editors who do hate the Bolens of this world, who are very pro-Barrett, in short, POV pushers on the other side of the spectrum, also need to abide by what the sources say. Nevertheless, as long as Barrett is seen as one of the good guys by the mainstream (science, media, physicians...) we must describe him as such, abhorrent as it must be to you. On the plus side, we need to attribute opinions. (perhaps more or changes tomorrow, I'm falling asleep) AvB ÷ talk 01:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

If that is how you feel, then I am afraid you haven't been standing in my shoes but rather some strawman's mocassins. I don't side with Bolen or Negrete. I think Barrett points out some legitimate scams, but a lot of his work is biased and filled with innuendo; an as he presents his views as the "mainstream views" (they aren't, BTW), his website can be quite deceptive. I get the feeling that you think I sympathize with Bolen and Negrete and I curse Barrett. If that is what you believe, then I am afraid I haven't given you the correct impression in all of this discussion. In fact, I am rather impartial here. I am not an alternative medicine or mainstream medicine practitioner. I had no knowledge of Barrett before coming to Wikipedia. I have no dealing with or about Barrett outside of Wikipedia (e.g. participating in blogs and forums, etc.) What I have learned here though is that Barrett likes to give the impression that he is the mainstream. He is not. I am afraid also that you have WP:NPOV wrong when you say that it is biased toward the majority viewpoints. This is incorrect. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias. The interestring thing here though is that Barrett's lack of Board Certification isn't a "viewpoint". It is a fact. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It may sound weird to you, but the above confirms my view of your rationale. I believe you are (almost certainly unwittingly) a prime example of the editors who are confusing their own POV (MPOV) with WP:NPOV. As to NPOV's inherent bias, I'm afraid you stand alone. "Without bias" means that we heed the "proportionately" and make sure editor bias does not morph the article away from the proportions found in the real world per reliable sources. As to Barrett's not being mainstream, you're entitled to this opinion, but you have never sourced it. As long as our reliable sources report that mainstream scientists, doctors, etc. praise and support him the article will give lots of space to Barrett's views. We cannot give equal time/space to partisan attack sites (if they're worth mentioning at all), and even the space reserved for measured critique appearing in reliable secondary sources is limited. "Proportionately" means editors must assign weight to the various POVs covered in the article, assign space etc. on that basis, and within that space decide which components of the POV can be mentioned in toto, which have to be summarized, and which have to be kept out due to space = proportion = weight constraints. The BC issue (all of it, i.e. criticism and response, in context) would be one of those components if it would have been discussed in reliable sources. Thus sayeth our bedrock policy, NPOV. AvB ÷ talk 11:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

AvB, there is no proportionality in the Bio section or the next section, it's a 100% very favorable side of the guy's story. We have spent months making it slightly more factual, less billboard promotional and better sourced. It is still highly incomplete - no legal studies mentioned, no Supreme Court, no board certification and we have not asked for that much space either.

The "reliable sources" you referred to have massive COI shortcomings in QW/pharmaceutical/altmed areas and are very dated (mostly 5-20+ yrs ago), not current. Your current mainstream assumptions for medicine and science in a number of QW related areas may rest on a large bed of OR, unless you count some stagnant backwaters too. Dr Barrett's articles often contradict *current* mainstream medical science as been discussed at length before, including else where. Levine is not quoting attack sites (e.g. Bolen), it would be more accurate to say that he is quoting attacked sites or related professions. Remember, QW is in fact literally an attack site that actively promotes lawsuits.--I'clast 10:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

First, I note the "we" in your response. It might be helpful to document the characteristics of the POV you represent.

I see you believe that there is "no proportionality" in parts of the article. I don't agree with just about anything you're saying here. My opinion is based on the article's current sources and the quality/acceptability of the new sources (=individual articles/press releases/etc) mentioned in the BC discussion. I see a vast majority, both societal and scientific, supporting and praising Barrett, Quackwatch, etc. If anything, the article gives too much space to detractors. Your arguments do nothing to change this observation.

Nevertheless, in the spirit of the thought experiment that started this thread, I have a suggestion for you. If you really want to make this into a plausible argument, you need to make it much more explicit. Many current sources favorable to Barrett need to disappear and quite a few new sources critical of him need to appear. You (and perhaps others) may want to list the article's current sources that you feel are not or no longer reliable, as well as any sources you feel are reliable and should be used in the article. It should go without saying that there need to be arguments for both. From there you could come up with a shortlist of specific POVs and a suggestion for the relative space/location/importance they should have in the article. It might help if you could also list the relative importance of each POV's arguments/thoughts/points of criticism/etc within the POV itself. From there we could mount a brief discussion (e.g. by limiting the number of contributions per person to 4?) To be honest, I would expect this to end in chaos, disruption and a massive amount of wasted time all around. But when carefully done, in the spirit of the wiki, this should result in something all parties can live with. Note that this is not something I've just thought up. It is the way we expect our editors to work together towards a common goal. AvB ÷ talk 11:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

PS Last time I looked, the article body contained a whopping 54% of criticism. Tony has removed the litigation stuff, leaving an article with 37% fully dedicated to criticism, and more interspersed in the remaining text. AvB ÷ talk 12:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The "we" is short hand for my earlier comments that longstanding editors here are functionally polar, even though the individual editors may be independent.

My points are the simple, pronounced lack of factuality on several normal points in the Biography that indicates (to me) a possible bias operating here and fails to accurately answer questions that a normal reader expects to be addressed accurately and completely, especially in such an important health related area.

I see a vast majority, both societal and scientific, supporting and praising Barrett, Quackwatch, Apparently a rather small or quiet "vast" societal remainder supporting Dr Barrett after 40 years , despite the link farms, [6] (say, vs one of his much later sparring partners, like Mercola[7]). Scientific praise - not lately - that's OR and unsubstantiated after the repeated court losses & (non)expert determinations and the publication of more authoritative science (NIH, etc) in contradiction of his positions (e.g. contradicted on vitamin C critiques by several recent national authorities 2001-2006 as well as earlier analyses showing some fatal fundamental flaws 20 years ago) as well as the direct analyses and reviews like scientist Joel Kauffman presented or SB's "disappearance" from "top" journals. The "societal and scientific" support that you claim is more the uncritical residual of highly successful marketing and adverstising such as with the Reader's Digest articles in the 1970s, the general societal mood folloiwing the "miracle drug era" of antibiotics, and pre-Internet media monopolization of news & views, all now long gone in the haze of high priced, recalled dangerous drugs and expose' 2001+. Again, I don't see current sources, say 2005/6+, that show this vast majority, at all.

The majority of old sources, not current, do not need to "disappear", these normal, simple Biographic facts need to be included: (1) the landmark California Supreme Court case, (2) college legal education (claimed as a source of legal expertise), (3) and, um, of course, "BC". I am looking for conceptual acknowledgement so that the the properly sourced phrasing can be developed and edited in (unlocked).--I'clast 21:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

That's just your opinion. If things have changed, you need reliable sources saying that. I see no other way for you to make this into a plausible argument than doing it along the lines I suggested. Regarding the novel argument that sources are old: that is not a problem whatsoever. The content is attributed to sources, and the reader can see the dates for themselves. There is no need to remove them; that's not at all encyclopedic. And in order to include new information, we need reliable secondary sources. AvB ÷ talk 00:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

PS I think you have just illustrated an important problem people may have with editing Wikipedia: they want it to contain the truth (their version of it). However, Wikipedia is not about truth, but about verifiability as defined in our rules. It will always be behind the times. But if something is important, it will be described in reliable sources at some point. Only then do write about it. Users who do not agree are not welcome to edit Wikipedia. They only have the right to fork. AvB ÷ talk 00:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Almost a total misread. This is normal encyclopedic editorial thinking, apparently thought to be excludable in the Barrett article space by some editors. (1) the California Supreme Court case has many, many WP:RS,V sources L.A. Times, EFF, USA Today, Mercury News, Washington Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Newsday, Associated Press, PC INpact(France) etc, (2) Most people (and editors) would say that accounting for 1.5 years of college in a several page Biography is encyclopedic, especially if the training is later claimed as a basis for expertise, used for several decades, and a specific subject of several trials. It also has a WP:BLP acceptable source - Dr Barrett's CV, among others. (3) I think everyone fairly soon may be very pleasantly surprised to get a V RS quote on the board certification (if dead trees will move less slowly).

I said that I wasn't planning to remove notes and quotes for age, just that significant events had superceded them and made them "old" and not (or less) current. Recently NAS, NIH and other authorities have substantially contradicted some of Dr Barrett's more sweeping, disparaging conclusions, just as have the courts, all in WP:RS sources (PNAS, CMAJ, various Times, etc). A smart or informed MD/PhD is not going to publicly buck that frivolously. The "vast majority" OR/claims would be quite interesting to compare with any *current* surveys about what levels technical illiteracy reaches, especially in any professional setting where some degree of due diligence is expected (at least by the lawyers) rather than on the cruise ship surveying all the pharma reps, wine in hand, several down, more to go.

I have repeated and sourced some of the newer dated related material, 2002-2006, so many times elsewhere (but not planning to add it directly to this article although it affects WP:V on Dr Barrett's science claims). I asked for conceptual recognition - rough agreement and/or comment before starting to edit with V RS sourced (...properly sourced phrasing can be developed). So, I'm guessing it was in the late hours there, I am not abjuring any WP rules in my planned edits, I am not planning to start any forks, and I am hopeful that at least some editors appreciate my efforts to constructively contribute sourced and science based edits to WP.--I'clast 11:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Using the California supreme court case as something to refute my reasoning is a straw man fallacy. It satisfies the policy constraints I've explained over and over again and thus can be used in context. If you have new reliable sources, by all means bring them on. If they supersede older material, we can expand the article and report on the change. Conceptual recognition: I've given my view several times now. Nothing much has changed. Barrett is the establishment's hero. His image has suffered very little damage over the years as far as reliable secondary sources are concerned, while detractors are portrayed unfavorably. The question is not whether or not this has changed (I too have an opinion there but, like yours, it can't be used in the article) but whether or not a change has been reported in reliable secondary sources. Maybe I am not aware of reliable secondary sources that would change things. Or maybe the reliable sources are behind the times. If so, so are we, but it will make the encyclopedia before the deadline. We don't have a crystal ball telling us what reliable sources will be writing in the future. By the way, what percentage of the article do you feel needs to be given to criticism/detractor opinion/etc? AvB ÷ talk 12:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Not notable

You write: "It's a well-documented fact which Barrett himself say that he has been public about for over thirty years." I question that statement, and until I read a quote from Barrett to that effect (the last half of your sentence), consider it a misrepresentation. Please provide that quote. -- Fyslee/talk 22:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that I am not board certified has been known by chiropractors for more than 30 years and has never been a sectret. -- User:Sbinfo (Stephen Barrett) diff -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe there are some subtleties to the language here, but your wording seems to give the impression that Barrett himself has been making this information public for all these years, which I don't believe to be the case. Why would he mention it at all unless asked? It's not the kind of thing anyone would write in their CV.

Levine2112, please provide an example of him mentioning it when unprovoked or responding to the unfair mentioning of it by his enemies.

Someone else (a) knowing about it, and him (b) publicizing ("been public") it, are two very different matters, as I will explain below:

Barrett came here to Wikipedia, not to openly confirm and back up the fact of his lack of board certification (which he has never misrepresented), but to counter potentially libelous claims being made here regarding the fact, claims which are a perpetuation of Tim Bolen's slurs and attacks. There is a world of difference! It has never been an issue in the real world or during his entire career, including testifying as a psychiatrist while he was in practice. It's an unnotable fact. Its only "notability" is the fact that his main detractor (Tim Bolen, whom he is now suing for libel) has attempted to make it notable by misleadingly using the fact against him to imply wrongdoing, misrepresentation, or lack of qualifications to do what he does, which is to expose quackery. Board certification is totally unnecessary in that endeavor, so it is still unnotable. Again, there is a world of difference! So far only those with a heavy agenda against him mention it, and they do so in an adversarial manner as part of an attempt to smear him.

In his response here he made it very clear how unnotable the fact is:

• "In addition, the whole discussion of my psychiatric experience hasn't the slightest relevance to my writing activities." -- User:Sbinfo (Stephen Barrett) diff

When impartial third-party sources start reporting it as a notable fact in a neutral context (and context is what we are lacking) we can begin to cite them. That's the nature of Wikipedia's WP:OR (and WP:SYN) policy - we are always "behind the curve" (time wise) when reporting things, and the WP:BLP policy means we are even more behind the curve when dealing with potentially sensitive information about living persons. The main reason this is potentially sensitive is because of its misuse to attack Barrett. If there had been a situation involving him where board certification had been necessary, then the fact would have been notable, but I don't know of any reliable source reporting such a situation. It has never been relevant during his career as a psychiatrist, and certainly not during his later "career" in exposing quackery and healthfraud. It is simply not WP:NOTABLE and thus fails inclusion criteria here. -- Fyslee/talk 07:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Why Barrett came to Wikipedia is irrelevant. We can't be expected to interpret his intentions or state of mind. That he wrote his lack of Board Certification has been known for 30 years and it has never been a secret is very relevant. This means that including this information here cannot and does not violate BLP. You have a point about WP:NOTABLE except that if you read the policy closely you may note that it doesn't apply to content; only to articles on the whole. Barrett's opinion on whether or not his lack of certifcation affects his writing is irrelevant. One, because Barrett is notable for more than being a writer. Two, as a writer, speaker, witness and general dispenser of health advice to the masses, Barrett's complete verifiable medical credentials are obviously relevant. It would be one thing if Barrett was notable for being a writer of children's stories or for being a painter. Then, who cares if he failed his Boards? But Barrett is notable for his work in medicine; thus his medical credentials are plainly relevant - including his lack of Board Certification. That this information has gained more prominence because his detractors have brought it to the spotlight is irrelevant. What is relevant is that it has been public information for 30 years and Barrett claims that it is not a secret. While his critics claim that Barrett concealed this info, Barrett claims he has not. I say let's leave out the opinions and just focus on the fact. We are building the man's biography; not his curriculum vitae; so that Barrett chooses not to include his lack of Board Certification in his CV is irrelevant. There is no violation of WP:SYN as there is not an A + B = C situation here. All we have is "A"; a verifiable statement from several sources. WP:SYN concerns itself with two verifiable statements ("A" and "B") from two distinct sources and then combining those two statements to arrive at an original position "C". We don't even come close to violating WP:SYN with the statement: "Barrett is not Board Certified." All we have is "A". There is no "B". And thus there can be no "C" nor can there then be a WP:SYN violation. If you still believe we do have a violation, I would very much like to here your logic (A + B = C) on this one. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

"But Barrett is notable for his work in medicine; thus his medical credentials are plainly relevant - including his lack of Board Certification." How to use OR to make something notable, an example above by Levine. Shot info 08:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

First, what OR do you think I performed? I am saying it is plainly relevant. No reasearch needed, but if you need research to show the relevance of this content, look no further than all of the source which I have already provided. Remember, that you consider these sources "reliable" or "biased" is irrelevant. All they need to do is show that this information is being discussed, has been the subject of a lawsuit and has been included in research papers. All of this adds to the relevance of the information, but not all of it adds to the verifiability of it. Sure, a biased source might not be reliable in terms of verifiability; however, this information - Barrett is not Board Certified has been verified by reliable sources including Barrett himself. That is why in the survey above, we all agree that this information is factual. Second, can you please contribute to this discussion without being so disparaging and hostile toward me or anyone else? It would certainly help these proceedings. I hardly think this kind of behaviior will do us much good during mediation, nor do I expect it to be tolerated. Now then, I am more than happy to converse amicably about this matter, but from now on, I will not respond to your uncivil comments. I hope this is understood by you. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 08:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself, but I immediately noticed an all too familiar pattern here, the slight twist of meaning that makes it a straw man and OR. You wrote:

• "But Barrett is notable for his work in medicine"

That is not true. Even the only piece of research he was slightly involved with that was published was in the area of exposing quackery. He is notable because of that activity, not in his capacity as a practicing MD. -- Fyslee/talk 23:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the twist of meaning is wrongly placed here. I didn't say that Barrett is notable for being a practicing doctor. I said that he is notable for his work in medicine. Exposing quacks is work in medicine as quacks are pretenders of medical skills. Also, Barrett is notable for dispensing medical advice to the masses. So, yes, Barrett is notable for his work in medicine. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Fyslee, If SB's enemies mention his lack of BC unfairly, when would it be fair to mention it? Or is it always unfair to mention it? robert2957 15:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it would always be unfair. It would have to be in the context of him actually misrepresenting himself or acting in a capacity where board certification was relevant, which he has not done. It has never been relevant during his career as a psychiatrist, and certainly not during his later "career" in exposing quackery and healthfraud. It is simply not WP:NOTABLE and thus fails inclusion criteria here. What could happen is that some new situation could arise where it became notable. If that happened and it was notable, then when impartial third-party sources start reporting it as a notable fact in a neutral context (and context is what we are lacking) we can begin to cite them. -- Fyslee/talk 22:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Misrepresentation would only make discussing board certification more germane, stating this fact has little or nothing to do with fairness to SB. Bd-cert is also relevant, but was not *necessary*, to his being an expert psychiatric witness. WP:NOTABLE is for articles, Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content. Many readers certainly would disagree (some have been here already) as to the relevance of board certification (or attempt thereof) in roughly establishing his capabilities and knowledge to gauge or weight his opinions on various subjects amongst so many opinions and articles (especially those signed along with his MD), including psychiatric subjects. Educational and professional attainments (and experiences otherwise) are vin ordinaire for many WP biographies that have far less relevance than such a vociferous, prolific author as Dr Barrett. The current article misrepresents the qualifications, by omission(s), of Dr Barrett - a significant public health commentator based on his fairly successful PR efforts (and legal strategems) to *project* his MD as the voice of science and medicine in the 1970s into the 1990s. A more factual article would clarify and dispel confusions that last to this day, a fundamental service of encyclopedias.-I'clast 01:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

How many websites?

The statement that SB runs 22 websites which appears in the lead is taken from Barrett's own words. In fact, as you will find on the Quackwatch website: "The sites marked * are under construction and have little content" . There are eight such sites and they do indeed have little content. I suggest that the lead should say that SB "runs Quackwatch and some other related sites" robert2957 19:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

So here's the whole change, slightly simpler reading: Barrett runs Quackwatch and some related sites dealing with what he considers to be "quackery and health fraud." Any objections? *ducks for cover* ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 02:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Reads well to me, and more accurate. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

While ignoring the sources? Hmm, I suppose it isn't the first time the anti-Barratt editors have argued one way while arguing the opposite at the same time... Shot info 03:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on now. Seriously. Just be nice. What are you saying about the actual edit suggestion? What do you suggest we say? "Barrett runs 22 websites, half of which are under construction"? It's unmaintainable. Do we keep increasing the number everytime he opens another subsidiary website? Surely it's better to say he runs several related sites. How does that detract from him in any way? ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 04:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

So what does the V RS say? Heres a redflag - the use of the word "accurate" with no substanciation. Ignoring policy, the MO of key editors here in Barrett land, specifically one with a lot of time on his hands. Shot info

The link provided above by Metta Bubble shows a link to Google the information. I suggest using it. There are a lot of hits about them and if I counted correctly, there are 22 websites. It does state that the last update was 4/23/2007 but there is information there but I only looked briefly at one of the one's with the *. Also, my understanding is that for a BLP of a person is that the information about that person can be used with there sites. Now all of a sudden what Dr. Barrett says about book counts, the amount of websites, etc. he has are all being disputed. I don't understand, sorry. I understand that there are site that are black listed and not allowed, IE; Quackpot and others but Dr. Barrett's site is not listed as unusable as far as I understand. --CrohnieGal^Talk 08:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any major issues here about using "several", Dr Barrett's statement and site, just taste, detail and housekeeping. "Several" (more than two) is more "permanently" accurate (e.g. like the "several", now 50 states), avoids the active/construction discussion and perhaps suggests less additional prose.--I'clast 09:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry maybe I am dense but would you please clarify what you are saying above? It isn't making any sense to me. If you are saying that using several websites rather than a number, what are you going to use as a citation for this? Barrett's website, and if this is what you mean then why not just put what Barrett says on his website instead making confusion? --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I am saying that I am relatively indifferent to whether "several websites" or "22 websites..." are used nor do I think that source (micro)citation on the potentially shifting number here is critical where link farming has been a previous issue also. I generally agree with the fact(s), have no great preference although I think Metta Bubble made decent points about clean prose and housekeeping where Dr Barrett, etc might not always keep the number current - I just hope we aren't starting to get our panties in a wad again when I see phrases like "ignoring the sources", "anti-Barrett editors", "V RS", "redflag", "accurate" starting to surface.--I'clast 11:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Given that one side crows about a "fact" and the same are wanting to dodge another "fact" which is probably _more_ relevant to a BLP (not to mention is glaringly obvious with the sources and doesn't need OR to make it notable), it just points to the anti-Barrett and anti-BLP bias of these editors. Don't forget, one editor has got his 480+ panties in a big wad trying to force consensus. The irony is delicious. Shot info 02:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC) [[8]]

Gosh, that doesn't sound very gracious for helpful comments over style. Frankly as a *reader*, I think "several websites" is more favorable to QW/SB than "22 websites" - so many sites for an (new) unknown entity would seem like some kind of fringe or extremist sockpuppet spamsite or pufferfish to me, but I am willing to go along either way.--I'clast 09:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Refernce to "22 websites" is unduly self serving. Eight of them hardly exist. What we need is something like: "Quackwatch plus a number of allied websites" robert2957 16:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It isn't unduly self-serving in its original context. Maybe it is unduly self-serving here (although indirectly; I don't think Barret himself has added it). But to me 22 in this context makes the intro look like a blurb for a laundry detergent with 22 newly synthesized enzymes. "Several" or "a number of" perhaps? AvB ÷ talk 16:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It is unduly self serving. It makes Barrett look bigger than he is. robert2957 16:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

YMMV. Have you read it in context (Quackwatch home page)? It looks natural to me there. Only in the article does it read to me the way it reads to you. Regardless, I agree this should be changed. According to you because it makes Barrett look bigger than he is, according to me because the current intro makes Barrett look worse. Same result. AvB ÷ talk 16:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no trouble with a slight revision:

• "Barrett runs Quackwatch and a number of other websites dealing with what he considers ...." (plus the reference so people can look it up themselves and themselves determine the situation)

Is that satisfactory? If so we can place a tag here requesting unlocking and make that one change. -- Fyslee/talk 23:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Fyslee, I am delighted to be in agreement with you about something at last! Excellent suggestion. →robert2957 04:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC) →

I suspect we agree on far more than you realize, but our personal opinions can't be included in the articles themselves, so I don't always express my opinions, even on the talk pages. Let's wait and see if others provide their opinion on this matter. If we can get a consensus, then we can move forward. -- Fyslee/talk 06:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Fyslee has a great way to end this part of everyone's disagreement. If others agree with what is proposed please state so, this way at least we can end one problem. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I accept. I'd also like to suggest the addition of an html comment that notes < --exact number deliberately omitted, see talk-- > I hope that's simple enough. I wouldn't want some editor coming in and thinking we were simply lacking the figure and try to fix the edit by changing it back to 22. Good grief, we'd be back to square one. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 00:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

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

This is an archive - I don't know why your conversation got here, but I'd recommend moving it back to the talk page and then making the request. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments about the notice at the top of this page about mediation.

I would like to have people look at the mediation request [9] and to take note of the list of parties involved. There are a bunch of editors who have been involved from the beginning and have even recently posted to this talk page that are not listed in the parties involved.

Involved parties

• Levine2112 (talk · contribs)
• AvB (talk · contribs)
• Ronz (talk · contribs)
• Metta Bubble (talk · contribs)
• MaxPont (talk · contribs)
• I'clast (talk · contribs)
• QuackGuru (talk · contribs)
• Shot info (talk · contribs)
• Robert2957 (talk · contribs)
• RalphLender (talk · contribs)
• Steth (talk · contribs)
• Dematt (talk · contribs)
• Crohnie (talk · contribs)

I am bringing this to everyone's attention in case they did not notice the notice above or get a notice from Levine2112 about the mediation. I have not said anything there and will not do so until all editors are given the information about the mediation. I am sure Levine didn't mean to leave the others out but everyone needs to be told about this who has been actively involved. I do not mean the third party request for information at the different boards this has gone to unless it is something that also should be done. Thanks,--CrohnieGal^Talk 08:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

If there is anyone I left out who wants to participate, feel free to join in. I apologize, this conversation is long with many participants involved at varying degrees so forgive me if you have been overlooked. As I type this I realize that I left out Arthur Rubin and MastCell. Sorry, nothing personal. Just an oversight on my part. Feel free to add yourself to the list. I certainly hope we can all move forward with this RfM and I am equally hopeful that the Mediation Committee (along with our cooperation) will help us arrive at a satisfactory resolution to this matter. Thanks all. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 08:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Levine, I do feel you did not do this intentionally at all, I hope you understand that it was not an attack or a put down. I posted this so the others would also know because sometimes those boxes at the top aren't always noticed and read. I really do believe your heart was in the right place and that this was an honest error. --CrohnieGal^Talk 08:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to gather the list of editors who were active throughout this going through the archive to the present. The people I found who need to be listed and notified are the following; Fyslee, Arthur Rubin, MastCell, JoshuaZ, Hughgr, David D., Jim Butler, and Tony Sidaway. Did I miss anyone? Levine, are you going to add these and notify them. I would appreciate it if you would, thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to encourage everyone who has decided not to participate in the Mediation to change their minds. We have reached an impasse and have tried all other applicable methods of WP:DR. Mediation is our only remaining option - other than continue the debate here on this talk page. I am confident that a formal mediation will be most enlightening and finally resolve this issue. As for those who Crohnie has pointed out that I forgot to list as parties to this mediation - again I apologize. I will however refrain from inviting anyone else as the current replies of "disagree" pretty much nulifies the possibility of this mediation moving forward. That being said, if any of you are checking in and reading this, please feel free to add yourself to the mediation (as Jim Butler was kind enough to do for himself - again, sorry Jim. It was a total oversight on my part - nothing personal I assure you). Thanks all for your consideration. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

A Matter Of Time

Given that SB is not BC and that he is prominent, is it not merely a matter of time before universally acceptable reliable secondary sources start stating this fact? So why not just wait for a bit? robert2957 10:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

If they think it's somehow relevant, they will. As indicated very early in this discussion, editors could even try to get it published in a RS. AvB ÷ talk 12:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The Ultimate Resolution?

Has it occurred to anyone else that we might all be just a bit crazy? Is it normal to be spending so much time on this BC business?

Perhaps it is. And if so, a resolution is at hand. All we have to do is to get at least one friend to contribute and induce them to get more friends to join in. A pyramid scheme of course, but there's no MLM and no financial loss. As the circle of Wikipedia editors grows people around the world will sooner or later be contributing with great and extraordinary passion. From every workplace at the end of each day there will be a stampede to the internet cafe (they won't be able to wait until they get home) where the keyboards will be worn out by the passionate views of the new members of the pro and anti factions. Those who herd yaks in Mongolia will come down from the hills and fields to put their spoke in. As this goes on, friends and families will fall out as controversy conflagrates the world. But there could be wonderful benefits. Tony Blair will find something to do in retirement. Prisoners just out of prison will get so absorbed in the SB BC controversy that they will find acrimonious debate more absorbing than crime. The people of Qatar and North Korea will successfully demand free internet access (I believe they don't have it at present in those countries) and the clicking of mice and keyboards will be the source of a permanent background hum like the microwave background radiation that permeates the universe.

Sooner or later 50%+1 of the world's population will have expressed a view. And when the 3000,000,001^st editor has put in his two pennyworth, BINGO! The fact will have become incontrovertibly notable. Assuming of course that a reliable secondary source can be found to back the contention that this is a significant proportion of the world's population. robert2957 15:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

<grin>. Perhaps it isn't normal then? But if it is, we could easily use this as a means to generate money. I mean, one cent per person makes $30,000,000; I'm sure if we gave $29,900,000 away to the chiropractors who have suffered at Barrett's hands, and spent the remaining $100,000 on getting him board certified now, he would be a better doctor and a better man for it, he would use the new insights so gained to update his website to inform the world about the benefits of ear candling, and stop all the cries of his opponents forever. It would end with a group hug. But will he retain the admiration of his mainstream ex-peers? Will reliable sources write about it, and will those reliable sources be chiro trade orgs? How will Jimbo respond? How will Bolen respond? Will Negrete defend Barrett as he is sued by Polevoy? Will all these questions and more be answered? AvB ÷ talk 18:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Robert and Avb, I enjoyed reading this!  :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is his family relevant?

It isn't clear to me why it is relevant to include Barrett's family members. Can someone enlighten me? --Leifern 16:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It is inevitable that people will want to know such details about prominent individuals. This is why it is unrealistic rigourously to enforce a policy against the inclusion of any trivia. robert2957 16:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not proposing that we "rigorously enforce" any kind of policy. I am asking why this information is included, and if there is no good reason beyond the notion that someone "inevitably" would want to know about Stephen Barrett's kids, I suggest we take it out until someone makes a stink about including it. --Leifern 17:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I second that emotion...;-) -- Fyslee/talk 18:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Is It Notable After All ?

The ABMS on its website states : "Certification by an ABMS Member Board is widely recognized by physicians, healthcare institutions, insurers and patients themselves as an essential tool to judge that a physician has the knowledge, experience and skills for providing quality healthcare within a given specialty. It is considered the gold standard because of its unique physician-directed approach for assessing qualifications."

Given that SB sometimes offers views on psychiatric subjects, does not the ABMS explanation of the meaning of BC render SB's lack of it notable? I don't know myself. robert2957 11:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC) →

This has been discussed before. This references the new standard that predates postdates Barratts time as a professional. How many doctors who were not board certified in the 60's, for whatever reason, went back and retook those exams in the 90's because of the lack of the the above "essential tool"? I don't know, but I would be surprised if they were not all grandfathered in due to their experience. In summary, one can't seriously compare credentials from the 60's with those from the 90's. It's comparing apples and oranges and is original research that can never give a satisfactory answer. David D. (Talk) 13:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I regret to say that I was unaware of the previous discussion. robert2957 13:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless I'm misunderstanding something, I suspect that David D. meant "postdates"... Barrett was part of the majority of about 2/3 of psychiatrists who were not board certified back then. The standards have changed for the better, and I suspect Barrett would certainly hold a modern shrink to a higher educational standard than he and his peers were held to without being hypocritical or unfair at all. To judge older docs by today's standards is improper and discounts their experience and the situation at the time. Even the current high standard named above would only make much sense when applied to Barrett if he were dealing with some heavy duty complicated psychiatric cases, which he is not. Ordinary run of the mill stuff is within the reach of any psychiatrist, board certified or not. -- Fyslee/talk 13:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Correct, I mean postdates. David D. (Talk) 20:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Another Thought Experiment

Let us suppose that a very prominent professor of medicine had noticed the following things that I have noticed on the Quackwatch website and said the things that I shall say about them:

In reference to the National Centre For Complementary And Alternative Medicine and its testing of what are termed alternative treatments Barrett says: "It remains to be seen whether such studies will yield useful results. Even if some do, their benefit is unlikely to outweigh the publicity bonanza given to questionable methods." here How does SB know that it is unlikely? More important, what does this mean? The only significance I can attach to this is that if this research or this research had been done by NCCAM then battalions of health fraudsters would by now be invading the USA or at least governing in California.

He quotes Wallace I Simpson with approval to the effect that NCCAM should be defunded here

and Quackwatch carries the (worth reading) testimony of Thomas J Moore against the Access to Medical Treatment Act here in which he calls for greater funding of the "[T]iny office in the National Institutes of Health devoted to alternative therapies" which later became the NCCAM.

Now, suppose this prominent professor were to say that these irrationalities and inconsistencies made him think that SB lacked the kind of balanced judgement necessary to lay down the law about medicine, would it make any difference if SB had been a board certified psychiatrist? I say it would not. Compared to such considerations it would be a minor issue. We have spent enough time on the BC issue. I have changed my mind about it and have sometimes thrown out points of view for discussion without being of a firm opinion myself. Those who think that Barrett has shortcomings must find notable critics to support them. It is time to move on. As I have said before, perhaps we are all a bit crazy. The SB article would in no major way be vitiated by inclusion. But if the BC issue is notable, notable secondary sources will appear. robert2957 17:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC) →

I'm out of this article for awhile....

First I am told I didn't do my research well enough about another editor, which I should say is none of my business to do so. I made a comment to Metta because he was the one who said he was the editor that had no involvement, but yet now there are attacks and almost outting of other editors. I think this page is so uncivil and I just don't play this game. I try to be polite and try to learn and behave like others would like editors to do. I am not taking my points from other editors, I may be disable and slow but I still do have a brain of my own. So bye everyone for at least a while. --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it was entirely reasonable for me to defend you calling me a meatpuppet. However, I hope you cool off okay. There's no acrimony.reply was to a comment that has been struck ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 22:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe Crohnie needs to cool off. For one thing there were personal circumstances you may not be aware of (assuming you're not following Ronz's talk page). Secondly, your bedside manner regarding a patient with Crohn's Disease leaves a couple of things to be desired. You have driven an editor away from editing this article.

Please answer the question: did someone invite you? AvB ÷ talk 00:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

What's with the third degree you are putting on Metta Bubble? This is highly inappropriate behavior. For the record, I didn't invite Metta Bubble to this article. When he awarded me the Barnstar it was before he/she and I ever worked together that I know of. I think the Barnstar was out of the blue, if I remember right.

I got to say really quickly how disappointed I am that the Mediation got rejected; that some parties were unwilling to collaborate to finally end this dispute. Well, I can only hope we can reach some resolution amongst ourselves by continuing discussing this here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

1. My behavior is calm and measured, especially when compared with Metta's.
2. Please inform yourself of the facts before accusing me of "highly inappropriate behavior".
3. Thanks for sharing the information that you did not invite Metta.
4. I have not commented on the Barnstars and cannot help you there.
5. As to the mediation, I was still considering it when it was rejected. Continuing the discussion here is not allowed unless new arguments are presented.
6. Metta, given that Levine did not invite you, I'm still wondering whether someone else did. I would not go so far as to say that I smell a rat, or will get a checkuser going, but I am not entirely convinced this was not canvassing. AvB ÷ talk 02:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Avb. I already accepted Crohnie doesn't have the fortitude to sustain her accusations against me and I let it slide, no hard feelings. However, you have dragged out her exit from this conversation, simultaneously launching a new attack where you -- unbelievably -- actually use her disease to launch some kind of special-needs guilt-trip, effectively making Crohnie a pawn in your attacks. I'm sure she'll forgive you but I would doublecheck my affiliations if I were her.

I've replied to your questions on your talk page. I too am disappointed mediation was unsupported. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 03:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You're entitled to that opinion. Your unfeeling attitude says it all as far as I'm concerned. This is just a website. Not a battlefield used to hurt people and damage their reputations in real life. Totally out of proportion. AvB ÷ talk 12:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Your accusations about my motives are unfounded, petty and vile. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 00:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Metta Bubble discovered this page by following the edit history of Ronz that was very active on Talk:Reiki a few weeks ago MaxPont 08:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Ibid ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 08:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone still reading and interested, see my talk page for Metta's post and my response. AvB ÷ talk 12:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm with MaxPont on this. I always assumed Metta Bubble had followed me here. --Ronz 15:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Serious questions for Metta Bubble

You wrote in the edit summary of this edit: rv: it's hypocritical of you to revert my headers as personal attacks and then try to insult me with this header

1. Where did I revert your headers as personal attacks?
2. Why do you think that the header "Criticism of Metta Bubble's line of questioning regarding AvB's affiliations" is an attempt to insult you? I think it is a neutral description of Fyslee's post. You're free to give the rest a different header.

For the record, I did not intend to insult you. I'm sorry you're taking it that way and hope you will cool off okay. I'm tired, looking forward to a good night's sleep. AvB ÷ talk 02:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted. All good. Sleep well. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 03:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone still reading and interested, see my talk page for Metta's post and my response. Unfortunately, some important questions I have asked in good faith remain pending. AvB ÷ talk 12:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Refusal to accept Mediation

For several weeks editors from the pro Barrett camp have complained that the debate drags on forever and that there is no “closure”. A week ago three editors (all from the pro Barrett camp) [10] refused to accept an invitation to Mediation. (All editors from the other side accepted Mediation.) After that the same circle of pro Barrett editors continued to whine about the lengthy debate. This is hypocritical. In my opinion this is also disruptive and could almost be construed as a bad faith tactical move. MaxPont 09:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

First I'd like to make clear I am not in any camp. This article has been a learning tool for me to learn the rules of BLP. I don't care one way or the other about Dr. Barrett other than trying to do things according to the proper rules. Second, you came to my talk page and demanded a reason from me as to why I voted against the mediation and I answered your request with a thoughtful reasonable answer. Cabal didn't work, and all the arguing that goes on here started there and the mediation stopped do to all the incivility. I don't see another mediation helping anymore than that one with so many dug in so deep on their belief. Some of you have very strong feelings about Barrett, which in my opinion, is what is preventing this article from going anywhere, and which is why I am not here that much anymore. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone against moving this immediately to the archives as a violation of WP:TALK, WP:CON, WP:CIVIL, and WP:HARRASS? --Ronz 14:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, highly. The harsh tone on this talk page is unfortunate. My posting above does not mention any names and in no way stand out compared to a number of previous posts. The refusal to accept Mediation is disruptive and should be brought to attention. If the debate here "goes round and round in circles", I would expect the editors who complain about this to come up with a suggestion to resolve the deadlock with one of the available Dispute Resolution methods. Ronz, try to persuade your fellow editors to accept Mediation - or suggest another DR. MaxPont 17:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Other than the editor causing this disruption, does anyone else want to comment before this is removed? --Ronz 14:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Please leave the section alone. Ronz, such refactoring distorts the record and itself has been cited by ArbCom members. Refactoring makes it difficult to tell when & what has been said and is going on. Although I may not agree that refusal to mediate is ipso facto disruptive, it seems at least a missed opportunity and is a part of the record of the search for means to resolve the disputes here. In some cases, refusals may not help individual relations or credibility either. I suggest leaving this for normal archival in about 9-14 days.

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'clast 17:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, no. WP:TALK, WP:CON, WP:CIVIL, and WP:HARRASS are policies that we wont ignore. --Ronz 18:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Repeating for those who are missed it: I'm suggesting moving this converstion immediately to the archive, as has been done with many inappropriate comments in the past that have no business being on this page. --Ronz 18:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the links pointing to other editors above (I found a better link supporting my argument) MaxPont 18:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Great! You've taken steps away from WP:NPA. Now please remove the rest per the policies that I actually mentioned. --Ronz 18:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you try to convince all editors to accept Mediation.MaxPont 07:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

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 [11]) are agreed to by the editor who inserted them, so probably should be implemented without further delay.

#3 (part of [12] 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: .com/article/284400/antialternative_quackbusters_have_giant.html 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)

.com/article/284400/antialternative_quackbusters_have_giant.html 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)