Talk:Stephen Barrett/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Chilling effects (e.g. SLAPP)

Above, mention is made that "Dr Barret's legal presences ... has been cited for concerns related to chilling effects (e.g. SLAPP)." Yes, his critics often use this complaint without providing any evidence at all of its truthfulness. They correctly assume that gullible souls who love to see Barrett criticized will just believe it. In fact, none of his libel suits could ever have any effect on the abilities of his critics to continue to publish their nonsensical theories or sell the products which Barrett criticizes! They are just using this as a misplaced criticism. His libel suits are specifically directed at libel about his person and professional status, not against all the other nonsense these people are publishing. In this case it certainly isn't. The sequence of events is also rather interesting, and it shows these critics are themselves to blame for becoming the subjects of the libel suits:

1. Some promoter of a method or theory usually gets in trouble with the police, FDA, or FCA;
2. Barrett then reports it and writes some criticism of their method and their theories (occasionally he starts writing before they get in trouble, but not often);
3. Those criticized do not respond to his criticisms (which would be the proper thing to do), but instead go directly after Barrett and attack his person, motives, professional status, etc.. They use ad hominem and straw men attacks, false innuendos, outright lies, conspiracy theories, etc. NOTE: they do not debunk his criticsms!;
4. He has then, in certain aggravated cases, sued them for libel, which has no effect on their ability to continue their activities, promotions, and sales. It is only directed at stopping them from libeling him.

In certain notable cases, such as with Hulda Clark, Barrett had nothing to do with her getting busted in a well-planned sting operation, her immediate flight, her status as a fugitive from justice for many years, or her subsequent arrest in California many years later. He first became aware of her and commented on her after all these events, yet he became the immediate target of the biggest smear campaign yet effected against him. He hadn't had anything to do with her problems! He then sued for libel (and all the other libel suits are related to that one case) and then sued the one source of that libel, and that case was so aggravated that the judge remanded it to further trial, which is upcoming.

So just because a critic makes a complaint does not mean it's true, and a repetition of such invalid and misplaced criticisms has no place here. Such repetitions do not increase the credibility of editors who do so. -- Fyslee/talk 06:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Dr Barrett has been associated with a number of kinds of suits, hearings and trials, of varying degrees of responsibility and initiative.
2. Since there are narrowly defined and then related version of suits classed as SLAPP, I realize there are "pro" Barrett and less pro Barrett positions whether he has lost suits on a SLAPP basis. Would you say "no" on a narrow version, "yes" on a wide version of SLAPP rulings against SB is accurate enough (since some of the prevailing parties class themselves as SLAPP victors)?
3. Hulda is a distractor, from some of the MD or PhD conflicts concerning Dr Barrett, that do have a biological basis and better observed clinical claims, sometimes much better than the mainstream critics who may have done nothing physically relevant before negatively pontificating.

It is not that Dr Barrett has not criticized quacks, I am sure he has. The problem here is that many are trying to present Dr Barrett as a reliable source with close enough to 100% to ignore the difference, as "picture perfect", a false proposition already recognized by the WP arbs. More proper questions are perhaps what are the frequency and severity of flaws in his papers. What percentage of the papers are fatally flawed. How likely is one to identify and compensate for bias and errors. I realize that we will not agree on quantitative answers. What disturbs several editors here is that in essence the "QW defenders" refuse to admit and allow significant V RS criticism or examples thereof, distort wording, claim undue weight when truly the weight of QW fluff is still a problem, and ignore WP:V when it suits them (e.g. SciPICH retracted, but its original "endorsement" is still alive here dispite mention of the retraction in the original source and source text research (per Jimbo) that shows its absence; SciPICH's current "endorsement is NOT VERIFIED), yielding an article that is greatly inaccurate, POV advertising.--I'clast 10:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding point 1 above, what other cases than the libel cases have brought forth complaints of a "chilling" effect? I recall the loudest complaints of that type were from Bolen, Hulda Clark, and Ilena Rosenthal, all cases where Barrett had not written about them before they were already in trouble in one way or another with others, IOW he had not been involved at all in their cases. In the case of IR, he had not even written about breast implants or ever mentioned or attacked her before she attacked him. She has since been reaping what she has sown by her unprovoked attacks. -- Fyslee/talk 03:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Moved SciPICH to QW Notability[1]--I'clast 11:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

See the talk page at Talk:Quackwatch. Shot info 00:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that bird has been shot down several times and there is no new or different reason to allow it to even take off again. -- Fyslee/talk 05:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold and remove it. This bird has not only been shot down, it has been roasted, eaten, digested, and now is some effluent polluting our oceans. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 12:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you and also got bold and removed it from the QW article. This was already discussed in the past. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Credibility as a source

This section is better suited for Quackwatch article (where it is already essentially repeated). -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Grumble. I should read the whole talk page before I comment. I quite agree, except I don't think it's repeated as well there. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

RfC alert

I figure a number of editors here might be interested in this:

• Link to RfC at alternative medicine.

-- Fyslee / talk 19:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Credibility as a source (revisited)

The section seems fine, especially in light of the criticisms still in the article. --Ronz 22:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Having a section which described Barrett's credibility is fine. Having a section which describesd Quackwatch's credibility is misplaced. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Not when the criticisms don't make the same distinction. --Ronz 22:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

All of the criticsm currently in the article is specifically about Barrett and Barrett's writing. There is no general criticsm about Quackwatch. However, the "Credibility as a Source" only provides credibility claims about Quackwatch in general and not about Barrett specifically. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

As long as we have a criticism section we will have a credibility section too. It is what WP:NPOV is all about. Agreed?  Mr.Guru  talk  23:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

No, that is not what NPOV is about at all. I suggest you reread the policy. What is relevent here is that the criticism is about Barrett's credibility. It there are sources specifically supporting Barrett's credibility, by all means include them here. However, what we have now are sources supporting the credibility of Quackwatch in general - which is more appropriate for the Quackwatch article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This meets the inclusion criteria though and Barrett is very notable for Quackwatch which include his writings. Critics are quick to criticize Barrett writings. Barrett has critics as well as supporters. This brings balance and thus NPOV. Understand?  Mr.Guru  talk  23:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

That is not what NPOV is about at all (but it is a common misunderstanding about the policy which many editors make). Please reread the policy. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

"All of the criticsm currently in the article is specifically about Barrett and Barrett's writing." If that's what we're trying to accomplish in the criticism section, then we've failed. Perhaps we should remove all sources that don't differentiate between Barrett and Quackwatch? If you look at the sources, that means all the sources for the criticism section, which means removing the criticism section. --Ronz 23:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

No. The critical sources make the disctinction between Barrett and Quackwatch. Specifically, the criticisms which are included in this article are specifically about Barrett and HIS writing on Quackwatch. Conversely, the Credibility as a Source section does not discuss Barrett's credibility as a source, but rather Quackwatch's credibility. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Barrett's main platform is Quackwatch. That is what he is known for. Read the lead. This does meet the inclusion criteria.  Mr.Guru  talk  23:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's boil this down to the basic question. Is support of Quackwatch as source the same as support for Barrett as a source? Follow up question: Is criticism of Quackwatch as a source the same as criticism of Barrett as a source? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

These two questions are perfectly reasonable and should be answered. -- Fyslee / talk 01:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The original comments have been refactored and then Levine2112 decided to delete a portion of the discussion again.  Mr.Guru  talk  01:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Which leaves us with the two questions which should be answered without delay. -- Fyslee / talk 01:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

QW info should be at QW. Barrett info here. Has this info been added to QW yet? Shot info 01:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should identify which sources clearly distinguish Barrett from QW? I've taken a look with this in mind and am having a hard time finding any. Given Barrett's association, there always will be and should be overlap between the articles. --Ronz 01:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The Village Voice article does not.

The Hufford piece does not. --Ronz 03:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

That means either the Credibility section goes back in, or the criticism section (without a third-party source) is removed. Perhaps the sources in the Credibility section should be examined more carefully? --Ronz 03:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

<edit conflict> I know that I have been argueing this point (ie/ criticism against Barratt belongs here, criticism against QW belongs there...) but other more active editors have declined to see it this way. Nevertheless, I concure with your statement. Shot info 03:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The Village Voice clearly distinguishes when it is referring to Quackwatch and when it is referring to Barrett. The info that we pulled from the piece is clearly about Barrett. Here are some direct quotes (you let me know how this is ambiguous at all): "Barrett depends heavily on negative research and case studies in which alternative therapies do not work, but he says that most case studies that show positive results of alternative therapies are unreliable." and "Barrett believes most alternative therapies simply should be disregarded without further research.

Okay, with that settled, I will look into the Hufford piece next. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"He seems to be putting down trying to be objective," says Peter Barry Chowka, a former adviser to the National Institutes of Health's Office of Alternative Medicine. "Quackwatch.com is consistently provocative and entertaining and occasionally informative," Chowka added. "But I personally think he's running against the tide of history. But that's his problem, not ours." I'm sorry, where is the differentiation made? --Ronz 03:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"Stephen Barrett's Quackwatch would be more effective if he relied more on research and less on personal beliefs" Again, I don't see any differentiation here either. --Ronz 03:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"He seems to be putting down trying to be objective." He seems, not it seems. "...if he relied more on research and less on personal beliefs". If he relied, not if it relied. Far be it from me to say that a website can have a "personal" belief. Clearly, Chowka is criticizing Barrett specifically. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting personal opinion, but nothing clear about it. Chowka doesn't mention anything written by Barrett other than Quackwatch, so by your logic it belongs in the Quackwatch article. The Village Voice article is specifically about Quackwatch.com, mentioning nothing else by Barrett. --Ronz 04:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

No personal opinion. This is a grammatical fact. In the quotes that are in the criticism section, Ladd and Chowka are criticizing Barrett and his work on Quackwatch. Not Quackwatch in general, but specifically Barrett and Barrett's work. See the difference? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 05:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope. I see no difference. I see no distinction made between what is in Quackwatch and what's written by Barrett. I see no mention of anything written by Barrett not in Quackwatch. I see no mention of anything written in Quackwatch not written by Barrett. I see sources that assume that Barrett is Quackwatch, and that Quackwatch is Barrett. --Ronz 16:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"I see no distinction made between what is in Quackwatch and what's written by Barrett." Does Barrett write everything in Quackwatch? No. There's the distinction. "I see no mention of anything written by Barrett not in Quackwatch." So? Barrett is still being criticized directly for what and how he contribues to Quackwatch. (IOW, the crits being used are criticizing Barrett directly and Quackwatch indirectly.) "I see sources that assume that Barrett is Quackwatch, and that Quackwatch is Barrett." Really? Which sources? Please provide quotes which seem to make this assumption. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"Really?" Learn to follow WP:TALK if you expect any response. --Ronz 17:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I wish I knew what you mean here, Ronz. Is there something wrong with using "Really?" Anyhow, you said that you see sources that assume that Barrett is Quackwatch, and that Quackwatch is Barrett. I am merely asking you to provide us with those sources and quotes from those sources which make that assumption. That's all. I just want you to back up what you are saying. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I have been trying to figure out why there is a disagreement above and I think it hinges on two different ways of reading the same sources. Ronz is looking at what is meant, while Levine2112 is looking at what is written in a very literalistic manner which ignores the real meaning. With other sources Levine2112 could use this method perfectly properly, but precisely these two (or maybe just one of them?) need to be understood, rather than parsed in a mechanical manner.

One cannot in the same breath criticize a person (for having written something) without also criticizing what they have written, and one cannot commend a person (for having written something) without also commending what they have written. The criticism and commendation covers both the author and the material produced by that author. One cannot separate an author from his productions, and since Barrett is a key figure in the production of much of the material hosted at Quackwatch, any criticism or commendation of Quackwatch will usually be a criticism or commendation of Barrett personally, unless a particular article at Quackwatch is being discussed, in which case the author of the article would be the subject, and there are hundreds or even thousands of articles and sources hosted at Quackwatch which are not authored by Barrett.

Some of the other sources discussed above may well only belong on the Quackwatch article, but these two seem to belong in both articles. Does my explanation make sense to anyone else?

I interpret it as if both of the writers (Ladd and Chowka) are simultaneously criticizing and commending Barrett and his work in one breath, so to speak. This is also evident in a number of other places where Quackwatch is commended, but where small criticisms are also included. IOW it isn't perfect, and neither is Barrett. Fortunately (IMHO) most mainstream writers and journalists (in contrast to non-mainstream critics) still see the big picture and are very definitely far more commending of the work and mission of Quackwatch and Barrett, and don't allow the small imperfections to get in the way. Non-mainstream critics, OTOH, allow (and seek to find and exaggerate) imperfections to dominate to such a degree that they even dispute the very existence and definition of quackery, obviously because allowing the word to exist automatically condemns and exposes what they are doing. Barring such total denial, they at least in principle allow for the existence of quackery, but will always deny that their practices fit the bill. Basically one is either a quack-buster or a quack-booster, there is no middle ground once one is informed. Those who are against quackery will openly support Quackwatch and Barrett, even while they constructively attempt to improve on Quackwatch and attempt to get Barrett to correct the imperfections they find in his writings and methods. That's why there is such a big watershed of difference between who supports (mainstream sources) and who criticizes (alternative medicine sources). They choose sides and thus expose their leanings. Basically quack-boosters condemn themselves by their practical use of the double negative - one who is anti anti-quackery efforts is pro-quackery. -- Fyslee / talk 16:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Barrett can well be criticzed for what he writes in Quackwatch. And if the source is criticizing Barrett or Barrett's writing (on Quackwatch or anywhere), it can be included in this article. If the source is only criticizing Quackwatch in general, then it should be included at Quackwatch. Likewise, if a source is lauding Barrett or Barrett's writing (on Quackwatch or anywhere) it can be included in this article. If a source is only lauding Quackwatch in general, then it should be included at Quackwatch. Otherwise, why else would we have the two separate articles?

Now then, the criticism section currently only includes criticism of Barrett and his writing. IOW, it's fine. However, this Credibility as a Source section currently only gives sources which support Quackwatch in general as a credible source (not Stephen Barrett or his writing specifically). IOW, it is out of place in this article and should be moved to Quackwatch. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Irrespective of Levine's assertions, this easily meets the inclusion criteria determined by the lead.  Mr.Guru  talk  23:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You are going to have to show that, rather than just assert it. I believe I have shown why this material is better suited for Quackwatch (where it current is). However, if you think it should be here, might I recommend concurrently forming a consensus at Quackwatch that is should be removed from that article. Currently, there is no consensus to add/move this material here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Levine claimed: You are going to have to show that, rather than just assert it. Please read the lead. This is easy to understand. We are discusssing matters at the Stephen Barrett article and not Quackwatch. The content of the Quackwatch article is not for using as a bargaining chip here. As I stated before, this does meet the inclusion criteria. Again, please read the lead.  Mr.Guru  talk  23:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

What should I be reading in the lead? Please explain. My position remains that general praise or criticism of Quackwatch belongs at Quackwatch, not at Stephen Barrett. However criticism or praise of Barrett specifically belongs here. If we are going to start to have general praise/criticsm of Quackwatch here, then what's the point of having two distinct articles? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I should not have to point out every little detail to you. It is obvious is should be included because it meets the criteria for inclusion. The point to having a Quackwatch article is per WP:WEB. I have answered your questions. Now then, I suggest you self-revert.  Mr.Guru  talk  00:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I saw what you menat about the lead. That sentence doesn't belong in this article either. I have deleted it. It would be one thing if we had sources supporting Barrett specifically as a credible source. (If you do, please feel free to add them.) But what I removed here would be equivilent to there being criticism in this article strictly about the unreliability of Quackwatch without any mention of Barrett. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It does meet the inclusion criteria but Levine did not like that so he deleted it. Uh?  Mr.Guru  talk  01:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it meets inclusion criteria... for the Quackwatch article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Page protection time again?

The edit-warring (including the personal attacks in the edit summaries) has to stop. I'm happy to request page protection again. Please remember that WP:3RR states, "Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronz (talk • contribs) 01:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Levine2112 felt that he needed to revert it against consensus until a new consensus is agreed to. Anyone else getting a feeling of deja vu? --Ronz 04:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I've requested page protection again. --Ronz 17:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Levine states there is no consensus

There is no consensus to add this material. It will stay out until there is. Remember, this was exactly how you handled policy when we were discussing Barrett's lack of board certification. And the Kauffman criticism. And Pfizer sponsorship. You said that until there was a consensus, the material stays out. Please don't change your position on policy just because this time it suits your position on content. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Definitely deja vu. What did we do last time, quote WP:CON? Remind editors not to make demands? --Ronz 16:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Board certification! Is this going to be another epic attempt to force consensus on others? --Ronz 16:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Board certification was revisionism and a gross BLP violation. The Kaufmann criticism was another BLP violation from an unreliable fringe reference. The Pfizer sponsorship was a synthesized controversy and unrelated content. Levine, please read the past discussions and try to understand policy and what was said and determined by policy.  Mr.Guru  talk  23:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Those are your stances on Board Certification, Kauffman and Pfizer. I and others disagreed. We were/are at a stalemate and no consensus could/can be formed. Just like this situation. Until consensus is reached, we should not add this contentious material. See WP:CON and WP:BLP for related infomation. Let's keep discussing this though and stay away from the personal attacks and pointless bickering. I am hopeful that a consensus can be reached this time and perhaps lay the backwards groundwork to include information from past disputes. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Past disputes? It was more like disruption. Any editor who attempts to add back in BLP violations or nonsense to the article again will be greeted with warnings on their talk page. That's a promise.  Mr.Guru  talk  23:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"Disruption" is your take on it. Regardless, please know that BLP violations can apply to all contentious material - not just negative, but positive and neutral content as well. Therefore, the warnings, blocks and bans policies apply just as much for this contentious "praise" materialas it does for the "criticism" material. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe BLP applies primarily to unsourced "negative" material. Other policies deal with unsourced positive material. BLP is concerned with protecting the subject from harm. Unwarranted or undocumented praise does not harm, but may still violate policies here. (Otherwise Levine2112 is basically correct regarding where most of this section should go. That also means the sentence in the lead only belongs in the Quackwatch article.)-- Fyslee / talk 03:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems you are changing your tune. Anyhow, when we have "criticism" we will also have "praise" or its a NPOV violation.  Mr.Guru  talk  00:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. Please explain. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not interested in explaining every little thing.  Mr.Guru  talk  00:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If you refuse to discuss your rationale with me, then I guess we can't have a meaningful conversation here and we will never be able to reach a consensus. Remember when we were going through the proper dispute resolution channels for the Board Certification material? When it came time to have an official mediation you refused to participate and left us at an impasse. Your refusal to participate in this converstation has put us at the same point. Stuck. Without consensus. So, like the Board Certification material (and the Kauffman material) (and the Pfizer material), this Quackwatch Credibility material hangs in limbo, with nowhere to go. When you are ready to discuss, please let me know and I will gladly participate with you and answer any topcial question which you may pose. I sincerely do look forward to that. Until then... -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the best articles are produced through the collaborative efforts of editors who hold opposing POV and who truly understand the NPOV policy. Some editors are refusing to discuss. Please do not refuse to discuss. That is very unwikipedian. Regardless of who is right or wrong in the discussion, the one who refuses to discuss is violating the spirit of Wikipedia, and is in the wrong on that fundamental issue. All this bickering is a rather pitiful situation. I wish I could have all of you join me and my wife and I would open another good bottle of wine and we could have a nice time. There are better things to do in life.....at times....;-) -- Fyslee / talk 03:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to take this opportunity to agree with the position that the information regarding Quackwatch being a considered a credible source does not belong in this article. It is most certainly more appropriate for the Quackwatch article. I am in favour of discussion, but I am uncertain if there is anything else to discuss. I suppose that those who are in favour of including this information should layout their position and points clearly and concisely. Does this sound like a reasonable way to move forward? TheDoctorIsIn 04:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

They already have. Please read the past discussions. Please learn this basic practice of participating in Wikipedia. Thanks! --Ronz 15:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this is of interest or even usable but....

I came across this and thought I would share it to see what others have to say about it; --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you find of interest here. A few points: It's an extremely unreliable source, ranking pretty close to Bolen. There is no question that Barrett sides with the mainstream position on fluoridation - he supports it. He also investigates the activities of anti-fluoridationists, just as he investigates the activities of anti-vaccinationists, as well as the activities of other purveyors of nonsense, dangerous ideas, quackery, etc.. That's what he does, so we shouldn't be surprised. -- Fyslee / talk 23:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's nothing that I see could being used. It would never pass RS, and even if it did we'd need other, better sources to determine proper weight. --Ronz 01:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This does get me thinking about something. We have a short listing (which shouldn't grow larger) of some of the many fringe things promoted by alternative medicine advocates that Barrett is against (unethical, unscientific, and quackery-related matters), but we don't have any mention of mainstream things opposed by alternative medicine advocates that he is known to be for (fluoridation, vaccination, etc.). -- Fyslee / talk 03:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

What are you saying above? I have struck out my comment and deleted the link since it sounded like it is useless here. Your statement above though now has me confused on how you feel about it.--CrohnieGal^Talk 11:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, I agree that there is nothing said in the article about mainstream items that Barrett is against which was my purpose with the link. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I would venture to say that this ([2]) is a reliable source. It comes to us from a book written by Dr. John Yiamouyiannis, a PhD biochemist and the former editor of biochemical editor at Chemical Abstracts Service, the world's largest chemical information center. The former Dr. Yiamouyiannis' expertise in this matter is clear and applicable. According to Barrett, they were close adversaries, so Dr. Yiamouyiannis' take on Barrett and Barrett's work is completely relevent to this article. Furthermore, "FLUORIDE ... The Aging Factor" is a published work. Let's explore possible ways for inclusion. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"It would never pass RS, and even if it did we'd need other, better sources to determine proper weight." I'm glad we have the page protected this time round, so we don't even have to mention the BLP issues. --Ronz 18:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Who are you quoting above? I really do think that this meets WP:RS. It is written by an authority relevant to the subject at hand and it is a published work. Why don't you think it meets WP:RS? Specifically, I think that Dr. Y's comparison of Orwell's "Newspeak" to Barrett's writing would make a nice addition to the criticism section. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

My objections to it are related to BLP issues with many people and organizations, and that it's a conspiracy theory of such base and distorted proportions as to make it good company with Lisa's garbage in a bonfire. It's about as reliable as the National Enquirer. It's unreliable, poorly documented, rumor mongering, and extremely fringe propaganda from a paid spin doctor for the NHF, which is even more unreliable than Big Pharma is claimed to be. They are supporters of the industry which produces scam products. They are the official "Big Pharma" of the alternative medicine scam industry. -- Fyslee / talk 21:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

We have the article protected, so no need to discuss further. It's all been said many, many times. --Ronz 23:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Fyslee, this is your POV of this organization and shouldn't reflect on whether it is a reliable source or not. I personally have no opinion on Dr. Y or the site it is listed on. Is it well-documented by some neutral source that Dr. Y is a poor source or unreliable? The only criticism of Dr. Y which I was able to find was by Barrett himself. I think the Fluoride issue is a big one in Barrett's history and needs mentioning.

Ronz, we are in "article protected" mode so we CAN discuss without the edit warring; not so that we avoid discussion (as you seem to insinuate above). If you don't wish to discuss the content issues, fine. But please then refrain from adding your unhelpful comments. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is my opinion of the NHF and especially of that piece written by Dr. Y. From what I know of those issues, his writings on the matter have about as little documentation as the writings of Lisa, Bolen, and IR (who is banned here). Their conspiracy theories amount to taking a smidgin of fact, put it on fire, notice that it makes smoke, then claim that because it smokes it is somehow related to some other matter that also makes smoke when it burns, and because the two unrelated matters are in the same hemisphere on Earth they are both in direct collusion as part of a vast conspiracy and are even being paid by the same paymasters. Of course to those who are prone to believe in such conspiracy theories, it's all absolutely solidly proven, without any doubt at all. Whatever. That's my considered opinion based on what I know of those matters and the sources I have seen quoted by them. If you can make more out of it without resorting to WP:SYNTH, and using other independent sources that actually are reliable (not NHF or Dr. Y.), then you can make a case for the fact that Barrett believes in fluoridation (just like the rest of the mainstream medical and governmental institutions, so it wouldn't be notable enough for inclusion in any depth), and that's about it. Anything else would just be a matter for the fluoridation article and NHF article and would not concern Barrett, but might implicate the NHF in their unsavory activism against fluoridation. Barrett also happens to believe in exercise, sensible eating, adequate sleep, that the world is round, that vaccinations are generally a good thing, that the oceans are composed of salt water, and many other non-notable facts most people believe in.

Now if you want to mention that Barrett is for fluoridation and has written on it, fine. That's easy to document and link to what he says on it. We can do that in one sentence. But if you're going to turn this article into a platform for his opponents to get their anti-fluoridation views aired, I would question the wisdom of such a move. I really have no idea what you have in mind, so please let us know. -- Fyslee / talk 02:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

My thought wasn't to offer this article up as a platform to aire the anti-fluordation views of Dr. Y. That would be inappropriate for this article; perhaps better suited for the fluordation article. My thought is that Dr. Y seems to have been a lifelong professional adversary of Barrett's. According to Barrett's write-up on Dr. Y after his death, they were kind of a friendly arch-nemesis for each other. Given that much of Barrett's notability comes from his pro-fluoridation work, I would think that Dr. Y's criticism is entirely germane (and important) to this article. I don't know much about Dr. Y, but I doubt that we can equate him with a Bolen. Dr. Y had a cause which was opposed to Barrett's cause. Bolen's cause is to oppose Barrett. See the difference?

Anyhow, Dr. Y's comparison of Barrett's writing to Orwellian "Newspeak" is quite astute and analytical and certainly a different from the usual name-calling criticisms this article has seen. I think it would make a fine addition to this article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Bingo on the difference between Dr. Y and TB. The similarity comes when Dr. Y. uses or repeats a number of conspiracy theory allegations and either directly or indirectly attempts to smear Barrett with guilt by association. But yes, there is a difference between the two. Dr. Y. also had an education, in contrast to TB. I would question whether "much of Barrett's notability comes from his pro-fluoridation work,...." That would only be true in certain limited circles, and only because of the activism of Darlene Sherrell, not because of Barrett's pro-fluoridation activities, AFAIK. IOW his notability on the matter would be because of other's activism and attacks on him, not his own activism. Mind you, I could be wrong.

Are you intending to do this with every matter of controversy involving Barrett's opinions - writing a section giving his opposition opportunity to air their views? Or is it limited to this one matter? -- Fyslee / talk 04:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

If we have good source such as Dr. Y which presents novel and relevent information, I would like to see it included - criticism, praise, neutral information - they should all be treated the same. P.S. Just because a source cites conspiracies, doesn't make that site unreliable. Sometimes "they" really are after you... Remember Wilk v. AMA? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

True enough. Conspiracies do exist, but we can't report on them until they are proven to exist, IOW after the fact using RS. Until then they can usually be chalked up to paranoia, wishful thinking, or direct libel, which is often the case. But back to Dr. Y.....so you just see him as another possible critic that can be cited? Is that correct? -- Fyslee / talk 04:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

As a skeptic, I don't chalk up conspiracy theories (or any theories for that matter) to paranoia, wishful thinking or direct libel unless there is evidence to support such a claim. Otherwise, I would be no better than the person who creates conspiracy theories just to libel another. Essentially, I keep a fair and open mind. I never assume that a conspiracy theory is bunk, I assume it may be plausibele, just prove it to me. My pet-peeve are people who claim to be skeptics but are too quick to write off a theory as bunk or quackery or phoney-boloney before they even look at all of the evidence. As for Dr. Y, I see him as someone who had close professional experience with Barrett and as such has provided an interesting and personal and well-qualified critique of Barrett's writing. That's really all I know of him. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 05:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not trying to start another feud. We all know that Barrett is pro-floride. Now shouldn't something be in this article about this? If not my link, which is fine, but other information?--CrohnieGal^Talk 13:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

While I think the source you provided does lend reliable source support to Barrett's pro-fluoride work, it also provides us with an interesting criticism which I believe should be included in this article. Perhaps - and this would be a radical change to the article - it would be better to discuss Barrett more notable views in a section coupled with the criticism he gets for holding those views. This could - in effect - be a way to remove/limit the actual criticisms section by incorporating the information throughout the article. And it will provide a chance for discussion of Barrett's more significant viewpoints. This wouldn't mean that the article becomes a soapbox for Barrett's views, but rather just provide a summary of the ones he is more notable for. In the same way, the article wouldn't be a soapbox for his detractors but merely provide summaries of criticisms as they relate to Barrett's more notable views. I think this is the way an article should be written; rather than breaking the criticism section out into its own section. Anyhow, this would be a lot of work and would require a lot of collaboration. Despite past fireworks here, I am confident that we would all be up for the challenge and I really believe it could help us work through some of our issues as editors. Just my two-cents for today. Let me know if this is a ludicrous idea or not. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It sounds interesting and could bring this article up a notch. It goes along with what Fyslee was thinking about above, but can you guys do it without getting each other banned for life? ---- Dēmatt (chat) 03:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I am optimistic to a fault, I guess. But I would love to hear everyone else's two-cents on this. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Above I asked you: "Are you intending to do this with every matter of controversy involving Barrett's opinions - writing a section giving his opposition opportunity to air their views? Or is it limited to this one matter?"

It appears that you are intending to expand this article to make it a reenactment of every war Barrett has been in, even when it was not at his own initiation. Is this a proper use of Wikipedia? Can you find other examples of this manner of writing a biographical article? Have you really considered the Pandora's box you will be opening, especially for chiropractic (since that is his most active and best documented area of controversy)? It would be a Pyrrhic victory for the profession, but without the "victory". On the contrary. -- Fyslee / talk 04:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Fyslee, for me, I thought this would be a good addition since there is a lot of information about his and other thoughts of Floridation. I don't agree with breaking it down to everything that Barrett has been involved in with the anti-floride people. If we do it the way you suggested above and what Dematt agreed with you about then I too think it could be a good asset to this article, that is if warring and and so forth doesn't start. I reallly thought this could be put in as a generic type of comment. With the Floridation, correct me if I am wrong, there was a lawsuit about it against Barrett, and in time I think he lost the case. Basically all I am saying is that this would add something new to the article that shouldn't, hopefully, cause disputes. But if this suggestion of mine is going to get out of control, then I say lets just drop it and archive this thread.--CrohnieGal^Talk 14:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I am all for bringing this article up to snuff. And if that menas addressing what Barrett is best known for, then so should it be. I am not sure what Fyslee means by "Pyrrhic victory without the victory"; I think he could find a better phrase to mean what he means, but it does sound like a veiled threat. I think he thinks that by discussing that Barrett is pro-fluordation (or more specifically anti- anti-fluordation), that will mean we can discuss his whole platform on fluoridation (likewise with chiropractic, etc.) This is not the case as it would violate WP:SOAPBOX. However, I agree with Chronie and Dematt here that Barrett's notable views should be discussed in brief and notable criticism of Barrett's views on those particular subjects should be noted as well; all organized together rather than putting Barrett's views here and all of the criticism there. That's all. Again, I am confident that we can make this a reality if we all behaved civilized and drop the veiled threats and personal attacks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No "veiled threat" at all. Just a statement of fact. If you open Pandora's box, we don't know what can happen, but the door will have been opened. I am naturally cautious ("once burned...") about your intentions. I'm just not sure. It seems to me that you intend to make this article, which should be about Barrett, into a soapbox for his detractors. Is that a proper use for a biographical article? Since many of his critics can't get notable entry here in other ways, it seems you are proposing to improperly use Barrett's article as a coatrack for their usually fringe views. If there is mention at all, then it should be short without detailed elaboration, and let readers go to the sources themselves if they are curious, but we are thus opening the door for access to sources that are not RS, since many of his detractors' sources are quite unreliable and not allowed as references or external links. They are often very partisan and the subjects of lawsuits, thus possibly violating COI/BLP. The reference to "Pyrrhic victory" simply refers to the cost-benefit ratio, IOW it isn't worth it and is forever regretted. Pandora is a vicious mistress....;-) -- Fyslee / talk 17:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

This article shouldn't be a means by which to list Barrett's position on everything; nor should it be about Barrett's detractors positions on everything. No boxes are being opened because this is an article about Barrett and his work. Let's continue to have it discuss Barrett and his work, and in the same mention of describing the notable pieces of his work, we have his critic's position on Barrett and his work. This article is not about Homeopathy or Fluoridation or Acupuncture or Osteopathy or whatever. This is about Barrett and his work. That means that the criticism is also about Barrett and his work. Reliable sources of criticism we have a-plenty. However, certain sources are better than others; especially third-party published sources, sources with qualifications to make such assessments, etc. Remember, just because Barrett sued someone for saying something does not mean that it is off-limits for this article. Most everything which Barrett has sued for has never proven to be libel by several levels of US courts all the way up to the state supreme court level. We all know that we have a lot of Barrett criticism from a whole host of sources - including Dr. Y. Our challenge is to choose the best of the best and to find a way to incorporate them directly into the article rather than having a separate criticism section. That is all that I am describing above, so I am unclear where you are getting your position to lodge such threats/warnings that by incorporating the criticisms into the article, we are somehow going to be opening a pandora's box of problems. Please explain what you mean or sit back and reserve the right to say "I told you so" at a later date. ;-) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Summary: You are indeed proposing to improperly use Barrett's article as a coatrack and soapbox for his detractors and their fringe views. -- Fyslee / talk 07:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and think "proposing" is being used here to kindly overlook past behavior. --Ronz 16:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. By adding and rearranging information that only pertains to Barrett and his work, it would be impossible to turn this into a coatrack article. We have to stay focused here and on target. Barrett's detractors will only be heard here for their criticism of Barrett and his work. If they have a fringe view about science or medicine, that won't be heard here. As I said, this article is about Barrett and his notable work. That's all. Let's make it even more focussed on that and I guarantee we won't have a soapbox/coatrack article. It would be impossible. (Ronz, I am deleting your unhelpful attack on me. Let's move past the incivility please.) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Old Pseudoskepticism discussion link

The discussion is a bit hard to find, but is here: Talk:Stephen_Barrett/Archive_7#Pseudoskepticism. Sorry about that. --Ronz (talk) 18:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not detect any consensus against the inclusion of the "see also" link. . . Do you?TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the edit for exactly the reason I stated, "blp violation - see discussions on talk page".

Arthur Rubin, said something similar when he reverted your edit that undid mine, "Per BLP, a RS actually has to say "Pseudoskeptism" before we can use it." --Ronz (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Pseudoskepticism Link

I see the link to pseudoskepticism has been removed. I fail to see why this entry should not feature this link. Scientific peer review always features a final assessment of the reviewer with regard to bias, conflicts of interest, etc. However, Barrett is essentially free to write whatever he pleases, from an essentially preordained viewpoint. Tell me why this would not qualify as pseudoskepticism? Unless I see some sign that his writings are externally refereed or obey some of the basics of being-evidence based, such as Cohen's kappa, I can only advance the question that if the Barrett entry doesn't qualify as a portal for the discussion of pseudoskeptism, what does?

67.86.33.246 (talk) 17:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)