Talk:Stephen Barrett/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Old Pseudoskepticism discussion link

The discussion is a bit hard to find, but is here: Talk:Stephen_Barrett/Archive_5#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)

References

Blocked/banned editors

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

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

Moved to talk for discussion: dismissal of claims

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

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

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

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

writings of Barrett

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blatant WP:BLP violation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Townsend Letters are a RS

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

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

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

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

BLP violation

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

no consensus according to the editor who added the material

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

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

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

Copyedits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WEASEL WORDS

I had deleted:

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

This was reverted with the following explanation:

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

Implicit endorsement of faulty logic.

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

The Quack Watch article states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or even:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MD NetGuide reference in lead

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

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

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

Adding the ref here for convenience.

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

Barrett v. Rosenthal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Sections lack dates

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

List-like sourcing

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

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

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

Stephen Barrett is falsely represented - why is this?

(refactored - BLP violation removed)

It's always of interest when someone offers up a quote like "biased, and unworthy of credibility" that can't actually be found in the source that is "quoted". That aside, of course a judge would have to regard Barrett as partisan regarding this case – as the judge explains (emphasis mine), "...the Court finds that both Dr. Sampson and Dr. Barrett are biased heavily in favor of the Plaintiff and thus the weight to be accorded their testimony is slight in any event. Both are long-time board members of the Plaintiff; Dr. Barrett has served as its Chairman."

Perhaps the "lack of credibility" is elsewhere. --CliffC (talk) 17:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is the whole section from the ruling:

C. Credibility of Plaintiff's experts

Furthermore, the Court finds that both Dr. Sampson and Dr. Barrett are biased heavily in favor of the Plaintiff and thus the weight to be accorded their testimony is slight in any event. Both are long-time board members of the Plaintiff; Dr. Barrett has served as its Chairman. Both participated in an application to the U.S. FDA during the early 1990s designed to restrict the sale of most homeopathic drugs. Dr. Sampson's university course presents what is effectively a one-sided, critical view of alternative medicine. Dr. Barrett's heavy activities in lecturing and writing about alternative medicine similarly are focused on the eradication of the practices about which he opines. Both witnesses' fees, as Dr. Barrett testified, are paid from a fund established by Plaintiff NCAHF from the proceeds of suits such as the case at bar. Based on this fact alone, the Court may infer that Dr. Barrett and Sampson are more likely to receive fees for testifying on behalf of NCAHF in future cases if the Plaintiff prevails in the instant action and thereby wins funds to enrich the litigation fund described by Dr. Barrett. It is apparent, therefore, that both men have a direct, personal financial interest in the outcome of this litigation. Based on all of these factors, Dr. Sampson and Dr. Barrett can be described as zealous advocates of the Plaintiff's position, and therefore not neutral or dispassionate witnesses or experts. In light of these affiliations and their orientation, it can fairly be said that Drs. Barrett and Sampson are themselves the client, and therefore their testimony should be accorded little, if any, credibility on that basis as well.

I added some bold for emphasis. It looks like Sampson and Barrett were paying themselves to act as their own expert witnesses from the same funds which they were looking to enrich with a victory in this litigation. Hope this helps. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's time to end this discussion. It started from an obvious BLP violation and appears to be headed there again.

This page is for discussions on improving the article. Any objections to immediately archiving this? --Ronz (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I object. If there are BLP violations appearing here, then we can remove them. But short of that I think this may prove to be a fruitful conversation. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Content removal due to BLP concerns

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

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

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

Barrett v. Rosenthal (Merge or AFD)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question about Edit

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

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

thanks.

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

Board Certification

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

here.}}

Professional and Educational background is quite pertinent for a person that has made his name by representing himself as an medical expert.

Stmrlbs (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

In what sense has he represented "himself as an medical expert"? Please give an example. He was considered a medical expert on the subject of psychiatry while testifying in his professional capacity. He testified in numerous cases regarding patients. In other situations he's considered an expert in quackery and health fraud, which isn't exactly the same as a medical expert, but which often, but not always, requires extensive medical knowledge, which he unquestionably possesses, in common with many other MDs. Note that being a medical expert in court doesn't even require that one is a licensed medical professional. There are experts who testify in court proceedings on medical subjects who aren't even MDs, much less board certified. The establishment of such expertise is apparently a matter subject to other criteria than the mere possession of a medical degree or board certification. -- Fyslee (talk) 20:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

from Barrett's website, Stephen Barrett, M.D., Biographical Sketch:

Stephen Barrett, M.D., a retired psychiatrist who resides near Chapel Hill, North Carolina, has achieved national renown as an author, editor, and consumer advocate. In addition to heading Quackwatch, he is vice-president of the National Council Against Health Fraud, a scientific advisor to the American Council on Science and Health, and a Fellow of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP). In 1984, he received an FDA Commissioner's Special Citation Award for Public Service in fighting nutrition quackery. In 1986, he was awarded honorary membership in the American Dietetic Association. From 1987 through 1989, he taught health education at The Pennsylvania State University. He is listed in Marquis Who's Who in America and received the 2001 Distinguished Service to Health Education Award from the American Association for Health Education. An expert in medical communications, Dr. Barrett operates 23 Web sites; edits Consumer Health Digest (a weekly electronic newsletter); is medical editor of Prometheus Books; and has been a peer-review panelist for several top medical journals. He has written more than 2,000 articles and delivered more than 300 talks at colleges, universities, medical schools, and professional meetings.

I think it would be a good guess that since Quackwatch is Barrett's website, that Barrett wrote that about himself.

I think Barrett's medical and educational credentials are very appropriate, especially since his notability is linked to his ability to evaluate different modularities of medicine, and this is definitely linked to his medical and scientific background.

Stmrlbs (talk) 04:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Barrett likely wrote that about himself, but I disagree that "his notability is linked to his medical and scientific background." His medical career is totally unnotable, and his work as a researcher the same, with only one notable moment to my knowledge.

No, he's notable because he's outspoken, totally non-politically correct, controversial, an activist, a famous scientific skeptic (in the top 20 of the 20th century), initiates the exposure of quackery and health fraud in a few instances, and mostly does in-depth journalistic work on quackery and health fraud cases already noted by the FDA, FTC, BBB, news media, etc.. His work is also published in magazines, journals, the television and other news media and various official reports, and then he also writes and edits books. To top it off, he has learned to use the internet to spread his message, and has harnessed a large group of individuals who will help him in that endeavor. (All done very simply and cheaply.) THAT'S what makes him notable. Hardly anyone knows him as a doctor or as a scientist. -- Fyslee (talk) 04:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

While I was writing the above, I see you added some crucial words, which demonstrate that you understand my point, even though you hadn't read it yet ;-) You're absolutely correct. Without his medical and scientific background, he wouldn't be so well-prepared to do what makes him notable -- "his ability to evaluate different modularities of medicine." THAT'S still what makes him notable. -- Fyslee (talk) 04:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

then you agree, Fyslee, that his medical and professional background is an important part of his "notability" and his ability to evaluate various medical modularities and the credentials of the people that practice them. Therefore, I think that his Board Certification status is relevant to his notability and should be included.

Stmrlbs (talk) 05:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No. Don't put words in my mouth. That is pretty much the opposite of my point, which is that it is NOT the reason he is notable. His notability is related to his understanding and criticisms of medical modalities that do not conform to the scientific method (IOW unproven or disproven methods), or are being marketed improperly. The certification matter is different and needs a RS so it can be placed in proper perspective. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

ok, Fyslee, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. But.. let me get this straight. You think his educational and professional background have nothing to do with his ability to evaluate different types of medicine and other people's credentials? That all you need to evaluate other people's credentials and other medicine is to be outspoken,controversial, an activist, a famous scientific skeptic (in the top 20 of the 20th century), initiates the exposure of quackery and health fraud, and is published in the media? Actually.. I think a lot of people on both sides would agree with that evaluation, (and a lot of people would qualify) and that is why Quackwatch has not been recognized as a reliable source in Wikipedia.

However, We are talking about what he claims to be, an "expert" and therefore able to judge/evaluate medicine and practitioners. Even if you don't think his professional and educational background is important, most people do think it is important for any person claiming to be an "expert" in a scientific/medical field.

Stmrlbs (talk) 06:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Out of interest, hows this improve the article? Especially since it doesn't make any claim to "expert" status at all? (now do you see where OR is beginning to take you?) Shot info (talk) 06:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Stmrlbs, you're being quite disingenuous above. There is a large consensus that QW is a RS. -- Fyslee (talk) 06:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Now you're being disingenuous by ignoring what I have written. They are obviously related, and I answered your question, but since you have an ulterior motive and wish to use my answer for other purposes, and have done it twice now, including putting words in my mouth which I don't believe, I see no point in attempting to answer you again. You should have just answered my question to begin with, instead of leading us on a wild goose chase. This tactic reminds me of a another user, one who can't stick to the point. You originally made a claim and I asked the following question and made a comment. Stick to it and we'll be fine:

"In what sense has he represented "himself as an medical expert"? Please give an example. He was considered a medical expert on the subject of psychiatry while testifying in his professional capacity. He testified in numerous cases regarding patients. In other situations he's considered an expert in quackery and health fraud, which isn't exactly the same as a medical expert, but which often, but not always, requires extensive medical knowledge, which he unquestionably possesses, in common with many other MDs. Note that being a medical expert in court doesn't even require that one is a licensed medical professional. There are experts who testify in court proceedings on medical subjects who aren't even MDs, much less board certified. The establishment of such expertise is apparently a matter subject to other criteria than the mere possession of a medical degree or board certification.

Just answer the question: "In what sense has he represented "himself as an medical expert"? Please give an example." I'm only asking so I can determine what you mean by "medical expert". We need to be on the same page, and THEN move forward. -- Fyslee (talk) 06:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Fyslee, I gave you a perfectly good example of Barrett representing himself as an expert on his own website. It is not my problem if you don't like it.. but I think a neutral 3rd party would agree that Barrett is making statements about his expertise on that page.

You are also assuming bad faith by saying that I'm leading you on a wild good chase and have an ulterior motives. As for the statement out of the blue that I remind you of someone else and "can't stick to the point", I don't know who you think I am, but if you try a tactic of alluding that I am some person that you've had problems with before, and make it part of this argument, I will take it to Wikipedia Admin.

You asked to see an example of where Barrett claimed he was an expert, and I gave it to you. You seem to want me to allude to court cases.. I don't think that is necessary. He says enough on his own website to make that statement.

Stmrlbs (talk) 07:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No, no, and no. Once again you're changing your original wording. What you provided didn't help, since he nowhere uses the expression "medical expert". He doesn't make that claim there, but you claim he does claim to be a "medical expert". That's a very special expression with a limited use. Just stick to your original point and you won't get into trouble. You used a term "medical expert", not just "expert", even stating that he "made his name by representing himself as an medical expert."

Please provide an example of him doing THAT. What you provided shows him claiming to be an "expert in medical communications", not a "medical expert". I did make a point (he didn't) that he "was considered a medical expert on the subject of psychiatry while testifying in his professional capacity," and that was never considered a problem, and his lack of board certification was never a problem. The rest of my comment makes it clear that his medical knowledge and experience are sufficient to give him the proper starting point to make the types of judgments he makes. And when that comes short in some situations, as it inevitably will, he has a host of other professional friends and specialists, including board certified ones and Nobel laureates, whom he can draw upon for help. That's why Quackwatch is far more than Barrett. BTW, "in 1986, he was awarded honorary membership in the American Dietetic Association", so they considered him an expert on that subject.

He's considered an expert in quackery and health fraud (my words), and we have plenty of RS that establish that fact. THAT is his unquestioned area of expertise. If you want to claim expertise for him, then THAT is it, and he's often considered the world's most notable expert on those subjects. When it comes to the subject of him being used as a RS, it isn't his own opinion of himself that cinches the point for us, but the opinion of other RS, and they certainly do that! He's in very good company, and none of them even mention his lack of board certification, since that isn't necessary for what he does. It's irrelevant. Raising the bar too high only creates a straw man for you to criticize. That's not fair or right.

Now if you are really going to continue to belabor this point, stick to documenting your own statement that he "made his name by representing himself as an medical expert." Find a statement where he does THAT, and let's look at it together. Since this discussion has long since had little relevance to improving the article, but is rather you misusing this talk page to criticize Barrett, you are welcome to come to my talk page with your evidence. If you don't have evidence of him "representing himself as an medical expert", then I suggest it's a straw man which you have been using. It has been used by others, but I've never seen the claim documented. -- Fyslee (talk) 13:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Miriam Webster's definition of EXPERT:

having, involving, or displaying special skill or knowledge derived from training or experience

Fyslee, if the training and experience needed to be an 'expert' on Quackery and Health Fraud is not science and medicine (and law, now that you bring fraud as a field that Barrett is an expert in), then what is the training and experience needed?

Stmrlbs (talk) 02:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You haven't documented your claim yet. Get busy. I'm a skeptic and you have made a questionable claim. You must document it or drop it and any line of reasoning based on it.

As to your question above (about "expert", not "medical expert"), you know the answer, and I'm not going to answer it for you, especially when you for the third time attempt to put words in my mouth (I definitely don't agree that it "is not science and medicine (and law,..." Are you a Scientologist? You don't seem to be able to stick to the subject, but insist on twisting things in a very obvious manner. You aren't even sneaky about it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I've documented my claim. And I'm tired of your insinuations that I'm a puppet (scientology/"remind me of someone else"). I've started a new section to start fresh as this discussion is going nowhere.

--Stmrlbs (talk) 02:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

No, you haven't documented your claim. Read your pricise wording. You haven't emailed me either. This is indeed going nowhere, and the hat is standard practice for this type of situation. Our comments are still here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me what you think this situation is and where it says an editor (not an admin) can just hat a whole conversation with other people's comments without notifying the other people involved. I do not want my comments hidden, and you never talked to me before you did this.

As far as emailing, if you have something to say to me, say it to me on my Talk page. That, I know, is standard practice.

--Stmrlbs (talk) 05:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I want to get to the bottom of this and have started a thread here. This discussion is personal and circular, which violates WP:TALK, which is why I put a hat on it. That's standard practice here. END OF DISCUSSION HERE. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

this conversation is also continued here and here

--strmlbs|talk 03:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I wish to note here that I think Fyslee/BullRangifer and I did come to an agreement here that Barrett's background in medicine, science, and law is very important to Barrett's expertise in quackery and health fraud.

--strmlbs|talk 01:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

would be changed to:

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

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

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

---

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

Question

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, it appears that some editors are just using this page as a battleground. --Ronz (talk) 14:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Board Certification: Fresh Start

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

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

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

in addition, Piotrus came here to add his comments to the talk discussion going on here at the time here:Talk:Stephen_Barrett/Archive_8#Wikipedia:Reliable_sources.2FNoticeboard to verify his opinion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We've already been to RSN before and there definitely was a consensus from third-parties that the sources were reliable enough to state that Barrett is not board certified. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure your linking to the right area of RS/N. There is no consensus on the link you provide - only you dismissing arguements that you don't like and agreeing with those that reinforce your POV. Of course there is a discussion about primary and secodary sources - but that is nothing that wasn't said here before and above in fact. Curiously there even are third parties telling you to get better sources (but I wonder who then dismisses them). Shot info (talk) 03:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

An editor claimed there are reliable sources but has refused to show any source is reliable. If a source is reliable then why it is not in the article or in discussion at this talk page? QuackGuru (talk) 04:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

@Shot info. Yes I am sure that I am linking to the correct area. Are you sure that you are reading the correct area? I see there that the thrid-party opinions there stated that the primary sources which I presented met RS. I don't see me dismissing any arguments there (although I do see such behavior from editors here). Read the RSN post again. You will see that not only are third-parties stating that RS is met, but they are also proposing wording for the article to include the information (that Barrett is not Board Certified). Are you really denying that? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Please show and not assert which references are reliable per WP:RS and WP:V. Also demonstrate how this is relevant to Barrett. If this is not shown soon then I think the next step is archiving this entire discussion. QuackGuru (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

wow wow wow... go see the thread that he linked from RS/N an u will SEE that he doesn't have to demonstrate this is relevant to Barrett because there was consensus at RS/N that to mention the fact that he is not board certified we only need those primary sources and that YES we can mention that he is not board certified 70.71.22.45 (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Can we please just end this discussion, again? 39 months of trying to get this information into the article to no avail is an incredibly huge waste of time for us all. It would be a different story if new sources or new approaches were being discussed, but that's clearly not the case here. --Ronz (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the way admins and the leaders of Wikipedia want it, to continue the discussion. QuackGuru (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we can archive the talk page now. QuackGuru (talk) 01:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I've archived the previous one, as it was obviously being used to attack other editors and generally being used to make this page a battleground. --Ronz (talk) 01:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Summary

I thought I would summarize where we are.

• As I stated at the beginning of this section, two 3rd party sources, one an administrator and one from the Mediation Cabal, said that they didn't feel there was a problem with adding this:

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

• Both 3rd party sources said this should not be a WP:BLP violation
• This fact is verified by reliable sources (a couple being from the quackwatch site 1).
• Professional and Educational background is very important to Barrett's expertise in quackery and health fraud.

--strmlbs|talk 05:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, and in the meantime to show notability, please supply the source(s) that supports "Professional and Educational background is very important to Barrett's expertise in quackery and health fraud". If there are no sources - then there is no reason to insert the information - as articulated by many above and also over at RS/N. Shot info (talk) 06:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Notability (WP:N) has nothing to do with article content. Of course Barrett's professional and education background is important to what makes him notable. If not, then why do we include information such as: "Barrett is a 1957 graduate of the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and completed his psychiatry residency in 1961. In 1967 and 1968 he followed part of a correspondence course in American Law and Procedure at La Salle Extension University (Chicago)"? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You keep refering back to WP:N knowing full well this is a WP:OR issue. You know this (having been engaged previously in the discussion over the years), so why do you keep on about it? Shot info (talk) 06:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned "notability" because you stated above that we must "show notability". There is not WP:OR violation per the consensus at WP:RSN where the editors stated that the sources which we were using were sufficient to merit inclusion of the material in question. I only keep on about it because I am amazed by the gross WP:OWN abuse editors are exhibiting here seemingly in an effort to whitewash this article. But, if you think about it, the text which strmlbs is proposing is not a criticism, as some editors here are trying to paint it. It is a neutral expression of a verified information which even allows for Barrett's own expressed point of view on it. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Please show and not assert your view. QuackGuru (talk) 07:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

What does that mean exactly? What view are you asking me to show which I or someone else here hasn't shown ad nauseum only to fall on deaf ears? Please be as specific as possible in your request. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I already explained this. Please show how this is relevant to Barrett. QuackGuru (talk) 07:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This is what you explained: Please show and not assert which references are reliable per WP:RS and WP:V. Also demonstrate how this is relevant to Barrett. Now then, if you read the post to WP:RSN you will see the answer to the first part. There, there was a consensus that the sources were reliable enough to verify and include the information that Barrett is not board certified. So that takes care of WP:RS and WP:V. The second half is where you ask me to demonstrate how this is relevant to Barrett. Well, it is as relevant to Barrrett as is the rest of his verifiable medical and legal education/credentials, which are enumerated in this article. It is relevant to Barrett because he is dispensing medical advice on his website and thus his medical credentials are without a doubt significant. It is relevant to Barrett because it has been a subject of at least one lawsuit. It is relevant to Barrett because he himself came to Wikipedia to set the story straight - that he took the board cert. exam once, failed one half of it, and never re-took the exam.

Now it's your turn. How can you possibly prattle on that I have not shown my view? How can you assert that RS and V haven't been met when the consensus at RSN disagrees with you? How can you believe that Dr. Barrett's lack of board certification is not relevant when he dispensing medical advice to the masses, when it has been a subject of at least one lawsuit, when Barrett himself felt compelled to come to Wikipedia to set the record straight on this matter? Please don't just give me another litany of alphabet soup. It's time for you to show and not assert your view. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

If Professional background and education has nothing to do with what makes Barrett notable, then I think all references to his background and education should be taken out. Perhaps you don't need education and experience in anything to be an expert in quackery and health fraud. I don't think the rest of the world will agree, but if that is what everyone is saying, then I think it should apply to the whole article - positive and negative. And if this is a WP:OR violation, then I think we should go through the rest of the references and those that point to Barrett's site should not be allowed.

--strmlbs|talk 07:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

That did not establish how this is relevant to Barrett. QuackGuru (talk) 07:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Even though relevance has clearly been shown as nauseum, I am still curious - which policy (or policies), in your opinion, demonstrates that that relevance of such information needs to be established? Please quote directly from the policy (or policies) those sentences which you believe are applicable to this discussion. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to know this, too. I looked and couldn't find a policy which stated this either.

--strmlbs|talk 07:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh man come on! I totally agree that it is obvious that this is 'relevant to Barrett' perhaps you should show how it ISN'T relevent to Barrett 70.71.22.45 (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain how this is relevant. According to previous comments, editors think they can add irrelevant text to this article unless I find policy that states an article is based on relevant facts. This is a bit odd. Let's use a little common sense. QuackGuru (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I explain quite explicitly above how this is relevant. There's nothing odd about it. But I will re-ask my question to you: How can you believe that Dr. Barrett's lack of board certification is not relevant when he dispenses medical advice to the masses, when it has been a subject of at least one lawsuit, and when Barrett himself felt compelled to come to Wikipedia to set the record straight on this matter? Common sense, you say? Common sense seems to dictate that Barrett's lack of board certification is quite relevant. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The BC thing is not relevant because no sources have been presented to demonstrate the relevancy. QuackGuru (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The consensus at RSN disagrees with you. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

There never was consensus and no sources have been presented to demonstrate the relevancy. If you disagree then provide the source which demonstrates the relevancy. QuackGuru (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Please re-read the discussion at RSN. The consensus is clear and "relevancy" is not an issue. Please demonstrate otherwise or stop with the WP:IDHT defense. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I requested a reference and asked anyone to demonstrate the relevancy. It has not been shown how it is relevant. QuackGuru (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You have been provided with ample references per a consensus at RSN and told exactly why this is relevant in the posts just above. Your denial of these facts are absurd and childish. As such, please note that I will simply ignore you until your comments show maturity.

Does anyone else disagree that reliable sources have been presented and confirmed by RSN and that relevancy has been adequately demonstrated (even though not expressly required)? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

If you think it is relevant and the sources are relieble then why you did not add it to the article. I assume it is because you think there is no consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 00:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Levine2112, you are repeating here and in edit summaries things you have claimed before, and they are misleading. You state that:

1. "he dispenses medical advice to the masses,"

• No. He exposes false medical advice given by quacks and frauds. To do that he must mention current medical knowledge. The contrast must be made clear. Dispensing any advice would be an inconsequential byproduct of exposing quackery. There is nothing unusual or criticizable in Barrett's manner of doing that, and board certification is totally irrelevant to that matter. He's certainly not doing what Mercola does, which is indeed "dispensing medical advice to the masses" for a huge profit.

2. "when it has been a subject of at least one lawsuit,"

• No. Where has his board certification status been the "subject of" a lawsuit? It was mentioned in a lawsuit, but was not the subject of the lawsuit.

3. "Barrett himself felt compelled to come to Wikipedia to set the record straight on this matter"

• He did not come here to announce the fact or make sure it was included. Barrett set the record straight because this fact was being misused on the talk page. His exposure of its libelous use shouldn't be used as an argument for using it.

His board certification status has never been relevant in any context outside of being misused as part of libel. That is its only "relevance", and we don't use libelous settings as RS. During his whole career it was an irrelevant issue, and even afterwards it has no relevance to anything he does, especially since he isn't actively in practice. If we had RS which discussed it and gave it some relevance in the real world, that would be an entirely different matter. Then we'd know what degree of weight to give it and how to frame its inclusion. I almost wish we had such a source. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Does Barrett dispense medical advice to the masses? Let's see. Through his 20 or 30 websites he advises the public on which kinds of doctors and treatments to avoid and which ones to trust. I'm no doctor, but that sure sounds as though he is dispensing medical advice to the masses. And as such, board certification is entirely relevant - this even according to the subject himself!
2. Was Barrett's lack of board certification a subject of at least one lawsuit? Please read for yourself. It sure seems like his lack of board certification is mentioned an awful lot. Remember, I said a subject, not the subject. Fyslee/Brangifer is the one who changed my words, so who is really being misleading here?
3. Why did Barrett feel compelled to come to Wikipedia to tell us the full story of how he took and failed his board certification exam and decided never to take them again? Does it really matter why? The facts are: he came here, he verified that he is not board certified because he failed half of the exam. We are not using this nor any other source to cite a libellous statement; for to be libellous the statement has to be false. This is not the case. That Barrett is not board certified is clearly a true statement, verified by several sources including ABMS (a source which Barrett himself states is a good place to find out whether or not a doctor is board certified) and court records.

Fyslee/Brangifer, above you state that "If we had RS which discussed it (Barrett's lack of board certification) and gave it some relevance in the real world, that would be an entirely different matter." You are neglecting the fact that we have a consensus from third-parties at RSN that indeed we do have sources reliable enough to present the information. So what's left? What else can you present to keep this verified and relevant information out of this article? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The above is just OR in it's purest sense. To date nobody has provided any source that substanciates the passage and shows it's relevance to the subject of the article - instead relying on the sythesis of 2 or more sources to produce the result (or even worse - relying on SPS material). There was no consensus at RS/N - only those who don't wish to hear that continue to say there is. And there is no consensus here for inclusion. Moral is - get a source and take your OR elsewhere. Shot info (talk) 07:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to include this irrelevant factoid. He's not a registered homeopath either, nor a certified Russian translator. Nor can he speak latin, but that doesn't stop him being able to use latin terms. It is irrelevant to list qualifications that do not effect his status that he doesn't have, and is an implicit and uninformed smear. Verbal chat 08:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

But wait Verbal - you cannot be part of the new consensus because of the <koff> consensus at RS/N overrides you - why - well because I believe it to be so. What do you mean that there is no consensus at RS/N - of course there is - let me repeat this slowly for you - there ... is ... because ... I ... said ... so. QED. Shot info (talk) 08:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

What exactly are you saying, Shot_info when you keep saying this is OR? Are you saying a court document on Barrett's site is not a reliable source? For what reason?

--strmlbs|talk 17:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:OR states:

To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources.

--Ronz (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep OR101 - Levine knows this, but he's played this game for several years now so we have become used to him. But for other editors, it's a clear sign of ignorance of Wikipedia's policies. Shot info (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

Um, the Fonorow suit, for instance, directly relates to Barrett and confirms that Barrett is not board certified.

All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

Yes, the Fonorow source is a primary court document, however we are not using it to make any interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims. We are using it to verify a specific statement which the source suppports sans interpretation, analysis, or synthesis.

Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources.

Again, the Fonorow source by itself states/verifies that Barrett is not board certified. The only reason why we have presented so many alternate sources to verify this information is because you have demanded such secondary sources (even though the consensus at RSN already supported inclusion - essentially we've been jumping through hoops for you for quite sometime and every time we successfully jump through the hoop you claim "I didn't see it, do it again.") Shot info, our patience for your incivility is petering out. Please bow out or ditch the attitude. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Levine, (re)read OR - then include the source that makes it notable (actually you have a problem with that word so let me use another that others have used - relevant) to the subject at hand - without your OR (which you persist - yet again above - and you wonder why editors don't listen to you). There was no consensus at RS/N regardless of how many times you assert it. For somebody who likes quoting WP:IDHT, perhaps a mirror is needed? As for you running out of patience - well you know where to go to try to get a consensus. In the mean time perhaps you should realise that your arguments didn't hold water in the past and continue not to hold water today. Shot info (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not presenting any OR. I am presenting a source which discusses the subject and his board certification. There is nothing original about the research. It's one source and it deal with Barrett and his lack of board certification. And yes, there was a clear consensus for inclusion at RSN. Third party editors were giving advice on how to phrase the sentence to be included, in fact. If you really believe that every piece of information in this article requires a seconday source which states, "This information is relevant to the subject because..." then be prepared for this article to shrink down considerably. There is a lot of information on this article which is only being sources to primary sources such as the Quackwatch website. Do you really want to remove all of that too? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You are - remember it's trivia (aka "a minor factoid" something RS/N found as well and numberous editors have pointed out to you in various wordings throughout the talk) - and you have had to go into a looooong explaination of why it isn't trivia. Of course this explaination is your OR - as you haven't a source to say that - you've drawn your conclusions from many sources - you don't have a source that states it (other than your unreliable sources). You know it's OR to draw a greater conclusion from a court case (as we discussed long and hard at BvR). So where are the secondary sources (from reliable organisations of course rather than your normal cadre of Barrett-haters) that draw the conclusions that you are drawing here? Mind you - this has all been said before but I understand you have a new editor to perform for. In the meantime (like all the many times beforehand) you aren't doing your arguments any justice by arguing the same dismissed points again and again. Shot info (talk) 03:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Shot info, please spell out exactly what conclusion I am drawing. Please spell out the research which I am performing which is original. All I am asking to be including in this article is that Barrett is not board certified. This information is plainly verified by the Fonorow lawsuit document which exists on the Quackwatch website. How is this any different from using Barrett's bio on the Quackwatch website to verify his other credentials? You keep accusing me of OR. Please elaborate on your accusation. What research am I performing which is original? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I have, wheren't you just accusing some people (so, many, other, people) of engaging in what you are doing? Mirror, where's that mirror.... To use the lawsuit information outside the context of the lawsuit, you need sources that say that - and you haven't (other than your Barrett-hate sites). You keep failing to address the trivial nature of this factoid as well - hence the reason you probably are scraping the barrel for sources. Don't worry, this is quite typical for irrelevant information and an indicator thereof. As for your other wikilawyering - maybe you should try some other bios to understand what writing one involves - rather than asking me when I stopped beating my wife? Shot info (talk) 04:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The lawsuit information verifies the information. What's better is that it is reliable under the penalty of the law. There is no policy which I am aware of that says we can only use such information in the context of a lawsuit. That makes no sense. Your argument is extremely weak. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You're the one failing to provide adaquate sources to convince enough editors to gain consensus. This is your argument failing - not mine. Shot info (talk) 04:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Shot_info, What is OR about "CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT DUPAGE COUNTY, ILLINOIS"?

And, I just read WP:OR. I can't even find the word "notable" or "relevant" in it. So.. I don't know what you are talking about.

--strmlbs|talk 02:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you responding for Levine? Shot info (talk) 02:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Levine needs anyone to respond for him.

--strmlbs|talk 03:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Good, you need don't need a response to your questioning of my answer to Levine then? Glad you've cleared that up. Shot info (talk) 04:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I wonder what the edit count is on this one issue? If I remember correctly, two years ago it was over 1,000 edits, about a third from a single editor. Maybe we're at 1,500 or so now? If so, does that change anything? --Ronz (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

No.

--strmlbs|talk 02:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't Ronz, didn't in the past, why should anything change :-) Shot info (talk) 02:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else find it unbelievable that this argument is still going on? As to the board certification issue, I seem to remember reading on this talk page about two years ago (maybe three) that it was fairly common when he graduated not to be board certified. It seems fairly clear that we cannot use this as a black mark against him by todays standards. It's like comparing apples and oranges. Can't we just get rid of it? Surely his expertise, if any, is judged from his years of experience gained practicing medicine, not from exams at the beginning of his career? David D. (Talk) 03:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the way Wikipedia works. Which sources are the most reliable and how is the board certification thing relevant. QuackGuru (talk) 03:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Surely this is not evidence that wikipedia works :) As to board certification, it is not relevant. A brief scan of the discussion above seems to confirm that many agree on this point. And those that don't are arguing as if we're in a court of law. Last time I checked we;re not and this should not be about scoring points over commonsense. David D. (Talk) 03:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Barrett is the source of the statement made that it was fairly common when he graduated not to be board certified. I don't think we can say this is exactly an objective statement. There has been no reliable source for any real data about what percentage of psychiatrists were board certified when Barrett was practicing.

--strmlbs|talk 03:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Common sense says if it was important then he would not have had a job. David D. (Talk) 03:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

So many distractions: continue below this
No wonder you're still here three years later!
<grabs popcorn and waits wikilawyering that "common sense" is not a policy...> :-) Shot info (talk) 04:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Are you determining that board certification isn't important because some doctors who aren't board certified still have jobs? Yeah, now that's common sense. Huh? -- Levine2112 discuss 04:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC) <munch, munch> Let the show commence! Shot info (talk) 04:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Okay, It's clear that like QuackGuru, I have to ignore your posts until you learn some civility and maturity. My patience for you has petered out. Bow out or ditch the attitude. -- Levine2112 discuss 04:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC) If you wish to engage the attention of editors, you need to engage the attention of editors. Just because you don't know when to let a failed argument die it's natural death is your failure rather than the editors you have failed to convince. If you don't like it when I point our your wikilawyering and general disruptiveness, WP:AN/I is thataway. Until then, this popcorn is excellent, I don't even like popcorn. Besides - I gotta defend my Dad remember ;-) Shot info (talk) 04:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC) I agree, Levine. shot_info's remarks are not adding anything to the discussion. --strmlbs|talk 05:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC) ... the irony... Shot info (talk) 05:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

David said: Common sense says if it (board certification) was important then he (Barrett) would not have had a job.

Then why does Barrett devote a page in his consumer education section Board Certification: What Does It Mean?, where Barrett tells people that the ABMS Verification Service provides a simple way to check whether a doctor has ABMS-recognized certification. Barrett himself is telling people how to check to see if a doctor is board certified. Sure seems to me that Barrett is saying Board Certification is a relevant part of any doctor's background.

--strmlbs|talk 05:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It is now, but back when Barrett graduated (and the ABMS probably didn't exist), it wasn't nearly as important. Only about a third of psychiatrists were board certified, and Barrett was among the majority who weren't, and that lack never caused him any problems. It has never been demonstrated to be relevant for what he did or does. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Barrett is the source of the statement that only a third psychiatrists were board certified - a subjective statement. There has been no reliable source cited for any real data about what percentage of psychiatrists were board certified when Barrett was practicing.

--strmlbs|talk 06:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

With regard to the content you say "Barrett himself is telling people how to check to see if a doctor is board certified". I just read it more completely and what he seemed to emphasis was that people should be aware that not all board exams are equal, i.e. some are not what they seem. But why are we heading down this road of microanalysis of what is a board exam and is it useful? Board certified or not he had a long career in medicine, why would anyone need more to write quackwatch or be an expert in the area? David D. (Talk) 06:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC

I think it is obvious that Board Certification is a relevant part of any doctor's background. I think it is obvious that a person's medical, science, and law background is relevant if they are evaluating quackery and health fraud. This is not microanalysis. This is common sense.

--strmlbs|talk 06:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

From my perspective it looks like there will always be a reason to bring down the reputation of one that disputes certain practices as quackery (not just Barrett). Since we are not here to prosecute why are we doing this? Raking through court files for damning "evidence" from prosecutors is a strange way to source an objective article. And it's even more bizarre when it seems to be some peoples job to ensure such "factoids" (thanks Verbal, that is a good word for this) are inserted no matter what. Remember, this is three years on and it's the same arguments occurring here on this talk page. Are there any of his peers saying he does not represent the consensus view of the medical community? If there was a backlash from that community against his work I might open my eyes, but if all we have are court documents then we're on shakey ground. It is a distorted view from lawyers not from his peers. David D. (Talk) 13:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree. Let's analyze this. We have a factoid that has never been used as other than part of libel against Barrett. We have editors who wish to poison the well against Barrett by promoting that libel, or parts of it, in any manner they can, and they're seeking to include this factoid without proper context. To make this quite plain, we have one major driving force behind this (aided by likeminded editors). Levine2112's hatred of Barrett has been clearly documented by his own statements at Wikipedia, and he really should recuse himself from this subject as he effectively acts as TB's meatpuppet here, whether he does it deliberately or not. The libel campaign in the real world is being maintained at Wikipedia by him, and this is part of it. It needs to stop.

If we actually had a large section detailing the libel campaign that has been occurring for some years now (and which is unsettled until the coming lawsuit against the main perpetrator is finally decided and finished), we really have no context other than the libel. No matter how it is worded, it will have to be sourced to the libel, which has been repeated and retold by many of Barrett's enemies both here and elsewhere. This is all a very non-NPOV manner of editing. Libel is not a RS. It violates BLP. We would need mainstream, neutral sources which deal with this, and we don't have them. That would change the matter completely, but until then this is SYNTH, OR and BLP violations. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right, Fyslee/Brangifer. Libellous statements are certainly not a reliable sources. However, in this case, I believe that the statement that Barrett is not Board Certified was never found to be libellous. Also, I have no hatred nor animosity toward Barrett. I defy you to document otherwise. I do think that he is has acted unethically (who hasn't?) and I don't put the same confidence in his essays as others here do. But while we are talking about recusing certain editors, don't you think that your COI here has been well documented? Do you really feel that it is okay for you to be here campaigning so much given your relationship with Barrett? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I never said the statement was libelous. Its only context as been as part of TB's libel, which has been quoted widely because he spams it all over the place, something the anti-spam community has reacted quite strongly to. Not only has it been used as a part of TB's libel campaign, it was specifically used as part of statements made to create the false impression that if Barrett was not board certified, he could not be a real psychiatrist or real licensed MD. (The statement has been uttered in a number of different versions, all of which will no doubt be used as evidence against TB.) You say you "have no hatred nor animosity toward Barrett". Whatever words you use, I think your statements listed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Levine2112 speak loudly about your extremely negative attitude toward Barrett, and your editing history reveals a clear agenda to smear him and poison the well against him whenever possible. A COI has never been proven against me. It was a false charge made by you and others. At the most I was cautioned to "avoid the appearance of a COI" in actual editing of articles, even though I didn't actually have one. That was good advice which I follow. Whatever "relationship" I have ever had with Barrett has been extremely tangential. Anyone can email him. I have done so on occasion, and have more often than not in those few times been rebuffed and treated rather brusquely by him. I have never spoken to him or met him, and have only seen him on the internet and television. Sharing a POV and participating on the same discussion group does not constitute a COI, and that happens to be very ancient history. BTW, we often disagreed in our discussions on that group. My "loyalties" are not to Barrett, but to the larger issues which he champions. I too am against quackery, health fraud, unethical practices in the medical profession and big pharma, and scams. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

See my comment above: "I see no reason to include this irrelevant factoid. He's not a registered homeopath either, nor a certified Russian translator. Nor can he speak latin, but that doesn't stop him being able to use latin terms. It is irrelevant to list qualifications that do not effect his status that he doesn't have, and is an implicit and uninformed smear" There has been no good reason given for including this, the only reasons go against OR and BLP, and are intentionally attempting to mislead the reader. Verbal chat 07:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the many discussions about bc comes to the same consensus, that this factoid is not needed for this article. I suggest that everyone finally close these discussion before there is more heat than light. Tempers are starting to get a little heated at times and nothing is being accomplished. So who's for closing this already? I know I am. If I remember correctly, the lawsuit being used as a ref is the suit that started the mudslinging, wasn't it? Anyways, let's just end this already, pretty please. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Crohnie, please show me where any consensus was reached. I think it was juat a matter of more editors of one viewpoint available to revert any edit that they didn't agree with. That is not consensus. I think that is called WP:Own.

--strmlbs|talk 07:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You and Levine haven't demonstrated consensus for inclusion, hence we default to no inclusion. My concerns still haven't been addressed, and it would seem policy is against inclusion. These policies an guidelines have consensus, and the majority of editors here have argued against inclusion. Verbal chat 07:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Stephen Barrett/Archive 13

I went ahead an archived the discussion. If there is anything that an editor wants to discuss that was archived then bring it up here or start a new section. QuackGuru (talk) 02:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Help:Archiving_a_talk_page:

Decisions about when to archive, and what may be the optimal length for a talk page, are made according to the Wikipedia policy of consensus for each case. If possible, archive talk pages during a lull in discussion, thus maintaining the context of a discussion by not cutting it off in progress.

I'm not sure the discussions in 2009 are finished. You are supposed to ask the people involved before archiving. A better place to archive would have been in the last quarter of 2008 when there were no weren't many discussions at all. so.. I moved the discussions starting in 2008/2009 back, and left the 2007 in the archive.

--strmlbs|talk 03:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

How about asking the editors involved if discussion is finished before editing? That is what consensus means. Now, all of a sudden, even though there have been many edits the last couple of weeks.. QuackGuru, and now Fyslee/BullRangifer just archive everything without asking if the discussions of the last week are finished.

Please don't archive this talk page until all editors are done.

--strmlbs|talk 08:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It's sure nice to see this page back in some semblance of order, after the archived material was restored several times in a willy nilly fashion, making it a total mess, with 2009 stuff coming before 2008 stuff, and the references section somewhere in the middle of the page, which can really screw up the references. -- BRangifer (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice try, BullRangifer.. implying that I mixed up the order. The reason it was out of order is that

1. Ronz archived just "== Stephen Barrett is falsely represented - why is this? ==" in Jan 2009, so this was placed right after the 2007 archive.
2. Then 2 days ago, Ronz archived just the "Board Certification" section (which was in the middle of the talk page) - without asking anyone, without consensus - just did it. This went after 1.
3. Then.. within 15 minutes! of Ronz's archive, QuackGuru archived the rest of the page - without consensus. This was placed after 2.

No wonder the order was messed up. I come back later.. and the talk page is gone. So, I restored it from the archive as it was in the archive, not realizing it had all been mixed up by the separate archives of Ronz and QuackGuru.

--strmlbs|talk 08:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the archives, creating a new one for the 2008 discussions, and another for the 2009 discussions so far. --Ronz (talk) 03:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Ronz, this does look a lot better, but why do you still have these sections that are here on the current talk page also in archive 15?

--strmlbs|talk 09:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted those sections out of archive 15 which are still currently here on the talk page.

--strmlbs|talk 04:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This talk page has repeatedly being used as a backdoor article. I think all the archives should have a hat. Any objections. QuackGuru (talk) 07:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

yes, I object. The talk page is for discussion.

--strmlbs|talk 07:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You have not objected to my specific proposal. My proposal is not about making any changes to this talk page. Again, does anyone object to my proposal. QuackGuru (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

QuackGuru, can you be more specific as to what your proposal is? Are you talking about hatting the links to the archives here? or going to each archive and hatting the whole archive?

--strmlbs|talk 19:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you hat all the archives. If you are not interested then I could hat the whole archives. QuackGuru (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the archives for this talk page should be treated any differently than the archives for any talk page. One of the main purposes of talk pages is to arrive at consensus and discuss the topic. Differing points of view are normal on talk pages. Why do you think the Barrett pages should have special treatment?

--strmlbs|talk 20:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I explained this already. This talk page has repeatedly being used as a backdoor article. QuackGuru (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You have not defined what you mean by "backdoor article". Regardless, I don't want my comments hatted.. either here, or on the archives.

--strmlbs|talk 04:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

While the archives do contain lots of nonsense, there is no reason to hat them. They should be treated like all other archives. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Time for arbcom enforcement

Anyone disagree that isn't making personal attacks or using this page as a battleground? --Ronz (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Ronz, will you please reword your question? It's not entirely clear what you are saying. It seems there are typos or words missing. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the behaviour of two editors here is beyond simply disruptive. (Levine and stmrlbs) Verbal chat 06:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Time for arbcom. I will have a lot to say, being a new editor on this page.

--strmlbs|talk 06:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement under BLP, I assume? Fringe Science or Pseudoscience (amended) might be applicable. Barrett v. Rosenthal appears not to have any broad enforcement provision, so probably not that one. - Eldereft (cont.) 15:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, past enforcement have been per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy. Barrett_v._Rosenthal includes WP:BLP specifically. Levine2112 has been at this for over three years now, and he's encouraging Stmrlbs to take up this battle. --Ronz (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

so then lets go to it and take this to the arbcom to enforce then 70.71.22.45 (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

As the disruption has halted there seems little point, unless it starts again. Verbal chat 18:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Considering that an ArbCom is the ultimate disruption, it is saved as an absolute last resort. All other dispute resolution measures must be tried first, starting here at the talk page. An ArbCom could have very negative consequences for Levine2112, Stmrlbs, and of course a SPI for the IP. If we can avoid that, let's do so. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Ronz.. go ahead. Take us to arbitration for trying to discuss making a one line change that an outside administrator and mediation cabal member agreed was reasonable. I will be glad to discuss what it was like to try to hold a discussion while different editors in this group were continually crying WP:Battle, hatting the discussion, or archiving the whole talk page in the middle of a discussion without consensus. One good thing about Wikipedia, all actions are recorded.

All prior steps taken to try to resolve this disagreement will be discussed and I think any arbitration committee will be interested in how this group reacted to outside opinions and how they responded to attempts at mediation. I believe that WP:Own, WP:Bully, and WP:TagTeam are policies that can be brought up and documented.

--stmrlbs|talk 04:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I assume you believe there is consensus not to include the poorly sourced text in violation of a number of policies including BLP. QuackGuru (talk) 04:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I assume you have read outside opinions on this matter - that this is properly sourced and does not violate WP:BLP, just like I have QuackGuru.

--stmrlbs|talk 04:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought the general opinion was that it is not relevant? Only yourself and levine seem to think it is important to the article. Some things, even if sourced, should not be in a good article. David D. (Talk) 04:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

One or two editors basically wanted to add unsourced or poorly sourced irrelevant text. If this went to ArbCom a couple of editors could get a long break from this page. QuackGuru (talk) 04:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Another Reliable Source for Board Certification

For the record, ABPNis a better source than ABMS for the Board Certification status of a psychiatrist. They keep records of all board certifications of members - past and present. As of October 1, 1994, all individuals achieving Board certification by the ABPN are issued ten-year, time-limited certificates. Before that, Board Certification was permanent. Barrett retired in 1993.

Here is the main page for checking board certification. You can check all board certified members for a state (past and present), as well as check for a name. If you check for all board certified psychiatrists for New Mexico, you will see retired psychiatrists listed along with psychiatrists that were board certified, but their certification has expired. It is interesting how many psychiatrists are in Washington D.C., considering it is only 10 square miles.. hmmmm.....

If you check for the name , it will check all states. As you can see if you check, Stephen Barrett is not listed as board certified either in the past or the present. Now, if you check for Joseph Barrett, you will see that he got board certified in 1935, and that his certification is indefinite.
--stmrlbs|talk 04:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

So are we going to discuss this for another three years, just rehashing whether this is relevant or not? By the way, why is another source going to convince someone who thinks it is not relevant? David D. (Talk) 04:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

This discussion should not continue year after year. This is unproductive. So I am going to close the discussion. QuackGuru (talk) 04:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

QuackGuru, you cannot decide to hide my comments because you have decided the discussion should not go on. This is a new reliable source. It is pertinent to the issue.

--stmrlbs|talk 05:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It's just another source that says absolutely nothing about the subject, IOW it's a OR and SYNTH violation to use it alone. If other sources were sufficient to establish relevance, context, weight, and notablity of the matter, then it might be usable as a supplementary source, but otherwise it's useless. This brings nothing new to the discussion, so continuing this is just disruption. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The talk page in not for discussing irrelevant text not related to Barrett. So I closed the discussion. QuackGuru (talk) 05:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

QuackGuru, please do not close this discussion again. I did not agree to it. Please read WP:Talk, the part about consensus.

--stmrlbs|talk 05:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed for about three years now. It is time to move on. QuackGuru (talk) 05:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to hat this conversation. If you don't wish to participate, I suggest you simply don't participate. That's all. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Sighhh, here we go again... Shot info (talk) 07:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Not relevant etc etc, doesn't address previous concerns etc etc. This disruption should stop now. Verbal chat 07:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to continue this discussion. This thread needs to be archived. QuackGuru (talk) 08:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

My posting about another source for Board Certification information is not disruptive. If you don't like it, don't comment on it.

What is disruptive is the continual hatting/closing/archiving of other people's comments that Ronz/Quackguru/Verbal/Fyslee do to comments of new editors of this article. Please read this in WP:Refactor:

Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page. If there are recent heated discussions on the talk page, good faith may be lacking. If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted.

--stmrlbs|talk 08:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I refactored your comment, I hope you don't mind. You are being disruptive and I think that it is probably time for AE as this has flared up again. Also, I'm a newer editor here than you and have done nothing wrong here, thanks. Verbal chat 08:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Verbal, you joined in helping Ronz and Fyslee hat my comments when you knew that I was not asked about hatting the conversation and that I had posted my protest on the talk page. This was against WP:Talk Policy. You were not a participant of the hatted conversation, and had no business trying to force a hat on my comments.

--stmrlbs|talk 09:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

(T)hat was perfectly in line with WP:TALK and fully justified. Please don't make personal attacks in edit summaries, and try to remain civil and assume good faith. See WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Please direct your comments towards improving the article, per WP:TALK. Verbal chat 09:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Verbal, this is not WP:Talk Read it. WP:Talk calls for consensus among the involved editors. I did not consent, and you were not even one of the editors in the conversation. And as for comments on edit summaries, you should practice what you preach: "Next stop AE" is not civil What you did was more in line with WP:Bully

--stmrlbs|talk 09:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want a discussion with me, take it to my talk page. This page is for improving the article. WP:TALK is quite clear about that, and several of the points for editing others comments apply to comments you have made. You have not addressed the previous concerns raised by myself and others about this "addition", and this "new source" doesn't alter that. I have been civil, and will continue to be. Please stop your abuse of this page. I genuinely feel that unless you stop this disruption, the best thing for this page and the project would be to ask for AE. If you want to discuss WP:TALK more generally, go to the WP:TALK talk page. Verbal chat 10:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Ok everyone lets just calm down a bit please. Against my better judgement, I am going to make a brief comment about this new source. It doesn't mention Barrett in any way right? (yes I've looked). There is no other reliable sources commenting about Barrett's BC which is needed to show WP:N, undo weight and so on that has been discussed many times. Right now using it would be WP:Syn for sure and other policies that have too already been mentioned. So may I suggest that these new sources be use at Board certification if they are not already there. I originally tried to get this added when I was a new editor until I researched and found the BC wasn't important back when Barrett was a practicing MD, which my links above show. I also think that there is now another consensus to keep out the board certification information until or unless someone come up with a WP:RS that follows policies. Ok, I'm done, I hope this helps calm things down. Thanks for listening, going back to lurk/ignore mode. ;) --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

no other sources? thats not what the consensus at WP:RSN was! 70.71.22.45 (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, 70.71.22.45 is correct. This was the consensus at the RS noticeboard:

2007-05-29 request for 3rd party opinion on Reliable Sources

WJohnson and Piotrus, both neutral 3rd parties, both ageed that ""He is not board certified (citation), but he responds by stating that 'It is not necessary to be board-certified to practice psychiatry'"" was acceptable.

Poitrus came to this talk page, and you can read what he said and the responses to his 3rd party opinion.

Poitrus and responses

--stmrlbs|talk 20:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

When "It is not necessary to be board-certified to practice psychiatry" it means the information is irrelevant. Time to move on. QuackGuru (talk) 20:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Board Certification is ever really necessary to practice anything, but it is an important and notable qualification for a physician, medical researcher/critic and expert witness to have. The importance of this distinction goes far back to the mid-late 1970s. Barrett retired as a physician in 1993. Board certification was certainly already important then. Barrett continues his work as a medical critic and expert witness to this day. That he is not Board Certified does not necessarily make him less able to do his work, but the fact has come up in various reliable sources (including Barrett himself, who is self-cited throughout this article already). It's kind of like Magna cum laude. It is not necessary to graduate with that distinction, but it sure looks nice a resume. Now I wouldn't go to every academic's article and find out if the subject graduated with such a distinction. However, if there are reliable sources out there making such a claim~ and further, the claim can be verified by college graduation records which show that the subject did not graduate with such a disctinction, then there really is no problem stating so in the subject's article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Levine2112, you have a good point:

• "However, if there are reliable sources out there making such a claim~ ["the subject graduated with such a distinction"] and further, the claim can be verified by college graduation records which show that the subject did not graduate with such a disctinction, then there really is no problem stating so in the subject's article."

That is very true. IF Barrett had made any claims that he was board certified, then the subject would become very relevant, especially if he wasn't certified. Then bring on the guns and document the fraud. BUT that is not the case. He has never presented his qualifications in a false light. This is the opposite. Here we have TB making a libelous assertion based on Barrett NOT making such a false claim. This subject came to light because TB made variously worded libelous claims to the effect that Barrett wasn't a real doctor because he wasn't board certified, which is nonsense. IIRC, he even went so far in his newsletters and discussion group statements as to demonstratively and often address Barrett as "Mr", which was an obvious insult. Now if Barrett had been a British surgeon, "Mr" would have been quite proper, IIRC. They have a very different set of titles. No, this situation is very different (opposite) than the one you describe. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

My statement has been misparsed and/or misunderstood.

• "However, if there are reliable sources out there making such a claim ["the subject graduated without such a distinction"] and further, the claim can be verified by college graduation records which show that the subject did not graduate with such a disctinction, then there really is no problem stating so in the subject's article."

Here, in terms of Barrett not being Board Certified, we have several reliable sources (not TB... that's just the scarecrow you keep bandying about!); sources which have been deemed reliable by third-parties on RSN to verify that Barrett is not board certified. It's a plain fact which Barrett freely admits and he himself is just as reliable of a source for this information as he is for the rest of his academic biography. No one is proposing to insert text that states Barrett has misrepresented himself; that's a strawman argument (if you're not familiar with that term, I encourage you to click through and read up on it). -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Misparsed? Misunderstood? No, I quoted you correctly, and you wrote about a "claim" that "the subject graduated with such a distinction". Any other parsing wouldn't make sense, as your point seemed to make the logical and correct assumption that anyone who claimed to have such a distinction, but which upon further examination turned out to show that they did not possess such a distinction, IOW their "claim" was false, the fact they had made such a false claim should be stated "in the subject's article". Now if you didn't intend to make that logical point, then you must be attempting to make another one and rejecting your logical one. Which is it?

The TB thing is not a straw man. That is how we found out about the matter, and right from the beginning it was presented in a false light. Its original context is court testimony in a libel case against someone who quoted TB, and it has been requoted by people who have gotten their misinformation from TB, and therefore attempted to use his misinformation to miscredit Barrett. The fact remains that mainstream sources do not mention the matter, and none of his peers have criticized him for lacking board certification. He was among the majority of his time who did not possess board certification, and just like them, he had a rather normal career without any problems because of it. Things are different now for MDs who graduated later, but it would be improper and unfair to judge him by their standards. It was his peers, including the ones without board certification, who have been the teachers of the younger generation of doctors. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Strawman and I'm still being misquoted. I clearly said: ...the claim can be verified by college graduation records which show that the subject did not graduate with such a disctinction, then there really is no problem stating so in the subject's article... And why does this even matter? I was making an apt comparison which has been twisted into a distracting and pointless argument. Sorry, your magician's tricks are obvious and they won't distract anyone from the truth here. No one is talking about Tim Bolen here except you. Tim Bolen need not factor into this equation since none of the sources being presented here are from Tim Bolen. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

How many of his peers criticize him for not passing the boards?

And in 2006, I wrote "A doctors skills are learned on the job, NOT in the examination room. It is just a fallacy to use the failed board exam as evidence for him not being an expert in the field. Much more pertinent would be malpractice suits or similar." Has anything changed in three years?

And for context the clear goal of inserting this is the following assertion (also from 2006): "For whatever reason Dr. Barrett is not board-certified. Whatever the reason, it is hard to be a ‘health expert, advocate’ without at least being able to pass the board exams of your own specialty."

The whole argument revolves around whether such an assertion is valid. So is it? Are his colleagues saying he does not or cannot speak for them? In three years nothing has been brought to the table to convince me this assertion is valid. David D. (Talk) 21:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

David, if this is the criteria you think should be used for Barrett, then it is the criteria that should be used for everyone on Wikipedia who is notable for giving expert advice to the public. Why list credentials or educational background at all for anyone? Just list on the job experiences. I think that this would qualify most of the health experts out there. Are you willing to say that this is all that the public needs to know about anyone giving expert advice to the public?

I think educational background, credentials, and job experience are important for anyone that is held to be an expert. It comes with the territory of being an expert that this information should be public.

--stmrlbs|talk 22:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Please stop responding to editors who just repeat the same rejected arguments over and over. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't let editors bait you. Ignore them

We know that editors come to these articles to defame Barrett. Ignore them. If they persist, they'll be blocked. --Ronz (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes! Always remember that if anyone presents an unpalatable argument to which you can present no sound defence, there is always ad hominem. Trolls, POV pushers, socks and tendentious disruptive elements the lot. "If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell." Unomi (talk) 00:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I want to thank Ronz for coming to my talkpage and pointing out that I seem be encouraging improper behavior. I realize that text only communication can be confusing at times; I want to make it absolutely clear that my above post was meant to be ironic and that I find such tactics as I outlined despicable, nauseating and deeply problematic. I strongly encourage that all people off and on wikipedia refrain from resorting to such intellectually and morally bankrupt techniques. Unomi (talk) 01:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone have time to put together Arb Enforcement request?

I started putting a request together, but won't likely have time to complete it and format it into a request:

Yes, Barrett-related articles, again. (Covered under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal). Once again we have editors continuing to try to find ways around WP:BLP in a dispute that is over three years old, and once again the discussions become disruptive while making no progress whatsoever. As is always the case, we have Levine2112 involved, encouraging other editors to take up this dispute User_talk:Levine2112#question_about_a_past_mediation while falling into his old habits of attacking others, "I was making an apt comparison which has been twisted into a distracting and pointless argument. Sorry, your magician's tricks are obvious and they won't distract anyone from the truth here." [7]

This time around the new editors trying to push this dispute along are 70.71.22.45, who's already been blocked once for disruptive editing, and Stmrlbs who in repeating his position in this dispute ad nauseum, has now fallen to playing all to common approach of playing the victim after taking this dispute beyond the patience of everyone [8].

The situation began on Levine2112's talk page linked above, then moved to the article talk page Talk:Stephen_Barrett/Archive_15#Board_Certification. --Ronz (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Any progress with this, Ronz? Looking forward to neutral parties examining the situation. Of course we could try for Mediation again, that is if you will agree to it this time. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the problems continuing, so I don't see a need to pursue it at this time. - Ronz (talk) 23:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

So what do you say about Mediation? I think that's the only way to settle this long debate once and for all. Are you game to participate? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

No, that's not "the only way". You could just stop this disruptive campaign of yours. Simple as that. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Please try to consider things from my point of view. In my eyes, you're the one being disruptive by keeping well-source, relevant information out of an article in a campaign to protect your friend. We both are sure the other one is wrong. Mediation seems like a healthy, amicable way to resolve such a dispute. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing to mediate. We're too busy trying to keep the behavioral problems under control. --Ronz (talk) 04:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I find it interesting that this group of editors that continually points to anyone that doesn't fully support their POV as being "disruptive", refused Mediation when it was offered, or didn't reply (which will stop mediation):

Parties which agreed/rejected mediation; and those who didn't say

These users agreed to mediation:

• Levine2112 (talk · contribs)
• Metta Bubble (talk · contribs)
• Dematt (talk · contribs)
• I'clast (talk · contribs)
• Robert2957 (talk · contribs)
• Steth (talk · contribs)
• RalphLender (talk · contribs)
• Jim Butler (talk · contribs)

These users refused mediation:

• Mr.Guru (now QuackGuru (talk · contribs))
• Fyslee (now BullRangifer (talk · contribs))
• Crohnie (talk · contribs)

These users did not make a statement (which will result in mediation being rejected):

• MaxPont (talk · contribs)
• AvB (talk · contribs)
• Ronz (talk · contribs)
• Shot info (talk · contribs)

I think mediation is inappropriate, because what Levine wants is a violation of policy. But I wouldn't stand in the way if mediation were agreed to. But that's not going to happen. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is asking for mediation again a violation of policy? Is there only one mediation allowed?

--stmrlbs|talk 07:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with Arthur Rubin, and would not get involved in such inappropriate mediation. Verbal chat 07:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It is the edits you want to make that are against policy. Verbal chat 07:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I was asking Arthur what he meant.

--stmrlbs|talk 07:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Mediation of a question involving even a potential WP:BLP violation is inappropriate; even if all the "parties" agreed to inclusion, it could easily be removed unless it is established that it is not a WP:BLP violation. Mediation cannot establish that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is what I don't understand, apparently the subject came to wikipedia himself and offered the information which is now considered a 'potential BLP violation'. Could someone provide me with a link to around the time the subject contributed this information? Unomi (talk) 15:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's been added and removed so many times that I'm not sure when "the subject contributed this information". Barrett failed the certification test once; however, at the time he took it (which is long after he started practice), only 1/3 of practicing professionals were certified. By the time he retired, the percentage was undoubtably larger, and his lack of certification might have made it more difficult for him to find a new position, but the percentage of practicing professionals in his age group who were certified would be required for an accurate inference. The fact that he was not certified allows readers to infer he was not qualified, which inference is clearly not supported according to the norms of the time.

In addition, the certifying agency's records are a primary source. and we need reliable secondary sources as to his lack of certification and its importance. As I noted above, it wasn't important in his professional career, and, as others have noted, it wasn't important in his career as a legal expert. As far as I can tell, the only people who think it is relevant are people attacking him or whom he as attacked. And the Chiropracters here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Unomi, here is where Stephen Barrett identifies himself: [9]

and here are 2 places where Sbinfo (Barrett) talks about certification:

1. [10]
2. [11]

In addition to this, there is the ABPN - American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, which lists all Board Certifications.. past and present. This was not listed as a source in past discussions - it is a new source. If Stephen Barrett was board certified at any time during his career, he would be listed there. I gave some examples of people listed that had expired certificates, and people that had been certified as early as 1935, here

--stmrlbs|talk 18:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

<undent>I agree with Arthur's last post. And this is getting very old. Give us a source where his peers say he is not speaking for them (and don't roll out some homeopath with an MD). That seems to be the only relevant information. Anything else is synthesis, implications and hearsay that are no more than personal opinion. There are no articles in wikipedia that allow such content. As to the "judges" opinion on role as an "expert witness" I don't see the point, she is not one of his peers. Here is the text from one section in the archive.

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

See the source for context. This is quoted from 2006 and that this is still argued to death by a couple of editors is becoming disruptive. David D. (Talk) 15:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

So it seems to me that we have an appropriate source for the information including the subject of the article who per WP:BLP is able to be used as an SPS for this information. The subject of the article does not seem to be asking wikipedia to censor the information, so what is the problem with adding it exactly? Unomi (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

See the previous discussions, linked here on this page. --Ronz (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

yes, Unomi, I agree. Read the discussions on this page, and the last archive, and I think you will be able to see clearly what the problem is, and why this hasn't been added.

--stmrlbs|talk 19:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not really sure what to make of it to be honest, the material is kept off because it does not necessarily flatter the subject? I have seen no indication from the subject that he himself found it problematic that the material was included. The material remains sourced and verified and thus is not 'libelous'. As I understand it the material that is considered to be re-introduced into the article is regarding his board certification? Unomi (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

That isn't the reason. Have a look at the discussion above. Reasons are (ir)relevance, and the fact that it is being used to smear the subject. He doesn't have a PhD in homeopathy, or scientific scepticism, shall we include those? I'm not sure he can speak Dutch too. This is simply being included in order to give a misleading impression, and all editors are aware of that. Verbal chat 20:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is the Summary and statement:

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

--stmrlbs|talk 20:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, to be honest I don't really have the energy to become involved in what will happen here, but for what its worth I personally find it very informational that someone who made a career in psychiatry saw no reason to try to pass his neurology exam, nothing to do with relevance to the article you are writing of course. Enjoy Unomi (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid it is this kind of perspective that means that scientists have to defend their reasons for not including creationsim in the biology curriculum; "After all, what's the harm"?

I really don't understand why the boards exam is relevant when presented in context (verbal says it better above). More to the point, it is not being added as a curiosity but as an out of context propaganda-type tool to undermine the subjects opinion on quackery. If it was just a curiosity do you really think that two authors, against consensus, would still be trying to insert it three years later? David D. (Talk) 20:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hence why sources are needed to show the relevance. Which curiously aren't present. Nice to see that this is still being done to death...again. sighhhh Shot info (talk) 01:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

added a search box for the talk page and the archives

since there are so many archives, and since new editors are told to check past discussions, I thought a search box would make it much easier to do so. --stmrlbs|talk 01:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The archives are mostly nonsense and I don't see any new editors who are having problems with searching the archives. QuackGuru (talk) 01:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I just tried out the search box; it seems to work properly and and be quite helpful - why would we remove such functionality? --CliffC (talk) 03:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I fixed the template so that it works for topics with multiple word names (like "Stephen Barrett"). It is very easy to add, and it sure makes it easier to check on past discussions. --stmrlbs|talk 05:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, now that *is* useful. Much better than trying to remember the syntax every time I want to search all subpages. I took out the Template: part as unnecessary (though not worth changing unless one is making an edit anyway. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, 2/0. I keep forgetting that Template: is the default, therefore I don't have to specify it. When I was testing it in my own userspace, then I had to specify where the template was. But, yes, this sure makes it a lot easier, imo - especially for new editors who are not familiar with how to use the prefix part of the Wikipedia search. --stmrlbs|talk 03:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

J

Does anyone know the source of this middle initial? It's not listed on his Quackwatch bio, can we put the reference next to the initial? Whatever source it came from, maybe it has the full middle name? Tyciol (talk) 21:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. It's "Joel". I found it on the medical licensure website, which is about as official as it gets. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent spamming

Given how long the spamming has been happening, it may be helpful to blacklist the link, or give it to XLinkBot (talk · contribs) for automatic removal. --Ronz (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the blacklist would be most appropriate. I lack experience in reporting there, so if you feel up to it, I'd encourage you to go for it. MastCell ^Talk 19:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

According to its instruction page, the spam blacklist is only intended as a measure of last resort. Given that most of the damage seems to be coming from new and unregistered users, requesting semi protection is probably the best first step.

Then again, there is precedent for the Spam Blacklist to be used against woomeisters: The infamous whale.to is blocked by the global blacklist. The "Bolen Report" website seems just as retarded.

— Hyperdeath^(Talk) 22:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

If we could predict when it might show up, I would agree with sprot, but the site is out there and every couple months someone else decides to "improve" the article with some link. This might no longer apply since the ArbCom, but autoconfirmed editors have also been known to add links to the domain, which gets us into dispute resolution but avoids XLinkBot. Anyway, I asked at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#bolenreport.com, we can try something else if the kind folks there think that blacklisting is not appropriate. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

List of accounts

It's difficult to find who's been adding the links. I've found four accounts:

• 4.233.98.20 (talk · contribs)
• 24.94.70.168 (talk · contribs)
• 66.91.134.18 (talk · contribs)
• TimBolen (talk · contribs) - quackpotwatch

The quackpotwatch link might cause too much trouble to blacklist, given that it is used in a few active talk pages. --Ronz (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Both quackpotwatch.org and bolenreport.net should be added to the blacklist. Does the blacklist only trigger when active links to the sites are added, or will it trigger for inactive mentions like we're doing here? -- Brangifer (talk) 02:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Editing a page with an active blacklisted link doesn't work as long as the link is active.

I looked at the contributions of both those ips, but didn't see them add any links. --Ronz (talk) 03:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right, so I removed them. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Blacklisting prevents "new" instances of links. Links already "active" in the archives should not prevent editing. --Hu12 (talk) 07:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that blacklisting prevents saving an article with the offending link. It does not determine whether the link was already there, and block new instances. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)