| Revision as of 18:47, 22 March 2007 editAvb (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers7,658 edits →Board Certification: logic← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:51, 22 March 2007 edit undoAvb (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers7,658 edits →Board Certification: PSNext edit → | ||
| Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
| ::::It's a pity you do not follow my logic. I have explained it to the best of my ability and would say that Jimbo's explanation also counts. Once again, the point is not whether something has happened but whether it should be included the way it was, and that we should use reliable secondary sources to guide that assessment. If you and I were the only editors discussing the inclusion of this sentence, this would be the time to turn to ]. But perhaps we're not, so I hope others will want to chime in. Anyone? ] ÷ ] 18:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC) | ::::It's a pity you do not follow my logic. I have explained it to the best of my ability and would say that Jimbo's explanation also counts. Once again, the point is not whether something has happened but whether it should be included the way it was, and that we should use reliable secondary sources to guide that assessment. If you and I were the only editors discussing the inclusion of this sentence, this would be the time to turn to ]. But perhaps we're not, so I hope others will want to chime in. Anyone? ] ÷ ] 18:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::::You would be right to quote Barrett on this, but only if he had said it in this specific context, i.e. where he is describing his own resume. It's common sense, really. Not many people include failed exams on their resume. ] ÷ ] 18:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:51, 22 March 2007
 | Biography B‑class  | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Stephen Barrett. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Stephen Barrett at the Reference desk. |
 Archives |
|---|
Court rules against Steven Barrett
In October of 2005 Steven Barret lost a court case where he had sued Dr. Tedd Koren because of Koren’s publication that Barrett was a "Quackpot", and in trouble because of a $10 million lawsuit. Court Case: Stephen Barrett, M.D. vs. Tedd Koren, D.C. and Koren Publications, Inc. Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County for the State of Pennsylvania Court Case No.: 2002-C-1837 At trial Barrett conceded that he was not a Medical Board Certified psychiatrist because he had failed the certification exam. Barrett had provided supposed expert testimony as a psychiatrist and had testified in numerous court cases. Barrett also had said that he was a legal expert even though he had no formal legal training. Barrett had filed similar defamation lawsuits against almost 40 people across the country within the past few years and had not won one single one at trial. During the course of his examination, Barrett conceded his ties to the AMA, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Food & Drug Administration (FDA). 69.72.110.164 19:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I believe that case is mentioned in the article, as is the fact that he failed his boards (although a citation would be helpful there). But associated with the AMA, the FTC, and the FDA? That's despicable! MastCell 20:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Board Certification
This source which was written by Stephen Barrett's lawyers says:
- Dr. Barrett is a retired psychiatrist, having completed three years of accredited residency training in psychiatry. It is not necessary to be board-certified to practice psychiatry.
Therefore, according to his lawyers, he is NOT board certified. However, this doesn't say that he failed his exams. Thus, I supply this article from ChiroWeb which quotes opposing counsel:
- At trial, while on the stand, Barrett had to admit that he not only gave up his license in 1994, but that he was, in fact, not a board-certified psychiatrist, because he had flunked the examination that was required to receive certification.
Now we have established that not only is Barrett not board certified, but that he failed the exam.
As for the date and the portion of the exam, I don't know where that came from, but I am sure it wasn't pulled out of thin-air. We can research back in this article's history and see from whence it sprang. -- Levine2112 17:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, apparently the date and the portion of the exam came straight from the horse's mouth... just a figure of speech, no deprecation intended. ;-) See here that user Sbinfo states:
- 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 diff
- I think that should confirm everything which was deleted. Any comments or shall we re-instate it? -- Levine2112 17:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- The first source is original research since it draws on a court document and you have not provided a secondary source showing that this aspect of Barrett's career is in any way important. Please see Jimbo's intervention at Christopher Michael Langan for an illustration. The second source is a partisan website, not a reliable source to help us gage the importance or meaning of this detail in Barrett's life. He has never claimed to be a board-certified psychiatrist. The article, after my edit, no longer said anything about this point. This completes the WP:NOR/WP:WEIGHT aspect, the point here not being whether or not it is true, but how it is reported in reliable secondary sources.
- The WP:BLP aspect is also illustrated by Jimbo's intervention at Christopher Michael Langan. It is apparent from Barrett's own comments that he does not at all agree with this description of his career. After my edit, it did (since it now agrees with his own description). AvB ÷ talk 18:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't follow your logic here. Barrett says himself that he failed his board certication exam. Do you agree that this is true? That should be all of the source we would need... the other sources only help but aren't neccessary because Barrett himself is stating this fact. Of course this is important. This is as important as any of his degrees or accolades. We are not misrepresenting this fact... in fact we are stating exactly what Barrett himself said. If anything, this satisfies BLP - specifically WP:SELFPUB and BLP (using a subject as a source) - and Barrett himself by clearly stating this fact and citing himself as a source and showing everyone that he is not hiding or misrepresenting this fact. -- Levine2112 18:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's a pity you do not follow my logic. I have explained it to the best of my ability and would say that Jimbo's explanation also counts. Once again, the point is not whether something has happened but whether it should be included the way it was, and that we should use reliable secondary sources to guide that assessment. If you and I were the only editors discussing the inclusion of this sentence, this would be the time to turn to WP:DR. But perhaps we're not, so I hope others will want to chime in. Anyone? AvB ÷ talk 18:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- You would be right to quote Barrett on this, but only if he had said it in this specific context, i.e. where he is describing his own resume. It's common sense, really. Not many people include failed exams on their resume. AvB ÷ talk 18:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)