| Revision as of 04:23, 8 April 2009 editStmrlbs (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers3,156 editsm →Board Certification: Barrett's evaluation of himself as an expert← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:33, 9 February 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,013,131 edits Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion | ||
| (548 intermediate revisions by 64 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{ |
{{Skip to talk}} | ||
| {{Talk header|noarchive=yes |search=no}} | |||
| {{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= | |||
| {{Homeopathy/Warning}} | |||
| {{WPBiography|living=yes|class=B|priority=|old-peer-review=yes|needs-photo=yes|nested=yes}} | |||
| {{Not a forum}} | |||
| {{Rational Skepticism|class=B|nested=yes}} | |||
| {{Round in circles}} | |||
| |blp=yes}} | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|class=B|listas=Barrett, Stephen| | |||
| {{WikiProject Biography|old-peer-review=yes}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=low}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Notable Wikipedian|Sbinfo|Barrett, Stephen}} | {{Notable Wikipedian|Sbinfo|Barrett, Stephen}} | ||
| {{archives|search=yes}} | |||
| {{off topic warning}} | |||
| {{Round In Circles}} | |||
| {{Homeopathy/Warning}} | |||
| <!--Template:Archivebox begins--> | |||
| {| class="infobox" width="315px" | |||
| |- | |||
| ! align="center" | ]<br />]---- | |||
| |- | |||
| | | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| |}<!--Template:Archivebox ends--> | |||
| ==Blocked/banned editors== | |||
| Arbitration Committee banned ] has posted to this article/talk page. Arbitration Committee banned ] and SSP indefinitely blocked ] both have used the ] IP address. See ]. ] and ] have been blocked indefinitely as sockpuppets of ]. See ]. If you are aware of any attempts to circumvent these bans/blocks, please consider making a report at ]. -- ]]/] 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, --]] 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: | |||
| <blockquote>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)<ref name="bolen_response">{{cite web|url=http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/bolen.html|author=Barrett SJ|title=A Response to Tim Bolen|accessdate=2007-02-12|publisher=Quackwatch}}</ref><ref name="negrete_suit">Barrett, S. ""</ref></blockquote> | |||
| --] (]) 17:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I have to agree Ronz, plus isn't it close to a ] 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. --]] 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? ] ], 22:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :If it belongs anywhere, that would be the location, though the individual chapters should probably be identified. --] (]) 23:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :That said, it might be best to have a reliable source to meet ], showing that it is notable in Barrett's career. --] (]) 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. ] ], 00:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: The book was reviewed in the Sept/Oct 2007 Skeptical Inquirer. <s>I thought I'd seen the review online, but I'm searching for it again. </s> ] ], 00:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: Here is a . " 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 ... " ] ], 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 Misplaced Pages (so it probably isn't a RS). ] (]) 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". ] ], 04:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: You can buy a copy of the review for only $9.95: . ] ], 05:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The link you provided 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? --]] 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. ] ], 15:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Blatant ] violation== | |||
| Anything further from either of these editors remotely along these lines should result in a block: and | |||
| . --] (]) 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?] (]) 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. — ] | ] 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?] (]) 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. --] (]) 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. ] (]) 02:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::We used to have a list of such sources, including ], ], and a few state Attorneys General — ] | ] 02:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::] could be added to that list. ] ~(])]~ 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! ] (]) 22:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::], ], and a few state Attorneys General? Please provide the references or links. Perhaps we can improve this article. ] ] 22:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Accurate? I certainly don't KNOW that, and I'm not about to BELIEVE it without WP:RS.] (]) 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 . I don't see how this could not be a ]. You'll have to demonstrate it. ] | {] - ]} 23:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :That ref is not RS. No evidence has been presented. ] 23:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Added to BLP/N ]. ] | {] - ]} 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. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 00:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == BLP violation == | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Stephen_Barrett&curid=782849&diff=215393929&oldid=215386169 ] 00:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == no consensus according to the editor who added the material == | |||
| . Read the comment as well as the edit summary. This was made without consensus according to ImperfectlyInformed. ] 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 for the discussion. ] | (] - ]) 06:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::There is the issue that there is to use this ref. And the views of a tiny mirority is a ] violation. ] 06:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Copyedits == | |||
| I 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 ]. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 17:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : I removed the following: "For example, nutritionist ] 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? --] (]) 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? --] (]) 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. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 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. --] (]) 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. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 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? --] (]) 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. | |||
| :Some alternative medicine practitioners and nutritionists have responded to Stephen Barrett's criticisms. | |||
| :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. ] 18:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: Good spot. --] (]) 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 ]. Feel free to discuss on talk page."''] | |||
| 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. Misplaced Pages 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 ] 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. | |||
| ] (]) 06:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :So what exactly are you asking? Personally I don't think that a comment about ] does not belong in the lede of a ]. However your edit above seems to be arguing ''what'' exactly? ] (]) 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? ] (]) 19:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::FWIW, the first one is my personal preference, only per ] 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. ] (]) 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.'' | |||
| :::: -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 00:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| See ] for some helpful information on how to properly write the introduction section. --] (]) 19:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ] 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. ] (]) 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. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] </span> 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, ] is a useful piece of info to help us avoid cluttering up the lede with cites. ] (]) 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? ] | (] - ]) 07:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :It works for me, clearing your cache might help. --] (]) 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. --] (]) 15:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Adding the ref here for convenience.<ref name=nettie> ''MDNetGuide'', May/June 2003.</ref> | |||
| ::: -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 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. ] | (] - ]) 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. ] (]) 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. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 04:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == References == | |||
| ''(Please leave this list at the bottom of the page. Thanks!)'' --] 22:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{reflist}} | |||
| == ] == | |||
| That article seems to me to be a POV fork. I see no reason why it cannot be included here. ] <small>]</small> 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. ] 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 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 ]. It's an important case and has a stack of citations independent from the subject of Stephen Barrett. ] '']'' 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 Misplaced Pages. Jossi, I would like to see why you think ] is a '''POV'''FORK. After all, (re)inclusion into this article would imply that it needs to be massively pruned to satisfy ]. ] (]) 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 ] 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. ] 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 '']''. 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. ] '']'' 05:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Has any similar articles went to an AFD. What is the notability standard for these court cases. ] 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? ] '']'' 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. ] 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. ] '']'' 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. ] <small>]</small> 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. --]] 11:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == 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. ] (]) 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: <blockquote>"Some sources that mention Stephen Barrett's Quackwatch as a useful source for consumer information include website reviews, government agencies, various journals including The Lancet peer-reviewed medical journal and some libraries."</blockquote> 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. ] (]) 02:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Content removal due to BLP concerns == | |||
| In edit, I removed a section, because I had concerns relating to the ] policy. The section relied heavily on primary sources, which was a problem, because the persons mentioned in this section were ], 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. ] (]) 23:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I made to cleanup the lead. ] (]) 03:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think NPF applies here. The lawsuits are directly tied to his notability. ] (]) 19:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Barrett v. Rosenthal (Merge or AFD) === | |||
| There are more BLP concerns currently in mainspace. The content at ] relies heavily on primary sources. This is a possible BLP violation of ]. ] (]) 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 ] violations. — ] ] 15:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::The article relies heavily on primary sources. I think it would be best to merge it into ]. ] (]) 18:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I wikilinked it for you. B v R is already mentioned there. -- ] (]) 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 ]. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ] we could simply redirect it as another option. ] (]) 19:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::redirecting wouldn't fix a BLP issue. ] (]) 19:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Question about Edit == | |||
| Concerning I 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. | |||
| ] (]) 23:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Board Certification == | |||
| concerning the edit of adding the Barrett's board certification notice: | |||
| # The 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 . As you can see, there is no note of board certification. | |||
| # At ] just last week, 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. | |||
| ] (]) 18:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :This board certification issue has been used as an attack against Barrett, within Misplaced Pages as well as elsewhere. Because of this, it is considered a ] violation. --] (]) 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. ] <small>]</small> 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.] (]) 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. ] <small>]</small> 20:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Professional and Educational background is quite pertinent for a person that has made his name by representing himself as an medical expert. | |||
| ::::: ] (]) 21:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: In what sense has he represented "himself as a<s>n</s> 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. -- ] (]) 20:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: from Barrett's website, : | |||
| :::::::: <blockquote>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. | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| :::::::: 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. | |||
| :::::::: ] (]) 04:05, 8 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 Misplaced Pages. | |||
| ::::::There has been extremely long and thorough discussions on the board certification issues. The only editor contributing here that may not be aware of ] is Verbal. --] (]) 21:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == External links modified == | |||
| :::::::: 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 Misplaced Pages was Barrett showing how open he was with this information."'' | |||
| ::::::::This is another reason that this is not a case of WP:BLP. | |||
| ::::::::] (]) 22:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
| ::::::::: 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. --] (]) 22:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I have just modified {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes: | |||
| :::::::::: Ronz, my source was the - 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? | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071103051137/http://new.thegoodwebguide.co.uk:80/index.php?rid=1772 to http://new.thegoodwebguide.co.uk/index.php?rid=1772 | |||
| :::::::::: actually.. I think this should go to arbitration. I think an unbiased 3rd party should decide | |||
| *Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://www.health.gov/scipich/ | |||
| :::::::::: ] (]) 23:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}). | |||
| ::::::::::: Arbitration would not be a bad idea. Perhaps it will have better results this time. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 01:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{sourcecheck|checked=false}} | |||
| ::::::::::::"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. --] (]) 17:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 02:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
| Another discussion on this has been going on since February here: ]. Again, Verbal appears to be the only editor unaware of this discussion. --] (]) 21:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Defamation == | |||
| Why nothing about Barrett’s failed defamation suit against chiropractor Tedd Koren? It is relevant to his work. ] (]) 04:00, 15 March 2017 (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? -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 01:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC) <small>Since this question was not answered here, I have reposted it below in its own subsection.</small> | |||
| == Psychiatric boards == | |||
| ::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. and This was discussed A search of the achives will probably find more discussions. I also found this. As for 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 ] 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 --]] 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. ] (]) 06:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| that Barrett "failed his psychiatric boards.” Is there a credible source to substantiate that claim? ] (]) 04:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| Just so no editors are left out, Ronz seems to want to discuss the mediation on my talk page, too - here: ] | |||
| ] (]) 07:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Question === | |||
| == Self-Sourced Content == | |||
| 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? -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 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 ] while the ''Journal of Scientific Exploration'' is not. Thus, ] applies to Barrett but not to the ''Journal''. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 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. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 00:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Barrett appears to be the original source for many references which, according to Ronz via ] and ] violates several policies. A consistent editing policy seems necessary for both articles. Either interviews and articles are legitimate or they are not. Unless there's a WP:HYPOCRISY policy I missed? --] (]) 13:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| == Discussions about the status of QW (and thus Barrett) here at Misplaced Pages == | |||
| : 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 ], wrote a paper on the Web of Science selection process , and said this: | |||
| :<blockquote>''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'' | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| For some odd reason, existing discussions have not been announced here, which is a big violation of our usual practice. There are two major places where participation is encouraged: | |||
| : 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. | |||
| * ] | |||
| ] (]) 16:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Rule 11 Sanctions in "Quackwatch" Libel Case == | |||
| ::So where are the sources that say that this is notable? Otherwise it's just an exercise in OR. ] (]) 02:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I'm not sure if there's anything worth using here, but someone else may think so, so leaving it here. -- ] (]) 01:59, 16 September 2020 (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 Misplaced Pages. Since Misplaced Pages'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. -- ] (]) 05:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Probably not without more coverage. Applies to ] as well. --] (]) 02:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 19:33, 9 February 2024
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Stephen Barrett article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to complementary and alternative medicine, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
 | 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. |
 | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting. |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | 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. |
 Archives | ||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Stephen Barrett. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071103051137/http://new.thegoodwebguide.co.uk:80/index.php?rid=1772 to http://new.thegoodwebguide.co.uk/index.php?rid=1772
- Added
{{dead link}}tag to http://www.health.gov/scipich/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Defamation
Why nothing about Barrett’s failed defamation suit against chiropractor Tedd Koren? It is relevant to his work. Nicmart (talk) 04:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Psychiatric boards
It is asserted that Barrett "failed his psychiatric boards.” Is there a credible source to substantiate that claim? Nicmart (talk) 04:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Self-Sourced Content
Barrett appears to be the original source for many references which, according to Ronz via Naveen Jain and Naveen Jain Talk violates several policies. A consistent editing policy seems necessary for both articles. Either interviews and articles are legitimate or they are not. Unless there's a WP:HYPOCRISY policy I missed? --Lawfulneutral (talk) 13:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Discussions about the status of QW (and thus Barrett) here at Misplaced Pages
For some odd reason, existing discussions have not been announced here, which is a big violation of our usual practice. There are two major places where participation is encouraged:
- Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is Quackwatch an SPS and thus not allowed as a source on BLPs?
- Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#SPS and Quackwatch
BullRangifer (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Rule 11 Sanctions in "Quackwatch" Libel Case
Rule 11 Sanctions in "Quackwatch" Libel Case I'm not sure if there's anything worth using here, but someone else may think so, so leaving it here. -- Valjean (talk) 01:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Probably not without more coverage. Applies to American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine as well. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 02:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)