Misplaced Pages

I'd like to hear others perspective before this is rejected outright. --Ronz 17:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

it's a long way to Tipperary, I commend Levine for all his effort.--I'clast 18:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a question: If the World Chiropractic Alliance is not a neutral source, can anybody specifically define what healthcare-related publications are neutral sources? Would the British Medical Journal qualify as a neutral source, for example, bearing in mind that it ? --Vitaminman 20:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I doubt anyone can. Of course, we don't need to restrict ourselves to healthcare-related pubs. -- Ronz  22:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

History of "Barrett certification" dispute

Now that the most recent part of this ongoing dispute has been archived, I think a history (and perhaps a summary) would be useful for the editors we're trying to get to help us resolve the stalemate, and for our own reference.

The dispute in TALK space goes back at least 15 months. The first discussion on it was on 8 February 2006 by Levine2112

• "According to the article I posted, under oath Barrett conceded that he was not a Medical Board Certified psychiatrist because he had failed the certification exam. If this is verified, I think it should be part of this article."

(Summary of earlier edit-warring on this issue forthcoming)

It was originally added to the article, with much dispute, on 6 July 2006 by Levine2112:

• "On October 13, 2005 Barrett admitted in a Pennsylvania court that he had failed the optional certification exam for Medical Board Certification in psychiatry."

Up until 13 July 2006, it was repeatedly removed and changed, but ultimately removed completely:

• "He has been unlicenced since the early 1990's and was never passed board certified in any medical specialty." - Ilena
• "Barrett has been unlicensed for well over a decade and never passed any board certification over the several decades he was licensed." - Ilena
• "Barrett has not been licensed since the early 1990's and never passed any board certifications." - Ilena
• "He was never board certified in any medical specialty" - Ilena
• "In one such 2005 lawsuit, during cross-examination, Barrett conceded that he was not a Medical Board Certified psychiatrist because he had failed the certification exam." - Levine2112

It was added, after much discussion, to the article on 23 July 2006 as a criticism of Barrett by NATTO

• "Barrett claims to be a 'medical expert', however he has never been Board certified."

This evolved through September to:

• "Although he has provided expert testimony as a psychiatrist, a discipline in which he practiced for thirty years, Barrett was never board certified in psychiatry. He qualified as a physician in 1957 and completed his psychiatry residency in 1961, but failed the neurology portion of the optional board certification exam in 1964."

This was removed along with the entire Credentials section on 22 December 2006 by Jance .

It was added back, this time into the Biography section, on 10 January 2007 by Levine2112

• "completed his psychiatry residency in 1961, but failed the neurology portion of the board certification exam in 1964."

It was removed 22 March 2007 by Avb

The dispute has been currently been discussed non-stop since 22 March 2007 (by Levine2112)

--Ronz 16:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC), updated 01:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC), updated 18:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is astounding that a simple relevant fact on the medical credentials of an author renown for his attacks (successful or not) upon the credentials of others in medical related fields and upon authors more accomplished and credentialed in their fields of science and medicine, is *so* difficult to publish in this article.

"never/not board certified" - a simple fact relevant to both 30+ years as an active status physician & testifying psychiatrist and to the unfettered criticism of others, his credentials (M.D.) frequently asserted (an appeal to authority?), long with unrecognized qualifications thereof, that even continues into the WP biography here. Especially amazing when compared to the much more extensive coverage on educational pratfalls ...did not pass and attainment of professional credentials (or not) acknowledges...being asked to leave of other encyclopedic subjects at WP that are far less relevant to their subsequent professional careers. Positively amazing, more months than words, for even three words on a relevant if not exactly a glorious fact on an attempted ultimate level of credentialing. Such selective self censorship does not build a real encyclopedia.--I'clast 18:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is quite easy to find other Misplaced Pages biographies that go into questionable educational credentials or failed educations for Public Figures. Look at David R. Hawkins, Gary Null, and Rush Limbaugh. MaxPont 21:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's quite easy when the subject of the article is well-known, because there's so much more written about them. If Barret were better known and more was written about him, we'd likely not be in this situation. -- Ronz  22:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I got to the first section and found an inaccuracy. I was not the first person to introduce this content to the article. It goes back much further. I did some check and this was the first entry I saw: . You will note that the edit you cite of mine above is merely a reversion of deleted content. -- Levine2112 20:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are a number of related edits like that about his licensing and credentials, but I'm trying to focus on specific mention of "certification" which is the current dispute. -- Ronz  20:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Even per your explanation, asserting that my reversion was the first time it was added to the article is fallacy. It goers back further than that and I was not the one to add it. Check the history more closely please and fix this error. -- Levine2112 22:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've done my best. Please provide an example of my error rather than making baseless accusations. I've been using searches of certif* in the article space, the talk archives, and edit summaries from the article and talk histories. I'm unaware of any tools to help with this, so there is a possiblity that I've missed something. I'm continuing to work on this, so a tool or other suggestions as how to search would be helpful. -- Ronz  22:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Look at the edit whcih you claim is the first time the material was introduced. It is a reversion of the material being deleted. Clearly, if I was reverting a deletion then the material would have had to have been there before in order to get deleted in the first place. In order to give "base" to my otherwise "baseless" accusation (as you put it), please have a look at this edit. Anyhow, I like to back up what I say. -- Levine2112 22:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Sorry that I had to confront you in order to get you to back your accusation. I wish you were more cooperative and assumed good faith.

Summarizing the article history is pretty difficult given the edit summaries. I might just make mention of edit-warring occurring before Levine2112's first mention of it in TALK, then work around what's documented in TALK, while looking for corresponding edits to the article. -- Ronz  23:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

A different suggestion - another tangent

I'm repeating my compromise because the previous discussion got completely off track. I would like editors to consider and comment on my compromise as written. I think it identifies the key area of disagreement that we currently have. Specifically, we do not agree that we have a source that shows, by adhering to WP:WEIGHT and related policies/guidelines, that the issue of Barrett's credentials is important enough to be included in the article. --Ronz 17:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Given that Levine2112 thinks "We must keep working on establishing a consensus here" even though we don't, I offer this compromise:

Let's pretend that we have a reliable secondary source documenting Negrete's criticism of Barrett being not certified, and this pretend source demonstrates that this criticism is important enough that we should actually mention it in the article.

That said, I think we can come up with something that doesn't violate BLP, OR, NOT#INFO, and NPOV/WEIGHT. It would, of course, be a part of the Barrett v. Koren section.

Anyone have a problem with this, other than we're pretending to have a source that we don't actually have? --Ronz 02:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Pretend source? Yes I have a problem with this. I am trying to learn policy not bend or break them.----CrohnieGal/_Contribs 18:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is with the Biography section, incomplete - not board certified, and still fluffy - like the eighth runner-up *below a whole list* (Top Skeptics of the Century) "with at least one" vote (for a member), puffery tagging onto the great names farce seems to project a pronounced bias. The simple solution to the first part is to just briefly state the bare fact about board certification, once.--I'clast 18:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Your problem is not with the article but with WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT. It is probably worth your while to edit some other BLP articles to gain an understanding what is and isn't acceptable in this encyclopedia. Shot info 01:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Clearly such an interpretation in the Biography section presupposes any edit less than praising should be given zero weight according to some editors' comments, contrary to both WP policy and many examples. Oh, btw, from WP:COI - Defending interests: On the other hand, the removal of reliably sourced critical material is not permitted. Accounts of public controversies, if backed by reliable sources, form an integral part of Misplaced Pages's coverage. Slanting the balance of articles as a form of defence of some figure, group, institution, or product is bad for the encyclopedia.--I'clast 03:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you said it, and you even quoted it, yet you just don't seem to get it. You're letting your POVs get in the way (again). Shot info 03:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, some here may be letting their POV get in the way. I checked the Biography sections on two of my favorites actually on the "Ten Outstanding Skeptics of the Century" list, Asimov and Einstein, and they contained far more "less positive", less career relevant information than has been allowed here at the SB Biography section, whom had at least one vote.--I'clast 03:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"far more "less positive", less career relevant information" (??????) As I said you're letting your POVs get in the way (far more or less :-). Shot info 03:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I added the hopefully helpful links.--I'clast 04:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

A different suggestion - trying to get back on track

I'm repeating my compromise because the previous discussion got completely off track. I would like editors to consider and comment on my compromise as written. I think it identifies the key area of disagreement that we currently have. Specifically, we do not agree that we have a source that shows, by adhering to WP:WEIGHT and related policies/guidelines, that the issue of Barrett's credentials is important enough to be included in the article. --Ronz 17:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Given that Levine2112 thinks "We must keep working on establishing a consensus here" even though we don't, I offer this compromise:

Let's pretend that we have a reliable secondary source documenting Negrete's criticism of Barrett being not certified, and this pretend source demonstrates that this criticism is important enough that we should actually mention it in the article.

That said, I think we can come up with something that doesn't violate BLP, OR, NOT#INFO, and NPOV/WEIGHT. It would, of course, be a part of the Barrett v. Koren section.

Anyone have a problem with this, other than we're pretending to have a source that we don't actually have? --Ronz 02:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Pretend source? Yes I have a problem with this. I am trying to learn policy not bend or break them.----CrohnieGal/_Contribs 18:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Ronz means the Barrett v Koren trial transcript or perhaps something else. The problems that I see for Ronz's suggestion relate to the length and sensibility of the issues in the trial (why was lack of board certification so pivotally important there to report here in conjunction with what else?) and give rise to the failed neurology part, lengthing the section in any case. Otherwise it is just burial at sea for the missing board certification part. Also my previous reply.--I'clast 07:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

If we need to pretend we have a reliable secondary source, then I would be against including the information at all. But seeing as we have several reliable primary and secondary sources which verify and give weight to this information, I reiterate what Arthur Rubin has said, there is little reason not to include a brief mention of Barrett's lack of board certification. I am so relieved that you are open to compromise, but your suggestion isn't workable and your presentation is insulting. -- Levine2112 17:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I reiterate something I have explained before about a "brief mention": I prefer no mention at all, and have given many policy and common sense based arguments (especially WP:BLP/WP:NOR). If there has to be a compromise, it would be full contextualized mention. I do not offer the latter as a compromise (although I've described it several times now) because it would feel odd to have to argue against my own compromise - however, as I wrote over two months ago, a compromise along those lines might well be viable. I believe Ronz's proposal is one of several ways to accomplish this:

Given that Levine2112 thinks "We must keep working on establishing a consensus here" even though we don't, I offer this compromise:

Let's pretend that we have a reliable secondary source documenting Negrete's criticism of Barrett being not certified, and this pretend source demonstrates that this criticism is important enough that we should actually mention it in the article.

That said, I think we can come up with something that doesn't violate BLP, OR, NOT#INFO, and NPOV/WEIGHT. It would, of course, be a part of the Barrett v. Koren section.

AvB ÷ talk 19:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue remains as it has over two months ago. You are not recognizing the reliable secondary source which have been presented here. Dynamic Chiropractic and the WCA are certainly adequate. Thus, it is in poor form to couch a compromise by stating, "Let's pretend that we have a reliable secondary source..." That's no way to acheive a consensus. -- Levine2112 20:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus. End of story. Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 20:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is no consensus to add this material or to leave this material out. I disagree that the story has ended. Thanks. -- Levine2112 21:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no conensus after long duiscussions. End of story. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 22:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Lex De Minimis Non Curat

Perhaps everyone has been missing an important point. It is important to implement the Misplaced Pages guidelines as far as the general quality of an article is concerned. But no system of rules or laws can operate without the maxim "Lex de minimis non curat". The article must concern itself with Stephen Barrett and his notable critics and supporters on major issues. And if his work has serious shortcomings, they will be shown up sooner or later by his notable critics. If he and Quackwatch have no shortcomings at all, I am sure that this will be revealed to us in due course. His lack of board certification would be irrelevant in either case as is Einstein's initial failure to get into university. I cannot resist pointing out once again: "For someone to describe board certification in the terms in which he does here and not to have been board certified himself invites ridicule." But is bringing down that ridicule on his head encyclopaedic? I'm not sure. But I think it may be one of those minima de quobis nobis non est curandum. Pardon me if my Latin is timeworn. robert2957 17:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

My Latin is terrible. Translation please? -- Levine2112 17:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Lex de minimis non curat = de minimis non curat lex - see De minimis.

minima de quibis nobis non est curandum -> trivia we should not spend time on

(However, my Latin is timeworn too). AvB ÷ talk 17:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I don't think everyone has missed this point. You're saying two things: (1) it's a minor issue - I agree, but many editors here do not. (2) Let's wait and see if criticisms by notable critics are published (what I would call independent, reliable, secondary sources) - I agree, but some of those in favor of including this contextomized information argue that such criticism is already available. A point made by these critics is that the board certification issue means Barrett is not qualified and a reason to condemn his work.

I agree that Misplaced Pages is not the channel to ridicule a subject.

As to your point about the terms in which Barrett describes board certification here: Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't read this as Barrett criticizing medical specialists who are not board certified. I think he's criticizing the use of the term when advertising quackery. AvB ÷ talk 17:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No agreement on existance of reliable secondary sources

"But seeing as we have several reliable primary and secondary sources which verify and give weight to this information, I reiterate what Arthur Rubin has said, there is little reason not to include a brief mention of Barrett's lack of board certification."

Let's put an end to this. Consensus disagrees with you Levine2112. That's why I've offered my compromise. -- Ronz  17:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

More editors here (including the only two participating admins) agree that we have reliable sources to at least state briefly that Barrett is not board certified. I want everyone here to be satisfied however when we do insert the information. That is why I have offered my compromise. The majority of editors here support my compromise. -- Levine2112 18:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Levine2112, you may want to check out WP:Consensus in the light of WP:Voting is evil. Also note that the admin status of users involved in a dispute does not give their opinion extra weight and repeatedly belaboring this point may well irritate them. AvB ÷ talk 19:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I get it. I do. But in the face of so much support from so many, I am surprised that consensus cannot be established. -- Levine2112 19:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"at least state briefly" So you're now trying to demonstrate support for a different statement? That's fine, but has nothing to do with the point of this discussion topic. -- Ronz  19:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It's actually quite on topic. "Brief mention" has always been part of my original compromise. And this discussion - which you started - quotes me talking about the support we have for a brief mention. So why are you saying it has nothing to do with the point of this discussion topic? Now then, my compromise still stands and I hope in the name of good Misplaced Pages spirit you will be moved to accept this fair proposal. -- Levine2112 19:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I reiterate: If a brief mention in the biography is your compromise, I remind you of the fact that this all began when I removed such a brief mention from the biography. AvB ÷ talk 20:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Note to AvB: The compromise has a mention that is even more brief; whereas we would be leaving out that Barrett failed one-half of his exam. We would only say that he is not board certified (see Crohnie's wording above). Would you be opposed to that brief of a mention or do you think you can help settle this dispute by agreeing to this extremely fair compromise? BTW, if you have differenty wording in mind, I am more than opening to it. Thanks. -- Levine2112 20:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

As before, what you're proposing is not a compromise to me. It's worse than the disputed language you wanted in the article. It's extremely simple. You want the info in the article, I don't want it in the article. Not only do you want the info in the article, you also want it in the lead or Barrett's CV (as if it was important at the time). You do not want it in the criticism section where it belongs. And finally you want to publish it out of context. That's a lot of requirements to base a compromise on. Ronz's proposal meets you halfway. My compromise would be to publish it together with its context and in the criticism section. Barrett's detractors say x, Barrett responds y. I'll probably still oppose my own compromise, since the Criticism section is much too long already, but at least I think it's viable. Your compromise is not. It violates NPOV, NOR and BLP. AvB ÷ talk 13:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This has already been discussed and rejected by the community. Question for Levine2112. Do you understand there is no consensus and there has been a long discussion about this? If you do understand this, it is time to drop it. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 20:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand consensus, but I disagree that it is time to drop it. Sorry. -- Levine2112 20:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you understand at the moment there is no consensus. When will it be time to drop it? :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 21:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

When there is a consensus? When an RfC comes through? When all parties agree to a compromise? -- Levine2112 21:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It does not work like that. Many people have spoken about this. It has gone on long enough. It has been given a chance multiple times. Please put this behind you. Do you agree and understand? :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 21:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree and understand. There is no consensus to leave the material out either. We are striving to reach a consensus. I would appreciate your help. I have suggested a fair compromise completely in line with Misplaced Pages policy. There shouldn't be any issue, yet you and others keep inventing them. Therefore this dispute continues. This dispute will end when you agree to the generous and fair compromise. -- Levine2112 21:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Please clarify. Do you understand after multiple lengthy discussions there is no consensus. This is a yes or no question. Why should the dispute continue when there is no consensus. We go by consensus here. Do you agree? :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 21:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but Misplaced Pages works by building consensus. That's why this dispute continues. What we are doing here - incivility aside - is exactly for what Misplaced Pages is designed; going through various dispute resolution techniques (including negotiating, discussion, straw polls and mediation) to establish a consensus. We don't give up when there is no consensus. Do you agree? -- Levine2112 21:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree to this. Misplaced Pages works by consensus but not pushing for consensus until an editor gets their way after repeated attempts have failed. There comes a point in time to let it go and move on. When do you think it is time to drop a dispute when there is no consensus? A month a year or five years? How long? What is your time frame? You said: We don't give up when there is no consensus. is rather an odd statement to me. There is a point in time to "give up." This has been a fruitful discussion but enough is enough. Do you agree? :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 21:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. Misplaced Pages works by building consensus. -- Levine2112 21:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Please provide me with the policy that Misplaced Pages works by allowing a certain editor or editors to never stop until they get their way on Misplaced Pages. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 22:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

<-- Outdent << Please provide me with the policy which describes when you give up on trying to acheive a consensus. BTW, in the last few months of this dispute, I have gone back and counted 14 editors in favor of adding the material and just 4 opposed (and 1 on the fence). Supermajority has failed as a policy, but I just want to make sure that you are aware of the outlook for consensus. -- Levine2112 22:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You have not answered my question to my satisfaction. When consensus cannot be reached after much much discussion after discussion is it time to drop it or keep going to a seemingly never end? All the discussions about the proposals have been rejected. Do you agree? :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 22:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to answer this to your satisfaction as I believe communication is essential for reaching a consensus. So let me be clear. Misplaced Pages is about building a consensus. Nowhere in the policy on consensus does it discuss futility. Misplaced Pages is living and breathing and its editing is ongoing for the life of Misplaced Pages. Therefore, there is no end to trying to reach consensus. (What's more, consensus can change!) When consensus cannot be reached through civil discussions, there are several other methods of dispute resolution that can be employed. We have tried a number of these approaches with some success but still a consensus has not been reached. I think negotiation and compromises will be a great way to solve this dispute; however, we are also awaiting an RfC. Now then, please reciprocate and answer my request: Please provide me with the policy which describes when you give up on trying to acheive a consensus. -- Levine2112 22:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I did my best to listen to your argument. I disagree with your proposals. It is done and over with on this talk page. Have fun. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 22:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No consensus on existance of reliable secondary sources

(Repeating another topic that was side-tracked) "But seeing as we have several reliable primary and secondary sources which verify and give weight to this information, I reiterate what Arthur Rubin has said, there is little reason not to include a brief mention of Barrett's lack of board certification."

Let's put an end to this. There is no consensus that such sources exist. Does anyone dispute this? -- Ronz  22:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that consensus has not been established. We need to work to establish one. Thus far, no one disputing the sources provided have given good reason why they shouldn't be considered reliable sources. If you have grounds why the Dynamic Chiropractic and WCA article cannot be used (let's start with these two), please provide your policy explanation. Thanks. -- Levine2112 22:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Let's stop saying otherwise then. -- Ronz  22:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Look at the sources again?

Levine2112 has proposed we look at the sources again, "If you have grounds why the Dynamic Chiropractic and WCA article cannot be used (let's start with these two), please provide your policy explanation."

I think previous discussions on this suffice. -- Ronz  22:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Previous discussions do not suffice - so far the large majority of editors here (including the two admins) believe we have reliable sources to at least briefly mention that Barrett is not board certified. If you still disagree, please give a concise explanation why each doesn't qualify. Please be sure to leave out arguments and opinions that have no ground in Misplaced Pages policy (i.e. these are biased publication). Thanks. If you feel this is repetitive, I apologize. But let's do this one time, clearly and concisely. -- Levine2112 23:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Those that want the info in based on these publications need to show why these are (independent) reliable secondary sources with respect to the cited material. I'm sure they're reliable sources with respect to material about themselves, but that's not the issue here. With respect to Barrett, these sources are extremely biased. Using material found there without offsetting the bias is a clear violation of NPOV. Eventualists would probably want to let it stay and wait for others to come along and balance things, but that's explicitly disallowed in BLPs. AvB ÷ talk 12:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Both of these sources have obvious major biases and are not acceptable sources for this statement. At best they are sources that Barrett's opponents claim that he isn't board certified. JoshuaZ 15:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome, JoshuaZ! There is something which you may be missing (I know this conversation is huge!). Barrett is in fact not board certified. This has been verified by Barrett himself and by his lawyers. Nobody is claiming that Barrett is board certified. What is being claimed is that any combination or the sum total of these sources does not amount to stating quite plainly that Barrett is not board certified. This information is biographical and relevant. What is being claimed by his opponents in some of the sources is that Barrett "was forced to admit" that he wasn't board certified. Well, this is sort of true but certainly deceptive. You see, Barrett was under oath when he spoke this information. So yes, technically, he had to admit it. Anyhow, he sued the authors and republishers of this information for libel. He lost. Regardless, my proposal would be just to state plainly that he is not board certified and not bring in the whole hulabaloo about him having to admit it under oath (or that he indeed took the exam to become board certified, but failed - another bit of info verified by Barrett himself here at Misplaced Pages). AvB and Ronz have proposed slightly different versions of adding the material to the criticisms section. Ronz would like to keep it brief, but AvB would like to go into the details of who claimed that he had to admit this information under oath, etc. So one way or another, at least the information that Barrett is not board certified is going into this article. The questions now are: how, where, and by use of which sources? BTW, while I don't believe that the articles below are written from a major biased point of view, I would be curious to see where in Misplaced Pages policy does it say that biased articles are not reliable sources. Thanks. -- Levine2112 16:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I view this as a bad faith misrepresentation of what I wrote. AvB ÷ talk 20:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify something. Levine2112 has (again) written the following:

• "Anyhow, he sued the authors and republishers of this information for libel."

To the best of my knowledge, Barrett has never sued anyone for publishing "that" information, but for publishing other statements of a libelous nature. The lawsuits have never concerned themselves with his board certification status, even though Bolen has misused the fact that Barrett has never been board certified (which Barrett has never claimed or even needed during his career) to imply (without clearly stating....sneaky!) that Barrett somehow acted improperly or tried to hide the fact. Barrett's only mention of the fact has been in response to false implications and misuse of the fact. It is otherwise a totally unnotable fact. -- Fyslee/talk 16:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Please review the following court documents which show that Barrett has in fact sued for claims that he was forced to admit under oath that he wasn't board certified:

• STEPHEN BARRETT, M.D., v. OWEN R. FONOROW, and INTELISOFT MULTIMEDIA, INC
• STEPHEN BARRETT, M.D., v JOSEPH MERCOLA, D.O.

-- Levine2112 16:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

(outdenting) I don't see it. Please provide the precise quotes that back up your precise statement: "that Barrett has in fact sued for claims that he was forced to admit under oath that he wasn't board certified." -- Fyslee/talk 18:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Look at the fonorow suit first.

COUNT I (Libel Per Se), The First Defamatory Webpage, Section 5, Part A: Stephen Barrett (www.quackwatch.com), who claims to be a retired Psychiatrist, but never actually completed the basic qualifications to be 'Board Certified' as such, today announced the end of his lawsuit against U.S. Health leader Joe Mercola, DO.

COUNT I (Libel Per Se), The Seventh Defamatory Webpage, 17, G: A Florida State Attorney, in the original Probable Cause Hearing (which Phillips was not invited to) had downloaded Barrett's writings on Autonomic Response Testing, and submitted them as evidence. Barrett has no professional qualifications that would make him an expert on this subject. In fact, Barrett, who claims to be a retired Psychiatrist, in a recent a court case, was forced to admit under oath, that he had never completed the requirements to become Board Certified as a Psychiatrist.

COUNT I (Libel Per Se), The Seventh Defamatory Webpage, 18 (response to 17), G: Dr. Barrett is a retired psychiatrist, and he does not misrepresent his credentials. Dr. Barrett never was "forced to admit" under oath that he had never completed the requirements to become Board Certified as a psychiatrist, let alone in a recent court case.

COUNT I (Libel Per Se), The Eighth Defamatory Webpage, 19, C: Barrett's credibility has suffered a major downturn when certain facts were brought to light about his alleged qualifications. It turns out that Barrett has been de-licensed, and has not had a license to practice medicine in any State since 1993. Also, Barrett made claims to being 'a retired Psychiatrist,' without benefit of ever having been board certified as a Psychiatrist in the first place.

COUNT I (Libel Per Se), The Eighth Defamatory Webpage, 19, E: For instance, Barrett, it has been revealed, claims to be a retired Psychiatrist without ever having been qualified to claim board certification in that specialty. He has not had a license to practice medicine, in any State, since 1993.

COUNT I (Libel Per Se), The Eighth Defamatory Webpage, 19, H: But the biggest blow to Barrett's professional status as a leader in the 'quackbuster' movement is an unconfirmed rumor circulating about Barrett's status as an 'expert witness.' It is already known that Barrett was officially disqualified as an 'expert witness' in a case in New York when he was forced to admit, under oath, that he was never board certified as a Psychiatrist.

COUNT I (Libel Per Se), The Eighth Defamatory Webpage, 20 (response to 19), C: Dr. Barrett is not "de-licensed" and has not had his medical license revoked. Dr. Barrett also has not misrepresented his credentials by claiming to be a retired psychiatrist. Psychiatrists do not need to be board certified to practice psychiatry

COUNT I (Libel Per Se), The Eighth Defamatory Webpage, 20 (response to 19), F: Dr. Barrett never was officially disqualified as an expert witness in any case in New York, let alone for having been forced to admit, under oath, that he was never board certified as a psychiatrist.

Now from the Mercola suit. Again the complaint filed by Barrett is libel:

COUNT I (Libel Per Se), The Third Defamatory Communication, 20, K: In fact, last year Barrett was disqualified as an 'expert witness' in a case in New York, when it was discovered that although he claims to have 'been a Psychiatrist for 35 years' he NEVER passed the requirements to be admitted to the Board of Psychiatry, and hence was never 'Board Certified.' Hmmm?

Make sense? -- Levine2112 19:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't make sense. You wrote, "which show that Barrett has in fact sued for claims that he was forced to admit under oath that he wasn't board certified." -- Ronz  19:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I asked for precision, not the whole thing. Barrett's own response is the most important part to focus on here. Please follow the KISS principle and leave out the unnecessary stuff. -- Fyslee/talk 19:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I went back and bolded areas where he is claiming that statements about him having to admit that he isn't board certified in court are libelous. His complaint in his suit is libel. This means that he is suing for libel. I thinkt his is pretty straightforward, but I hope the bolding will even clarify more. Let me know if you require more explanation. -- Levine2112 19:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm....I think I see where you're coming from. I have always considered those as clarifying remarks, since the major thrust of the libel charges are against other remarks that are openly and directly libelous, such as the deceptive claim that he is "delicensed" and other places where Bolen claims that he was "forced to give up his medical license," which are both untrue statements and thus libelous. I guess the mentioning of the other matters could be considered part of the charges, although Bolen's remarks are made as insinuations and are not direct statements, thus making them difficult to prove to be libelous. I'm not a lawyer, so the fine points of this are beyond me. What is obvious when reading anything Bolen writes is that he uses insinuation, "if", "maybe", etc. quite alot. He thinks that by using weasel words he can escape judgment. -- Fyslee/talk 20:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with you here, Fyslee. Bolen is quite slippery and knows just how far he can push the boundaries with clever weasel language. I really don't think that his statements play into this discussion though. All we want to insert is that Barrett is not Board Certified; a fact which can be confirmed by several reliable sources. (It would be one thing if we were trying to insert that Barrett "was forced to admit" this fact on the stand and were using Bolen as a source of this info. We are not.) Anyhow, I am glad that we are on the same page as far as these suits go. -- Levine2112 20:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

WCA article

Anti-chiropractic groups spreading ‘stroke’ lies online World Chiropractic Alliance -- Levine2112 01:04, 30 May 2007

Dynamic Chiropractic article

Stephen Barrett Loses Major Defamation Trial in Hometown Dynamic Chiropractic -- Levine2112 01:04, 30 May 2007

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

A request to comment on reliability has been received at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard; I have commented at relevant subsection.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

So it seems our primary sources are enough to say that Barrett is not board certified. Please read Piotrus' comments on our sources by following the link to the relevant subsection. -- Levine2112 19:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope. This ignores the WEIGHT, BLP, OR, and NOT issues. All we've done here is shown that our previous concensus that the information is verified is indeed still verified. -- Ronz  19:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This shows that the information is verified and acceptable for insertion according to WP:RS. So that argument against insertion is moot. We have more than enough sources to insert this verified information based on the primary sources alone.

Now then, what specific issues with WEIGHT, BLP, OR, and NOT do you think there is. Please cite directly from these policies where you feel that inserting "Barrett is not Board certified" would violate. Thanks. -- Levine2112 19:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"Please cite directly" No. The reasons have been repeated over and over for you. If another editor would like a brief summary of our past discussions on these issues, I'm happy to do so since Levine2112 obviously is not going to. -- Ronz  19:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't be difficult here. Just list out the specific issues you have with WEIGHT, BLP, OR, and NOT. Easy. Just go one by one with each policy and then I will be able to discuss my contention with your argument, if any. For all I know, you may be spot on, but if you don't cooperatively let me know exactly what your issues are, how are we supposed to carry on a discussion here? -- Levine2112 19:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion over. -- Ronz  19:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT

This policy deals with viewpoints. That Barrett is not board certified isn't a view point. It is a verified fact. WP:WEIGHT also says: An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Barrett is a doctor and a medical critic; the topic of his board certification has been a subject in at least two lawsuits and has been mentioned in several widely read articles and reseach papers. This information has enoguh significance for at least a brief mention (i.e. Barrett is not board certified.) -- Levine2112 19:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP

This policy deals with removing unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material. This doesn't apply as we do have reliable sources to make the statement that Barrett is not board certified. -- Levine2112 21:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR

This policy refers to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. That Barrett is not Board Certified is indeed a published fact that has been reliably sourced. -- Levine2112 21:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT

This policy is broad, so I am unsure what about it Ronz feels is being violating by stating that Barrett is not board certified. Previously, it had been argued that Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information (see WP:NOT#IINFO). There you will see a list of 10 kinds of information which may at times be considered "indiscriminate". None of them mention the kind of material we are dealing with.. -- Levine2112 21:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks like all these viewpoints of yours have been refuted before. See the many previous discussions. -- Ronz  16:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Just spell out your objections here. You have made a lot of arguments here but you never do back them. -- Levine2112 17:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to past discussions per WP:TALK. You might want to reread the entire article.

Please remove you never do back them since obviously I do. I'm sure you didn't actually mean such an obvious mistake on your part. -- Ronz  17:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It isn't obvious to me that you back them with explicit points from policy. If you did, we wouldn't be having this conversation. So please, per WP:TALK summarize your objections here or at the bottom of this page. -- Levine2112 17:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"If you did, we wouldn't be having this conversation." You're mistaken. You're overlooking past discussions. Why you insist on having this conversation is beyond me. -- Ronz  17:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Because I want to know what your arguments against inserting this material is. That is all. -- Levine2112 17:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Not relevant to his notability

http://en.wikipedia.org/WP:V#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_in_articles_about_themselves According to policy it should be relevant to their notability; or it should not be included. End of discussion. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 17:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

(First, thank you for spelling out your objection!) My response is two-fold. One, Board Certification is relevant to his notability. Barrett is a doctor and a medical critic. Therefore his medical credentials are entirely relevant. It is not as if we are talking about what his cat's name is. We are talking about a widely recognized certification in the medical community. Two, we are relying on more than just Barrett's own comments as a source. We also have the court documents which detail that Barrett is not board certified. The self-published source (Barrett's discussion at Misplaced Pages) just adds to the verifiability of this information. -- Levine2112 18:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"Therefore his medical credentials are entirely relevant." This is just an opinion that you hold along with Barrett's detractors. -- Ronz  18:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

In the medical community as a whole, Board Certification is considered a relevant credential. Barrett's detractors may think that not having Board Certification disqualifies Barrett as an expert witness or makes his opinions less qualified, but that is not what we are saying here. We are simply stating the verified fact that Barrett is not Board Certified. We are not making an argument for or against Barrett with this statement. It is neither praise nor criticism. -- Levine2112 18:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read this carefully. You have not demonstrated how the board cerification thing is relevant to his notability. It did not affect his career. It is a moot point. We cannot synthesize controversy. So, that makes your argument irrelevant. You want policy. You got policy. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 18:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Board Certification is relevant to Barrett's notability, but that is beside the point. The policy which you are citing (WP:SPS) referes to self-published sources. The court documents which verify that Barrett is not Board Certified are not self-published. -- Levine2112 18:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

SPS refers to Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves. The source is questionable because it does not prove notability. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 18:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"The source is questionable because it does not prove notability." Huh? That doesn't make any sense to me. Please clarify. -- Levine2112 18:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Material from self-published sources and sources of questionable reliability may be used in articles about themselves, so long as: it is relevant to their notability; You said you want policy! :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 19:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, the court documents (which verify that Barrett is not Board Certified) are not self-published sources, nor are they of questionable reliability. Thus, this policy is not applicable. -- Levine2112 19:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The source is questionable because it does not demonstrate the notability of the board thing. The key is notability as it applies to this policy. Read: it should be relevant to their notability; How is this bit of information relevant to his notability? :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 19:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that you may be misreading this policy. The source doesn't have to be relevant to the subject's notability (which it is, BTW); the content needs to be. Again, this policy referes to self-published sources and those of questionable reliability. Therefore, it doesn't apply to the two court documents as sources. -- Levine2112 19:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Biased or malicious content

Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons in biographies and elsewhere. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability. You like policy. Here is more policy. Have a nice day! :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 18:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. The content (that Barrett is not Board Certified) is neither biased nor malicious. We are not dealing with a point of view here; the content is a verified fact (not an opinion). -- Levine2112 18:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The content seemed to be bias because it is pushing a point of view by his detractors. The critics are trying to run a smear campaign when the board thing is a moot point. There is no clear demonstration of relevancy to the person's notability. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 18:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Barrett is not Board Certified. This is not a point of view. This policy is not applicable to this content. -- Levine2112 18:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The detractors are trying to make something out of nothing. Synthesize controversy. This policy applies here. You said you want policy. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 19:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I do want policy, and I thank you for participating in this cooperative manner. I understand what the detractors are trying to do. We are not doing that here. We are simply adding content verified by a reliable source. Again, this is not a point of view; this is a fact. -- Levine2112 19:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

And what are the detractors trying to do? Are you trying to do the same here? What is the difference? Nothing or something. Please clarify. Hmmm. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 19:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

All I am doing here is adding relevant and verifiable content from a reliable source. I have no other agenda. I am not here to figure out what Barrett's detractors are trying to do, but apparently it is their point of view that Barrett has tried to hide the fact that he wasn't Board Certified. That is contentious and has been directly refuted by Barrett here at Misplaced Pages. Again, I am not trying to insert these detractors' point of view (that Barrett was forced to admit that he wasn't Board Certified), but rather I am trying to insert the verifiable content that Barrett is not Board Certified. That's all. Again, this policy is not applicable because this content is neither biased nor malcious. -- Levine2112 19:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability. This is official policy. You show an appearance of pushing an agenda regardless if you are or not. The key is appearance. Therefore, since it appears you are pushing an agenda (even if you are not), I insist on you providing a reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability. The bar has been raised to both third party reliable sources and the clear demonstration of relevance because of your appearance of pushing an agenda (whether you are or not). :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 20:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no basis for you accusation. I am not pushing any agenda. Please read WP:AGF. What's more, the agenda which you are accusing me of pushing is not at all what I am doing. Once again, the agenda of Barrett's detractors is to push the idea that Barrett has denied/hidden his lack of Board Certification. My proposed entry does not even allude to that. Simply, I am asking to put in verifiable information that Barrett is not Board Certified. -- Levine2112 20:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The inclusion of this information appears to promote an agenda and biased viewpoint. This point been brought up many, many times in our past discussions here, but it's worth repeating. There are no assumptions of anyone's motives here, let alone accusations, only the simple observation that this information has been used to attack Barrett. -- Ronz  20:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well said. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 20:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Levine2112, there is no accusation. It is the apprearance of pushing an agenda. I am AGF. In accordance with policy: I now insist on you providing a reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability. The bar has been raised to both third party reliable sources and the clear demonstration of relevance because of your appearance of pushing an agenda (whether you are or not). :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 20:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This policy is going to stick. Detractors have used this bit of information for their agenda. This appears to be agenda driven and I AGF. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 20:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You said you want policy. You got an ocean of policy. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 20:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no appearance of agenda pushing. This information doesn't promote any agenda or point of view. The agenda which you are referring to - that of Barrett's detractors - is to show that Barrett has been hiding the fact that he is not board certified; that he was reluctanct to divulge this information. Barrett's own words here at Misplaced Pages show just the opposite; he is completely open about this information and it has been available publicly for 30 years. The ocean is a desert with its life below and the perfect disguise above. -- Levine2112 22:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

There is an appearance of agenda pushing promoted by his detractors who are quick to talk about the board cerification thing which is what you continue to push for. Since there is an appearance you must comply with the above mentioned policy. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 16:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

First. This bit of information is bias/agenda driven because of the detractors who point to the board thing. Second. Levine2112 has certified there is an appearance of an agenda driven push because of his never ending post after post beyond exhaustion when there is no consensus. Of course, I love and am AGF. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 17:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Your argument here is that this content is malicious and biased because it supports the POV of Barrett's detractors. The problem with this line of reasoning is that the content is not a POV. Barrett is not Board Certified. This is a verifiable fact. The POV of his detractors is that Barrett was reluctant to admit that he is not Board Certified. The POV of Barrett is that he was not reluctant to admit this. We are acheiving a neutral point of view by simply stating that he is not Board Certified (and leaving out whether or not he is reluctant to say so). I think this makes it pretty clear why WP:BLP#Biased_or_malicious_content doesn't apply in this case.

Now then, the reason why I am never-ending in my quest to have this material inserted is in fact driven by an agenda - my agenda is making Misplaced Pages the best source of information it can be. Perhaps what this comes down to for you is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Levine2112 17:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The key is the appearance. For example, the never ending posts. The detractors are quick to talk about the board thing. That is an agenda. This policy is valid and is on point. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 18:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid that you are misunderstanding the policy and the detractor's agenda. -- Levine2112 19:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No consensus - only proposals - tangent

It seems like there's some confusion here when Levine2112 says, "So one way or another, at least the information that Barrett is not board certified is going into this article."

I disagree. There's no consensus that this information will go into the article, and no reason to think at this point that it will. -- Ronz  19:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

For months now, you have been arguing that we don't have reliable sources. It turns out we do. I am just asking you to keep an open mind to the possibility that you may be wrong about other policies as well. I am certainly doing the same, meaning that I am totally willing to accept that I may be wrong about policy as well. Thank you. -- Levine2112 19:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope. "For months now, you have been arguing that we don't have reliable sources." I've made no such statement. It appears you've overlooked what I actually said and the context in which I said it. Please go back through my previous comments and notice the what I really said and the context. Please don't use your mistakes in reading what others have written as justification for accusing them of being wrong. -- Ronz  19:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No consensus - only proposals - back on topic

I'm repeating my previous post since the previous discussion got off topic. -- Ronz  20:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems like there's some confusion here when Levine2112 says, "So one way or another, at least the information that Barrett is not board certified is going into this article."

I disagree. There's no consensus that this information will go into the article, and no reason to think at this point that it will. -- Ronz  19:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It has been confirmed that we have reliable sources stated that Barrett is indeed not Board Certified. If you have other issues with inserting this information, please elaborate. Bear in mind that your previous contentions hinge on having a reliable source. Now that we have confirmed having several reliable sources, I am not sure that your contentions still apply. Please describe them so we can have a civil discussion and please continue to assume good faith with me here. -- Levine2112 20:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"Bear in mind that your previous contentions hinge on having a reliable source" No, my previous comments did not. Please stop framing my perspective this way. See the many, many previous discussions. -- Ronz  21:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:Weight, WP:BLP, and WP:OR all hinge on having no sources or sources of questionable reliability. Now that we have confirmed that we have reliable sources, your orignal arguments might not hold water. Please take the time to relist your arguments that you believe still apply. Your cooperation will be most helpful for all parties here. Thank you. -- Levine2112 21:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No consensus - only proposals - again

I'm not going to repeat, but summarize: We have no consensus, only proposals. Until there is consensus, the article doesn't change. -- Ronz  21:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

We have no consensus based on wrong interpretation of WP:RS. Now we know for sure that we have reliable sources from the primary sources alone. This changes everything. Please restate your arguments in relation to this new discovery. Thank you. -- Levine2112 21:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"This changes everything." It changes nothing at all. We already agreed that we could verify the information. Numerous other issues prevented us from reaching consensus on what to do with that information. All this has been said many times. -- Ronz  21:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Those issues dealt with - for the most part - not being able to say that this information was verified by a reliable source. We now can say that for sure. WP:RS has been met. Therefore, I am kindly asking you to list your current arguments against inserting this information. -- Levine2112 21:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read this comment given to us by a very experienced Wikipedian. -- Levine2112 21:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ronz is right. Levine2112, you're also once again ignoring the fact that the burden of evidence is squarely on the shoulders of those who want to reinsert disputed material. This and other basic Misplaced Pages tenets have been explained to you very often. I think you should be more willing to accept explanations and consider opinions offered you by other (often more experienced) editors that go against your POV. You seem to have no such problem with explanations and opinions that seem to support your POV. AvB ÷ talk 21:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

First, please WP:AGF. Second, I am open to every editors opinions regardless of their experience at Misplaced Pages. Currently, the most experienced Wikipedians looking at this issue are saying that we have met the burden to insert that Barrett is not Board Certified. We have met the burden, so unless another policy can be cited which insertion of this material would violatae, I see no reason to delay. -- Levine2112 22:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"I see no reason to delay" You mean besides a lack of consensus, or are your overruling that? -- Ronz  22:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Lack of consensus is based on moot arguments, unless you have new arguments which you would like to discuss. I am open to hearing them. -- Levine2112 22:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you read Jhonson's comment? it is not necessary to support primary documents with secondary ones. If a primary document says "he is not board-certified" then that may be quoted and cited and you're done. Or how about Pitorus' comments? If there is consensus that the primary sources you have are stating he has no board certification, they are enough for it. Well? -- Levine2112 22:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"Lack of consensus is based on moot arguments" I disagree that the arguments are moot. I just think you overlooked the fact that we reached consensus long ago that the information was verifiable, and all the arguments concerning why the information still cannot be included. -- Ronz  22:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Then feel free to list out your arguments in the space I provided. Be sure to quote policy. Thanks. This sort of cooperation will certainly help resolve this matter. -- Levine2112 00:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Costs and attorneys' fees

This edit (since reverted) is a pretty good example of what can go wrong when lay persons start interpreting primary sources. The Bolen site is further illustration of such misunderstandings and hyping. I would say this info belongs in the article, but let's just wait for a reliable source to comment on this. Edit warring is not going to help. I think this will make it into the article before the deadline. AvB ÷ talk 21:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. To clarify, we need a reliable secondary source to determine WEIGHT. -- Ronz  21:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere in WP:WEIGHT does it mention a need to have a reliable secondary source. Again, we are not dealing with a minority view but rather a verifiable fact. In terms of verifiable fact, WEIGHT says to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. $433,715.93 is certainly significant. But I do agree with AvB. If we - as lay persons - are misinterpreting what the primary source is saying, then we should have it restated correctly by someone "in the know". -- Levine2112 21:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ronz is right, once again. And you're once again misrepresenting my words. In fact I am "in the know", that's why I can state that the reverted info was missing the point entirely. You seem to misunderstand WP:NOR (and even worse, your comments imply that I misunderstand it). As we've explained to you a number of times, we need secondary sources to interpret e.g. legalese for us. We're not allowed to publish our own interpretations here. For one thing, to whom would you want to attribute them? AvB ÷ talk 21:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

How am I misunderstanding WP:NOR here and how am I implying that you misunderstand it? Please WP:AGF.

Explained above. Rephrasing: we should have it restated correctly by someone "in the know" - this violates WP:NOR as explained in the policy. Hint: "interpretive". In fact I'm having a hard time assuming good faith with you any longer. You seem intelligent enough, yet you act as if you do not understand what others are writing when you don't agree. You seem to understand others well enough when they seem to agree with you. In the latter case you do not require the same explanations for the same things over and over again. AvB ÷ talk 22:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The primary source here is sufficient to report on this information. We don't need a secondary source to interpret the legalese any more than restating any other information from a primary source. In fact, we describe several court cases and their outcomes using similar sources. Perhaps - in this case - it would be just easier to quote the source rather than risk misinterpreting in our attempts to summarize the ruling. What do you think of that solution?

Oh, if you are in the know then I take it you have some legal experience. Can you tell us here what the documents are saying then? I certainly may be misinterpreting them as I am a lay person when it comes to legal matters. I am rereading the document, and it seems to apply more to Barrett v. Rosenthal than Barrett v. Clark, but the former is a child case of the latter, I believe. To me, it looks that the plaintiffs are ordered to pay award and attorney fees to Ilena. No? Please explain. -- Levine2112 22:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is just another case of the cerfication issue. Let's take them one at a time. -- Ronz  22:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Now that it comes down to the primary sources being reliable, then I see the similarity. I think we are close to resolving the Board Certification issue and this one will probably follow in suit. -- Levine2112 22:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflicts) Yes, I have "some" legal experience (although in a different country). No, I'm not going to interpret it for you - we can't use my interpretation anyway. Yes, we can use primary sources, within clear constraints (see the links I gave you), in some cases - and just as clearly this is not one of them. For the rest, see the relevant policies and the information you've been given regarding primary and secondary sources ad nauseam over the past two months. AvB ÷ talk 22:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe we can include this information because it's part of a story already in the article. I have a problem using Bolen's site as an intermediate source though and would at the very least require an authoritative primary source. Once we have one, I still believe we should not put in a verbatim quote since it's quite apparent that most people will misinterpret it. Misplaced Pages is not an oracle. Perhaps I am one when I say: Rosenthal is expected to be awarded reimbursement for costs and attorneys' fees at a later stage. I propose we wait for a reliable secondary source. It's a lot of money and the story will make the papers soon - or once it's been awarded to Rosenthal. AvB ÷ talk 23:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

These are the links which I used. They are the authoritative primary source. Please note that they are not from Bolen's site but rather directly from the California courts.

• http://apps.alameda.courts.ca.gov/fortecgi/fortecgi.exe?Servicename=DomainWebService&PageName=Image&ID=1&Parent=13174143&Action=19825551
• http://apps.alameda.courts.ca.gov/fortecgi/fortecgi.exe?ServiceName=DomainWebService&PageName=itree&Action=19900620

-- Levine2112 00:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's a thought. If this is related to Barrett v. Rosenthal, perhaps we should just in clude it in that article instead. I am going to give it a try. -- Levine2112 05:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolution?

The consensus being formed at the Reliable Source noticeboard is that Barrett's discussion at Misplaced Pages coupled with the two court documents (v. Fonorow and v. Mercola) are indeed reliable enough to post the information that Barrett is not Board Certified. Again, we are not putting any spin on this; good or bad. This means that saying he is not Board Certified is not to be taken as praise or criticism. And yes, to a neutral person coming here to read this article, it may be viewed as praise. They might think, "Wow, look at what this guy has accomplished without being Board Certified." The point is: we don't know what a neutral reader of this article will think about this information if we present it neutrally. This is why I propose to just keep it cut-and-dry.

Stephen Barrett is not board certified.

Simple. Easy. WP:NPOV. Any objections? If so, please be specific. Otherwise, can we finally end this? -- Levine2112 16:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

See previous discussions. -- Ronz  16:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The previous discussion is "Costs and attorneys' fees" and is about an unrelated topic to this proposal. Please, if you have any objections to this proposal, please list them here. -- Levine2112 17:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Previous discussions. There have been many. You've been a part of those discussions, so there's no need to repeat them. Thanks. -- Ronz  17:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This is no way to carry on a discussion. In light of the guidance we have received from the Reliable Source Noticeboard, we need to have you spell out your current objections. Please be cooperative and help resolve this dispute. Thank you. -- Levine2112 17:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"This is no way to carry on a discussion." I agree. -- Ronz  17:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I just want to know what your arguments against inserting this material is. That is all. -- Levine2112 17:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Levine2112 asked for comments and input on the results of the discussion on the Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Please comment and that particular new development and don't make sweeping comments about "previous discussions". To repeat: please stay focused and comment on the results from the the Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. MaxPont 19:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is not, and has never been, purely an RS question. As the analysis there only deals with the RS question, it's not relevent. There were RS that CML was sued and lost, but Jimbo unceremoneously removed that information. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

In the CML case there were only primary (though reliable sources). No secondary source had established the notability of the CML info. Here we discuss secondary sources. MaxPont 09:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. We still have the problem that (most) experienced editors here do not accept any of the sources provided so far as independent, reliable secondary sources for information on Barrett. AvB ÷ talk 10:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Not true. Most experienced editors have accepted these sources. -- Levine2112 16:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it isn't a pure RS question. Many (if not all) of the prior arguments against inclusion hinged on not having a reliable source though. Now that the analysis has confirmed that our primary sources are indeed enough and that the secondary sources are icing on the cake (the more the merrier), I think it would be most helpful for those still opposed to insertion to relist their arguments (or introduce new ones) with relevant policies so we can move forward with this discussion cooperatively. -- Levine2112 22:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"Icing on the cake"? "The more the merrier"? Ignoring arguments against your edits will not make those arguments go away. Secondary sources are often (and certainly in this case) a sine qua non as explained to you in the recent past. "Many (if not all) of the prior arguments against inclusion hinged on not having a reliable source"? Have you even read the arguments? This is patently untrue. You still seem to deny that other editors have explained how the unavailability of independent, reliable, secondary sources prevents us from assigning sufficient weight to quote this tidbit out of context and makes quoting it in context debatable at best, the context being hate mail and attack sites written by individuals whose statements there have been characterized by courts as "statements of opinion, not of fact". AvB ÷ talk 10:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The more the merrier comes not from me put from the very experienced editors who analyzed our sources for reliability and didn't find an issue with declaring them reliable. Have you read that analysis? (By the way, neither the Dynamic Chiropractic article nor the WCA article are hate mail, attack sites nor have been characterized as presenting "statements of opinion, not of fact". -- Levine2112 16:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Above, the only policy currently being discussed is BLP:Biased or malicious content. This one does not apply here as the information about Barrett not being Board Certified is neither malicious nor biased. It is a verifiable fact. It is not a point of view and saying that Barrett is not Board Certified doesn't advance any agenda other than making our article more complete.

I would appreciate a frank discussion of other relevant policies. Thanks! :-) -- Levine2112 22:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this is a neutral and reliable addition. But since this concerns more than just reliability, I'd also suggest widening the discussion - ask for more comments on WP:RFC.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Our RFC has been posted in two places for some time now. Patiently waiting. . . (Anything you can do to get our RFC on the fast track?) ;-) -- Levine2112 23:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Where is the RfC posted? I'd be interested in reading it. RalphLender 11:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure. The RfCs can be found here: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Maths,_science,_and_technology and Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Biographies. -- Levine2112 17:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I also added a Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Politics under the area of politics. This is a conflict with strong connections to opinion making. Editors with experience from how political conflicts are intermingled with biographies of the people involved in these conflicts can contribute with outside viewpoints. MaxPont 17:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a fantastic idea. Thanks for your commitment to help resolve this issue. -- Levine2112 17:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

'against policy and against consensus'

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Stephen_Barrett#Biased_or_malicious_content Here is one perfect example being discussed in another section above that confirms that this is against policy to add this information. Don't forget, there is no consensus to add this trivial point. We finally have a resolution on this matter. We have turned the tide. We have a flood of policy on this. We are drowned in policy. We all must comply with the waves of policy. Have a nice day! :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 16:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus to keep this information out of the article either. MaxPont 16:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No consensus either way is still no consensus. Thanks for your kind help to resolve this matter. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 16:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

As Mr.Guru has been told several times, this policy doesn't apply for two reasons: 1) The content is neither biased nor malicious. It is a verified fact and not a point of view. 2) This policy only refers to self-published or questionably published sources. The court documents are neither self-published nor questionably published sources. -- Levine2112 16:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Biased_or_malicious_content As Levine2112 has been previously told, policy does apply in this case. There is a reason we have policy. It seems Leveine2112 dos not understand this policy. Hmmm. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 17:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, spell it out for everyone here. How is saying the verifiable fact, "Barrett is not Board Certified" either biased and/or malicious? -- Levine2112 17:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I have already answered this question in the precise section. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 17:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems Levine2112 has ignored we have no conensus in any direction and continues to push this matter. This gives an appearrance of pushing this point to no end. There is specific policy on this. Wikipedians should comply with policy. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 17:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Your argument here is that this content is malicious and biased because it supports the POV of Barrett's detractors. The problem with this line of reasoning is that the content is not a POV. Barrett is not Board Certified. This is a verifiable fact. The POV of his detractors is that Barrett was reluctant to admit that he is not Board Certified. The POV of Barrett is that he was not reluctant to admit this. We are acheiving a neutral point of view by simply stating that he is not Board Certified (and leaving out whether or not he is reluctant to say so). I think this makes it pretty clear why WP:BLP#Biased_or_malicious_content doesn't apply in this case. -- Levine2112 17:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

(copy of policy) Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons in biographies and elsewhere. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability. There is an appearance of an agenda push here. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 18:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Other policies?

Please communicate clearly with us which policies you believe would be violated by inserting the verified content (that Barrett is not Board Certified). Mr.Guru has been gracious enough to share his/her thoughts on at least two policies he/she felt may be violated. I am wondering if there is anything else. I understand that you may feel reluctant to communicate thoughts which you feel you have already expressed, but in light of the expert analysis (which in a nutshell says that our primary sources are enough to state the content, and that secondary sources aren't even necessary but certainly helpful), I think it is reasonable to look at your policy contentions once again. (BTW, I have posted a request on the same noticeboard to have two of our secondary sources analyzed just in case.) I would sincerely appreciate everyone's cooperation here. Thanks! -- Levine2112 17:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to the many, many previous discussions on this topic. No new evidence or arguments have been suggested since, so repeating them would be a waste of time and disrespectful to the editors who previously took the time to discuss them. Besides, WP:BLP appears to be enough and has been discussed ad nauseum, so why bring up the other ones again? -- Ronz  17:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

BLP is broken down into several main sections. With you giving us anything specific within BLP, I would like to do cursory overview of the policy so you can see generally why I don't feel it applies.

• Reliable sources - our primary sources have been given the stamp of reliability by the RS analysis team.
• Presumption in favor of privacy - Barrett himself has come to Misplaced Pages and said that he is open with this information and in fact it's that his detractors were saying that he wasn't forthcoming with this info that was bothering him.
• Criticism - This is a verified fact not an opinion and we are not using it as criticism.

Is there something more specific in WP:BLP we can look at and see if it applies? Again, I am completely open to the possibility that there is some policy that does apply and prevents us from inserting this content. Please spell it out for us. Thanks! -- Levine2112 17:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Levine2112, I have spelled it out for you. We cannot ignore policy. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 17:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

(copied response from just above) Your argument here is that this content is malicious and biased because it supports the POV of Barrett's detractors. The problem with this line of reasoning is that the content is not a POV. Barrett is not Board Certified. This is a verifiable fact. The POV of his detractors is that Barrett was reluctant to admit that he is not Board Certified. The POV of Barrett is that he was not reluctant to admit this. We are acheiving a neutral point of view by simply stating that he is not Board Certified (and leaving out whether or not he is reluctant to say so). I think this makes it pretty clear why WP:BLP#Biased_or_malicious_content doesn't apply in this case. -- Levine2112 18:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

(copy of policy) Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons in biographies and elsewhere. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability. There is an appearance of an agenda push here. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 18:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

What agenda am I pushing other than making the article more complete with relevant reliably sourced information? Saying that Barrett is not Board Certified doesn't push any agenda. The appearance is being created in your mind only. Perhaps for you this comes down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I am sorry, but you are going to have to do better than that in terms of making a policy argument against inclusion. -- Levine2112 18:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Levine2112 said: The appearance is being created in your mind only. Thanks for your confirmation. We are in complete agreement that there is an 'appearance' of an agenda push. You have posted and reposted and continue to post beyond exhaustion. The key is the appearance. Thanx, :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 18:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Meaning that the so-called appearance is a fantasy invented by you and doesn't exist. Please present a valid policy argument rather than continue this charade seemingly propogated because you don't like the idea of this content being added but are unable to come up with a valid reason why. -- Levine2112 18:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The key is the appearance as it applies with this policy. This is a valid Misplaced Pages policy in which you still seem to misunderstand and has been explained to you repeatedly. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 18:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It has been explained to you that this doesn't give the appearance of pushing the agenda which you are referring to. The agenda which Barrett's detractors are pushing is that Barrett is reluctant to say that he is not Board Certified. By simply stating that Barrett is not Board Certified, we are not pushing that agenda. That's really all there is to it. Is there some other agenda which you think I am pushing or was that it? -- Levine2112 19:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This matter should have been resolved a long time ago. The policy still stands. I did my best to explain the policy (repeatedly) to you. There is an appearance of an agenda push. You continue to assert we should continue to work until we establish consensus. You continue to post when you know there is no consensus either way. You continue to misunderstand policy. Detractors point to the board thing about he was not certified. Since there is an 'appearance', please demonstrate using third-party sources to its relevance and notability. You have not demonstrated any relevance or notability regarding this matter and you have not submitted a single third-party reference. Hmmm. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 20:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Your failure to understand this is mindboggling. The detractors agenda is not to point to Barrett not being board certified; but rather that he was "forced to admit" this information under oath. Barrett himself has said that he is open about not being board certified and that this information has been available publicly for over thirty years. If I was pushing to have it stating (outside the scope of quoting his critics) that Barrett was forced to admit his lack of Board Certification or that he is reluctant to say that he is not Board Certified, then perhaps you would have a point by invoking this policy. But as it stand, a simple WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:V statement that Barrett is not Board Certified no more furthers his detractor's agenda of claiming Barrett's reluctance than it does to further Barrett's claim that he is open with this information. (PS, I have submitted many third-party references, but according to the RS noticeboard analysis, those are only the icing on the cake - the primary sources are reliable enough to make this statement.) Now then, do you have any other policies which you would like to discuss. Again, I am open to being wrong about inclusion of this material, but with regards to WP:BLP#Biased_or_malicious_content, your claim of an agenda push on my part has been summarily debunked. -- Levine2112 20:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

In this case, the community's consensus demands in its (WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:ATT) policies a third-party reference, describing the relevancy and notability. Editors should read and comply with policy. Editors who ignore policy will eventually find themselves on the wrong end of a block. See:Misplaced Pages:Tendentious editing Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing Misplaced Pages:Civility Misplaced Pages:Beware of the tigers The key is for you to understand we open-arm acceptance but not blind faith. This is becoming very disruptive with your ad nauseum posts. There is a real and present appearance of an agenda driven force. Who is it? Its Levine2112! Now, please stop. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 21:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Guru, your comments have sunken into the depths of incivility. Please check your attitude. Furthermore, your argument that including the information that Barrett is not Board Certified furthers a malicious agenda is completely unfounded and the discussion on that is now over. If you have another policy which might actually apply here, please feel free to bring it up. Thanks. -- Levine2112 21:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

My comments are informative and on point. They have risen to a higher level in sticking to policy. My arguments are on the ball. Editors who continue to ignore policy will be greeted with a block. Have a nice day! :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 22:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

In spite of the incivility by Mr Guru, I will comment on the posting. There is a third party reference that establish the context and notability of the fact that Barrett is not Board Certified, by mentioning it. Stephen Barrett Loses Major Defamation Trial in Hometown Dynamic Chiropractic MaxPont 21:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, MaxPont. And the WCA article does just the same. I just don't think they are even all that necessary in this case, though. Mr. Guru's claim at agenda pushing is just wrong. Anyhow, if they do become neccessary, I have posted them to the RS noticeboard for review. -- Levine2112 22:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Both references are promotionally, driven attack sites that are against Stephen Barrett. This reconfirms the agenda driven elements at play. They have not demonstrated any relevancy or notability to the board thing, other than that of their own clear agenda. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 22:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"promotionally, driven attack sites" - that's your opinion. "They have not demonstrated any relevancy or notability" - but in fact they do. Regardless, your application of this policy has been debunked. Any other policies which you would like to bring up? -- Levine2112 23:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have gotten it backwards. The references are useless because they are attack sites designed for their own self-interests. I would not expect anything less from these kinds of people. Believe me, pal, we all know what types of people they are. There is clearly an appearance of an agenda driven push. You continue to post after there is no consensus and have been told about those websites before. Enough is enough. Please stop. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 23:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Your bias against these publications are clear. But that remains your opinion and has no bearing on Misplaced Pages's policies whatsoever. I really feel like this is a clear-cut case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT for you. Basically, it is the weakest line of reasoning in terms of making an argument. -- Levine2112 00:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You got it backwards, again. You are walking a fine line (be careful, don't trip) with your never ending posts here to bring up this matter when you know there is no consensus. The bias/attack sites/agenda driven is from the websites who want to attack Barrett. The detractors are quick to point to the board thing. Maybe, they need to find something more productive to do. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 01:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Levine certainly likes to post (a LOT) about one subject. Shot info 01:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Umbrella of Policy

Stephen Barrett has routinely spoken against the chiropractic profession. Thus, the sources from chiropractors are NOT regarded as third-party sources such as Anti-chiropractic groups spreading ‘stroke’ lies online(World Chiropractic Alliance) and Stephen Barrett Loses Major Defamation Trial in Hometown (Dynamic Chiropractic). There is specific Wiki policy against using the chiro sources. We cannot use these sources because they are not third-party sources. Chiros are known to be against Mr. Barrett. Moreover, it was irrelevant to his career regarding the board thing. So what is the point? There is no point to add this information, except to support (the appearance) agenda elements at play.

It appears this is pushing an agenda. I will AGF. In accordance with policy: We insist on the the use of a reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability. The bar has been raised to both third party reliable sources and the clear demonstration of relevance because of your appearance of pushing an agenda (whether you are or not).

This is a flood of policy (its raining cats and dogs). Detractors (who seem to have too much free time on their hands) have used this bit of information for their agenda to synthesize controversy. This appears to be agenda driven and I AGF.

(copy of policy) Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons in biographies and elsewhere. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability. There is an appearance of an agenda push here.

First. There are no third-party sources. Second, there are no references from any source demonstrating the relevance or notability in oder to comply with policy Therefore, we cannot add this tidbit in the article. Editors who ignore policy or disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point will be greeted with a block. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 22:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The interpretation of policy put forward by Mr. Guru would lead to preposterous consequences. Any news source that is critical of for example George W Bush or Hillary Clinton would be excluded as a RS on the ground that is biased. As pointed out by Levine2112 above, WP does not require a RS secondary source to be absolutely neutral. All secondary sources have an editorial profile and as a consequence some bias. MaxPont 13:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that none of Barrett's articles could be used either ;-) -- Dēmatt (chat) 14:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Not the way RS works. Sources about oneself are presumed to be reliable unless we have reason to believe otherwise (i.e. we have neutral sources saying the guy is a habitual liar such as Aleksey Vayner) However, sources which are biased must always be used carefully and per WP:BLP are not acceptable for sourcing negative information when they have clear interests against the person in question. Furthermore, it isn't at all obvious to me that these homeopathy sources are even WP:RS-compliant anyways. JoshuaZ 15:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

(The sources have very little to do with homeopathy.) I think Dematt has a point here. The web site Quackwatch (where Barrett’s articles and auto-bio can be found) was declared unreliable in an ArbCom earlier this year. I also don’t believe that JoshuaZ has support for his comment in WP:RS. Of course JoshuaZ has a point in that partisan sources are somewhat less credible. However, to define a RS is not a binary thing. There is a grey-zone. Opinion pieces and unsourced attack articles might be excluded while straightforward news articles would be included from the same source. The article in the trade magazine Dynamic Chiropractic is a regular news article. There is no requirement that a RS must be strictly neutral. New York Times is not neutral, neither is CNN or Fox News Channel, but news reported by these media are included in WP if there are no obvious ground for doubt. MaxPont 18:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

"The web site Quackwatch was declared unreliable in an ArbCom earlier this year" No it wasn't.

The RS issue has been a red herring all along. Let's drop it, as it should have been months ago.

It's the issue of the lack of reliable, non-partisan, secondary sources to address WEIGHT and BLP issues that's always, and continues, to be the the problem.

My apologies for repeating what's been written here over and over again. No disrespect meant for those who previously put considerable time and effort into making these points. -- Ronz  18:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that RS is not a black and white notion. However, the notion that a trade magazine is a reliable enough source for negative information about a person who has spent a substantial amount of time criticizing that trade (indeed, saying that the trade is complete bunk) is simply not consistent with either the spirit or letter of WP:BLP. JoshuaZ 18:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You guys may be missing the point. The RS noticeboard declared our sources reliable enough to verify that Barrett is not Board Certified. The BLP concerns - if any - will hopefully be addressed soon at the BLP noticeboard. The WEIGHT concerns carries "no weight" (forgive the lame pun) as nowhere in WP:WEIGHT does it say that in needs to be satisfied with reliable, non-partisan, secondary sources. In summary, for the statement "Barrett is not Board Certified", WP:RS is satisfied completely, WP:BLP concerns wil be addressed on that noticeboard, and WP:WEIGHT does not apply here. -- Levine2112 20:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I may be getting a bit confused. What statement precisely do you want in the article? JoshuaZ 01:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Barrett is not Board Certified. That's it. We don't even need the chiropractic news articles to verify this information. The primary sources have been deemed adequate as far as WP:RS goes. Do you still feel that there is a WP:BLP issue, JoshuaZ? If so, what specifically from WP:BLP do you feel would be in violation? -- Levine2112 02:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, if we aren't using the chiro source I don't have much of an issue with that although I still have trouble understanding why you think the information should be there other than that the chiros have used it as a point against him. JoshuaZ 14:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

JoshuaZ, I am glad that you don't have an issue with including this material. Please understand that I am including this only to make Misplaced Pages a better resource. For instance, if someone came to Misplaced Pages wondering if Stephen Barrett was Board Certified, that person could come here a find out (with content verified by Barrett himself and the court documents). Barrett has said that he is public with this information, so I don't think there is any BLP concerns. However, BLP will be addressed on the corresponding Noticeboard. Thanks for your input there! -- Levine2112 22:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The info was used in a very specific context in the primary sources. We shouldn´t take it out of that context (where it was relevant: criticism from Bolen and Barretts responses ) and insert it into Barrett's CV (where it is not relevant). Please note that Levine2112 prefers a brief mention precisely for the reason that he thinks it could go into the CV or lead for optimum effect. He is not in the least interested in getting it into the (overlong) criticism section because there the argument based on the info would be demolished by Barrett's response. Once again, a brief mention is not a compromise. It's giving more than a little bit of weight to assertions from partisan critics without giving at least the same amount of weight to Barrett´s response. AvB ÷ talk 16:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Lets stay focused. BLP policy states we must use third-party sources and we have no third-party references. This discussion is moot and getting tiresome. It seems Levine2112 continues to misunderstand policy, BLP, Weight, and no consensus. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 16:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

First, there is no Barrett "CV" section in this article. Second, I am not trying to put this information in the lead, but rather place it in the bio section with the rest of his education and credentials. Third, both of you please AGF. Fourth, we have presented many secondary (i.e. third-party) sources. Instead of carrying on here and making comments about who misunderstands what, let's wait to hear from editors more experienced with the policies of concern. Thanks. -- Levine2112 17:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

"his education and credentials" - that's a CV to me. By the way, a common sense argument to exclude would be that this is given more weight than e.g. the man's professional accomplishments such as the positions he has held (which are not mentioned anywhere). AvB ÷ talk 12:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You have not presented any third-party references. We cannot pretend we have third-party refrences. Thus, adding this bit of information is against BLP. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 17:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I have presented at least seven third-party references. If you have a specific BLP concern which you would like to have addressed, please take it to the BLP Noticeboard where we are awaiting comment from the contributing editors there. -- Levine2112 17:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You have supplied zero third-party references. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 17:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Then I am confused. Please define what a third-party reference is. -- Levine2112 18:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No matter what I say you will still assert you have third-party refs when you do not. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 19:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I already explained the sources (chiro refs) do not meet BLP standards. The primary type refs are not third-party. Additionally, you have to demonstrate the relevance and notability. You continue to avoid presenting any relevance or notability. Therefore, you cannot add this information to the article against policy. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 19:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

"Levine." "Levine." Where are the third-party references? Please provide your evidence or it is time for YOU to piperdown. End of discussion. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 23:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"Levine." Please respond to Guru's question by providing a list of third-party references (vanilla icing on the cake). :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 18:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

RfC

I am responding the the request for commnet in the medical section I was directed to above. My comment is that the fact that Dr. Barrett is not Baord Certified is relevant and non-trivial and belongs in a biographical article. It's inclusion is consistent with the various Misplaced Pages policies cited above. Three paragraphs on the subject would be too much. One or two or three lines would be appropriate. RalphLender 17:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• I agree above!

Politics rule 12:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If it's that simple, it seems entirely reasonable to me. I note that there is a brief reference to this in the intro, which seems appropriate. --Marvin Diode 03:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Another suggested compromise

Please check out this conversation at Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Secondary_sources. Wjhonson has suggested a phrasing which may satisfy all of our concerns:

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

I am in favor of this recommendation. What do the rest of you think? Sound reasonable? -- Levine2112 19:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No thanks. Please refer to my previous comments about the board thing. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 19:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that sounds like a great compromise.--Hughgr 19:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

While I don't believe that stating that he isn't board certified is an "attack" or "biased" (as Mr.Guru thinks), Jhonson's suggestion acheives neutrality by balancing out the point with Barrett's response. Thus, WP:NPOV is acheived. -- Levine2112 20:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This gives undue weight to the viewpoints of Barrett's detractors and "balances" this viewpoint by putting Barrett on the defensive. This is not NPOV. This is not adhering to BLP. These problems have been repeated ad nauseum. Consensus will not be achieved by overlooking past discussions. My apologies for feeling the need to repeat arguments that have been repeated many, many times before. -- Ronz  03:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I have posted a request to have the BLP issues addressed on the BLP Noticeboard. Piotrus at the RS Noticeboard believes that there is not a BLP issue, but recommended that I present the question to the experts at the BLP Noticeboard. Let's wait and see how they respond. Thanks. -- Levine2112 04:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Your statements of the problem on the various boards leave much to be desired. It looks like you're canvassing these boards in an attempt to evade existing consensus and ignore two prior RfCs, endless discussion, and all as yet unused WP:DR procedures. You're presenting those who respond there as somehow more important than the very experienced editors already involved in the debate, although the former essentially don't have a clue since they assume good faith regarding your "reports" which are, in reality, shockingly one-sided. AvB ÷ talk 17:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Really? I thought I was presenting the information rather neutrally. You are welcome to comment oin either of the two board which I commented on. BTW, seeking third-party opinions is part of WP:DR. We have had disputes over the reliabilty of the sources, so I figured why not ask the people who know know the WP:RS policy best. As you have read, they believe that our sources are reliable enough to state that Barrett is not Board Certified. A caveat there was that since there seems to be some BLP concerns from some ediotrs here that I should take those concerns to the BLP noticeboard. I followed the guidance there and posted to the BLP Noticeboard and now I am awaiting some input from the experts there. I really don't appreciate that you are describing my efforts to resolve this situation as "canvassing". I don't find what I have written there to be one-sided either; especially since editors from "the other side" have contributed to these posts stating their concerns. Please understand that when I put out the request for an opinion from these policy experts, I am fully prepared to hear feedback that there is some violation that inserting this content will cause. If you look at the edit history and home pages of the editors responding there, you will see that they tend to be very experienced admin level types. The RfC are still out there and we are awaiting feedback there. What other steps in WP:DR would you like to try? I think we've touched on all of the applicable ones, but I am open to new ideas or retrying old ones. -- Levine2112 17:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I happen to disagree. In fact I find your presentations blatantly biased. I for one will ignore "third party opinions" in response to your "requests" as completely out of process. Your questions have been answered above. Please do not communicate with me anymore unless you have something new to say. Otherwise I feel I'm only here to feed the troll. AvB ÷ talk 19:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If you have a problem with my presentation, feel free to go to the Noticeboard and make your points. The requests for third-party opinions are completely within the dispute resolution process. Please don't characterize me as a troll. That is uncivil. Thanks. -- Levine2112 19:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You're doing it again. It's disruptive. AvB ÷ talk 21:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Doing what again? What is disruptive? You have called me a troll and accused me Wikilawyering. You are being uncivil. Please refrain from communicating if you can't remain civil. This is a place to discuss policy. Your uncivil attacks are what is dispruptive to this process. Now then, f you have a problem with my presentation, feel free to go to the Noticeboard and make your points. Cooperatively, I think we can all come to a satisfactory resolution and end this dispute. -- Levine2112 21:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Repeating the same point ad nauseam without adding anything new and ignoring the thoughtful explanations given to you. It's disruptive. As to your being a troll: what I'm writing to you often feels like feeding a troll. What I'm writing now feels like feeding a troll. But I haven't called you a troll. Yet. AvB ÷ talk 22:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

We are all repeating the same points here. Asside from these new uncivil mischaracterizations by you, no one is adding anything new here. I am just as interested in ending this dispute as you are. Please go the BLP Noticeboard and list out your BLP concerns and let the experts there address them. For all I know, you are 100% correct in your policy assessment. Currently, I disagree with you as I don't believe simply stating that Barrett is not Board Certified (a fact which he himself has verified) poses any BLP issue. But I am willing to bow to the expertise that may be given on the BLP Noticeboard. If you feel that I have mischaracterized your side of the dispute or if you have specific points about BLP you would like to see addressed in their assessment there, please feel free to describe them to the editors there. This is part of WP:DR and I believe it will help resolve this dispute. Thanks! -- Levine2112 22:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No, that would be a waste of time, as I've noted at WP:BLPN. You can go anywhere in the encyclopedia and shout the same one-sided misguided things from the rooftops. I neither have the time nor the inclination to follow you and defend the same points over and over again outside of official DR methods agreed on by parties. How many RfCs do you need? We've had two already I think? When will it dawn on you that we have no consensus to include? And you're so confused, arguing at the same time that you're willing to listen to experienced editors AND willing to defer to consensus. No Levine - you only listen to editors who say what you want to hear. I am a bit of a regular on the BLPN and yet you act as if you know it all and I'm just making things up. You're acting quite a bit less humbly than you say you are. AvB ÷ talk 22:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You are being unnecessarily hostile. And you are assuming poor faith. What RfCs are you referring to when you said that we already have had two? All I know is that of the editors who have discussed this issue, there are about 20 who don't see any issue with including it and only 4 or 5 who are against inclusion. BTW, going to the discussion pages of the various policies is in fact part of the offical WP:DR methods. I am not asking the world of you here. You seem firm in your beliefs that inclusion would violate WP:BLP. Just tell me your exact concerns and let's discuss. Or tell your concerns to the editors on the BLP noticeboard. That'll work too. We must strive to reach a consensus. That is how Misplaced Pages works. If the editors at the BLP noticeboard agree that there are BLP concerns preventing us from including this material, then so be it. I told you that I will bow to their expertise on the policy. We will then have a consensus not to include the content; or at least you won't find me disputing it anymore. I hope that you will honor the converse if the editors at the BLP Noticeboard agree that the content passes BLP. Have a good night and I hope to discuss your policy concerns tomorrow. Thanks! -- Levine2112 01:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not being hostile, I'm just fed up with your tactics. I'm not assuming poor faith; based on extensive experience with your edits I've stopped assuming good faith regarding edits where I can't see they warrant it.

You expect others to jump to attention and pamper to each and every one of your incessantly repetitive demands for the same comments, viewpoints and explanations, yet you don't answer my questions above or on the noticeboard. I'll gladly offer my views on your behavior, methods and tactics, complete with all relevant diffs, in your own RfC if someone is mad enough to start one. Oh, by the way, since you're so full of admiration for "very experienced" and "expert" editors, and say you'll defer to "the editors on the BLP noticeboard," it must have escaped your attention that I am one of the editors there. I'm sure I said that somewhere. Oh, of course, it's just another example of your "ignore the answers and repeat the questions until the other despairs, then accuse them of refusing to answer or defend" tactic. Look up your answers, Levine. It's all there. On BLPN I asked you who you'll listen to, Levine2112. How do you define such editors? Am I not right in thinking you'll simply continue your established patterns: only listening to editors who say what you want to hear? For the last time, after a debate that has gone on much too long, we do not have a consensus to include, a reasonable Wikipedian should simply concede. But for you, it seems that a clear lack of consensus must change into a consensus to exclude or a consensus to include. That is not the case. Especially regarding BLP information: a lack of consensus to include means it stays out. (In fact, according to at least one ArbCom member, a consensus (and also admin action) to include disputed material can be overridden by any editor enforcing WP:BLP if the consensus/admin/whatever happens to be wrong. Go figure). No, we must not "strive for a consensus" when something has been discussed this long without producing a consensus. One of the better examples of your blindness to what policies mean on Misplaced Pages, or perhaps your blind adherence to what you think they mean. This has been, and still is, is a giant waste of time. For the rest I refer any readers interested in Levine's novel, one-sided, out-of-process way to do dispute resolution to this WPBLPN report plus discussion. AvB ÷ talk 11:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't doubt your expertise, AvB. But if you read above (and WP:DR), I am looking for a 'third-party opinion on this matter. I am sorry that you are fed up with me. That is not my intention. I maintain that there is no BLP issue presented by including the disputed content as Barrett himself has said he is public with this information. But I am willing to defer to the third-party opinions at BLP. Again, if you feel that my presentation of that dispute was biased on WP:BLP/N then rather than acting uncivilly there, please present your points of the dispute. I am sure as someone who frequents this noticeboard, you know that handling disputes civilly and making your points on policy clear is the most assured way to garner a response from one of the policy experts there. I don't believe that they want to jump in and offer advice where editors are carrying on with hostility. Maybe we should wipe the slate clean there, start fresh, and list out BLP issues we want them to explore with regards to this content. What do you think? Thanks. And once again, I am sorry that you are feeling fed up with me. I know this has gone on a long time and please know that I want this resolved as much as you do. -- Levine2112 17:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You're twisting my words again. I'm not at all fed up with you. I'm fed up with yout tactics. As to your question, you know what I think. Starting with a clean slate? Why? AvB ÷ talk 20:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. You are fed up with my tactics. What are those tactics by the way? From my point of view, I am following WP:DR to the letter, trying to resolve this dispute; and I am remaining remarkably civil in the face of such incivility. I don't know why you are reluctant to spell out your BLP concerns for the editors at WP:BLP/N. Instead you insist on muddying up my request with unsupported accusations of biased presentation. This is not helpful in garnering a response from third-party BLP experts. We should be working together to make sure that they have a clear understanding of what content is under dispute (Stephen Barrett is not Board Certified), what BLP concerns editors have with this content and what sources we have for this content. That is all. That was my purpose of starting a clean slate there. I want it to be crystal clear what we are requesting and not have it muddied up by off-topic incivility. I hope you can see that this can be a good step in getting some resolution to this dispute and you will strive to work more cooperatively in getting input from the experts at WP:BLP/N. Thank you. -- Levine2112 21:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"Maybe we should wipe the slate clean there, start fresh" Maybe you should have dropped this back in March, after we had plenty of third-party opinions. We will not ignore past discussions. We will not ignore editors' contributions here. Please stop suggesting that we do so. -- Ronz  17:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding me. I meant wipe the slate clean over at WP:BLP/N. I value all of the input from all of the editors ont his discussion page. Remember: the large majority of editors here agree that there is no problem with including this content. At this point there are over 20 editors in favor of including it and only 4 or 5 editors against it. -- Levine2112 18:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

20? You're counting opinions from uninvolved editors based on biased descriptions? And you say you're not canvassing? Did you also count Jimbo's opinion? At least that one's based on a description I trust - mine. And you're still maintaining you're not into counting votes? Don't you realize you can't lump old and new "votes" together? Have you read the WP:BLP page recently? Things seem to be moving the way I've been expecting, as explained in the recent past. AvB ÷ talk 20:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

20. At least. You can go back and count to make sure. That includes anyone who has ever looked at this dispute specifically and at last voice, supported inclusion of this content. That's not called canvassing; that's called getting third-party opinions. This is part of WP:DR. I don't think Jimbo has commented on this Stephen Barrett dispute, but if he has, I would appreciate being pointed to his comments. I have read WP:BLP as recently as this morning. Anything in particular you wish to point out? It would be so helpful if you let me and the contributors at WP:BLP/N know specifically what BLP concerns you have so we can address them. -- Levine2112 20:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't doubt you've counted that many. Just conveying surprise that you seem to think that counting votes like you did does not reinforce the already strong impression that you're simply canvassing.

Comments from outside editors based on your one-sided presentation of the dispute are worthless. Especially when violating policies as they exist now, for example the comment by ?Wjhonson as interpreted by you. You're free to say that comments by Jimbo on the Langan precedent on which I based my removal of the disputed material are worthless to you.

The news regarding WP:BLP is that undue weight has once again made its way into WP:BLP, exactly like argued by Ronz and me (and Jimbo), albeit in a different context. However, the reasoning is exactly the same, pinpointing how lack of context will lead to undue weight:

Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy.

For the rest I'll answer your umpteenth repeat request by listing a number of policy elements on which the explanations above were based. Explanations and policy elements you have either rejected (sometimes) or ignored (most often). The list is not exhaustive and I'm only quoting WP:BLP here (you've also been provided with explanations of other core policies). Bolded = my emphasis:

(unindent to keep this readable)

This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The burden of evidence for any edit on Misplaced Pages, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material.

If you have concerns, either as editor or subject, about biographical material about a living person on any page, please alert us on the BLP noticeboard.

• The article itself must be edited with a degree of sensitivity and strict adherence to our content policies

The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves.

Without reliable, third-party sources, a biography will violate our content policies of No original research and Verifiability, and could lead to libel claims.

Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all.

In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Misplaced Pages biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.

Material from primary sources should be used with great care. For example, public records that include personal details such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses, as well as trial transcripts and other court records, should not be used unless cited by a reliable secondary source. Where primary-source material has first been presented by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to turn to open records to augment the secondary source, subject to the no original research policy. See also Misplaced Pages:Verifiability.

The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article.

Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons in biographies and elsewhere. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

Eventualism is deprecated on BLP articles.

When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is sourced, neutral, and on-topic. Admins who suspect malicious or biased editing, or who have reason to believe that this policy may otherwise be violated, may protect or semi-protect the page after removing the disputed material.

Editors who repeatedly add or restore unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons may be blocked for disruption. See the blocking policy.

Read and weep, Levine2112. You've been told all of this, but prefer to believe it's just Ronz, JoshuaZ and a handful of others who hold these views. I'm sorely tempted to add diffs to the above list documenting how you've violated and ignored WP:BLP. Instead I'm going to bed. AvB ÷ talk 22:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

First, I want to point out that your edit summary of "read it and weep" is hostile and childish.

Thanks. AvB ÷ talk 23:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

An apology would have been nicer, but oh well. -- Levine2112 02:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes I feel like being childish (especially when being accosted by five delightful kittens). Apparently it came across as intended. Except for being hostile of course. This would not be my first choice to convey hostility. AvB ÷ talk 12:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I am happy that you recognize your incivility. "Cutting it out" would be a good next step. -- Levine2112 16:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Second, I want to thank you for listing your concerns.

Repeating just a subset of what has already been explained. AvB ÷ talk 23:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Not to this detail. This is very helpful. Thanks. -- Levine2112 02:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Third, I want to point out that JoshuaZ actually states above that he doesn't have trouble with including this material providing that we don't use the Chiro articles as a source.

Do you really believe that JoshuaZ would ignore WP:BLP? "In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Misplaced Pages biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out." AvB ÷ talk 23:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what JoshuaZ was thinking; I only know what I read above. He said that provided that we are not using the Chiro sites as a source, he sees no problem with including the content. -- Levine2112 02:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fourth, I want you to recognize that at RS/N they found our sources to be reliable enough to verify the statement that Barrett is not Board Certified. Thus we have met WP:V.

Doesn't mean anyone is prepared to go against WP:BLP over something as trivial as this that's only important in the eyes of a tiny minority. "In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Misplaced Pages biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out." AvB ÷ talk 23:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

(Inserted later) Yes, but Barrett is not a SIGNIFICANT public figure in the sense that he is regularly mentioned on the prime time news and that 50% of the population knows who he is. He is a public figure in a rather narrow field and the news sources in that field have reported about the board certification issue. MaxPont 10:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

None of these news sources are reliable sources regarding Barrett (per JoshuaZ et al.). Also, BLP's language is stricter regarding the less significant/notable/public. AvB ÷ talk 11:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That is your determination that they are not reliable. But every editor at RS/N has approved that our primary sources verify the information. The secondary sources are only icing on the cake. -- Levine2112 16:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

There are a multitude of reliable third-party sources to take this material from. I have listed about seven. There are more. RS/N says the sources we have are enough to verify that Barrett is not Board Certified. -- Levine2112 02:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fifth, I would like to include a portion of BLP that you left out:

Fortunately I included something you left out: in some circumstances. You might want to click the link. You should also realize that these are primary sources and all the caveats, such as those about context and interpretation, apply. AvB ÷ talk 23:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Here are those circumstances accoding to BLP:

• it is relevant to the subject's notability; - it is
• it is not contentious; - it isn't
• it is not unduly self-serving; - it isn't
• it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject; and - it does not
• there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it. - there is not

So it seems that this may very well be be one of those circumstance. -- Levine2112 02:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It certainly seems that way. Perhaps I have not explained the point (sufficiently) in the past. Such information may be used. However, such material still has to meet other aspects of policy. For example, editors are not allowed to take source information out of context (the reverse of WP:SYN - but note that it's a red flag when a usually reliable secondary source takes information out of context.) Since it's a primary source, any interpretation/evaluation/etc. should be left to reliable secondary sources. Which we don't have. Bottom line, this is not a reason to exclude (and I do not think it has been presented as such by opponents). It is not a reason to include (I feel it's being presented as such by proponents). And it does not invalidate or resolve the policy and common sense based objections presented during these discussions. AvB ÷ talk 12:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I am glad that you agree that this information may be used. Perhaps if you are looking to place this in context, you would be open to Jhonson's suggestion: "He is not board certified (citation), but he responds by stating that 'It is not necessary to be board-certified to practice psychiatry'" (citation) Certainly, Barrett's commentary puts the significance of this content into perspective and balances out any WP:NPOV issues (i.e. WP:WEIGHT. -- Levine2112 16:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Using the subject as a self-published source

Self-published material may never be used in BLPs unless written by the subject him or herself. Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs. Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article...

So those are my points and now I know yours. Let's wait to hear back from WP:BLP/N. Again, I am totally willing to accept that adding this material may constitute a BLP violation. If that is the case, of course I won't want to include this material. On the converse, are you prepared to accept that perhaps there isn't a BLP violation casued by adding this material? If so, would you be willing to allow this content to be posted into the article? -- Levine2112 22:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

More questions that have already been answered. I rest my case. For now. AvB ÷ talk 23:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Truly. It is very helpful to have it all spelled out in one place. I hope that seeing my arguments helps too. I agree with what you said on BLP/N; we are in a grey area. Neither of us knows for sure what is the right thing to do. I think that is the beauty of Misplaced Pages and we may be helping to make more clear a grey point in this policy. -- Levine2112 02:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I just want to make a brief statement now. Other than my post below this conversation I have pretty much stayed out of this. I have to say, I now understand why 'the board certification' shouldn't be allowed. I agree with Avb, Ronz and others who say that it does not belong in the article. All the comments that it is not a negative, well I have to say that is not true. To say that having it in so people who want to know if Barrett is board certified to me is ridiculous. With my medical issues, board certification doesn't even come into my mind, only if the Dr. is qualified to make such judgment do. ----CrohnieGal/_Contribs 14:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, your personal opinion of the importance of Board Certification is irrelevant here. Board Certification is a widely recognized acheivement and a significant accolade. Given all of the articles and libel trials concerning Barrett's status with Board Certification, it would be an injustice if a researcher came here to find out whether or not Barrett is Board Certified and could not find an answer. If we go with Jhonson's suggestion ("He is not board certified (citation), but he responds by stating that 'It is not necessary to be board-certified to practice psychiatry'" (citation)), the researcher gets the information and Barrett's perspective. What less could an encyclopedia provide? -- Levine2112 16:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

First off I resent you saying my opinion doesn't matter. I made comment that I agreed with Avb, Ronz and the others about why this should not be in. Next, when Dr. Barrett was actively practicing board certification wasn't the norm, which also makes it not notable. You say you don't have an agenda but your verbal vomit continually being regurgitated here is exhausting to all. There is no consensus to add this, why not give it up already? I am about to learn a new policy, how to stop this already. I think this is so over done that it's not funny, and remember, I have been staying away from here. ----CrohnieGal/_Contribs 17:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Crohnie's point is not irrelevant at all. It's not as if she's trying to insert her opinion into the article. It´s a common sense argument (where personal opinion is important). Editors sharing their personal experience helps inform common sense. Her post illustrates from experience something also apparent from reliable sources: it´s simply not an issue in the eyes of just about everyone but a handful of critics and some chiro web sites who unwisely support their personal attacks on Barrett instead of taking on Barrett's arguments.

As to Levine2112's argument: I don't accept it for several reasons. Example: I do not believe any researcher will come to Misplaced Pages for that reason. For one thing, Barrett retired 17 years ago and no one will expect him to be board certified now (board certification expires after 7 or 10 years according to Barrett). But those who find it an acceptable argument should realize it is also an argument in favor of the compromises proposed by Ronz and myzelf. How about them? AvB ÷ talk 17:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Crohnie, I apologize. But is was with all due respect. Your opinion on Board Certification is irrelevant to deciding whether or not we put it in (just as my opinion that it is important is irrelevant). There was no intent to disparage you there. Again, I am sorry. The source which you provided about Board Certification doesn't say that Board Certification was not the norm when Barrett was practicing. Remember, he had his license until the mid 90s. Board Certification was very popular indeed then. Again, with all of the hype being put out there about Barrett's status with Board Certification (and it may very well just be hype), we would be doing an injustice to a researcher to not put in the verifiable facts here: Barrett is not Board Certified. -- Levine2112 17:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Levine, you're once again totally dismissing something very important I've said. THis is about the thing that makes Misplaced Pages tick. And it's not (primarily) policies. Misplaced Pages is a community effort. It is guided by common sense. Our policies (except for some very finite Foundation principles) are simply congealed experience and, yes, common sense laid down by the community. Wikilawyering results when editors lose (or never gain) sight of this. (Some start ramming their version of the rules through other editors' throats, not realizing they are themselves the misguided ones.) Such editors have a very hard time with the existence of the WP:IAR policy. Our objective is not to blindly follow the rules. Our objective is to write neutral articles using our brains and . Yes, common sense like Crohnie's is extremely important to this project. I think it's time for you to display some. AvB ÷ talk 19:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

PS Levine, I'm not saying you never display common sense. This is about your response to Crohnie and your insight into what makes Misplaced Pages tick. AvB ÷ talk 20:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Who is to say then who's common sense is right then? The more common belief here (by nearly 5 to 1) is that Barrett's lack of Board Certification should be included. If we want to bring in the more common of common sense, then it is clear that this content should be included. Board Certification is a popular credential (even back in the mid nineties). By Barrett's own statement, 1 out 3 of his colleagues (psychiatrists) were Board Certified when he took the exam back in the early 60s. One-third is a very significant percentage and it has only increased since then. -- Levine2112 21:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"Who is to say then who's common sense is right then?" You still seem to believe that there's some ultimate authority who will decide and that this is something decided by the majority. You should realize we do not have to add content because 10 partisans try to vote it in. If that's what you mean by "the more common of common sense," you're ignoring common sense that is brought in via the regular WP:DR processes. Common sense that is applied after due diligence. Common sense that does not simply declare itself correct, but that gives convincing reasons. Like I said before, you can't go around with a one-sided description and declare responses binding. In fact RfC is a phase we entered and left long ago. It ended in "no consensus to include". The mediation stalled and you have done nothing to get it going again (you should, as the one who wants to include the material). <this comment is unfinished but I'm dead tired> AvB ÷ talk 21:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I am bothered that you still find mine descriptions of what is going on as one-sided. I find my description to be very neutral. Again, I welcome your input on these boards to give your description. What I don't like is when you come to those boards and are uncivil. I understand your feelings about common sense, and feel that common sense at this stage of WP:DR is to include the information. There seems to be a small group with no convincing reasons to leave the content out other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If you would like, I will restart mediation if you feel that is the best route to proceed. But in order for it work, the civility level will need to become much better here. If everyone can agree to be civil, I will gladly make a request to restart the mediation process. Civility means that we will be discussion contents, sources, and policies and we won't be pointing fingers at editors'alleged behaviors and biases. Agreed? -- Levine2112 22:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Another suggested compromise (section break)

Board ceritifcation was not the popular and was not the norm when Barrett began his career. In fact, it was irrelevant to his career. It had no impact or bearing to his career. Detractors are quick to talk about the board thing because they cannot pin/attack him with anything else. Levine has not demonstrated the point to adding the board thing. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 17:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Levine, thanks for the apology. But I still agree with the others, it's not important. You say why it is important, I have the right to say it's not. ----CrohnieGal/_Contribs 17:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You do have that right. Absolutely. -- Levine2112 21:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

400+

You've made almost 400 edits to this talk page since you restarted this dispute in March, about 1/3 of all the comments here. You're repeating the same questions that you made when you first started this dispute over and over and over, seemingly paying no attention to the many, many replies you've received, and the many in-depth discussions discussions about them. You've made your WP:POINT. Give it a break! -- Ronz  19:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

And you have yet to make your point. Spell out your BLP concerns so we can address them. Spell out any other policy concerns you may have. I have spent most of these last three months trying to get you to do so. You have refused. It it possible that this comes down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT for you? I will continue this conversation until there is satisfactory resolve. That means that we either arrive at a consensus or that editors with greater knowledge of policy lay out exactly why the content can or cannot be included. Again, I am fully open to the possibility that it cannot be included. If you would like to end this discussion so badly then I would think that you would be more cooperative in providing your policy concerns clearly and succinctly for any third-party editors. -- Levine2112 20:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Levine2112 seems to know what third-party editors are. Therefore, he probably knows what third-party references are and we do not have any. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 20:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

another option (solution)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Request_comment_on_users

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Levine2112

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wp:de#Dealing_with_disruptive_editors

Levine2112 has had behaviour issues recently. We can open a request for comment about this. Any thoughts. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 20:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Go for it, there's only so many edits by one editor in one article for about 6 words over 15 months that one can handle. It's quite obvious that one editor is being rather obsessive on the matter. Shot info 22:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that I am shocked at how long and how much verbal vomit has been regurgitated in the past few months here. I get exhausted just trying to keep up never mind post an opinion. If there is a way to end this already, then I say go for it. People are all exhausted by this now, I think everyone at this point. ----CrohnieGal/_Contribs 19:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Barrett v. Clark

Alameda.Court.CA - here is a repository of related court information from Barrett v. Clark case. -- Levine2112 00:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)