| Revision as of 01:54, 18 April 2009 editHipal (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers137,994 edits →Board Certification: Fresh Start: not sure about this one← Previous edit |
Revision as of 02:02, 18 April 2009 edit undoQuackGuru (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users79,978 edits Time to archive.Next edit → |
| Line 29: |
Line 29: |
|
# ] |
|
# ] |
|
|}<!--Template:Archivebox ends--> |
|
|}<!--Template:Archivebox ends--> |
|
|
|
|
==Blocked/banned editors== |
|
|
Arbitration Committee banned ] has posted to this article/talk page. Arbitration Committee banned ] and SSP indefinitely blocked ] both have used the ] IP address. See ]. ] and ] have been blocked indefinitely as sockpuppets of ]. See ]. If you are aware of any attempts to circumvent these bans/blocks, please consider making a report at ]. -- ]]/] 18:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I'm curious, but what brought on your reasons to make this post? If it's something that can't be discussed here I understand, just curious if there is something the editor's here should be aware of. Thanks, --]] 21:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Moved to talk for discussion: dismissal of claims== |
|
|
Given all the past discussion we've had, I moved this new addition to the article by a new editor. Seems pretty trivial and getting off-topic: |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>The Court did affirm both the dismissal of plaintiff Barrett's claims, finding the statements in question to be non-actionable statements of opinion, as well as so much of the lower court's decision that awarded defendant attorney's fees for prevailing on her Anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss. The court did, however, direct that those fees be reduced to reflect its ruling permitting Polevoy to proceed with his claim as outlined at http://www.internetlibrary.com/cases/lib_case331.cfm. Stephen J. Barrett, et al. v. Ilena Rosenthal |
|
|
9 Cal.Rpt.3d 142, A096451 (Cal. App. Crt., 1st App. Dist., October 15, 2003) reversed 40 Cal.4th 33, S 122953 (Cal. Sup. Ct., November 20, 2006)<ref name="bolen_response">{{cite web|url=http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/bolen.html|author=Barrett SJ|title=A Response to Tim Bolen|accessdate=2007-02-12|publisher=Quackwatch}}</ref><ref name="negrete_suit">Barrett, S. ""</ref></blockquote> |
|
|
--] (]) 17:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I have to agree Ronz, plus isn't it close to a ] problem? Plus, previous conversations have stated to leave Bolin out of the articles esp. it shouldn't be put in this way with only one side stated and Bolin's site is banned so I feel it should be left out. I think it goes off on a tangent that is not needed for the article like you say. Just my opinion of course. --]] 21:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== writings of Barrett == |
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to "Sorry but I don't see what this has to do with Dr. Barrett. Please explain on the talk page before reinserting". As it states, the three chapters were written by Barrett. That is what it has to do with Barrett. Should it be under "selected publications" instead? ] ], 22:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:If it belongs anywhere, that would be the location, though the individual chapters should probably be identified. --] (]) 23:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:That said, it might be best to have a reliable source to meet ], showing that it is notable in Barrett's career. --] (]) 00:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: I don't see how these writings of his would be any less significant than the ones already listed. In fact, since they were selected for the book, they might be more significant. ] ], 00:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: The book was reviewed in the Sept/Oct 2007 Skeptical Inquirer. <s>I thought I'd seen the review online, but I'm searching for it again. </s> ] ], 00:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Here is a . " a collection of classic articles written by the pioneers of the critical-thinking and debunking communities. ... but this anthology easily stands upon its own merits with contributions from scholars including Susan Blackmore, Michael Shermer, Stephen Barrett ... " ] ], 00:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::FWIW, I don't mind information that is produced by Barrett being included as "He has written XXXXX" in his bio. What Bubba has produced above does suggest to me that the info is notable to Barrett's audience. However, isn't encyclopedia.com just a mirror for Misplaced Pages (so it probably isn't a RS). ] (]) 04:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: The encyclopedia.com link I gave is an online version of the Skeptical Inquirer review of the book, and that page isn't a mirror of WP. SI doesn't have that article online, and I couldn't get it through FindArticles.com either, but I found it there. I present it for the notability of the book and Barrett's chapters in it. Another quote from the review: "Paranormal Claims comes with endorsements from Ken Frazier, James Randi, and Ann Druyan, which speaks volumes (excuse the pun), for the importance of this book". ] ], 04:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::: You can buy a copy of the review for only $9.95: . ] ], 05:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::The link you provided on the bottom says it's copywritten. So wouldn't that make this all unusable unless another source is found that isn't protected by copywrite? --]] 12:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::: That means that we can't use the text of the review (or a major portion of it) in our articles. But that was not my intention. I posted a link to that review just to show the notability of the book and the articles/chapters in it, some of which were written by Barrett. ] ], 15:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Blatant ] violation== |
|
|
Anything further from either of these editors remotely along these lines should result in a block: and |
|
|
. --] (]) 23:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I kind of remember a lawsuit involving King bio where the judge described Dr. Barrett as such. . . Why are you suggesting a block?] (]) 20:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Actually, I remember that also. However, it's only reasonable ''in context'', and the context is not provided here and is not relevant to this article. — ] | ] 01:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
So if I give the context of the trial then say ''(refactored) something along these lines (end refactoring)'', then that would ok?] (]) 17:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:Quick answer: Given the previous discussions on this matter, not very likely. |
|
|
:Complicated answer: Tell us exactly what you are proposing to add, what sources you propose to use, and how WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:LEAD, and especially WP:BLP will not being violated. --] (]) 18:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Just as soon as you tell us how this line "Numerous sources have cited Stephen Barrett's Quackwatch as a credible or reliable source for online consumer information." does not violate WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:LEAD. ] (]) 02:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::We used to have a list of such sources, including ], ], and a few state Attorneys General — ] | ] 02:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::] could be added to that list. ] ~(])]~ 07:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::No doubt when one actually look at what the sources say, it won't be quite the same as how it's worded here. But probably best not to dig up the sources and cause a stink, even if it's not true as worded, we all know it's accurate, which is good enough for me! ] (]) 22:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::], ], and a few state Attorneys General? Please provide the references or links. Perhaps we can improve this article. ] ] 22:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Accurate? I certainly don't KNOW that, and I'm not about to BELIEVE it without WP:RS.] (]) 09:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Townsend Letters are a RS == |
|
|
The Townsend Letters have been published for about 25 years. It is primarily published by . I don't see how this could not be a ]. You'll have to demonstrate it. ] | {] - ]} 23:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:That ref is not RS. No evidence has been presented. ] 23:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Added to BLP/N ]. ] | {] - ]} 23:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: In the meantime, the best thing to do is to leave it at the last consensual version until you hear back opinions from BLPN. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 00:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== BLP violation == |
|
|
|
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Stephen_Barrett&curid=782849&diff=215393929&oldid=215386169 ] 00:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== no consensus according to the editor who added the material == |
|
|
|
|
|
. Read the comment as well as the edit summary. This was made without consensus according to ImperfectlyInformed. ] 06:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Guess what? A double-negative makes a positive. "There was no consensus ... that Townsend Letters was not a RS". Anyway, see for the discussion. ] | (] - ]) 06:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::There is the issue that there is to use this ref. And the views of a tiny mirority is a ] violation. ] 06:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Copyedits == |
|
|
I which I think need discussion and agreement before implementation. The first one - a change to the lead - actually changes the meaning of what is sourced. The most common legitimate criticism of Barrett is claiming that he lacks of objectivity. The second one - a deletion of entire critics opinion - was done with an ES stating that too much weight is being given to a critic's opinion. It is but a mere sentence and it is sources to a published work. I don't believe that this is any violation of ]. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 17:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
: I removed the following: "For example, nutritionist ] claims that one of Dr. Barrett's books, ''The Vitamin Pushers'', hardly discusses supplements but is rather "filled with derisive statements about individuals and organizations in the health care and natural foods industry" and lumps scientists with obvious charlatans indiscriminately." as it gives to much weight to a single persons opinion. The statement of which this is an example remains, and the source supporting it remains too. Why not turn the ref into a proper citation and add that opinion as a quote? --] (]) 17:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:: In fact the reference does not provide enough information for me to find the source. Where was it published, for example? --] (]) 17:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::: While the reference could be improved, this quote provides a much needed example of a critic who in fact finds Barrett to lack objectivity and describes exactly why the critic feels this way. I think it should remain and agree with you that the reference itself can be improved. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 21:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: Unless the sourcing is improved it should be removed per BLP. Also, it has weight problems if the quote is put into the body. --] (]) 21:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: Please describe the perceived Weight issue. Also, we may want to consider how this was handled at the Colgan article. It's more of a he-said/he-said issue there. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 21:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
I'm concerned about the changes to the lead as well, especially, "Heavily criticised by those in the alternative health movement." What portions of the article support such a change to the lead? --] (]) 18:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:A number of practitioners and supporters of alternative medicine criticize Barrett and Quackwatch for its criticism of alternative medicine. |
|
|
:Some alternative medicine practitioners and nutritionists have responded to Stephen Barrett's criticisms. |
|
|
:The above two sentences is duplication and the Colgan ref is dated. |
|
|
:The previous lead was better. Stuff like "Heavily criticised" is way too dramatic. ] 18:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Good spot. --] (]) 18:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== WEASEL WORDS == |
|
|
|
|
|
I had deleted: |
|
|
:''"Numerous sources have cited Stephen Barrett's Quackwatch as a credible or reliable source for online consumer information."'' |
|
|
This was reverted with the following explanation: |
|
|
|
|
|
:''"but doesn't appear to violate ]. Feel free to discuss on talk page."''] |
|
|
|
|
|
Implicit endorsement of faulty logic. |
|
|
|
|
|
* The word "clearly" and other words of its kind are often a form of handwaving which asserts that a conclusion has been demonstrated. Misplaced Pages articles should not be making arguments in the first place. Simply state facts, cite the sources of them, and '''let the readers draw their own conclusions.''' |
|
|
* Many people think... is often a lead-in to a bandwagon fallacy. It wasn't put there to establish the context of the following statement, but rather '''to lead the reader to accept a conclusion based on a claim that "many" others believe it.''' Cite recognized experts to establish the truth of a statement; don't allude to an anonymous crowd. |
|
|
|
|
|
The ] article states: |
|
|
:''"Numerous sources cite Quackwatch as a practical source for online consumer information"'' |
|
|
The weasel is not half as fat as on this page. Don't get the wrong ideas, this sentence is of totally inferior quality compared to the actually sourced sources. |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 06:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:So what exactly are you asking? Personally I don't think that a comment about ] does not belong in the lede of a ]. However your edit above seems to be arguing ''what'' exactly? ] (]) 06:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Medical information is weaseled away under consumer information. I just read the sentence then I wonder what doctors claims quack watch is credible medical advice? I think the links are down there some place. It would be good to have them where the question comes up. That is all. |
|
|
::You are right about repeating the homepage in the biography lead. I think the legal battle doesn't need to be there either. This would be enouhg IMHO. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::''Stephen J. Barrett (born 1933) is a retired American psychiatrist, author, co-founder of the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF), and the webmaster of Quackwatch. He runs a number of websites dealing with quackery and health fraud. He focuses on consumer protection, medical ethics, and scientific skepticism.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
::Or even: |
|
|
|
|
|
:::''Stephen J. Barrett (born 1933) is a retired American psychiatrist, author, co-founder of the National Council Against Health Fraud.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
::Nice short neutral and clear, then stick the menu under it. Unnamed websites ''dealing'' with quackery is not what his note worthiness is based on? Or is it? ] (]) 19:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::FWIW, the first one is my personal preference, only per ] rather than anything to do with weasel words. How about ''Stephen J. Barrett (born 1933) is a retired American psychiatrist, author, co-founder of the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF), and the webmaster of Quackwatch. He is best known for consumer protection, medical ethics, and scientific skepticism in which he operates a number of websites that deal with quackery and health fraud.'' The rest of the information is in the body of the article and only the main information (ie/ actually about Barrett) should be in the lede. Incidently if you read the article, you will see that Barrett is probably best known for Quackwatch.org (a website). So notability is assured there. ] (]) 00:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: I would be against saying that he is ''best known'' for consumer protection, medical ethics, and scientific skepticism. That is unverifiable. Instead, how about this? |
|
|
::::: ''Stephen J. Barrett (born 1933) is a retired American psychiatrist, author, co-founder of the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF) and the webmaster of Quackwatch. He runs a number of skeptic websites dealing with consumer protection, medical ethics, and health fraud.'' |
|
|
:::: -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 00:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
See ] for some helpful information on how to properly write the introduction section. --] (]) 19:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
] says the controversy is relatively important. I initially called it weasel wording but it's mostly poor sourcing that is disturbing the flow of the read. Must mention who endorses such questionable writings. It's part of the controversy. The sources are not that disappointing. ] (]) 05:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I don't particularly like Quackwatch / Stephen Barrett for some reason, but the statement in the lead is supported by the article. I don't think it is an example of weasel-wording. However, I am bothered by this common idea that things in the lead supported by the article don't need to be cited. A name should be applied to the the praising organizations and cite that statement. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] </span> 22:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:Heh, it can be seen from your edits that you don't like QW or Barrett, nevertheless writing for the enemy is always useful to help edit from an NPOV perspective. FWIW, ] is a useful piece of info to help us avoid cluttering up the lede with cites. ] (]) 07:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== MD NetGuide reference in lead == |
|
|
That reference really doesn't seem to work. It loads up a page with no information for me. Does it really work for you, Fyslee? ] | (] - ]) 07:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:It works for me, clearing your cache might help. --] (]) 11:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::It looks like some browsers don't display the content properly, though the information is there and the browsers actually load it. --] (]) 15:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: Adding the ref here for convenience.<ref name=nettie> ''MDNetGuide'', May/June 2003.</ref> |
|
|
::: -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 19:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Cleared my cache, still doesn't work. Ronz is right, though, because I can see the information in the page source. Nevertheless, probably best to put a different source in the lead. ] | (] - ]) 20:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Websites describing Quackwatch do not always claim it is credible or reliable. == |
|
|
|
|
|
Forbes: "great for the uninformed." Consultant Pharmacist: "relevant..poorly organized..." US News & World Report: "Worth a Click..." It comes up on the healthfinder.gov search engine, but the "reliable" claim is tempered by the fact that it only comes up on third party websites - some of which do not endorse Quackwatch. Cunningham and Marcason from the American Dietetic Association are quoted as describing Quackwatch as "useful." Southwest Public Libraries do not endorse or recommend Quackwatch - they give it zero stars. National Network of Libraries of Medicine offers Quackwatch for additional information. VCU Libraries does not endorse Quackwatch, they are simply listed as a source. U. of Kentucky's link did not say anything about Quackwatch on my click. ] (]) 06:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Instead of listing every single term used, I have edited it and just used the term "useful" as a reasonable compromise. None of the sources would have mentioned Quackwatch if they didn't think it was useful. We don't need to list all the accolades. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 04:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== References == |
|
|
''(Please leave this list at the bottom of the page. Thanks!)'' --] 22:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
{{reflist}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
That article seems to me to be a POV fork. I see no reason why it cannot be included here. ] <small>]</small> 04:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:That's not a POV fork. I like that article. It has very few references but there are other articles in mainspace like that too. However, I'm not sure if it would survive an AFD. |
|
|
:It is already mentioned in this article. There was much discussion. The amount it is covered in this article is enough. ] 04:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I don't know what the POV problems might be (you don't explain), but as one who researched and the tight and neutral "defamation lawsuits" section of this article, and as one who is interested in Section 230 immunity, I '''strongly oppose merger'''. ''Barrett v. Rosenthal'' is a thorough opinion relating to ]. It's an important case and has a stack of citations independent from the subject of Stephen Barrett. ] '']'' 04:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Fork yes, inasmuch as the overly large section of BvR was removed into it's own article - something that often happens in Misplaced Pages. Jossi, I would like to see why you think ] is a '''POV'''FORK. After all, (re)inclusion into this article would imply that it needs to be massively pruned to satisfy ]. ] (]) 05:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I was wondering how can one tiny court case have such a big article. Is there many references citing ] in regard to ''Barrett v. Rosenthal'' or is this a tiny article that has somehow survived in mainspace. Soon I will remove the merge tags. We are not going to dump an inflated article into this article. ] 05:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I would recommend you leave it QG until there is a clear consensus for the merger. It won't hurt anybody if it stays up there for a few days or even a week or so. ] (]) 05:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Also, it isn't a "tine article". BvR set some massive precident in the US effectively protecting anybody who republishes information (or even claims to be republishing info) from libel. ] (]) 05:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I think there are enough reference to merit an article. It's the Supreme Court of California, and it was unusual because the California Court of Appeals had broken with most Federal courts since '']''. The lower court refused to extend immunity to what it termed "distributor liability" for defamation (as opposed to publisher liability). The outcome of this case was therefore anticipated by those who wondered whether California would take a fresh and novel approach to interpreting Section 230. As it turned out, they didn't. I could work on it if you like. ] '']'' 05:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Has any similar articles went to an AFD. What is the notability standard for these court cases. ] 05:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I don't really know, but I think it would pass (and I tend to be a deletionist anymore). If you nominate it, I'll fight to keep it, and there are an embarrassing number of possible sources from major newspapers to scholarly legal articles. I'll work on it this weekend, 'kay? ] '']'' 05:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Anyone could AFD it and if it is speedly deleted you would not have a chance to work on it this weekend. In 24 hours it could be deleted. ] 05:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Anyone could, yes. I'm telling you to please not do that because I have a lot of things to do now, and don't really want to drop everything to defend the article. Incidentally, ''Zeran'' is a much more important case and that article is in even worse shape. ] '']'' 05:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
←They should be kept as seperate articles as the content of the lawsuit one would dominate the Barret article. Both are notable, and I don't see any POV problems. I understand the suggestion as being consolidating related information, but I think here this would do more harm by overwhelming this article. ] <small>]</small> 07:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I also think they should stay separated as they are notable on their own and merging them would over take the other. I also support Luke in working on the article. Luke go for it, this I totally support. --]] 11:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Sections lack dates == |
|
|
|
|
|
Was reading through this article to get context for something else, and I noticed that the sections "Consumer information" and "Defamation lawsuits" don't mention when any of the events described take place. When was Quackwatch founded? There is no indication (apart from in the references or in other articles) as to when the other events described in this section took place. The section "Defamation lawsuits" similarly fails to give any dates at all for when the events and lawsuits mentioned took place. The article would be improved a lot if someone went through it and asked themselves what year each event took place, and rewrote some of the sections to give such date context. ] (]) 02:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==List-like sourcing== |
|
|
The final paragraph of the "Consumer information" section has too many sources added as separate footnotes: <blockquote>"Some sources that mention Stephen Barrett's Quackwatch as a useful source for consumer information include website reviews, government agencies, various journals including The Lancet peer-reviewed medical journal and some libraries."</blockquote> Firstly, there should be no need to aggregate as many as 5 or 6 references for a statement within a single sentence. Just one or two good references should be enough - usually the most reliable or the ones spanning a period of time. Even when lots of references are used, it improves the readability of an article if the multiple references are consolidated into one clickable footnote, if possible. There are a few tricks available to help do that - hopefully some of the editors here will know those tricks. ] (]) 02:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Content removal due to BLP concerns == |
|
|
|
|
|
In edit, I removed a section, because I had concerns relating to the ] policy. The section relied heavily on primary sources, which was a problem, because the persons mentioned in this section were ], and in instances such as this, content from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source. ] (]) 23:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:I made to cleanup the lead. ] (]) 03:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:I don't think NPF applies here. The lawsuits are directly tied to his notability. ] (]) 19:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
=== Barrett v. Rosenthal (Merge or AFD) === |
|
|
|
|
|
There are more BLP concerns currently in mainspace. The content at ] relies heavily on primary sources. This is a possible BLP violation of ]. ] (]) 21:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I disagree with the assertion that Barrett and Rosenthal are not (at least limited) public figures. But that may not be entirely relevant to the possible ] violations. — ] ] 15:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::The article relies heavily on primary sources. I think it would be best to merge it into ]. ] (]) 18:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: I wikilinked it for you. B v R is already mentioned there. -- ] (]) 03:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::It is already mention there. That is why it would be the best to merge the content using reliable sources. In any event, relying heavily on primary court case sources for non-public people is ]. ] (]) 04:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Wasn't this already discussed about 3 sections above? Unless there is something ''new'' to actually discuss - the previous consensus stands. ] (]) 05:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::No specific reason has been given to keeping an article with references from primary sources. To establish notibility the text should consist mainly of secondary sources but not primary sources. The ''new'' argument that has not been directly replied to is the problem with relying heavily on primary sources. This is a BLP issue. Since B v R is already mentioned in ] we could simply redirect it as another option. ] (]) 19:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::redirecting wouldn't fix a BLP issue. ] (]) 19:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Question about Edit == |
|
|
|
|
|
Concerning I can understand why Joel Kauffman's review of Quackwatch should be on the wikipedia entry for Quackwatch, rather than here... |
|
|
|
|
|
However, as per Ronz's comment that this has been discussed before, there are 13 archives of discussion here. Can someone tell me where it was decided that a partial quote of Stephen Barrett's answer to the question of bias on his site is supposed to be more "objective" than the full answer that Stephen Barret gave and has up on his website. I would like to read where this was discussed, decided, and by whom. |
|
|
|
|
|
thanks. |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 23:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Time to ignore those who want to use this page as a battleground== |
|
|
]: "Misplaced Pages is a volunteer community, and does not require its users to give any more time and effort than they wish. Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other users." |
|
|
|
|
|
Let's not get sucked into letting editors once again use this talk page to attack Barrett and try to Wikilawyer a way into introducing these attacks into the article. If editors want to add information, the burden of evidence is on them, per WP:V, to provide sources. Because these are WP:BLP issues, these need to be high quality references. The information should also adhere to all other Misplaced Pages policies, especially WP:NPOV and WP:OR. |
|
|
|
|
|
If these editors continue to disrupt this page, I'm sure we can find an admin to apply arbcom enforcement here. --] (]) 02:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Yes, Ronz, I agree we need a 3rd party in here. |
|
|
:: --] (]) 23:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I'm sorry to say but yes this is necessary at this point. The latest edits are getting personal about the editor not the edits. (I'm not posting links because I don't feel it is necessary to stir the pot.) I think the questions that have been asked have been answered now and in the past. I gave some links as requested, to some of the conversations in the archives but no response to them other than from Shot who makes the point about notability. I think it's best to give this a rest with what is going on here and at the RS notice board. Please, everyone, take a breath and a break, I am. --]] 12:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: yes, I did not appreciate Fyslee/BullRangifer implying that I am a sockpuppet/meatpuppet by bringing in and saying . This is an ] and certainly not in good faith. |
|
|
::--] (]) 23:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Board Certification: Fresh Start == |
|
|
|
|
|
Last night, I went through some of the history of the arguments for / against the inclusion of Barrett's board certification status. I did find where 3rd parties did state their opinion: |
|
|
|
|
|
]: |
|
|
look at the opinions of ] (one of the Wikipedians in the Mediation Cabal ), and ] who is a Misplaced Pages Administrator. Basically, they both said: |
|
|
<blockquote>"He is not board certified (citation), but he responds by stating that 'It is not necessary to be board-certified to practice psychiatry'"</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
in addition, Piotrus came here to add his comments to the talk discussion going on here at the time here:] to verify his opinion. |
|
|
|
|
|
Since this seems to be reasonable to 2 3rd party administrator/mediators that are more objective than any of us, I am fine with making the sentence in question: |
|
|
<blockquote>Barrett is a 1957 graduate of the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and completed his psychiatry residency in 1961, but was not board certified. When questioned about this, Barrett stated that it is not necessary to be board-certified to practice psychiatry.</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
to make it NPOV in the way the 3rd parties specified. |
|
|
--] (]) 02:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Disagree - but this has all been said before - need the tertiary sources supporting why it's important. ] (]) 22:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Agree - ] is a valid and important part of ]. Personally, I think the "why it is important" is rather obvious. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 02:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:what policy says we need 3rd party sources "supporting why it's important"? ] (]) 21:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: ]. - ] <small>(])</small> 21:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: That Stephen Barrett is not Board Certified is not a viewpoint. It is a fact (a well documented one at that). I don't see how ] applies. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 22:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: We've been through exact issue before. NPOV applies. For those who don't want to check the archives: |
|
|
::::# There are an infinite number of facts that apply to Barrett. We only report those that have ]. |
|
|
::::# This argument makes the assumption that a "fact" is not a viewpoint. However, here on Misplaced Pages, we build this encyclopedia based upon what we can verify. |
|
|
:::: "Facts" have no special status. See ], "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." --] (]) 23:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::: Levine2112, you glibly state that it's a "well documented" fact. That's exactly the problem. It's NOT at all "well documented"! That it's a fact isn't questioned, but the sourcing is a big obstacle. The only sources that have mentioned it at all are hate sites that are blacklisted here. TTBOMK, no V & RS have mentioned it at all. It has always been a non-issue in real life and in cyberspace. That those who hate and libel Barrett have mentioned it, and that editors here who feel the same way do so, doesn't really cut it. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::: I'll repeat what I wrote above (with a slight tweak for relevance here): Take it to ] and get a decision. I have never had any objection to including the material IF it could be sourced properly and included in accordance with our policies. The attempts that have been made here to include the information have always been motivated by a desire to frame the information as a criticism, which isn't valid. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::: It has never been an issue, and no RS has ever commented on it at all, much less raised it as an issue. Get a decision at RS/N, since it would be a highly unique and unusual matter to use Barrett's very short talk page comment(s) as a source. In fact, it would require a policy change! |
|
|
|
|
|
::::: Reliable sourcing is required for nearly all material here, especially controversial stuff. The only way this information has been published was as a part of a very dubious source, so we don't have any context other than that. We need a reliable second or third party source. So go for it. I am just as interested as you in finding out what the community says about this. -- ] (]) 00:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: We've already been to RSN ] and there definitely was a consensus from third-parties that the sources were reliable enough to state that Barrett is not board certified. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 01:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Are you sure your linking to the right area of RS/N. There is no consensus on the link you provide - only you dismissing arguements that you don't like and agreeing with those that reinforce your POV. Of course there is a discussion about primary and secodary sources - but that is nothing that wasn't said here before and above in fact. Curiously there even are third parties telling you to get better sources (but I wonder who then dismisses them). ] (]) 03:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::An editor claimed there are but has refused to show any source is reliable. If a source is reliable then why it is not in the article or in discussion at this talk page? ] (]) 04:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::: @Shot info. Yes I am sure that I am linking to the correct area. Are you sure that you are reading the correct area? I see there that the thrid-party opinions there stated that the primary sources which I presented met RS. I don't see me dismissing any arguments there (although I do see such ] from editors here). Read the RSN post again. You will see that not only are third-parties stating that RS is met, but they are also proposing wording for the article to include the information (that Barrett is not Board Certified). Are you really denying that? -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 17:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Please show and not assert which references are reliable per ] and ]. Also demonstrate how this is relevant to Barrett. If this is not shown soon then I think the next step is archiving this entire discussion. ] (]) 17:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
''(Edit conflict)'' Can we please just end this discussion, again? 39 months of trying to get this information into the article to no avail is an incredibly huge waste of time for us all. It would be a different story if new sources or new approaches were being discussed, but that's clearly not the case here. --] (]) 17:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:This is the way admins and the leaders of Misplaced Pages want it, to continue the discussion. ] (]) 17:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::I think we can archive the talk page now. ] (]) 01:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I've archived the previous one, as it was obviously being used to attack other editors and generally being used to make this page a battleground. --] (]) 01:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC) |
|
