Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
Should the section called 'Consumer Information' be retitled 'Quackwatch'? It's almost entirely about the website and Barrett's activities through it, and as the informational center and most notable aspect of his advocacy, it seems like a natural fit for the Table of Contents. Ocaasi (talk) 10:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, QG, I didn't quite follow that. Is there an MOS guideline on this? I'm just basing my recommendation on the majority of focus being on QuackWatch in that section. I usually prefer ease of access and directness in titles rather than a more broad heading for only technical reasons. Let me know what you're basing this on, thx. Ocaasi (talk) 03:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey QG, would you mind filling me in about whether there's some additional MOS guidance on this if you know of it? Also, I didn't say solely, I said majority focus... do you have an opinion based on those grounds? I think that it's at least appropriate to have a sub-section then with Quackwatch as the title, since if it's not the main topic, then it's certainly the main sub-topic. What about that? It might encourage broader writing on both the website and non-website topics. Do you not like the idea of Quackwatch being easily associated with Barrett in the TOC? Ocaasi (talk) 05:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
It might be good to take a second look at the content, QG. Of the 6 paragraphs, 5 of them deal with Quackwatch. Why shouldn't it be the main title? Are you trying to say that Barrett engages in consumer information advocacy outside of Quackwatch as well? If so, I don't think the section is doing a great job of adding that information. So, I think either a name change or a content expansion would make it better. Ocaasi (talk) 05:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Barrett has written a number of books on consumer information. The section can be expanded using the books. Barrett engages in consumer information advocacy outside of Quackwatch as well such as interviews, writing books and writing articles. He has even contributed to Misplaced Pages. Barrett has done a lot of different things but someone has to take the time to read the books or find additional sources to expand the section. QuackGuru (talk) 06:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, you're probably a good person to do some of that, if you're interested, since you seem familiar with those sources. I think the info box is an improvement. Is there a reason that it uses the term 'consumer advocate' but the section uses 'consumer information'? Also, is webmaster a common listing (I don't think of it as notable in itself, but I mainly just haven't seen it before). And, is it wrong to identify him in the infobox as a well-known "Skeptic" or something along those lines? Ocaasi (talk) 06:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
The term 'consumer advocate' is about the person but the name 'consumer information' is a description of the section. He is the webmaster of Quackwatch. It would be repetitive to write Webmaster of Quackwatch since there is a link to the website with the name. A well-known "word not included" or something similar does not seem neutral. QuackGuru (talk) 06:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Right, I figured we would use "consumer advocacy" rather than "consumer advocate", if changed. Does Barrett not identify himself as a skeptic? Ocaasi (talk) 06:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
http://wwww.chirobase.com is headlined: Your Skeptical Guide to Chiropractic History, Theories, and Practices Operated by Stephen Barrett, MD, and Samuel Homola, DC and is a prominent member of the Skeptic Ring (health-related frauds, myths, fads, and fallacies), listed at the bottom of his sites. Quackwatch identifies itself: Your Guide to Quackery, Health Fraud, and Intelligent Decision Operated by Stephen Barrett, M.D. //I think there's a difference between a skeptical guide and a skeptic, but it seems like there's a more specific word for what Barrett does than mere advocate. He is also an active anti-quack, fraud-fighter. What's a word for that? I thought that's what 'skeptic' implied. Ocaasi (talk) 06:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I thought the use of "consumer advocate" should not be changed. Your Skeptical Guide is referring to the consumer to be skeptical not Barrett. Barrett focuses a lot of energy on chiropractic. I wonder if he has written anything related to chiropractic recently. QuackGuru (talk) 07:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Interesting, I always took it to mean that the Guide was skeptical, which would literally be the website, but I would assume reflects the author. It's not a big deal. I'm just actually surprised that Barrett doesn't call himself a skeptic. I think he is widely identified as one, but I see that term as having potentially negative connotations, even though I thought it was embraced by him and his supporters. May be otherwise... Ocaasi (talk) 08:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
QG, I can't say I'm too concerned about it. Lots of words have 'potentially negative connotations'. Quack for instance. Skeptic, I thought was something that you would be proud to be called, but perhaps you have something against the word. Anyway, I identify Barrett as a skeptic, and if you think that's some kind of BLP violation, I'd consider your reasoning; but I don't think there's much of an argument there; that old libel/truth thing seems to come into play. More importantly, I don't think there's anything all too wrong with the word--like I said, I thought Barrett and his supporters used it. Do you not consider Barrett (or yourself) a skeptic? Is that a dirty word? Ocaasi (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
You wrote "I think he is widely identified as one, but I see that term as having potentially negative connotations, even though I thought it was embraced by him and his supporters." I agree with your previous argument that it was not such a good idea. Is there any book you suggest for improving the section. QuackGuru (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
QG, I believe what I was doing in that quote was considering your point. That doesn't mean I share it, more that I can see how that could have negative connotations. It's an effort to not just look at things from one side. I still think skeptic is an appropriate word, and it seems to be one that people on both sides of scientific debates would apply. Maybe you can explain why the term is seen as pejorative (like, quack or pseudoscience); and if so, why the double-standard about not using it? I'm not sure what books to pick. because I really don't know what Barrett does that's not connected to QuackWatch. If you have a preference, go for it, and I can give it a second-look. Ocaasi (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
This article is not neutral 2
Some very biased people with a definite agenda hold the monopoly on the "vast consensus" building for this topic. It illustrates the epitome of why Misplaced Pages seriously flawed, and why the "vast consensus" among legitimate academia has rejected Misplaced Pages as a reliable source of true and unbiased information. The abolition of slavery in the United States was once rejected by a "vast consensus". That didn't make it right. The the tone of this article and the "vast consensus" fabricators that vigilantly police it convey the false notion that Stephen Barrett in infallible and beyond any reasonable reproach. That is ludicrous. If Stephen Barrett's activities through Quackwatch make him notable enough to have his own Misplaced Pages article, then certainly the pertinent and uncensored details and outcomes of the numerous lawsuits Stephen Barrett has been a party of by extension of his involvement with Quackwatch should also be adequately documented. The "vast consensus" fabricators meticulously censor this article in an extremely subjective manner to cast this un-notable fellow in the most positive possible light. I would say that the Misplaced Pages community as a whole and Stephen Barrett are a perfect fit in providing flawed and biased information with a militant mechanism that makes certain opposing ideas are not presented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.29.217.43 (talk) 23:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
"Un-notable"? You apparently haven't read the article and especially the sources. Check out the sources on the Quackwatch article too. He's very notable and universally commended in mainstream reliable sources. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
"Universally commended"? You apparently are too ignorant to begin to fathom how absurd such an unqualified statement like that actually is. And such is the joke known as Misplaced Pages's editorial "standards". I did indeed review the imbalanced and cherry-picked assortment of puff-pieces presented as "sources" on Stephen Barrett that tout all of the TV shows and non-scientific magazines he been mentioned in. I'm really not concerned about convincing you of these facts. It would be a futile effort, seeing as you lack the critical thinking skills along with the fact that you are clearly biased and have an agenda based on the rhetoric contained in your Misplaced Pages user profile page. I do feel that it is important, however, for all other reasonable, educated, and discerning people reading this can at least access the information on the discussion page. In ridiculous world of Misplaced Pages, if you gather enough dedicated self-styled "researchers" committed to commandeer editorial control of an article, the resulting misinformation becomes "universal" fact. The Fox News-esque standards utilized by the Misplaced Pages community will continue to condemn it to it's perpetual reputation for seriously lacking credibility. This is why Misplaced Pages and editorial Gestapo clowns such as yourself who make broad, sweeping, and unqualified declarations like that last gem enjoy quite the opposite phenomenon known as being "universally commended". Just because you and a handful of like-minded people have endeavored to manipulate the highly flawed Misplaced Pages editorial hierarchy to control the point of view presented on a particular subject, that doesn't make your assertions correct and unbiased. This article is not neutral. Period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.172.181 (talk) 02:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
That seems to be the case. Not only is it a violation of WP:TALK, WP:NPA and WP:SOAP, it doesn't contribute anything of substance toward improving the article. It's only bitching about other editors by an IP-hopping visitor who doesn't understand that our articles have pretty high sourcing standards. They must have been reading all the libelous content out there on the internet, but that doesn't cut it here. We're not a yellow journalism rag.
It also missed my point: "universally commended in maintream reliable sources." Those that criticize him are universally unreliable sources that violate our high sourcing standards. There are almost no exceptions to that rule. I'll put a hat on those outbursts and hope that any responses are more constructive. I suggest that our IP editor get an account instead of IP hopping and read those policies I linked, otherwise they'll end up getting blocked. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I believe you have largely proved my point by pulling Wikipedian rank on me. To keep on insisting that something is true doesn't make it so. I would dispute your assertion that you have high sourcing standards when you censor any sources that do not fit into your narrow point of view. There are indisputable and relevant facts about Stephen Barrett in regards to his Quackwatch related activities which you selectively chose to omit. It is my suspicion that you do so because you feel it would reflect poorly upon him. Stephen Barrett's highly litigious nature as a component of his efforts as a health care consumer advocate is a relevant aspect of the activities he engages in. The conspicuous omission of this substantial portion of his Quackwatch related activities would suggest to many that some bias exists in your editorial decision-making and how you exercise the authority you have been given. There is responsibility that goes along with your authority that should not be abused. And nothing I said was a personal attack on you or Stephen Barrett. Basically, what you are saying is that you will not tolerate any objective criticism or dissenting points of view. Allow me to use an analogy that i think you might be able to relate to. By virtue of the euphemisms you often use and your selective adherence/enforcement of Wiki rules, one could also assert that the US invasion of Iraq was just and universally endorsed by vast consensus. You really need to be careful when using such sweeping and unqualified platitudes. That is a legitimate criticism of your intellectual integrity, and not a personal attack. Knowing the difference should be requisite for being a Misplaced Pages editor. When you cannot defend against a thoughtful criticism regarding a matter that is relevant to your actions and decisions as a Misplaced Pages editor, you cry foul and cite misapplied rules. And again, before you get emotional and pull-Wiki rank and censor what I have to say, why not address the specific points I bring up rather than to post a non-responsive dismissal? If what I have been saying is a non-constructive rant, then why censor it at all? Why not let my "rant" expose itself for what it is and let readers decide for themselves? 75.34.172.181 (talk) 06:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I would like to add that I am not biased against Dr. Barrett. I know you may find that hard to believe. Nonetheless, I feel it is important to point out that I think that most of what he does is good and important work. However, I would maintain that he is not always entirely fair and unbiased. Nobody is, although the degree to which this is true, varies from individual to individual. I watched an interview (twice actually) with Misplaced Pages founder, Jimmy Wales, that aired today on the Charlie Rose Show. During the interview, Jimmy Wales mentioned that no source of information is perfect nor infallible, and that is particularly so in the case of Misplaced Pages. The goal is to collect and share information in a forum that evolves and strives to be as accurate and balanced as possible. And while Dr. Barrett does an important service by exposing pseudoscience and health care fraud, he often posts unsourced and incomplete information, a practice which is not consistent with Misplaced Pages standards. Specifically, Dr. Barrett will frequently post a highly critical and potentially damning hyperlink regarding a particular topic/practice/product/individual/company on his list of topics, yet when an individual clicks on many of these links, there are no further details, corroborating evidence, or sources of any kind. Instead, many such links simply state that more details will be available at some time in the indefinite future. And while Dr. Barrett might very well be sitting on a treasure trove of reliable sources to back the original assertion, it does not pass the muster of Misplaced Pages sources. Let's honestly discuss that. Furthermore, Dr. Barrett's own analysis of the lawsuits to which he is a party of is not objective (though his analysis is worthy of inclusion if presented properly as the opinion of Dr. Barrett). These lawsuits are relevant, and they should be included in this article utilizing neutral sources (neither from the likes of Tim Bolen nor from Stephen Barrett, himself). Neutral and reliable sources regarding these cases are readily available. As Misplaced Pages editors, we should all strive to present all available relevant and accurate information on any subject, regardless of our personal inclinations towards a particular subject. Don't be afraid to tell the whole story about Stephen Barrett. The overzealously exhaustive list of TV shows, magazines, and governmental organizations lead by political appointees that endorse Dr. Barrett is somewhat relevant, but disproportionately represented in contrast to his judicial activities. 75.34.172.181 (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
IP 75...to be constructive you'll need to start a section below and make a very concrete suggestion for improvement. Provide exact wording and your sources. DON'T comment on other editors. Stick to content. Then we can discuss that content and seek to improve the article. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
??? I made a very concrete suggestion for how we could move forward. You don't understand our policies here and we're trying to educate you. If you persist in this manner you'll just end up getting blocked. I imagine you'd prefer to see some improvements made rather than just getting blocked. Read the policies we've linked to.
To maintain this talk page in the format that's required I moved the content here. Now I'm going to move what you wrote in the section above here. We try to keep things chronological and when comments are made in very old sections they tend to not get noticed, and I doubt you wish that to happen. Please respect our talk page formats. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Omission of Dr. Barrett's Extensive Relevant Judicial Activities as an Extension of Quackwatch
Most of what Dr. Barrett does with through his association with Quackwatch is good and important work. However, he is not always entirely fair and unbiased. Nobody is, although the degree to which this is true varies from individual to individual. In an interview with Misplaced Pages founder, Jimmy Wales, that aired today on the Charlie Rose Show, Jimmy Wales addressed the issue that no source of information is perfect nor infallible, and that is particularly so in the case of Misplaced Pages (according to Jimmy Wales). The goal is to collect and share information in a forum that evolves and strives to be as accurate and balanced as possible. And while Dr. Barrett does an important service by exposing pseudoscience and health care fraud, he often posts unsourced and incomplete information, a practice which is not consistent with Misplaced Pages standards. Specifically, Dr. Barrett will frequently post highly critical and potentially damning hyperlinks regarding particular topics/practices/products/individuals/companies on his list of topics, yet when an individual clicks on many of these links, there are no further details, corroborating evidence, or sources of any kind. Instead, many such links simply state that more details will be available at some time in the indefinite future. And while Dr. Barrett might very well be sitting on a treasure trove of reliable sources to back the original assertion, he does not present them in these instances, and that does not pass the muster of Misplaced Pages standards for sourcing. That deserves an honest discussion. Furthermore, Dr. Barrett's own analysis of the lawsuits to which he is a party of is not objective (though his analysis is worthy of inclusion if presented properly as the opinion of Dr. Barrett). These lawsuits are relevant, and they should be included in this article utilizing neutral and reliable sources regarding these cases, which are readily available. All available relevant and accurate information on this subject should be included. The overzealously exhaustive list of TV shows, magazines, and governmental organizations lead by political appointees that endorse Dr. Barrett is relevant, but disproportionately represented in contrast to his judicial activities. 75.34.172.181 (talk) 02:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
