Wikipedia

Talk:Stephen Barrett/Archive 10

< Talk:Stephen Barrett
Latest comment: 15 years ago by David D. in topic Is It Notable After All ?
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Latest comment: 17 years ago50 comments4 people in discussion

A request to comment on reliability has been received at Wikipedia: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 discuss 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 discuss 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 discuss 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 discuss 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 discuss 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 discuss 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 Wikipedia 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 discuss 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 discuss 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 discuss 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 discuss 17:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Not relevant to his notability

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 (talk/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 Wikipedia) just adds to the verifiability of this information. -- Levine2112 discuss 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 discuss 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 (talk/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 discuss 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 (talk/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 discuss 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 (talk/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 discuss 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 (talk/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 discuss 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 (talk/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 discuss 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 (talk/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 discuss 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 (talk/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 discuss 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 (talk/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 Wikipedia. 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 discuss 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 (talk/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 discuss 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 (talk/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 (talk/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 (talk/contribs) 20:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
You said you want policy. You got an ocean of policy. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/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 Wikipedia 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 discuss 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 (talk/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 (talk/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 Wikipedia the best source of information it can be. Perhaps what this comes down to for you is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Levine2112 discuss 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 (talk/contribs) 18:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I am afraid that you are misunderstanding the policy and the detractor's agenda. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No consensus - only proposals - tangent

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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 discuss 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

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

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 discuss 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 discuss 21:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No consensus - only proposals - again

Latest comment: 17 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion

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 discuss 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 discuss 21:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Please read this comment given to us by a very experienced Wikipedian. -- Levine2112 discuss 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 discuss 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 discuss 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 discuss 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 discuss 00:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Costs and attorneys' fees

Latest comment: 17 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion

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 discuss 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 discuss 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 discuss 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. Wikipedia 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.
-- Levine2112 discuss 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 discuss 05:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolution?

Latest comment: 17 years ago101 comments11 people in discussion

The consensus being formed at the Reliable Source noticeboard is that Barrett's discussion at Wikipedia 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 discuss 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 discuss 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 discuss 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 discuss 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 discuss 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 discuss 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 discuss 16:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Those are not the primary sources you're now relying on. From WP:BLP: 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 Wikipedia:Verifiability. AvB ÷ talk 13:37, 8 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 discuss 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 discuss 23:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Where is the RfC posted? I'd be interested in reading it. RalphLendertalk 11:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Sure. The RfCs can be found here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Maths,_science,_and_technology and Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biographies. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I also added a Wikipedia: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 discuss 17:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

'against policy and against consensus'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 (talk/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 (talk/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 discuss 16:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 (talk/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 discuss 17:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I have already answered this question in the precise section.[1] :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/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.[2] Wikipedians should comply with policy. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/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 discuss 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 (talk/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 discuss 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 Wikipedia 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 discuss 17:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Levine2112, I have spelled it out for you.[3] We cannot ignore policy. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/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 discuss 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 (talk/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 discuss 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 (talk/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 discuss 18:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The key is the appearance as it applies with this policy. This is a valid Wikipedia policy[4] in which you still seem to misunderstand and has been explained to you repeatedly.[5] :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/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 discuss 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 (talk/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 discuss 20:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
From WP:BLP: 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 Wikipedia:Verifiability. AvB ÷ talk 13:37, 8 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:Wikipedia:Tendentious editing Wikipedia:Disruptive editing Wikipedia:Civility Wikipedia: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 (talk/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 discuss 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 (talk/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 discuss 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 (talk/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 discuss 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 (talk/contribs) 23:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Your bias against these publications are clear. But that remains your opinion and has no bearing on Wikipedia'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 discuss 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 (talk/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.[6] 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 Wikipedia to illustrate a point will be greeted with a block. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/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[7]. 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 discuss 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 discuss 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 Wikipedia a better resource. For instance, if someone came to Wikipedia 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 discuss 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 (talk/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 discuss 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 (talk/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 discuss 17:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
You have supplied zero third-party references. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 17:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Then I am confused. Please define what a third-party reference is. -- Levine2112 discuss 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 (talk/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 (talk/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 (talk/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 (talk/contribs) 18:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
"Levine." I hope you did not forget. We need third-party references first. No references = no information. It is about verifiable and not truth. Remember? _-Mr. o G-_02:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
No. You have forgotten that I have provided you with several. You seem to think that the WCA is a reliable source at Chiropractic. See this edit. Curious evidence. -- Levine2112 discuss 08:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh, somebody is forgetting what an RS means. Next I think we will be using WCA over at say Helium because somebody seem to think that the WCA is a reliable source at Chiropractic. Maybe you should research what the expressions mean in the context of WP. Shot info 09:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

According to Levine2112: He has provided me with several. No. Not even one is a third-party reference. Levine2112 continues to REFUSE to provide any third-party references because he does not have any third-party references to meet BLP. The article on chiropratic is not a BLP article. Therefore, BLP does not apply. This shows Levine2112 does not understand policy and is confuses. "Levine." Please provide me with a list of third-party references that meet the BLP policy for my review. If you avoid or ignore my simple request it shows you do not have any third-party references. You have made your point and it is time for you to stop or provide me with a list of third-party references. Levine2112 seems to think BLP policy applies to articles that are not articles on a person.[8] Very odd. He got it backwards again. BLP is for any article on a person. Chiropratic is not a person. The declaration by Levine2112 is concrete evidence Levine2112 is still misunderstanding policy. Now then, provide me with a list of refs you claim you have. Thanx. _-Mr. o G-_ 16:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I find your comments very uncivil. My response here only feels like I am feeding the troll. Regardless, once again, here is a partial list of thrid-party sources all documents and verifying what Barrett himself has told us: That he is not Board Certified. Please make note of this list this time as this has to be the sixth or seventh time that I've posted it for you.

-- Levine2112 discuss 17:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

None of those sources are third-party references. The chiro refs are not third-party. The alternative medicine refs are not third-party. Barrett is a critic of chiros and alternative medicine. Detractors references are not third party references and thus fail to meet BLP policy. You have been repeatedly debunked. End of discussion. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 17:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I think you don't understand what a third-party source is then. It is different from a tertiary source. I think you must be confused. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
According to Levine2112: Detractor references are reliable third-party references. Nope. This is a joke. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 18:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
That's odd becuase over at chiropractic you are trying to use the WCA (a detractor of the NACM) as a reliable source for the NACM. Hypocrisy? -- Levine2112 discuss 21:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
That chiro article is not a person. Thus, BLP does not apply to that reform chiro sentence. This confirms your confusion in understanding policy. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 21:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
If a source is good for a subject matter then it is good. If it isn't, it isn't. You want to use a source from WCA to say something that the source doesn't say (that Reformers tend to be a part of the NACM). The WCA source doesn't say that at all. This is an invention. However, the WCA does confirm what Barrett has told us; that he isn't Board Certified. Do you doubt that this is true? Do you think Barrett is Board Certified? I don't see how you can. Yet, you put more stock in information without a source than you do in verified information. You are truly enigmatic. I hope you are full, because I am done feeding this troll. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
One more morsel to chew on: New York Buyers' Club: Disturbingly, he (Barrett) is also closely tied to the American Medical Association, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Food and Drug Administration, having testified on their behalf as an "expert" in psychiatry - although he is not Medical Board Certified. He has lost forty defamation lawsuits nationwide. Quackery, indeed! -- Levine2112 discuss 23:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Yet another alternative medicine detractor website. Quackery indeed? :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 00:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Incorrect. Have another look. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Barrett has criticized vitamins and their alternative medicine jargon.[9] Have a look yourself.[10] These are not (uninvolved) third-party references. Only detractor references have been presented which fail to meet BLP policy.  :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 01:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Levine continues to fail to produce any third-party sources. Therefore, it is against BLP policy and the spirit of Wikipedia. This has been repeatedly explained to Levine there are no third-party references. It has also been repeated to Levine he has not demonstrated any relevance or notability in accordance to meet BLP policy. Levine, you have made your point. Now stop. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 19:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Moreover, the 3rr does not apply to BLP violations. Ignoring policy and adding BLP violations against consensus and policy is incivil, disruptive, and is making a point. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 21:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Levine2112 has been summarily debunked and is UNABLE to provide even one third-party reference, ignores there are ZERO third-party refs, and yet continues to push beyond exhaustion when he very well knows this is against policy because there are NO third-party refs to satisfy BLP. Either his learning curve is very low (I doubt it) or he is intentially ignoring (more likely) there are NO third-party refs. Hmmm. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 20:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Yoo hoo, I'm up here. "Levine." Please stop ignoring my comments and pretending we have third-party refs. Agreed? :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 23:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

RfC

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

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 Wikipedia policies cited above. Three paragraphs on the subject would be too much. One or two or three lines would be appropriate. RalphLendertalk 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)

One of many arguments already provided (straight from WP:BLP): 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 Wikipedia:Verifiability. AvB ÷ talk 13:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

How do you highlight in the green you have here? Please take it to my talk page, thanks, ----CrohnieGalTalk/Contribs 19:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Another suggested compromise

Latest comment: 17 years ago75 comments7 people in discussion

Please check out this conversation at Wikipedia: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 discuss 19:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No thanks. Please refer to my previous comments about the board thing. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/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 discuss 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 discuss 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 discuss 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 discuss 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 discuss 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 discuss 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 Wikipedia 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 discuss 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 Wikipedia, 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 discuss 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 discuss 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 discuss 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 discuss 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 discuss 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 discuss 16:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Nope. Let it be known that I was childish once. In the meantime you may want to refactor all your edits where you've put words in other people's mouths. Like this one. AvB ÷ talk 13:20, 8 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 discuss 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 Wikipedia 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 discuss 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 Wikipedia 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 discuss 16:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
From WP:BLP): 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 Wikipedia:Verifiability. AvB ÷ talk 15:11, 10 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 discuss 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 discuss 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 discuss 16:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
It's a start and balances out some of the presented neutrality concerns by providing part of the context. But is does not address the presented weight concerns, which are very difficult to resolve without secondary sources commenting on the subject. (Weight: should the information be included at all, even with sufficient context; if so, how much space should be reserved for it.) Presented as is, it also looks like WP:SYN to me AvB ÷ talk 15:11, 10 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 discuss 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 Wikipedia and we may be helping to make more clear a grey point in this policy. -- Levine2112 discuss 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. ----CrohnieGalTalk/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 discuss 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. ----CrohnieGalTalk/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 Wikipedia 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 discuss 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 Wikipedia tick. And it's not (primarily) policies. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 discuss 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 discuss 22:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
When I express problems with your behavior I am voicing my honest opinion. If you feel that is incivil, you are most welcome to take any steps you feel such incivility warrants. As to your implication that everyone but you has acted incivilly in the stalled mediation: you and AGK (Anthony) were like two peas in a pod, Andrew. It is very good to find out that he has left our mediation, because otherwise I would have moved to dismiss him. Mediators need the trust of all parties involved. AvB ÷ talk 23:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I understand that it is just your opinion when you express my behavior problems. You should learn to do so in a civil manner or not do so at all. But if you insist on remaining uncivil, you better stick with me; AGK is out of your league.
WTF? As if you know anything about me. You're trying to imply that I was responsible for the stalled mediation. I find that disgusting. AvB ÷ talk 00:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Where do I imply that? Nowhere. You are trying to spin this to make me look bad, but it is only making you act more uncivil. Ironic. Please stop before you dig a whole out of which you can not climb. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Now then if you want to continue with mediation, I am happy to get that started again. Since our last mediation, the support to add this disputed content to the article has grown and grown. Several admins and ediotrs more experienced than you and I have joined in approving this content for the article. I understand your side of the dispute now clearer than ever and I really do think you have valid policy points than need to be addressed by policy experts. This is what I am attempting to do with my posts to the Noticeboards. Again, if you feel my posts are biased or one-sided, feel free to add your two-cents, but don't add commentary about editors behavior. As a self-proclaimed "regular" at the BLP/N you should know that that kind of thing is frowned upon there and in no way helps to resolve a dispute or garner input from the policy experts there. So far, the little third-party input we have received there has been in favor of adding the content. Hopefully, more third-party commentators will participate soon. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
don't add commentary about editors behavior. As a self-proclaimed "regular" at the BLP/N you should know that that kind of thing is frowned upon there --> On the contrary, it is how things are done on the noticeboards. As you have seen, not even one of the experts (such as Uncle G or Doc Glasgow) has commented. AvB ÷ talk 00:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, well, you've disrupted my posting on the BLP/N with your incivil comments about editors and you're right, we've only gotten a response from one third-party editor (Risker, who was in favor of adding the material, to your amazement!). So we tried things your way, with your incivility and carrying on, and it is not working. I tried to start fresh, but again you disrupted it. It is almost as if you don't want this matter resolved. I would love to hear from more third-parties there, but are you going to jump down each of their throats if they too are in favor of adding it? Is QuackGuru going to go to their personal talk pages and demand sources? With little or no exception, the minority side in favor of keeping this content out has acted despicably throughout this proceeding. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Levine, but they are not the "minority side". They are representing the majority POV. You can claim weight for your opinion regarding Barrett all you want, that does not change anything. You are representing the POV of a tiny minority. What counts is: reliable sources. Weight. NOR. etc.
Amazement? On the contrary, this was to be expected. Your mind-reading abilities are not very impressive. I was not at all surprised that one editor fell for a flawed one-sided description of the dispute. As stated in advance, preventing this was and is the main point of my posts to the BLPN Barrett section. If you really believe this is some kind of WP:3O, you should have made sure that the dispute was presented neutrally by consulting all parties in advance. Instead you went ahead believing your version was neutral. I do not understand whoever gave you that idea. Your attempts to shut me out of the discussion on the BLPN speak volumes. AvB ÷ talk 02:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
That which speaks volumes is your incivility. I am not shutting you out of BLPN. I just want you to behave. And, as a matter of fact, I did inform everyone when I posted the message there. I welcomed your input so long as you stayed civil. Please re-read WP:DR. Asking at subject-specific Wikipedia:WikiProjects or policy pages relevant to the issue. I have mentioned this several times. This is a part of dispute resolution. YOur help would be appreciated. -- Levine2112 discuss 03:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
This does not describe what happened. You are not shutting me out; that is impossible. Just like stopping me from voicing my opinion on your behavior by calling it "incivil". But you're certainly trying, and that's what I said. As to WP:DR, Asking at subject-specific Wikipedia:WikiProjects or policy pages relevant to the issue. -> Ronz and I have proposed just that and more, but you did not respond. Instead you went to boards (note: the noticeboards are not wikiproject or policy pages) that are not intended for this, and you did so without creating a common text. You're obviously free to ask questions any which way you want. But, welcome or not welcome, I have no time to follow, let alone vet, all your outpourings all over Wikipedia. I think it should suffice for you to know that I do not accept your version of the dispute and your summary of the arguments and explanations on the talk page, and for that reason alone will not accept any opinions based on those. AvB ÷ talk 10:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Levine, your interpretation of Risker is false. Risker is not a third-party editor. I have been to her talk page before regarding her incivility. We have had a history of content disputes. Hardly an uninvolved editor. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 05:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

talk:Levine2112|discuss]] 03:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

False? My interpretation is false? What does that even mean? Risker has never been a party to this dispute. Hence, his/her opinion on the matter is a third-party. Third-party, you know? Seems to be a difficult concept for you to grasp. . . Probably because you're too busy grasping for straws. -- Levine2112 discuss 06:50, 8 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 (talk/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. ----CrohnieGalTalk/Contribs 17:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
You do have that right. Absolutely. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Levine, I have been involved in a lots of disputes with Risker. Risker is not a third-party. Risker has been a party in disputes against me. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 07:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
If we had to exclude everyone from being a third-party with whom you've had a dispute with, I'm sure we would have a very short list. I am assuming good faith that Risker expressed his/her honest opinion on this manner. -- Levine2112 discuss 09:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok all of you, please chill out. It's not getting anywhere except causing bad blood amongst the editors here. I think this subject has been beaten to death already, it's time to move on. ----CrohnieGalTalk/Contribs 11:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

400+

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion
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 discuss 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 (talk/contribs) 20:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
another option (solution)

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

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 (talk/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. ----CrohnieGalTalk/Contribs 19:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Barrett v. Clark

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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

Thanks Levine for this link, I was kind of doing this backwards I think when I was researching. I have looked through this and would like to ask everyone, which probably also belongs on BvR, if anyone saw the entry of June 26, 2006? It states that a lien was placed against Rosenthal for a past amount of monies owed. What is the thought of this being added? Please, I am just asking! Thanks----CrohnieGalTalk/Contribs 12:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Crohnie must be talking about the Lien for an Unsatisfied Judgment that was filed against any award on Rosenthal's behalf in the Barrett vs Rosenthal case. It could attach to the attorney fees.

It stems from a completely different lawsuit in which Rosenthal sued someone for defamation including several deep pocket entities, such as AOL, for $100,000,000. The Slapp suit turned on her however and she ended up owing attorney fees in that case. The history of all that is documented in the alt.support.breast-implant newsgroup archives. It is relevant in that it added a third party to the case. I'd like to see it added. SunshineGal 16:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought of an unconventional way about the dispute

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Please bear with me on this. If you would clear your thoughts about the board certification disputes it would be helpful. What I would like to suggest is some thoughts.

If you were to go to a doctor's office and boldly written is a notice in the front waiting room stating that this doctor(s) are not board certified, would it make you walk out the door because it was a negative? Another way to say this is a lot of doctors now put up notices in the waiting room that they carry no insurance coverage. This is the same kind of thing, would an office notifying you that they don't carry insurance in case of an error make you walk out the door thinking that they will butcher you or cause you harm? I thought that maybe putting this is context like this might bring thoughts; at least I hope this does. My point is that a lot of people see the insurance notice and yes they do walk out in fear of errors that will harm them. ----CrohnieGalTalk/Contribs 12:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You're as good as your last years work. Board exams must be weighed vs experience. I'd be far more worried if the sign said this is a new doctor who has passed all his board exams but has not had a good nights sleep. David D. (Talk) 16:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks David, I really needed some humor today.  :) ----CrohnieGalTalk/Contribs 17:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Lightning rod

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I added the fatc tag to this commentary. Can't this be worded better?? Thanks! --Tom 15:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It isn't perfect, but it's a direct quote from Time magazine. I've added the cite. I must say the longer I look at the article, the clearer it becomes that Barrett's partisan critics are given more than equal time in this "biography" while mainstream articles are very timidly quoted, and out of context at that. The full quote is: His site--filled with useful links, cautionary notes and essays on treatments ranging from aromatherapy to wild-yam cream--is widely cited by doctors and medical writers and draws 100,000 hits a month. It has also made Barrett a lightning rod for herbalists, homeopaths and assorted true believers, who regularly vilify him as dishonest, incompetent, a bully and a Nazi. AvB ÷ talk 17:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Good quote. Include the whole thing. -- Fyslee/talk 22:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Some such popular magazines (which carried many highly advertised conventional nostrums pharmaceuticals, some since withdrawn as various degrees of dangerous) are having trouble keeping up to date with the science articles of the medical schools that don't support Dr Barrett's statements or track Dr Barrett previous posts on many dubious things, now in the 21st century.--I'clast 15:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Steth's personal opinion on Barrett's not being board certified and editors who want to exclude it (copied from Talk:Chiropractic)

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

... IMO, Barrett apologists come across with a wierd sort of 'true-believer' protector of the emporer and his NO CLOTHES type of mentality. SB is OK with the notion that he was unable to pass his boards, even getting off the throne to appear here to say so. But for some reason, a sort of protectionist cabal scurries about to hide this fact (board failure = no clothes = rear-end exposed)afraid of anything that they feel sounds negative about the boss-man. Oh, well. There are two sides to every coin, eh, Avb? Steth 16:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be too confident about my opinion of Barrett if I were you, Steth. AvB ÷ talk 23:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
PS If you feel I want to keep the BC information out of the encyclopedia, think again (and read the compromise I posted on the Barrett talk page). I'll want to include it when convinced (based on common sense arguments or secondary sources) that it has sufficient weight (or notability if you will). Lacking that, I'm still willing to discuss my compromise. It illustrates my general stance in such cases, firmly rooted in Wikipedia's mandatory NPOV: if we say something, it must be in the context of the source we use. In this case our only reliable sources are Barrett's own publications and his contributions on WP talk pages that are intended to provide such information for WP articles). Obviously, that's exactly what editors debating on the side of Barrett's detractors are trying to prevent here. They want to say he isn't/wasn't board certified, but they don;t want to tell the readers what this means. After all, responses and background info make Bolen's BC criticism look pretty empty. Just like his (now retired?) de-licensed mantra. AvB ÷ talk 13:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Since the Quackpotwatch article is deleted, preliminary moves to ban Bolen were summarily made and the Biography section is strongly favorable to Dr Barrett, forget WP:WEIGHT/COI with things like "8th runner up" "all in the family", I don't think Bolen's rhetoric is the problem here. Also more comment on BLP.--I'clast 15:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
We can agree to disagree on my common sense argument. But I do note your sidestepping of my policy based summary of the status quo. See BLPN for Fyslee's refutation of your "overblown context" argument. AvB ÷ talk 17:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with your interpretation/application of "context" and encyclopedia editing. I may have missed Fyslee's key "refutation" if you will show the key dif(s).--I'clast 01:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Motion to adjourn with "no consensus, material excluded"

Latest comment: 17 years ago33 comments7 people in discussion

The length of the discussion, tiresome as it may have been, and ready as we all may be to compromise and end it, does not make a POV, undue weight compromise acceptable - not even with a clear consensus to include (which we do not have). Only neutral, weighted compromises should have been discussed, but instead they have been ignored or rejected without good arguments.

Due to WP:RS, we can't use the chiro sources etc. So our only reliable sources seem to be primary ones: Barrett's own publications and his contributions on WP talk pages that are intended to provide background to this information. However, WP:BLP requires court records to have been reported in reliable secondary sources first. This is where we lose everything regarding Barrett's board certification said on his website. We're now left with his contributions on WP talk pages which were intended to defend humself against POV-pushing accusations I'm not even sure I can repeat here even if followed by Barrett's response, because we know we cannot source them to a reliable source. I'm repeating the entirety of our sources here. From the Barrett talk page, where a wikipedia editor was not describing the battle but taking part in it:

Wikipedia editor accuses: Under oath, Barrett admitted that he failed his board certification exams. Yet he calls himself an expert? An expert of what? Healthcare fraud? I think it is pretty fraudulant to present yourself as a "medical expert" when you can't pass an exam that 89% of your colleagues can. That puts him at the bottom of his class. He has also called himself a "legal expert" yet under oath admitted no formal legal training. Very disingenuous indeed.
Dr. Barrett responds: The above ideas come from a misleading news release written by people who I am suing for improperly attacking me. One thrust of their campaign has been to suggest that I have midrepesented my credentials. I certainly have not. The words deliberately make it sound like what I said was somehow extracted under pressure. The fact that I am not board certified has been known by chiropractors for more than 30 years and has never been a sectret. I have expert knowledge of certain aspects of law that I studied and have worked with for many years. I completed 1-1/2 years of law school through a correspondence course under the G.I. Bill and emerged with a working knowledge of the areas of law that interested me.
(...)
Wikipedia editor accuses: He is lacking board certification from the American Board of Medical Specialties. That is not just a nice thing to have. Almost every competent doctor in this country is board certified.
Wikipedia editor accuses: As witnessed in his case against Dr. Koren, not having the proper credentials can backfire in places like a court room. I don’t know one lawyer that would use a non-board certified physician on the stand as an expert medical witness.
Dr. Barrett responds: During my psychiatric career I testified in many court proceedings and not being board-certified didn't make the slightest difference.
Wikipedia editor accuses: So let’s get to my point. He is not board certified, he has not practiced in many years, and his work history is not impressive. Most of his work experience includes vague descriptions like ‘consultant’.
Dr. Barrett responds: Since my posted curriculum vitae doesn't explain what I did, whoever wrote the above doesn't doesn't have the slightest idea what it involved. In addition, the whole discussion of my psychiatric experience hasn't the slightest relevance to my writing activities. I have functioned as an investigative reporter for more than 30 years and have sufficient knowledge and enough help from other experts to do what I do effectively.

Since during the entire discussion many policy based arguments against inclusion have not been refuted but generally ignored, and no valid policy based arguments in favor of inclusion have been provided, I move to end the discussion as "no consensus, material excluded".

AvB ÷ talk 17:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree Yes, it's time to end this. -- Ronz  17:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Agree As a side note, I noticed that this is being debated on the Chiropratic article. Not cool in my opinion. I went there to check it out for my son.----CrohnieGalTalk/Contribs 18:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. We need to reach a compromise. Every policy point that has been brought up has been discussed. If there is something which anyone feels has been ignored, please let us know what they are so we can discuss. So far, the large majority has no problem with including this material. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The burden of evidence is on you. Please list, with diffs, any policy arguments in favor of inclusion that you feel have survived the debate, and any policy arguments in favor of exclusion that have not survived the debate. AvB ÷ talk 00:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I have done so below. In short, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:BLP have all been satisfied by the latest compromise. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
"We need to reach a compromise." No we don't. It's been 81 days since you started discussing this topic and you personally have made over 500 edits concerning it during that time. Seems like your massive effort working on this would have been better suited on other endeavors. -- Ronz  22:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Why must you be so disparaging? I make a motion for civility. Let's agree to that first, then we can talk about a compromise. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry that you feel my comments are "disparaging". I'm just pointing out the facts. Nothing incivil about that. -- Ronz  22:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Telling me the my efforts are pointless is uncivil. All I am asking you to do is agree to be civil from now on and let's proceed with discussions of a workable compromise. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I made a comment on WP:BLP please check out the comment made by an editor there. Also, would you point me to the policy that says we have to continue until a compromise is made? Thanks, ----CrohnieGalTalk/Contribs 22:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
WP:Consensus. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
From WP:consensus: Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome. "No consensus" is a valid outcome, see for example WP:AfD. It is equivalent to "agree to disagree". When discussing the deletion of non-BLP material, it defaults to "keep"; for BLP material it defaults to "delete". This applies to parts of articles and was still under discussion for entire articles last time I looked. By the way, this is one of the policy aspects you have left unchallenged until now. AvB ÷ talk 00:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
From WP consensus: When there are disagreements, they are resolved through polite discussion and negotiation, in an attempt to develop a consensus. If we can all be polite, I would like to continue trying to develop a consensus. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
You once again fail to answer Crohnie's question. Please tell us where WP:Consensus says that "we have to continue until a compromise is made"? Please note that I have already explained that the outcome "no consensus" happens very regularly on Wikipedia. Why are you ignoring that explanation? You do not even try to refute it, instead acting as if you just did so anyway. Let me also point out that you seem to be missing a very practical demonstration you're getting right now: editors can walk away from a dispute that has become unproductive. It does not mean the last person left will win. The test whether or not you have a consensus is decided when you try to include anything discussed here. As explained in WP:consensus. <sound of door closing softly.> AvB ÷ talk 15:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
May I ask why this discussion is on [[11]]? ----CrohnieGalTalk/Contribs 22:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Sure. There is an editing dispute strikeningly similar there involving the same editors and the same sources. There, the World Chiropractic Assocaiation (WCA) is considered by some editors to be a reliable secondary source for the NACM (an organization critical of chiropractic). But here, the same editors don't consider the WCA a reliable secondary source for Stephen Barrett (a person critical of chiropractic). So you can see why the conversation was brought up over there. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the link, I'll read it later. ----CrohnieGalTalk/Contribs 22:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. Vote against a specious, highly airbrushed Biography section that cannot tolerate the smallest factual admission of even the slightest shortfall by the subject including professional background, especially where a casual image of scientific / professional infallability for passersby seems to be a major theme built on unsustainable assertions and inferences.--I'clast 00:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds big, considering the fact that you're trying to add another instance of content creep to an article already on the slippery slope of compromising on edits started by editors representing a (tiny) minority viewpoint regarding the subject. This article visually suffers from massive content creep. It is a BLP disaster. 54% of the text is taken up by the Criticism and Litigation Controversy sections alone. The rest is riddled with innuendo and half-references to Bolen's opinions. It should be courtesy blanked and thoroughly debugged before being allowed back on-line. AvB ÷ talk 11:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Disagree Why would anyone want to keep factual material OUT of an article. I thought that's why they call this an encylopedia! Especially material that the subject verified himself!! He seems to be OK with it. Sanitizing a biography might have worked under Communism, but this is the free world you know. In my view it is a form of protectionism. IMO, the material should be included. Thanks Steth 18:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Why? Because you would give weight to a single datum from the single source, ignoring the rest. For your convenience, here's the source again:
Wikipedia editor accuses: Under oath, Barrett admitted that he failed his board certification exams. Yet he calls himself an expert? An expert of what? Healthcare fraud? I think it is pretty fraudulant to present yourself as a "medical expert" when you can't pass an exam that 89% of your colleagues can. That puts him at the bottom of his class. He has also called himself a "legal expert" yet under oath admitted no formal legal training. Very disingenuous indeed.
Dr. Barrett responds: The above ideas come from a misleading news release written by people who I am suing for improperly attacking me. One thrust of their campaign has been to suggest that I have midrepesented my credentials. I certainly have not. The words deliberately make it sound like what I said was somehow extracted under pressure. The fact that I am not board certified has been known by chiropractors for more than 30 years and has never been a sectret. I have expert knowledge of certain aspects of law that I studied and have worked with for many years. I completed 1-1/2 years of law school through a correspondence course under the G.I. Bill and emerged with a working knowledge of the areas of law that interested me.
(...)
Wikipedia editor accuses: He is lacking board certification from the American Board of Medical Specialties. That is not just a nice thing to have. Almost every competent doctor in this country is board certified.
Wikipedia editor accuses: As witnessed in his case against Dr. Koren, not having the proper credentials can backfire in places like a court room. I don’t know one lawyer that would use a non-board certified physician on the stand as an expert medical witness.
Dr. Barrett responds: During my psychiatric career I testified in many court proceedings and not being board-certified didn't make the slightest difference.
Wikipedia editor accuses: So let’s get to my point. He is not board certified, he has not practiced in many years, and his work history is not impressive. Most of his work experience includes vague descriptions like ‘consultant’.
Dr. Barrett responds: Since my posted curriculum vitae doesn't explain what I did, whoever wrote the above doesn't doesn't have the slightest idea what it involved. In addition, the whole discussion of my psychiatric experience hasn't the slightest relevance to my writing activities. I have functioned as an investigative reporter for more than 30 years and have sufficient knowledge and enough help from other experts to do what I do effectively.
Steth let me ask you to think about a few things here. First, did Dr. Barrett practice have problems because he was not board certified? Did Dr. Barrett testify in many cases as a specialist? Why would him not being board certified make any difference back when he was practicing? If you locate my link I posted on here you will see that most were not board certified and that certification wasn't taken seriously like it is these days. Him not being board certified fails WP:not,WP:Notability and WP:Weight. The only reason I see a push for this is because his distactors have tried to use it against him and you have to admit you do not like Barrett. This is not an attack against you but you have shown over and over again that you do not like him. Personally I don't care either way but I am trying to do it the right way and even though this conversation has gone on for way too long, I have learned a lot. ----CrohnieGalTalk/Contribs 00:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Crohnie, Barrett is notable for being a medical critic. So why is it worth mentioning that he is a doctor? Or which medical school he went to? Or what year he finished his residency? Or the current status of his medical license? Answer that and there is your answer. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
It contains lots of information that is much more interesting than the board certification thing. It's a great source. It's almost a pity that e.g. Mastcell (diff) (diff) does not accept it as a reliable source. AvB ÷ talk 18:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
You are leaving out the court documents, the news articles and the research papers as sources. And I thought MastCell supports inclusion of this material. Please read Barrett's comments above closely: The fact that I am not board certified... This is a fact. It is verfiable (thus no WP:V, WP:RS issues). Barrett is clear that he is open with this information (thus no WP:BLP issues). This information has been the topic of several lawsuits, at least one deposition, several news articles, and a couple of research papers (thus no WP:WEIGHT issues). What more is there to talk about? Really? -- Levine2112 discuss 18:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
You seem to have missed the above (repeating here for your convenience):
Due to WP:RS, we can't use the chiro sources etc. So our only reliable sources seem to be primary ones: Barrett's own publications and his contributions on WP talk pages that are intended to provide background to this information. However, WP:BLP requires court records to have been reported in reliable secondary sources first. This is where we lose everything regarding Barrett's board certification said on his website. We're now left with his contributions on WP talk pages which were intended to defend humself against POV-pushing accusations.
AvB ÷ talk
You are forgetting that RS/N said we have reliable sources. The chiro articles, the research papers, the Candadian Lyme Disease Foundation article, and the Fintan Dunne articles are all reliable secondary sources reporting on the trial where Barrett testified to not being Board Certified. BLP is thus satisfied. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Forgetting? Hm. As if I could. We have discussed this to death. You have zero reliable secondary sources. You should really stop repeating this refuted argument. RS/N (a new board, you were the second poster) referred you to BLP regulars for a good reason. They apparently did not know this: 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 Wikipedia:Verifiability.. Unlike you, I believe that a consensus, here on the talk page, on RSN or anywhere, cannot trump WP:BLP. AvB ÷ talk 20:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Then it still remains that the minority of editors here think that we don't have reliable sources to post this information, while the large majority of editors (including 4 or 5 admins) feel we do. You can't ignore that. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you test the water by editing the article the way you want? I think you have misinterpreted the acceptance of your secondary sources among editors. Especially admins should know better than to allow them as reliable regarding Barrett. And in view of their contributions to this discussion, they won't. If your test addition depends on the reliability of partisan secondary sources (and the ones you provided represent a tiny minority), it should be reverted. I'll hold back for a while and see what happens. AvB ÷ talk 22:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I tried and it got reverted by one of the usual gang. What would be nice is to see if someone new objected to this material. So far, no one has (maybe there was one?). Every new person we ask about this are in favor of including it and don't see any policy issues preventing it from inclusion. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
"The usual gang" sounds somewhat provocating to me. Especially since it apparently includes 4 or 5 admins ;-). Also, Fyslee was not involved in this discussion. But the test is not over: now we wait to see if someone reverts to your version. Please note that this is a delicate phase that can easily turn into an edit war. If that happens, any uninvolved admin can protect the article in whatever state it is found in, or cut the knot for us, ending the test. What you need to see is support in the form of stability. (Hint: we only learn something if the next revert comes from "the usual gang".) AvB ÷ talk 07:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

disagree: Per Steth, Levine2112. Ombudsman 19:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Ombudsman, long time no see. If you want to take part in this (probably dead, most editors are ignoring it now) discussion, please familiarize yourself with the preceding 80+ days of discussion on the subject. AvB ÷ talk 19:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes we have no consensus, we have no consensus today

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

The material stays out. We're on day 83 of not having consensus. Some editors here fail to understand WP:CON, but that's no reason to edit war.

"On the other hand, it is very easy to create the appearance of a changing consensus simply by asking again and hoping that a different and more sympathetic group of people will discuss the issue. This, however, is a poor example of changing consensus, and is antithetical to the way that Wikipedia works."

I've removed the edits because the editor has failed to respect WP:CON, WP:DR and WP:3RR, nor has the editor addressed the BLP and WEIGHT issues that have been discussed ad nauseum. -- Ronz  15:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

"PLEASE READ THE DISCUSSION, DON'T REVERT. We have agreement to leave this in and leave it up to non-involved editors." Sorry, but I didn't agree to it. There's certainly no consensus. -- Ronz  21:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I am just abiding by the agreement which AvB suggested. Thought we could test the waters and see if it attracts any uninvolved editors. However, it was reverted first by an involved editor, then it did indeed attract a new uninvolved editor to re-include the content. I guess you don't like that agreement. Okay, well it was worth a try and at least it revealed another editor in favor on including the content. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
You and AvB can make whatever agreements you want. Just don't force them upon others without even asking.
Yes, we found another editor that brought up the same, tired, old issues. Nothing's changed for those of us trying to build consensus rather than forcing a WP:VOTE. -- Ronz  21:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
The general idea of testing the water comes from WP:consensus: Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome and You find out whether you have consensus, if not unanimity, when you try to build on it. AvB ÷ talk 22:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Weird whitewash

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

As a passerby, reading pages and pages above, I've gotta say... Is there a meatpuppet (WP:COI) problem on this page or what? Where's the RFC? Metta Bubble puff 16:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing to the discussion.
Your questions have been asked multiple times over the 15 months.
Summarizing my perspective: there have been a number of editors here that are out to discredit Barrett by any means possible. They've made this article into a mockery of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This article was a blatant attack on Barrett. Most of these editors, thankfully, have left. The article is slowly coming around to something more neutral. There's no whitewashing here, only cleaning up others' messes. -- Ronz  16:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Really? I read the chiroweb article on Barrett and it said some pretty scathing things also. Metta Bubble puff 16:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Summarizing my perspective: there are a number of editors who assume bad faith and think that my efforts to include a relevant and verifiable fact is an attempt to discredit Barrett. Not true. Barrett himself has come to Wikipedia and given us the information that he is not Board Certified and explained that he wants to be clear that he is not hiding this information, but rather it has been public info for over 30 years. It is Barrett's opinion that not being Board Certified didn't affect his career in the slightest. However, some of his critics believe otherwise. Editors against inclusion will say that this opinion of the critics is a minority opinion and WP:WEIGHT prohibits its inclusion, but I point out that Barrett's opinion is also a minority one. (After all, according to Barrett, when he first took and failed the Board Certification exam in 1963, 1 out of 3 psychiatrists were already Board Certified, and by the time Barrett retired in 1993, over 80% of all MDs were Board Certified.) Anyhow, our take at Wikipedia, in order to acheive NPOV, should either be to 1) state that he isn't Board Certified and explain his and his critics' views on this or 2) just state that he isn't Board Certified and leave out Barrett's and his critics' opinions on this matter. For simplicity, I am opting for option #2. This way, we allow the reader to decide whether or not this is important. By Wikilinking to BOard Certification, we give the reader the option to learn more about Board Certification in general. Overall, I think this is most fair, encyclopaedic, and best fits with the spirit of Wikipedia.
Thanks for your support on this Metta Bubble. You are in good company too. With you, 26 of the 32 editors who have commented in this content dispute are also in favor of including this material. About 5 of these supporting editors are admins. An editor against inclusion (AvB), graciously told me above that we should begin to test the waters by re-including the content and wait and see what happens. I am glad that it attracted your attention, an experienced editor but a new editor in this dispute. Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 16:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, really. Look in the talk archives yourself. The editors even allowed Ilena Rosenthal to disrupt this and other articles until she was blocked.
Yes, those chiropractors certainly don't like Barrett. It's no coincidence that most of his detractors have strong ties to chiropractic.
All this fits in to the arguments that if certification is mentioned at all, it is mentioned with the context. As you have pointed out, that context is "scathing" criticism of Barrett by chiropractors or others that have a beef with what Barrett has written. -- Ronz  17:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Further comments. chiroweb may not generally be considered a WP:RS, but individual articles must be considered separately in separate contexts. Also, approximately 21 of the 26 editors how have commented in favor of inclusion are WP:SPAs, while none of the 6 in opposition. (And I think I may have been counted in both groups.) I'm now leaning in favor of a brief mention in the criticism section, so I'm still opposed to Steth's version, even though I may have been counted as one of the 26. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
ArthurRubin, thanks for your input. I didn't notice any SPAs in my counting. Which ones were you thinking? Anyhow, if you are in favor of including the material in the criticism section, I would be most open to reading suggested wording by you. Thanks again. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Opinion survey

Latest comment: 17 years ago140 comments11 people in discussion

Please may I ask a favour? I know that polls suck and all so I've made this a little more detailed. For the sake of clarity I'd appreciate if inclined editors could help me understand by please just giving a yes or a no (or an indeterminable) directly below each question below and sign your name. It shouldn't take too long. I'll preserve the survey structure and civility, and move inline comments below. This is an open survey with no time limit. If anyone feels strongly inclined please add your own yes/no questions to the bottom of the survey. Thanks. Metta Bubble puff 00:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Update: I will look the other way if you add comments, but please keep them concise. I will definitely refactor if the comments turn into discussion. Thanks again. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 12:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This survey is in reference to the following proposed statement and sources:

STATEMENT: "Barrett is not board certified"

SOURCES:

1. Is the statement criticism (either direct or implied)?

2. Would the statement be more appropriate in a criticism/controversy section than in a general biography?

3. Is the statement potentially libelous?

  • No. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No. But Barrett would be the only one of the thousands? of non-board-certified psychiatrists where the fact is mentioned. Board certification is only mentioned in the articles of a dozen high-profile psychiatrists, including Freud. I found an interesting example that parallels this situation, but where the article is actually OK. The subject was not board certified and the tiny amount of space given to his critics says a lot. And it's not even a BLP - he died years ago. I'm not giving you his name though per WP:BEANS. I will email it to trusted editors when asked. As a reminder of what Wikipedia is, and what it is not.

AvB ÷ talk 09:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

4. Is the statement too sanitised (i.e. lacking a critical relevance aspect)?

5.Is the statement relevant to Barrett's notability?

6. Is the statement true, as far you are personally satisfied?

7. Are the sources high quality enough to satisfy WP:V?

8. Are the sources high quality enough to satisfy WP:RS?

9. Are the sources high quality enough to satisfy WP:BLP?

  • Of the primary sources, only Barrett's own site would satisfy WP:BLP. However, all BC info on the Quackwatch site is replicated from court records, which cannot be used per WP:BLP unless a reliable secondary source has commented on them. Which is not the case. The secondary sources (and certainly the cited web pages) are not reliable sources for information about Barrett and certainly fail WP:BLP since all other policies should be strictly applied. AvB ÷ talk 09:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes. Primary sources, carefully used, can augment the Biography.--I'clast 17:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes. -- Dēmatt (chat) 18:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No. The secondary sources are all from his critics; all of whom are either personally attacked by Barrett or had their alternative medicine speciality attacked by Barrett. Barrett's comments here on Wikipedia are not usable. Barrett's comments on his own web site might be usable, but they were also withdrawn. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No. BLP threshold even higher than V. Jim Butler(talk) 00:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, see my arguments here [[13]] MaxPont 13:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

10. Could the statement potentially harm wikipedia in repercussions?

11. Do you think court records suffice as a source ever?

12. Would attributing the phrase to a specific source be any better?

  • i.e. "Chiroweb claims Barrett being uncertified is important because... yada " or "Court documents state Barrett was not board certified..."

13. Can a survey clarify this issue?

14. Is there a biased group of editors focusing on this article (either way)?

  • My apologies for this question. I think it's relevant.

15. Has there been confirmation and consensus among editors that there is bias editors among us?

relevant question added by QuackGuru
  • According to the above previous comments there appears to be a bias among editors. Very well. Anyhow, we must comply with BLP policy which states: 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. Do you agree with BLP policy??? Even Levine has admitted there is bias. He too has answered the question using the word: "Yes" to the bias question. That confirms (consensus among editors who answered yes to the bias question) we must use third-party published sources to conform with BLP policy. BTY, we have no third-party refs. No third-party refs = BLP violations. The 3RR does not apply to BLP violations. Do you agree with Wikipedia policy? :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 04:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
You are misunderstanding policy. Biased editors does not equal biased content. BTW, several thrid-party refs have been presented here; you just don't recognize them as such. -- Levine2112 discuss 15:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I concur with the confusion, but some of the (clearly) biased editors are making biased edits. (And all the "third-party" references are clearly from people or groups which Barrett has attacked, so should be given little or no weight.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we need an guideline article to refer to in these situations, "The other editor is always wrong." Something along the lines of WP:WRONG. -- Ronz  15:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
So Dr Barrett can effectively censor references or muzzle entire segments of society by subsequently attacking them, even when their work & statements are supported by national authorities, while WP should rely on one sided references in areas reknown for their (sometimes unashamed) scandalous, long running COI and scientific subreptions?--I'clast 02:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
On the face, this suggested article has AGF violation written all over it. Perhaps I am not understanding what you mean here though. -- Levine2112 discuss 16:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm suggesting that at times like this we could use a light-hearted article, like WP:WRONG, that discusses the futility of finger-pointing and escalation as a solution to disputes, in contrast to taking personal responsibility and working to reduce tensions. Maybe it should be titled, "Chill." -- Ronz  18:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe WP:CHILLOUT is close enough. -- Ronz  18:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Levine has admitted once again there are "bias editors" here. We have exactly zero third-party refs to satisfy BLP. Levine, thanks for your honesty we have bias editors among us. Because of the admission by Levine, we have to conform to BLP policy and use only third-party refs. Are some editors pretending detractor attack references are satisfying? Hmmm. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 01:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Simple truth is, if one looks at the WP:RS criteria and includes massive advertising COI and previously demonstrated bad science in many "accepted" "promoter" publications, this article might be very short.--I'clast 02:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

COMMENTS:

Also note if you have another suggested wording (or section placement).

I have replied (not exhaustively, in order not to repeat everything I've already said) - not because I feel we still have to continue this discussion round, but because it beautifully closes the circle to its beginning on 22 March 2007. It shows that Levine2112 and probably others too tend to use tactics that hinge on disrupting and overextending discussion, as well as irritating and harassing other editors, rather than addressing the policy-based arguments made by experienced, reputable editors whose interpretation of policy and community standards is beyond reproach. During this discussion I have kept a list of these tactics. Although I realize that not all of it may be agreed on by reputable editors -- the list is frighteningly long. I'm asking Levine2112 (and to the degree it applies to them also, Steth, I'clast and others) to refrain from repeating these tactics in the future. Especially since I think Levine2112 has all the makings of a good editor regarding articles where he doesn't have these strong feelings. It is possible that you do not know that you are using them. In that case please reread the entire discussion carefully, placing yourself in the moccasins of your opponents. I could, of course, add diffs to my list and publish it on your talk page(s). However, that would almost certainly be the start of an editor behavior RfC. I would like to prevent that. It would be very wise to end the disruption and adjust to normal wiki practice. You see, you have wasted an enormous amount of other editors' time in this discussion alone. While researching, before joining in, what led to the Barrett v. Rosenthal arbitration, I have already seen many other instances of the same behavior. It actually looks good to the innocently AGF passing-by admin. But zooming out to the bigger picture it can be seen for what it is: insidious, malignant behavior not geared to building an encyclopedia but to filling - mainly chiro-related - Wikipedia articles with personal hatred and agendas. I realize this discussion was about a small piece of information. Unfortunately, that makes it worse instead of better.

I must be mad spending anymore time on this. I'm going to look at our kittens for a while. Their fighting practice is play, and they stop when another kitten yelps. They even stop when I yelp when playing with them, feeling little teeth explore how far they can go biting the strange ugly biped tiger that feeds them at times. AvB ÷ talk 09:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your time on this, both Levine2112 and AvB, and anyone else yet to answer. Whatever the outcome it could be really useful to have a central repository of opinions on this matter... ... We have a cat that curls up on your lap and romantically purrs into your eyes. Then he seems to decide at some point to be so much in love he simply must EAT you and promptly pounces on your face, dual-clawing, eye-gouging, lip biting. If you're quick and awake you might catapult him with a right hook before you need plastic surgery. My housemate is an expert. She never falls asleep in front of the TV anymore... Ahhh! Cats. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 11:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your attempt at resolving this issue, Metta Bubble. I would also like to note that though this should have prompted simple non-inflamatory responses, AvB quickly descended into personal attacks, incivility and bad faith assumptions. If he/she wants to start an RfC, feel free. -- Levine2112 discuss 16:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
It's been enough. Please stop.
I would be surprised if many reputable Wikipedians familiar with what happened here would share your opinion of my closing speech. For the rest: I note for the record that you are repeating some of the behavior I have asked you to realize you're displaying, and which I've asked you not to repeat. More specifically: ignoring serious arguments, opinions and questions from your fellow Wikipedians. Putting words into other people's mouths (aka bad faith assumption) -- I said I want to prevent an editor behavior RfC against you. Twice.) Attacking others where you should have defended yourself, conceded, or remained silent. It is disappointing to see you still do not take this seriously. It would really be for the best if you would review past events and reassess the arguments and responses. Please reconsider. AvB ÷ talk 16:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, Levine2112, you really should reconsider. I'm somewhat amazed, having returned from a month-long wikibreak, that this debate is still going on. I agree with Ronz, AvB et. al. that the material in question doesn't belong here, at least not until a verifiable sec source is offered. I think you should follow WP:DR advice and disengage. Or take it up to mediation or the ArbCom. But enough already with the talk page. Your efforts here crossed the line into disruption a long time ago. Other editors have been community banned for less. Suggest a refreshing chill pill and change of scenery for you. regards, Jim Butler(talk) 00:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I totally disagree with AvB about the behavior of Levine2112. In my opinion, Levine2112 has over time developed an exemplary line of arguments to support inclusion. He has stayed calm and addressed all the issues brought up in the discussion with references to WP guidelines and policies. Assuming bad faith, I can easily turn the table on the arguments by AvB: that a small group of editors (“the Barrett fan cub”) would go to any length to keep a legitimate piece of information out of Wikipedia.MaxPont 11:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Back Door Article (BLP Violations)

This discussion has long been over. This may be an attempt at a 'back door article' to run a smear campaign against Stephen Barrett. Please stop. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 01:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

What does a 'back door article' mean? -- Levine2112 discuss 02:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not interested in answering your question. This is getting dumb. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 04:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

We strongly recommend to delete all mention of the board thing from this talk page and its archives. This talk page should be reported to the BLP noticeboard if we cannot gain consensus to delete the BLP violations. Or we can take it straight to MFD. I must say, a back door article on the talk page is against the spirit of Wikipedia. Any thoughts. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 04:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by the intensity of your response. I went to BLP noticeboard to report your concerns, but it's already been discussed there. I support WP:MFD discussion if that's what you want. Whatever helps us reach consensus and write a good article. I'd prefer you simply respond to my survey above. The result would definitely help your cause if this is a BLP breach... so I think it's in your best interest to complete the survey also. Please give it a try.Metta Bubble puff 07:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I suppose we can let things stand since the violations are interspersed and offset by comments from other editors. But that's just my opinion and I would not revert if someone were to replace all violations with a placeholder text. By the way, the BLP Noticeboard is mainly intended to help editors faced with undue opposition in removing BLP violations. It should not be necessary to go there for help regarding an article that's being watched by a sufficient number of reputable editors. AvB ÷ talk 10:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
This should be reported to the BLP noticeboard. It has never been reported to any board in any concise context to delete the BLP violations on this talk page. Please, anyone can make a report. Or we can simply delete any mention of a board. I will report any Wikipedian if the edit gets reverted back to breaching the BLP again. 3 months of going around in circles is stupid. BLP violations is a very serious matter and will not be tolerated. Please, anyone, give it a try yourself and delete all mention of a board. We are putting everyone on notice. BLP violations will not stand. There is no consensus and it is against BLP policy. I mean. After 3 MONTHS, its time to stop. Thanks for your assistance. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 17:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
It's not malicious content, they are called facts. Things that are, for a variety of reasons, in somewhat short supply in this article to the point of being grossly misleading, bad for the credibilty of the encyclopedia. Similar types of facts which are quite ordinary in WP and expected in other biographies even when far less relevant to the person's various careers, notariety and legal/authoritative status. And "putting editors on notice", etc sounds tiresomely POVish, threatening and uncivil.--I'clast 01:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the aggressive tone in the postings above could be interpreted as frustration by editors who begin to realize that they have lost the debate. MaxPont 11:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Please Note (no third-party refs)

There are zero 'third-party' published sources to satisfy BLP. Anyone who has alleged there are third-party refs to satisfy BLP has been repeatedly debunked because they continue to fail to produce any third-party refs to satisfy BLP when there is no high quality (third-party) refs. The refs that are presented are detractor refs and primary refs that FAIL to meet BLP policy. They are using the talk page to run their (appears to be agenda driven) 'back door' article campaign against Barrett and BLP policy. End of discussion. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 19:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Refactored from survey, as per survey rules disclosed in advanced. The following is not a yes/no question ॐ Metta Bubble puff 06:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

16. Why are some editors making false statements they have third-party refs to satisfy BLP?
Can we all agree that the above comment is totally uncivil and inappropriate? -- Levine2112 discuss 16:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Breaking news

Latest comment: 17 years ago30 comments9 people in discussion

Perusing Yahoo! this morning and I found this:

Chiropractors Claim Court Victory Against Infamous 'Quackbuster' - The entire article is informative, but for our immediate purposes, an excerpt from the eighth paragraph:

Under Negrete's intense cross-examination, Barrett admitted that he had not been a licensed physician for more than a decade and had failed the neurological exam, preventing him from being certified as a specialist.

-- Levine2112 discuss 16:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The tagline is the most informative part of all:
SOURCE: World Chiropractic Alliance
— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
If you look even closer, you'll notice its just another press release from Negrete, distributed by World Chiropractic Alliance.
Yes, we're already well-aware of these press releases from Negrete criticizing Barrett. Nothing new here. This doesn't change anything. -- Ronz  18:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, just a repetition of Negrete's previous press release a couple years ago. Nothing new and Barrett has just written (Levine2112 can confirm this): "We plan to ask the Pa. Supreme Court to review the case." -- Fyslee/talk 07:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Where can I confirm this? (Otherwise, this seems to be a new development; Barrett tried for an appeal but was denied.) -- Levine2112 discuss 21:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion. It was the wording I was referring to, which is practically identical to a previous press release from Negrete, a very adversarial source who will naturally only report the part of interest to himself and his clients. -- Fyslee/talk 08:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
He's retired, isn't he? Why would he keep a licence. And how "intense" would the questioning need to be to elicit that - not at all. Midgley 09:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

According to the press release quoted by Levine "Barrett also admitted, under questioning, that he misrepresented himself as a licensed physician in a previous court case." Is this true? What was the case? Is it notable? robert2957 10:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't true. This type of "journalism" is an important reason why these "articles" will never be reliable sources for Wikipedia. It also beautifully illustrates what is allowed in the USA under the flag of personal opinion (but not as objective statement of fact/truth). It's also a nice illustration of the California Supreme Court's section 230 ruling in Barrett v. Rosenthal, allowing anyone, organization or private person (here the WCA) to repost unedited material spreading such opinion and even outright libel. As a thumb rule I would say that Wikipedia cannot use any material republished under this ruling because it is someone's personal opinion by definition. Unless it's a very special opinion authored by a very special person. AvB ÷ talk 13:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

MANY thanks for the reply. Can you tell me where I can find out that this isn't true? Thank you. robert2957 13:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

"Isn't true"?? You're asking for us to prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the one claiming it is true. Since it is coming from an adversarial source, you should be more skeptical about any claims coming from that source.
When it has been published by reliable, neutral, secondary sources in context, it might be worth investigating. Until then anything we do with it would be OR, and discussing it here may well violate BLP and most certainly makes the talk page a discussion group, which isn't its proper use. When such good sources are found, then we can take it up and discuss whether and how to include it. Maybe after a couple years that might happen. Come to think of it, a couple years has already passed since the first time I read this in one of Negrete's previous "press releases." (This one is pretty much a duplicate.) That it hasn't been considered worthy of comment by reliable sources says alot. -- Fyslee/talk 16:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to know how AvB knew that it wasn't true. If he is saying that it is not true then he must be in a position to prove this negative. I am not trying to turn this into a discussion group. Just to find out if anyone here knows something that might be worthy of inclusion. Or not. I am sceptical myself about this since I have never doubted Stephen Barrett's good faith. robert2957 18:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Having gone through the previously offered sources time and time again, it's pretty easy to spot Negrete's press releases. -- Ronz  18:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Robert's question is certainly relevant since I responded with an opinion ("not true"). My sources: [14][15][16] In short, Barrett has been a licensed MD for almost 50 years - and he still is one now. Do I need to say that a licensed physician cannot misrepresent himself as a licensed physician? Now a word about Fyslee's and Ronz's responses. Fyslee is right, e.g. regarding whether or not this can be mentioned in the encyclopedia (it can't, per policies such as WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR) and whether or not this can be discussed on the talk page (probably not and I would not be surprised if someone removed it per WP:BLP). Ronz is also right: to the informed eye it's Bolen/Negrete all over again. AvB ÷ talk 20:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

New source

Court Victory for Chiropractors Against Quack Buster, First Amendment Rules - by Donna Porter. This one doesn't seem to be published by chiropractors or from any adversarial group.

Barrett admitted that he had not been a licensed physician for more than a decade and had failed the neurological exam, preventing him from being certified as a specialist

This is a third-party source, I believe. Remember, we all agree that it is true that Barrett isn't Board Certified. Barrett has confirmed this. Barrett's attorneys have confirmed this. This secondary, thrid-party source now gives this verified content the weight needed. Thoughts? -- Levine2112 discuss 16:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

"Sources: This story was adapted in part by a press release from the World Chiropractic Alliance". 'nuff said. -- Fyslee/talk 16:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Copy of chiro attack source (recycled old source)

Sources: This story was adapted in part by a press release from the World Chiropractic Alliance. It is mosty a cut and pasted copy of the chiro attack reference. Levine, when are you going to understand the chiro refs are attacks references in whole or in part? This is out of bounds, policy-wise. Levine, do you agree with Wikipedia policy? :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 17:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think that "adapted in part" disqualifies it as reliable secondary source. Also, QuackGuru, you are still being uncivil. Given your RfC, I am not the only ediotr who feels this is a problem. Please chill out. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Recycled chiro attack refs are disqualified. You seem to have a slow learning curve understanding policy. Hmm. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 17:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from being uncivil. Second, this article isn't recycled; it is "adapted in part". That means that while it sources some of the Negrete press release, it also contains original journalism; hence it is a third-party source. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
It was adapted in part is exactly the same as recycled in part. It is in part (recycled from a detractor) from an attack reference. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 17:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
The recycling of such information amounts to coprophilia. Just because it gets excreted and eaten again, ad nauseum, doesn't make it any more reliable, even if it thereby becomes a third, fourth, fifth, or sixth generation source. It's still the same old s*** -- Fyslee/talk 17:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
So you are agreeing that this is a third-party source" then? Coprophilia? Gross. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) It's rather irrelevant if it's first, second, third, fourth, or hundredth. We still have no context. We only have it second hand from a biased sourced who only reports his version. A repetition of that source doesn't make it any better quality. -- Fyslee/talk 17:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Nothing new here. Let's stop with these ad nauseum discussions. Repeatedly asking the same old questions over and over and over again when there's no new information while ignoring previous discussions violates WP:CON and WP:CIVIL. -- Ronz  18:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
New source = new discussion with new questions. What I find remarkable is that from the survey above, we all agree that it is a fact that Barrett is not Board Certified. My question is: How did we all arrive at that conclusion? I would think that all of us know this information is true because we trust the sources which have reported it; hence WP:RS and WP:V have been satisfied in all of our eyes. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I don’t think Fyslee understands fundamental media logic and how it relates to Wiki Policies. Even if the originator of a claim is a biased attack source a reliable secondary source can pick it up, fact check, put it in context, and produce an article about it. Once that is done we have a RS. Such an article doesn’t have to be objective, few (if none) articles are. The new article Levine introduces is obviously written by an uninvolved person, though the publisher, Associated Content, might need some scrutiny before being accepted as a RS. MaxPont 12:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Interesting theory. In practice, however, a usually reliable source can print crap articles and a usually crap source can produce impeccable journalism. Once a publication has built a reputation for fact checking etc. it is seen as a reliable source in general. However, it is still possible for Wikipedia editors to reject specific articles (confusingly, also called "sources") from a usually reliable publication or accept specific articles from usually unreliable publications. Content can even be reliable in one context and unreliable in another context (that's why partisan sources can be used in articles about themselves).
I don't know anything about AssociatedContent.com, but this "article" by Porter is clearly not a reliable source. It really shouldn't take a genius to recognize the tell-tale signs of tabloid reporting at its narrowest. AvB ÷ talk 14:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that there is anything which clearly demonstrates that this source isn't reliable or that it is "tabloid" journalism. I am really frustrated here now. It seems taht any source which I present, you will just reject. What I don't get is that most of this article is from first-party sources - Barrett's websites. However, you reject the first-party sources which verify that Barrett is not Board Certified. Please let work to forming a compromise. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
It's obvious that you find this an exemplary reliable source. I see it as sloppy journalism, biased reporting, poor fact checking, etc. One of the characteristics of a reliable source is a good reputation for fact checking. If associatedcontent.com has such a reputation, it will lose it soon if this is its current journalistic level. For one thing, Porter manages to misquote the first thing I checked: calling CFS a fad. Barrett did so years ago, which was not well received by CFS patients. I knew he had updated the site to reflect current scientific understanding and would have been surprised if he had gone back to his earlier opinion. He hasn't.
You are once again misrepresenting me: I do not "reject first-party sources"; wiki editors are expected to reject certain primary sources (such as court records) when not discussed in reliable secondary sources. It is true that a number of editors here have rejected everything you have presented as reliable secondary sources on the BC info so far. But not "just." - I for one always give reasons. You should not be surprised to see me reject a new source doing the same thing as other rejected sources. AvB ÷ talk 16:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Alarm bells

Latest comment: 17 years ago27 comments7 people in discussion

I get alarm bells ringing whenever I read an article or section of an article written primarily from court documents. Certainly we should have something about the litigation, but if we're finding that we have to guddle through primary sources, this probably means that little has been written in reliable sources about the litigation. So we're effectively being investigative journalists. I suggest that the bulk of the court documents, and the statements that rely on them alone, should be pulled. --Tony Sidaway 16:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The type of investigative journalists demonstrated here violates OR and NPOV. -- Ronz  18:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I've removed most of the section on litigation because of these concerns, which seem to be covered by the Biographies of living persons policy. Basically we regard use of articles as a basis for investigative journalism as an abuse of the encyclopedia. People who want to carry out this perfectly legitimate activity should use their blogs. --Tony Sidaway 18:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 18:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I have been mainly watching all of this because I find the conversations exhausting to keep up with at times. But I reread the article and I have to say it shows a more even balance article. I am learning policies better now and I have to say that from what I have been learning slowly is that these removals from the article is finally a move in a positive way towards balancing this article to the rules the new editors are trying to learn. Thanks for being bold enough to take this step. I agree with the changes also. --CrohnieGalTalk 19:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Tony, I think that would all be well and good if Barrett only had the odd bit of litigation here and there. However, Barrett is notable because of his litigation and therefore there is an argument to be made that primary sources are applicable. I cite WP:OR as a source for this:
  • WP:OR "Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or legal cases)."
Thanks. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 12:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
One of many arguments already provided (straight from WP:BLP): "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 Wikipedia:Verifiability." talk 13:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi AvB. Yes I know, that's why this is a complex situation. There is obvious disagreement about whether the secondary sources we currently have suffice for reliability, and so the issue is unresolved. I'm looking forward to more assessments of the situation from outside editors. I think the situation is far more complex than local editors have been prepared to admit. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 00:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
One of the reasons for highlighting this important language was that you were quoting WP:OR in response to Tony's WP:BLP argument. Please note that WP:BLP sets additional requirements. "There are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or legal cases)" -- Per WP:BLP, this does not apply to BLPs.
Complex? Maybe, but the individual hurdles to be taken before the disputed content can be included are pretty simple. Three months ago I insisted on independent, reliable, secondary sources. None have been provided. It's true that there are editors here who believe they have provided such sources for the disputed content. It is also true that their opinion has not achieved consensus. It is unlikely that this will change. The dispute is essentially over. There is no consensus to include the disputed text The arguments against inclusion are strong and policy based, while those in favor often go against WP:BLP. AvB ÷ talk 01:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi AvB. Aren't you just demanding your version of the facts is true? Aren't there other editors here who think there are reliable enough secondary sources (see the survey)? So hence, I still say it's complex. I'm 100% we won't resolve this until there's some recognition of each other's views as being fairly made and in good faith. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 09:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
No I am not. WP:BLP is what it is. Many editors have recognized that the views of Levine2112 were fairly made and in good faith at the start of this discussion round. The fact that certain editors believe the sources are either sufficient or insufficient to satisfy WP:BLP does not automatically make that the objective truth and I do not believe I have claimed otherwise. What I do claim is that I am applying a routine community-supported approach, while Levine et al. are not. Be that as it may, even that is not the point. The whole point here is that we do not agree and the discussion has long stopped being productive. It has become abundantly clear that a consensus that any of the provided sources are secondary and reliable is not in the cards. It is even contested that they are secondary since they all recycle attack material representing opinion from Bolen and/or Negrete. A consensus to include the disputed content is not in the cards. BLP material needs a consensus to include. Even the chances of a compromise have now hit rock bottom due to the strong impression of POV pushing. As indicated by ArbCom (if I remember correctly), we do not have to compromise with POV pushers (I'm not saying you are one by the way, and I appreciate your open and non-adversarial approach - with the exception of "shout" type assertions followed by questions to that effect). AvB ÷ talk 09:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Avb. My apologies for accusing you of shouting. I was merely refering to your previous post and not a general tendency. You raise some good points I hadn't fully considered. I agree with your assessment on a few points and I disagree with your assessment on a few points. Firstly, I think we are getting closer and closer to consensus (and I also note that consensus is never permanent). Secondly, I also think you overstate the BLP issue. The majority of editors (as I read the survey) have said they don't think it's a BLP issue. So they could easily argue that it's unfair for a handful of biased editors to whitewash any article they feel like, by simply claiming it's a BLP violation with enough vitriole. Note though, I'm not asserting this is what's happening here. However, I am observing that it appears to be asserted by a few. So in my considered opinion, outside comments from editors uninvolved in any quackery/pseudoscience type articles are warranted in order to resolve a complex issue. Clearly from our edit histories (both yours and mine, and most of the editors here) we don't have a team of disinterested editors here yet. I'd like to see more involvement from demonstrably neutral editors. Hence, I think we should persue attracting such editors. If you feel strongly eough about your position that it's gone on long enough I would have thought an arbcom case is the appropriate way forward. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 23:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Apologies accepted.
We've had two RfCs on the matter, the second was largely ignored. Questions have been asked in a number of WP forums, including the BLPN. That attracted the attention of e.g. JoshuaZ and Tony Sidaway (who, while at it, cut the criticism section, citing several of the reasons I gave three months ago in this discussion). It has been discussed to death. Several uninvolved editors have come and gone. Many participants in the discussion have given up. The verdict of opponents has always been along these lines: it can go in if sourced in reliable secondary sources enabling us to decide its weight (or notability) -- and in the context of those sources to prevent e.g. WP:SYN. These arguments firmly based in policy and have not been refuted. A number of editors have asked Levine2112 to stop the ad nauseam approach that has kept the discussion going to a limited extent.
Re the viability of a possible argument that opponents of the disputed language are "biased" (POV pushers): A number of these editors are neutral or more on the side of Barrett's opponents in the multicolored light of personal experience. That includes me and I for one would strongly resent being called "biased". Perhaps it helps to know that I have an illness that, according to Donna Porter, is termed a "fad illness" by Barrett (she's wrong, by the way - it's one of many mistakes -- or tendentious journalism?). Also, the argument would not hold simply because the editors in question ar not known for whitewashing (or endlessly campaigning for it on talk pages and in other forums) but, on the contrary, for their strict position on whitewashing. Finally, I do feel strongly that it is better to exclude disputed BLP information than to include it. Regardless of the person. If that introduces bias into the encyclopedia, it is erring on the side of caution. It is true that POV pushers may try and devise tactics based on this principle. But that's not a reason to change the principle. It's just one of the reasons to keep POV pushers in check.
I certainly would insist that a real critique of Quackwatch should be mentioned in this article. What says a lot to me is the detractors' incessant use of personal attacks instead of legitimate concerns. (In fact it's possible that some legit concerns have been voiced; if so, they're consistently being drowned out by the attacks.) Legitimate concerns untainted by personal attacks would stand a good chance of being discussed in acceptable sources and making it into Wikipedia.
WP:BLP... forbids the use of court records that have not been discussed in reliable secondary sources first. Some editors have a somewhat less strict interpretation, e.g. feeling that the policy should only apply to contentious/harmful/overly negative/overly positive material on a living person; or that content violating BLP in articles does not necessarily violate BLP elsewhere in the encyclopedia. But even they have not come out in favor of including the disputed BC content, presumably because they see it for what it is: not neutral information but, especially when contextomized and synthesized into a brief CV, an attack formulated by an individual detractor, Tim Bolen.
The onus of demonstrating that the material can go into the article is on those who want to include it. They need to generate a consensus. I do not have to do so. If they feel strongly about this, they should attempt a new mediation. In the meantime, the focus of criticism on Levine's contributions on this talk page has shifted from policy and common sense based arguments to the community's patience being exhausted by disruptive editing. If I feel strongly about something, it is Levine2112's behavior. I don't feel strongly enough about it to start a user conduct RfC. But an arbitration request regarding the content dispute (presumably about the interpretation of WP:BLP, WP:OR, WP:WEIGHT to name a few) carries with it the risk that the ArbComm will share the opinion of a number of editors that Levine2112's ad nauseam approach is disruptive. AvB ÷ talk 11:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I resent you calling my civil discussion about policy "ad nauseum" and even suggesting that an ArbCom is remotely needed for my behavior. I have civilly presented a policy-based rationale which the large majority of editors here support. And still there are the two factors with BLP that you have consistently overlooked: 1) Getting the article right 2) Privacy. For #1, we know and all agree that Barrett is not Board Certified, so that isn't the issue. #2 is a presumption in favor of privacy; whereas Barrett has said that he is public with this information (and in fact resents when his detractors claim that he has concealed this information). With regards to sources, I (and others) have presented a plethora of reliable secondary sources. That some of them are from organization which Barrett has criticized doesn't make the slightest difference, because we are only using them to verify that which Barrett himself has verified for us: he isn't Board Certified. There is no orignal research issue whatsoever here. Barrett has flat-out told us that he isn't Board Certified. His lawyers have echoed this. His detractors verify this as well. So simply stating that he isn't Board Certified is not a matter of original research. No way, no how. Finally, the weight of this content is plainly obvious. Barrett is a dispenser of medical advice to the critics. Of course his complete medical credentials are relevant. Furthermore, Barrett's lack of Board Certification has been a subject in several trials, online/offline articles, and research papers. I have never called your equal and opposite opposition to this content "disruptive". I would suggest that if you don't want to discuss this any longer, then you do just that. Otherwise, please let's work together to settle on a compromise which can satisfy all parties here. Thank you. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Levine2122. It was me who suggested Arbcom. But more as a way forward in seeking neutral viewpoints. My apologies. I believed Arbcom would either accept or reject, but in either case we could enjoy a talk page free of accusations.
Hi Avb. That I recognise we all have bias is nothing personal, just my own viewpoint. I believe denying personal bias is in itself a form of bias. Tony has made suggestions on all sides, so I disagree with the implication that he is somehow siding with you. I'm pretty sure I've read most of your arguments in earlier conversations, so I'll restate my viewpoint also: "No consensus" should not be used to trump disputes involving identified biases. The survey shows all users agree there is conflicting biases here. Hence demonstrably neutral viewpoints (in the context of this article) are a good way forward. I suggest more WP:RFC, WP:3O, or even WP:VP. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 03:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)

Levine is once again either misunderstanding or misrepresenting what I said. Example: I said: "... the risk that the ArbComm will share the opinion of a number of editors that Levine2112's ad nauseam approach is disruptive." Levine said: you are "calling my civil discussion about policy "ad nauseum" and even suggesting that an ArbCom is remotely needed for my behavior."

Levine, one cannot ask the ArbCom to resolve the content dispute. But one can ask for guidance regarding the way the various parties have applied policy and community standards. I was warning that it could carry a risk for you. Seeing that you do not feel it is a risk, and seeing that you do not believe a formal (MedCom) mediation will be helpful, all you've left now is ArbCom. Trying to keep discussing the BC thing, repeating the same old things, here on the talk page or elsewhere, is disruptive.

Metta Bubble, denying personal bias is in itself a form of bias -- definitely. I know my own biases and will never deny them. In fact I'm proud of them. But they are vastly different from what is being suggested here, contradicting my own statements and hence a blockable AGF violation, one not to be repeated. You should take a better look at my edit history. The very fact that it contains months of Barrett discussion (an article I had not edited before - or rarely, don't recall) defending against POV pushing demonstrates the degree of the disruption here. I am totally fed up with it. This is not about two battling groups of biased editors. This is about POV pusher (all of them extremely antagonistic re Barrett, regularly repeating Bolen hate speech and clearly believing their POV is NPOV) wikilawyering ad nauseam against the insights of reputable, experienced editors (a number of them with a personal POV unfavorable to Barrett). It is not something that is easily recognized by the POV pusher, but is instantly seen for what it is by neutral editors. Labeling neutral editors as "biased" as soon as their verdict goes against the wishes of the POV pusher will not solve that problem. I am a neutral editor who has said it's enough. More of this is disruptive. You suggest we need new editors. I suggest we need new arguments. The existing ones have led to a "no consensus" outcome and newcomers have not brought new arguments for a while. I've only spent some time discussing things with you because you have come up with a new meta-argument for involving new, unbiased editors (not a new argument in the discussion itself). New arguments are not disruptive. New (or existing) editors repeating existing arguments are. So feel free to involve as many editors as you can - but also note that we are not waiting for any votes here. New arguments, new reasoning, new compromise proposals, that sort of input may be helpful. But it is vastly more likely that it will result in more of the same. And that would be disruptive.

You may have noted that I posted a new proposal myself? It's a compromise of sorts, recognizing that the inclusion of the license info in the Bio section was also prompted by criticism (this time mentioning the full defense, instead of part of the criticism as in the BC thing). My proposal leaves both out. AvB ÷ talk 13:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

PS Where am I implying Tony sides with me? I'm not even sure I would like him to do so. This is merely about the arguments provided, referring mostly to Levine2112's opinion regarding "expert" editors. He did not accept these arguments from me - perhaps he will accept them when coming from Tony. Did you look up my arguments? 22 March 2007. AvB ÷ talk 13:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Avb. Where you said, "and Tony Sidaway (who, while at it, [agreed with me]". I'm sure we'll be revisiting Tony's deletion when the page is unprotected, so can you please post a diff with your arguments about this alarm bells issue? I still think your edit history verges towards pseudoscience topics (like mine does too). But no big deal. I like your suggestions so far. I'll check out your new proposal below. Thanks for that, and I appreciate you discussing this with me. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 15:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

About Tony: I can see how you got that idea, but the connection in my mind (in addition to the above) was: illustrating how attracting attention from uninvolved editors can easily go the other way.

My edit history, found under "user contributions", is much more comprehensive than just pseudoscience issues and the wannabe_kate utility typically misses the important work where an editor doesn't visit individual pages very often (other than mentioning one's average number of edits per page).

Some diffs/links from 22 March:

Biography - remove unsourced statement per WP:BLP and WP:NOR/WP:WEIGHT - in view of the latter, only reinsert if sourced in other than primary sources

rv: unsourced statement per WP:BLP and WP:NOR/WP:WEIGHT - these sources (1) do not support the assertion (2) do not show that this is in any way important. DO NOT REVERT without discussion on talk

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stephen_Barrett/Archive_8#Board_Certification

AvB ÷ talk 16:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I am in favor of Mediation. Don't forget, I was the one who had initiated the original mediation. And for the record, it was I who sought out third party opinions for the RS and BLP issues at their corresponding noticeboards. I was also the one who filed at least one of the two RfCs. And I have also reached out to several other venues for dispute resolution. Clearly, I would like to see this issue resolved. AvB, I am not pointing any fingers of blame, but this whole debacle began when you removed the long standing text. Granted, looking back, I can see how it could have been worded better and that is why I have suggested a multitude of compromises. Again, I would like nothing more than to have this dispute resolved amicably. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

"AvB, I am not pointing any fingers of blame, but this whole debacle began when you removed the long standing text." -- That's obviously how you're looking at it. From my side of the screen, it began when you reinserted it again and did not accept my explanation on the talk page, unlike other editors working on other (unrelated) articles who accepted similar interventions by me. I'm not the one who aborted the MedCab mediation; I emailed the mediator when he wanted to continue by e-mail, and never heard back from him. Ronz tried to restart it. But if you're in favor of formal (MedCom) mediation, pursuing that would make a world of difference in terms of superfluous talk page discussion. AvB ÷ talk 22:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Avb, "attracting attention from uninvolved editors can easily go the other way. " What other way? In my mind there is only two ways: towards writing an encyclopedia, or away from writing an encyclopedia. Right?
The general impression was that Levine was looking for external input in a non-standard way, calling it WP:3O but in fact forum-shopping. The most important aspect being that he "counted" all editors that seemed to agree with his stance as a "vote" while ignoring or debating all editors who did not seem to agree. I gather it was not his intention to get editors like Tony here; this type of intervention regarding this type of policy violation is quite predictable. Tony is one of the many editors who have influenced my understanding of what makes Wikipedia tick so it is hardly surprising that the same authoritative arguments are used. These arguments are very hard to refute because they are supported by the community. AvB ÷ talk 14:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I see some editors disagreeing with you in those diffs. Rightly or wrongly, they stated their arguments and said they didn't follow yours. Overall, I saw editors fundamentally disagreeing about the application of policy, just like now. Then, I saw you citing Jimbo Wales as a precedent, which as far as I'm concerned is one of the truly horrible things about wikipedia (editors citing Jimbo as god). There's really nothing new there for me except the Jimbo thing. I reckon I've got a really good grasp on your point of view and Levines. However, I haven't made the leap from viewpoints to facts. I see you're pretty open to the wikiprocesses so I'm hopeful about mediation. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 23:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that disagreeing is not enough. Arguments need to be refuted. Most weren't; they were ignored, drowned out in repeated questions, etc etc. Most importantly, my edits and arguments were standard WP routine, not at all remarkable. That would not be readily apparent to less experienced editors. Of course editors who cannot get their views into the encyclopedia due it will fervently deny that it is standard procedure, either believing they're right or knowing they're wrong but trying anyway, giving themselves away with battle cries and untoward tactics.
I did not cite Jimbo as God; I wrote that I did not need Jimbo for these arguments, but that reading the Langan precedent would help Levine et al. understand the reasoning. I tried to show editors who believed this approach was not mainstream Wikipedia that they were wrong; in fact it is being applied all over Wikipedia.
By the way, if editors are planning to try and refute Tony's edit using the same arguments in favor of inclusion already proffered (but not refuted) in the BC discussion, their line of reasoning may well be deemed disruptive straight away.
As to "leaping" from viewpoint to fact: that's not leaping at all; it's basic NPOV. We provide proportional coverage of viewpoints based on what's happening in the real world. We do not assign space to a POV based on editor opinion but on reliable sources. Once we have assigned, say, 10% of the article content to a specific POV, we don't fill it with just any information. Each POV consists of attributed opinions, real or perceived facts, and more. We weigh the relative importance of each POV component, using secondary sources to guide us. We leave out or summarize the issues that are given little weight in reliable secondary sources. AvB ÷ talk 14:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I concur that leaning towards summarisation is appropriate.
Don't forget to provide reliable sources. AvB ÷ talk 19:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
In regards to inclusion of the litigations, I don't see how you can cite one policy segment and claim it trumps another policy when, fundamentally, there is disagreement on the extent of applicability of both policies (BLP RS). I simply don't think this is as cut-and-dried as you make out. There's multiple ways of framing Barrett's notability. How much Barrett is considered notable for his litigiousness or for his advocacy has direct bearing on this issue. Hence I think Tony deleting the court summaries out-of-hand was mistaken. It's easy to say "BLP is what it is" but that is not an argument of policy applicability.
You're now running into terrain that has already been covered in this discussion. AvB ÷ talk 19:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Though I find no evidence suggesting this issue has been discussed adequately. As always, I love reading specific diffs on the situation. My current position is that including the information Tony deleted comes under this definitionn: Citing court documents to discuss court cases about a litigious subject. And hence, that falls within my understanding of WP:BLP WP:RS WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Is there any other policies you think we should consider in discussing this? ॐ Metta Bubble puff 04:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Interest questions

Latest comment: 17 years ago26 comments6 people in discussion
<personal attack and BLP violation removed by AvB> ॐ Metta Bubble puff 16:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
No. <links removed by AvB 26 June 2007. Content: web pages showing scope of 1998-2007 work: CFS/FM/MCS/GWS/auto-immune conditions> AvB ÷ talk 19:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Question for Metta Bubble, you say here [17] that you are here as an uninvolved editor with this being your second revert. You made that survey for others to take with you allowing yourself to refractor. I am confused! are you a neutral editor who just happened across this article? I would also suggest you read the archives from past conversation since this whole thing restarted which is archives 9 & 10 so you understand all of what has been said here over all of this time. I left myself for awhile because it is exhausting already. Thanks your for your time, --CrohnieGalTalk 20:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Crohnie. Funnily enough, I've edited this article since before you joined wikipedia. Your questions show a lack of research on your part, not mine. You bonded with Avb after arriving at wikipedia and I have no intention of insulting you with "ring-in" accusations. I request you do the same research before accusing me. No offense taken though.deleting, this response was in reply to a question which has since been removed
Quite frankly, I smell a rat here. I think there's long-term conflict of interest problem here that may require Arbcom intervention. Fyslee doesn't hide his conflict POV. Ronz? Shot Info? QuackGuru? Levine2112? How well-placed my barnstar was, time will tell.
However, it also seems User:Avb has a real-life interest in this article, which is compounded by Avb flatout denying this when I asked him. Now it turns out he was an administrator on a site that maintains a <link removed by AvB 26 June 2007> list critiquing healthcare providers. I mean, hello? If that doesn't set off some alarm bells with you, it should. Enough to lift your rader a little and consider whether you're being played -- just a little.deleting, this response was in reply to a question that has since been removed ॐ Metta Bubble puff 02:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
It seems you're missing Crohnie's points. (1) She says you were not "uninvolved" as claimed by you (obviously in the sense of someone not under suspicion of chosing sides in the dispute). Your response confirms that; yet you act as if it somehow proves her wrong. (2) She says you gave Levine a barnstar (in the context of presenting here as an uninvolved editor). You ignore the point, instead talking about others (both chronically ill) getting on well, as if we have done anything remotely similar to what you did (such as one of us playing the uninvolved, spontaneously surfacing editor when the other is looking for support from a neutral editor). As if that changes things regarding your claim to be uninvolved. (3) She asks if she is correct in thinking you were invited to make that edit. You ignore the question, instead stepping up your criticism of me (I smell a rat) - !AGF/NPA. (4) She commented on your survey, but you ignored it. Would you care to address these points now? Can you state for a fact that you had not been invited?
Instead of addressing the issues brought forward, you continued something where you hadn't done your homework.
You also ignored what I wrote. You didn't even click on the links I gave. Or perhaps you didn't understand their significance, but you didn't ask. AvB ÷ talk 19:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Avb and Crohnie. It is verifiably true I was an uninvolved editor in this dispute before coming here recently. I haven't ignored your links. They simply show nothing. I addressed your issues above. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 22:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
It was my impression that Levine was looking for someone both sides could trust. It was my impression that you have been invited.
You have not answered my question: Can you state for a fact that you had not been invited?
What do you mean, my links show nothing? They show that the website has always been about diseases Barrett calls fad diseases. Or didn't you know that? AvB ÷ talk 00:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Sooo close, but I don't think this quite deserves to go here yet. I recommend that you ask I'clast about COI issues as he has been gungho in pointing the finger but rather lacking in intestinal fortitude to follow up with the appropriate channels. I can only hope that you are willing to lead the charge!. Shot info 02:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC) [[18]]

Here's a suggestion: don't link to sites which identify, or claim to identify, Wikipedians against their wishes. It's strongly frowned upon. I'm talking about your link to Ilena Rosenthal's claimed ID of User:Shot info, which I've removed. By the way, Ilena Rosenthal has been quite vocal in claiming to identify every Wikipedia editor she's butted heads with (which is quite a few) with some real-life antagonist of hers. Generally (at least in her claimed identification of me), she's been way off base. COI accusations are a quick road to nowhere on this article. You're confusing having an opinion on a subject with having a conflict of interest. MastCell Talk 02:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough about removing the Shot Info link Mastcell. My apologies Shot Info. That was poor judgement and hardly an essential part of my post. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 04:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Mastcell. I'm sorry to say it but your reply is based on a mistaken amplification of my assertion. I asserted that Avb has an interest in this article and that he previously denied that interest. I do not assert whether he has a conflict of interest or not. Nonetheless I am curious about it. I would like an explanation why he denied having an interest in the article at all. I will assume it was because he didn't want me to think he was incapable of reasoned discussion. Either way I think we deserve an answer beyond "No".ॐ Metta Bubble puff 04:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I have refactored the part about myself above and replaced one word~, which makes Metta Bubble's statement accurate and non-actionable. No need to make waves. -- Fyslee/talk 21:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

:::: I've restored what I said about you. It is not acceptable for you to edit talk pages like this. Please stop. If what I said is incorrect I'm open to discussing that. If you want to take action on what I said. Take it to the appropriate channels. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 22:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC) my comment no longer applies as the user has restored my postॐ Metta Bubble puff 01:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:REFACTORing is standard practice, especially when BLP issues are involved, and they do apply to editors, especially when they also come in the form of personal attacks, which your misleading statement was. Place yourself in my shoes. If I lied about you, how would you feel? You claim to be a Buddhist, IIRC, but you are anything but peaceful. Please do not repeat the false charges that were never proven in the RfArb. Some people seem to believe in "guilt by accusation", but that's not the way it works. Please reword it to "POV". That would be accurate. -- Fyslee/talk 22:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
To me it is a BLP violation. I know best about myself. The charges were never proven. Read the rules. I can -- and all editors "must" -- immediately remove potentially libelous statements and unsourced negative information. BLP applies to all living persons, including editors, and applies to all of Wikimedia publications, including personal userspace. 3RR does not apply to removal of such information, but does apply to the one who includes or restores it. I request that other editors help me keep this deceptive piece of opinion out of Wikipedia. -- Fyslee/talk 23:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Your question only rated a "No", but I gave you more than that (and you're misrepresenting it). I also gave you two links. You didn't even click on them, or perhaps you didn't understand their significance, but you didn't ask and you are acting as if I didn´t give them.
Just to prevent the uncalled-for type of accusations you've also been making about talking back-channel: My interest in the article is to make/keep it neutral per WP rules. Of course I am interested in the article; most editors are interested in the articles they edit. If it hadn't been on my watchlist, I wouldn't have noticed someone fact-tagging contentious unsourced content here, which brought me here to remove it per WP:BLP. In fact I am only about 95% neutral. My opinion of Barrett's work is, on balance, somewhat negative due to his approach of real illnesses as "fad" diseases. But I have to admit these views are based on the literature and I have to accept that science has to advance a notch or two before more is known about these diseases. Furthering research is much more important than trying to get preliminary stuff into the encyclopedia as if it were evidence-based. I have no feelings re Barrett as a person. I have been taking an interest in Wikipedia BLPs ever since I arrived here. I learned from run-ins with mainstream editors where I was representing a minority, and minority editors where I was a mainstream one (mostly bios of scientists or cranks researching or dallying in topics I'm familiar with). But never have I seen those representing a minority clamoring this loudly that they are, in fact mainstream while the mainstream person is not. AvB ÷ talk 12:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding any discussions of possible COI, especially about real life activities and names, they should happen privately with the appropriate admins. But before going that far, be fair enough to discuss it privately (email) with the person involved. Discussing such matters openly can be a bannable offense. -- Fyslee/talk 07:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

affiliations

It is a clear violation of NPA policy to use "someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views - regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." [19] Just because someone shares another person's POV, even if that person is someone who in someway may be considered in violation of COI here (or has problems elsewhere), that fact must not be used against them. -- Fyslee/talk 08:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind being criticized or explaining myself, but this should have been done in private. Yep, it's a personal attack. But the harm has already been done so I'm going to defend myself to some extent. Metta, please contact me by email and I will tell you all about it. This is worth a genuine apology. Or perhaps the following suffices. It is something you should have been able to find out yourself, and the impression that you haven't done so does not give me a lot of confidence in your intentions.
Since this is about doctors diagnosing and treating what Barrett calls fad diseases, I think he would call it a Bad Doctors list (except for fibromyalgia entries). From my perspective, Barrett does good work steering patients (often chronic patients who can't be helped by regular medicine) away from the quacks preying on them and their money. I am less enthusiastic about other aspects of his work. For one thing, his true anti-quack material (and there is a lot) won't be reaching many patients with "fad" diagnoses due to the very fact he calls them that instead of e.g. posting some helpful material for patients to decide where they are on the spectrum from physical to mental to imaginary disease (which, in the case of CFS, is interesting since its "official" diagnostic criteria have expanded the patient population to include the latter two, especially in the UK).
If this is not enough for Metta, I suggest that they email me. This line of meta-questioning should stop right here. AvB ÷ talk 11:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing that information. It's a shame this was such a mud-fight to get a statement on this. I agree this should stop right here, which is why the alarm bells conversation is preserved in the section above. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 22:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
This is all readily available from the website hosting the list.
I do not understand "which is why the alarm bells conversation is preserved in the section above."
For the rest, you misunderstand how serious this is. You've just made it worse by misrepresenting what happened here (I did not give this info because there was a mud fight. I gave this information because you were throwing mud at me. Twice. You said a lot of damaging things about me that were not true and needed a defense. Do you understand that what you did was wrong? AvB ÷ talk 00:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I thought you wanted to leave it? And then you come with this accusationn of starting a mud-fight? I asked you a serious question about affiliations that was totally reasonable. Then your friend comes in and starts throwing unfounded accusations at me about being a meatpuppet. I've had fyslee deleting my comments from this page and posting other comment (including my signature) that I never even posted here. It's hard to take you sincerely when you distort things like this. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 01:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
The alarm bells section is a totally different conversation and warrants a different section header. I couldn't care less what this section is called as long as it's civil. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 01:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  1. Are you angry? I do not believe you are in a position to be angry with me.
  2. You're twisting my words. According to you, I said that I wanted to leave it. What I said was: "This line of meta-questioning should stop right here."
  3. Yes, you started a mud fight with (1) a personal attack and (2) a BLP violation. (I've just removed them, please note that restoring them without discussion is a blockable offense)
  4. You asked me a serious question, I gave a serious answer (No) and, superfluously, some links to illustrate.
  5. Then you said "I smell a rat" and started about COI and ArbCom. More mud.
  6. I am not responsible for what other editors do or say.
  7. I distort things? Like what? Diffs please. AvB ÷ talk 01:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
1. no. 2. just my interpretation. so are you nonw saying you don't want to leave it? 3. the information I posted was obtained from your own user page so it hardly constitutes a BLP violation. 4. the question is answered. 5. yes I do smell a rat. that's my opinion and you've said worse things yourself about levine2112 so don't play innocent. 6. I agree. 7. see answer to question 3. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 01:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

2 I will leave it when you have answered all my serious questions and have stopped prompting new ones. 3a I removed that information from my user page a long time ago and you are not supposed to use it. This is a blockable offense. 3b The BLP violation and attack were not copied from my old user page. 5a Rude and incivil, especially since you had misinterpreted the website you quoted 5b talking about a COI and ArbCom is a personal attack. 5c Do you mean you still smell a rat? If so, please explain. It sounds as if you're still accusing me of a COI that needs ArbCom intervention. 7 I distort things? Like what? Diffs please. -- Please answer. AvB ÷ talk 01:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph about a CSICOP award

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

There seems to be a very vehement edit war about this:

He has been named among "Other outstanding skeptics who received multiple votes or at least one first-place vote" beyond the top 10 outstanding skeptics of the 20th century by Skeptical Inquirer magazine.

The reference given is http://www.csicop.org/articles/19991214-century/

"Skeptical Inquirer Magazine Names the Ten Outstanding Skeptics of the Century."

What's all that about? What's the big deal? --Tony Sidaway 02:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

This has been simmering for a long time, overshadowed by the certification issue (one tempest in a teapot at a time). The strong SB-CSICOP association is not OR, it is COI (&vanity) as well as ludicrous for WP; SB didn't win, place or even show (or even 1st, 2nd, 3rd after the list where he is a big supporter (mutual admiration) within the organization. I really can't fathom its (little n) notability here other than as promotional for a vitriolic critic that has a demonstrated mixed record on science issues, often less well advertised on the serious science misses while the hype band and cult of personality plays on.--I'clast 02:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

All from an editor who agrees that that lack of board certification is notable. Curious how notable is only notable when certain editors apply some OR to it all. Shot info 02:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
The certification board is a national body which SB had no control or influence on, the CSICOP methodology and reporting has neither the standing nor the personal independence that the Psych/Neuro board did. The fact of a lack of board certification is not OR. There is the overwrought question (given other WP biographies' similar interest) as to the secondary pedigree(s) and claims of a presupposed "conventional righteousness" but not notability about the fact's existence. This kind of exclusionary behavior about a notable minority (DC) brought about decades of legal warfare in Wilk et al.--I'clast 11:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh I dunno. CSICOP is a pretty well known organisation that promotes scientific skepticism, and if its fellows and consultants name someone in the top eighteen skeptics of the twentieth century I think that's undeniably significant, because it tells you how well he is regarded among his peers. --Tony Sidaway 11:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Ordinarily I might agree if the subject weren't so closely interrelated (a "favorite son") with the organization and so far from the planned award population. Given the rather bifurcated nature of the "also rans" from the "top 10" list, *not* a "top 20" list, this seems OR to say listees are top 18 of the century as well as the rather thin "at least one vote" note. It really does make the WP article look peacock lightweight, incestuously partisan and redundant. I am going to suggest that he needed to be on the original "top 10" list to be encyclopedic here. That he *is* a fellow of the CSI seems the more encyclopedic part, already mentioned in the Bio.--I'clast 11:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of the degrees of others

Latest comment: 17 years ago41 comments10 people in discussion

I have been wondering for some time why anyone would criticize Barrett for exposing diploma mills and the "degrees" they hand out to so many quacks. Isn't that a legitimate activity? Healthfraud and quackery don't happen in a vacuum. People who are engaged in such activities usually have many other forms of wrongdoing in their history, and it is a logical part of exposing their often dangerous nonsense to also point out the whole pattern which characterizes their modus operandi. So what's wrong with him criticizing their "degrees"? Let's have specific examples of where he gets it wrong. -- Fyslee/talk 06:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for someone to provide an example of what they mean when they criticize Barrett for criticizing the degrees of others. -- Fyslee/talk 17:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


Our job here is not to perform original research like what you are requesting here; but rather to present verifiable content. Barrett does "expose" institutions which he considers to be diploma mills through his site CredentialWatch. He uses this same site and others to "expose" people misrepresenting their credentials - including Board Certification. Of course, Barrett's own lack of Board Certification is notable. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes I think you want to be blocked for disruption. In fact I'm thinking it now. Please don't push your luck. Please stop beating this dead horse (BC). Enough is enough. Please stop accusing others of doing things they haven't done (requesting OR). Enough is enough. Please stop this pedantic tone that would irritate a newbie and insults reputable, experienced Wikipedians ("Our job here is not to perform original research"). What audience do you think you're playing? Please go study our policies in the light of what you have learned here in the past few months. By now you should have known that OR is allowed on talk pages. E.g. to help inform the debate. But since you insist on RS, perhaps you could provide some RSs describing how Barrett gets it wrong when criticizing diploma mill "degrees"? Or do something else to show you are of net worth to the encyclopedia? AvB ÷ talk 21:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
What I am saying is that Wikipedia pages are not a discussion forum. Please don't tell me to stop discussing things when it is other editors who are asking for discussion. You insinuations are extremely rude and especially uncivil here. Please stop. Now then, to further address Fyslee's question, my answer is this: that Barrett criticizes other people's credentials opens himself up to have his credentials criticized. That's all. I am not saying that Barrett's criticisms are right or wrong; as there is no right or wrong here. Just opinion. But facts are facts and we all agree here that Barrett is not Board Certified. How did we all come to this conclusion? How did we all verify this information to be true? Certainly there must be a reliable source(s) which we all are depending on. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Can someone else please explain that this behavior is not tolerated? Thanks. AvB ÷ talk 22:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Given how much he enjoys asking the same questions over and over and over and over again while ignoring any answer (except those that confirm his bias) any explaination is largely irrelevant as it will be ignored while he jumps on some implausible point to support his POV. Shot info 22:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Please WP:AGF. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
That was a "postulation" which is (according to editors who fail to AGF themselves) is different to an "assumption". It is strongly suggested (like a large number of other editors have suggest to you here to date) that you read the policy yourself. Then read the others. Shot info 23:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
You are hardly postulating. You are describing how I will act/react. You are assuming bad faith. Just please refrain from doing so. That's all. Thank you. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
This shoe has been selected, purchased, packaged, taken home, and now, fits very well. Feel free to change your behaviour and read policy. Shot info 23:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
What would be nice is for you to contribute to this discussion page in a meaningful way; something other than criticizing other editors and more along the lines of content discussions. I would appreciate that. Thanks again. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
What would be even nicer is for you to read policy and contribute in a meaningful way. BTW, did your friend the "Linux-User" (Gee, I wonder who this was...) get his job with IEEE as you mentioned at the start of your set-up, or did he just join (with the appropriate degree) as you mentioned at the end of your set-up? Of course, if you AGFed you would have had to agree that your line of questioning was irrelevent, but you haven't been one to follow policy then...and now. Your edits (your many, many, many, many, many edits) stand for themselves. Shot info 23:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, in fact he did. Thanks for asking. You should check out the movie he is interviewed in, "Revolution OS". It's fascinating. What this has to do with this discussion, I have no idea. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Joined as a member or employee? Your story changed remember. This relates to AGF and your failure to follow it, coupled with your failure to understand policy, coupled with your failure to accept any information not confirming your POV. BTW, I emailed Moore several months ago (at least the director, who you claimed that you knew). His responses were very enlightening needless to say. Shot info 23:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
This is all very disruptive. If you would like to continue this, please take it my talk page. I am glad that you emailed my friend. He's a good guy. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Mention of Barrett's own lack of board certification would only be relevant if his criticism of the degrees of others was made while misrepresenting his own or pretending to be something he is not. So far we have no evidence that he has done so. He has never made a big number out of his certification because it was a nonissue.

My purpose for starting this section was in response to him being criticized for criticizing others. I figured that such a criticism must be based on some specific evidence and I'd like to see if anyone had an example of him making a big number out of someone else's lack of certification, and what the context was. If some immoral inconsistency were then to exist in his criticism, I'd be very interested in criticizing him for doing so, but so far no one has provided a specific example from Barrett's writings.

If people here are going to criticize him for criticizing others, then please provide specific examples of him accusing specific persons and doing so improperly. Otherwise drop the criticism and let him make proper criticisms when necessary. Frauds and their diploma mill degrees deserve getting exposed. Why would anyone here defend them? -- Fyslee/talk 23:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

That's the whole point. That he isn't Board Certified, isn't a criticism. It is a biographical, verifiable fact. Some may criticize Barrett for criticizing Board Certified doctors even though he himself is not Board Certified. That, however, is not what we are doing here. See the difference? -- Levine2112 discuss 03:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
The whole point is that it's a non-notable verifiable fact, and is only notable as part of BLP violating criticisms using very poor sources. It would be notable - and I'd be the first to support its inclusion - if he had been guilty of hypocritical and improper criticism of other's credentials while misrepresenting his own, which has not been shown to have happened. I'm asking for proof that that has happened. If no proof is forthcoming, we are left back where we started - with a verifiable fact that is not notable enough for inclusion. That should end these months of disruptive and fruitless discussion. Accept that fact and that you have no consensus. Drop it. Continuance lessens your credibility and is simply disruptive and a massive BLP violation. -- Fyslee/talk 07:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
It is notable that Barrett is not Board Certified regardless of whether he criticizes others for lacking board certification or for being board certified by a body which Barrett doesn't recognize. Of course he does both of these activities, so that only makes it more notable. However, that would be in the sense of criticism (i.e. the guy who criticizes others for having "dubious" board certification, isn't even board certified himself.) That is not what we are doing here. What makes Barrett's lack of Board Certification credentials notable is that there a SOOOOO many sources discussing it, that Barrett is a doctor, and mostly because Barrett provides health advice to the masses. Of course his complete verifiable medical credentials are notable. -- Levine2112 discuss 07:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Fyslee's point of view & OR[20] “inviting” (demanding?) others' point of view & OR about Stephen Barrett's point of view & OR. hmmmm.

I am not sure what brought this up, it seems off topic & potentially contentious - it doesn't appear to be a current part of the SB biography. Maybe Dematt's comment on survey question #5? In the past I thought better of QW (including Dr Barrett) efforts on discussion of credentials - although I felt QW was overly harsh and sometimes greatly misleading about individuals, I felt I could identify and separate the facts from QW bias to get a better background on various figures. Eventually I came to realize that even I was having trouble identifying some gross biases in QW articles. I less frequently consider QW biographic background articles now, they are often just too dangerous and unfair for my taste. I will cite a (Dr Barrett associated) QW hosted bio article by Saul Green for convenience and its dissection pp. 21-29 by an author with real scientific credentials.

Many of today's prestigious medical schools had curricula and degree history that might be, um, surprising. Although altmed credentials are definitely a great area of vulnerability, concern and caution, one risks throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I think that one also has to deal with a number of legitimate educational issues such as distance learning, evolving (claims of) modalities, the life cycle and (d)evolution of commercial educational enterprises with respect to former students and degree holders credentials. These kind of issues appear to include Dr Barrett's legal education (and claims of expertise).

One thing that is missing in SB's biography is his apparent claim to legal expertise and the distance learning (correspondence) legal education that he claims from the now defunct LeSalle (SB's CV) which also had a less than glorious demise, being subsequently involuntarily closed down by the FTC. Perhaps WP editors could develop some self or 3rd party references on his claims of legal training and expertise there since that was an issue in the court cases.--I'clast 10:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

That's an excellent point, I'clast. And a good answer to Fyslee's question. Barrett criticizes people for presenting themselves as specialists if they got a degree or certification from an organization which Barrett considers "dubious". However, the irony here is that Barrett has presented himself as a legal expert and as one judge noted about Barrett: "His legal expertise is not apparent." Barrett did attend a year and a half of correspondence legal eduation from La Salle; a diploma mill in all senses of the word. This was the university that used to advertise on matchbooks and in the back of comic books. I am not making this up. Read about it. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
My opinion on this hasn't changed, and it appears I'm not the only one. I repeat: since there's no consensus to add the material, why keep pursuing it here? Why don't you take it to mediation or arbitration if you feel strongly about it? thanks, Jim Butler(talk)
Because the Bio section is still very one sided and inaccurate as well as being promotional, about a controversial individual with varying degrees of limited professional credentials (legal, medical and scientific), greatly asserted at different times in one form or another. An individual who has major strikes on both notable science/medical and civil rights issues (BvR, among others) without any acknowledgement whatsoever in the Bio, where the results of some of his work (including personal attacks) *can be* retrospectively measured in damaged lives, careers and scientific progress.--I'clast 20:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks I'clast; I understand the arguments for including the information, but that wasn't the question I was asking. Please see my comment below under the section header "Disruption of talk page". thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 17:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Of course your POV flies in the face of WP:BLP but given that you view the SSE as "scientific" and the CSI as not, then well, your bias is quite evident. Time to return that degree you claim you had... Shot info 22:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
My bias is toward reality, sometimes less politically correct, perhaps best for those who literally need to save themselves or a billion or a few (it is sometimes interesting how big those little heads get). Kaufmann is a well credentialed scientist, parts of whose article has been independently sourced in WP discussions with *current*, accepted WP:RS, WP:V medical school research for those whose scientific/medical reading or literacy is a few decades behind the curve. Here at the SB bio, "Wikiality" and reality seem to have a separate existence.--I'clast 23:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Pretentious? Moi?

Fyslee says that "Mention of Barrett's own lack of board certification would only be relevant if his criticism of the degrees of others was made while misrepresenting his own or pretending to be something he is not." The following is taken from a section headed "Board Certification What Does It Mean?" by Stephen Barrett M.D. Emphasis supplied.

Board Certification What Does It Mean? Stephen Barrett M.D.

"(The) scope of modern medical knowledge is vast, most medical school graduates take additional training before entering clinical practice. Those choosing to become specialists take at least three years of residency training ...The recognized standard-setting organization is the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS, which is composed of 24 primary medical specialty boards and six associate members: the American Hospital Association, American Medical Association, Association of American Medical Colleges, Council of Medical Specialty Societies, Federation of State Medical Boards of the United States, and National Board of Medical Examiners. ...

Medical specialty boards require high standards of training and performance and ensure them by rigid examinations. Successful applicants receive diplomas and are considered "board-certified." ...


In 1995, Medical Economics magazine reported that more than 75 boards not ABMS- or AOA-affiliated had issued certificates to thousands of physicians. Although a few of these self-designated boards are run legitimately and may eventually achieve ABMS or AOA recognition, most do not require residency training in their specialty. The author stated that "some physicians use fringe board certification to attract patients, who usually don't know the difference. . . . And only a handful of states restrict the advertising of board certifications or specialties." Certification by any of the following suggests that a pracitioner is involved with dubious methods:
American Board of Chelation Therapy
American Board of Holistic Medicine
American Board of Environmental Medicine
International Board of Environmental Medicine
Most physicians identified as specialists in the Yellow Pages have completed accredited specialty training. However, telephone directory publishers rarely attempt to verify credentials, so self-proclaimed specialists may be listed also. The ABMS Verification Service provides a simple way to check whether a doctor has ABMS-recognized certification. "

Now, while I am sure we all admit that Barrett is guilty of no pretence when he tells us that the examinations are rigid, surely anyone reading the piece by Stephen Barrett M.D. from which I have quoted above would assume that the author was himself board certified ? Alright, he does not say "I am board certified" but this is would be assumed by any reader. Hasn't the time come for Barrett supporters to become Quackwatch supporters and make a move towards getting that website run by someone a bit less ridiculous ? robert2957 07:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

He was answering a specific question. Your opinion of him....is it conducive to building Wikipedia? He's not perfect. Should that fact be used to divert attention from the good work he does? Hmmm....we're getting off-topic here. Back to editing and keep this stuff off of Wikipedia. -- Fyslee/talk 07:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
We're not supposed to judging the "good work" but reporting on verifiable, relevant facts, not expurgating/denying them.--I'clast 10:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the question to which he was responding: "I live in a Florida city that has a high percentage of retired people and as a consequence, a large medical services population. In their advertising it seems almost all the MD's are "Board Certified", but the board is never mentioned. Somewhere, I heard that there are a few boards considered to be "legitimate" that require a high level of experience and recommendation, and who have passed stringent exams in their specialty. Somewhere I learned there are boards whose main purpose is to allow the use of "Board Certified" after the name. Could you comment on this? Is there a way to tell the difference?" robert2957 10:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


What stuff? This is Barrett's own words. Since there is a great deal of discussion "out there" about Barrett's Board Certification, aren't we doing a disservice to a researcher who wants to know whether or not Barrett is board certified by not including this verifiable information here? -- Levine2112 discuss 07:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
In that context, it's even less relevant, unless you want to link the Board in noting that he is not Board Certified, and if we were to include that statement. In that context, it would be almost relevant, except that he could not now become Board Certified even if he wanted to, as he's retired. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I am unsure of what you are saying here, Arthur Rubin. Please clarify. Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Noting that leans against noting that he's not board certified unless we were to both include that statement of his and if we were to link board certified to that board. Otherwise, there's no relevance. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
As a dispenser of health advice to the masses, Barrett's complete and verifiable medical credentials are highly relevant. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Only if that's what our sources say. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 00:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes. That is exactly what sources like this one is saying. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I believe there's been multiple discussions on how this source is unsuitable for our use because it's self-published, unreliable, and partisan, correct? --Ronz 01:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Correct. There has been multiple discussion. However, it was never agreed upon that this source is self-published, unreliable, nor partisan. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
And round and round and round in circles we go, violating CIVIL, CON, and TALK with in the process. Please stop. --Ronz 01:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Haha, this is funny, there is no consensus, so until there is a consensus that there is no consensus, that means it can be used. It's almost as good as I'clast's tortured reasoning that easily obtained information for a biography should be dropped in favour of information that isn't. Shot info 03:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the source Levine. I found the information on page 13 onwards. Pleasantly surprised to see they cite their sources and the ABMS. Are there other sources too? ॐ Metta Bubble puff

Proposed 1st paragraph of Bio

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Barrett is a 1957 graduate of the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and completed his psychiatry residency in 1961. He also completed 1 1/2 years of legal studies by correspondence through LaSalle Extension University in 1968. He was a licensed physician until retiring from active practice in 1993, and his medical license is currently listed as "Active-Retired" in good standing.[2] He testified as an expert psychiatric witness in some court cases but never achieved board certification in psychiatry. A longtime resident of Allentown, Pennsylvania, Barrett now resides in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.[3] He has said that his appreciation of medical science probably began with a college course in medical statistics.[4]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by I'clast (talk • contribs).

No. This ignores three months of discussion regarding the BC thing. The same arguments apply to a number of other changes also proposed here. No need to reiterate everything here. AvB ÷ talk 12:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
PS Where are the sources? AvB ÷ talk 17:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well written draft. Here is a suggested amendment (in bold):

Barrett is a 1957 graduate of the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and completed his psychiatry residency in 1961. He also completed a year and a half of legal studies by correspondence through LaSalle Extension University in 1968. He was a licensed physician until retiring from active practice in 1993, and his medical license is currently listed as "Active-Retired" in good standing.[2] He testified as an expert psychiatric witness in some court cases but did not achieve board certification in psychiatry. A longtime resident of Allentown, Pennsylvania, Barrett now resides in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.[3] He has said that his appreciation of medical science probably began with a college course in medical statistics.[4] MaxPont 17:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Very good suggestion. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to see the sources also please. I'm not sure about the word "achieve" either. I also note editors the division on whether board certification can be included. Nonetheless, working towards a better wording is a positive step. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 03:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed changes to Bio section (draft)

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Barrett is a 1957 graduate of the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons[1] and completed his internship at the Highland Park General Hospital (Michigan) in 1958. He completed his psychiatry residency at Temple University Hospital (Philadelphia) in 1961. In 1967 and 1968 he followed part of a correspondence course in American Law and Procedure at La Salle Extension University (Chicago).[2]

Barret worked as a psychiatrist, consultant and medical director in military, legal and hospital settings from 1961 to 1991. He had a private practice from 1963 until retiring in 1993.[2] Longtime resident of Allentown, Pennsylvania, Barrett now resides in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.[3]

AvB ÷ talk

Whose proposal is this? Aside from leaving out the lack of Board Certification, I think this otherwise a good suggestion. Here are my suggestions:
I forgot to sign (may be contagious). AvB ÷ talk 21:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Barrett is a 1957 graduate of the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons[4] and completed his internship at the Highland Park General Hospital (Michigan) in 1958. He completed his psychiatry residency at Temple University Hospital (Philadelphia) in 1961 but was never board certified.[5][6] In 1967 and 1968 he followed part of a correspondence course in American Law and Procedure at La Salle Extension University (Chicago).[2]
Barret worked as a psychiatrist, consultant and medical director in military, legal and hospital settings from 1961 to 1991. He had a private practice from 1963 until retiring in 1993.[2] Longtime resident of Allentown, Pennsylvania, Barrett now resides in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.[3]
-- Levine2112 discuss 16:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

In myu opinion, the BC thing and the license thing do not belong in the article for similar reasons. Leaving both out is intended as a compromise of sorts. AvB ÷ talk 21:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Disruption of talk page

Latest comment: 17 years ago16 comments8 people in discussion

Why the continued attempts to discuss adding the BC material? It's obvious that there isn't going to be any consensus to do so (as repeated discussion, a MedCab case and an RfC have shown). So why continue trying in this venue? The proper course per WP:DR is either disengage or take it to the next level (mediation, arbitration). thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 17:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The talk page is the proper venue for discussion. We have followed WP:DR to the letter. A new mediation might be a good solution, but our last mediator didn't think it would be helpful given the incivility here. Arbitration is not meant for content disputes but rather eidotr behavior; so that isn't a viable option. I have tried disengaging, but when I did, even more NPOV problems popped up in the article. I believe as of now the article contians content that is not neutrally presented; especially with regards to the biography section (which ought to be entitled "Accolades" at this point). I believe that if we all remain civil, discuss Wikipedia policies, and propose compromises that consensus can be acheived. Let's all work together to reach this goal! -- Levine2112 discuss 22:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm only talking about the BC issue, not other aspects of the article. I feel comfortable saying that I have thoroughly considered and understand your arguments, but don't agree with them, and absent new sources I don't foresee changing my mind. Given that other editors feel the same way, the change you want simply isn't going to happen in the near future. Maybe later, if a good source appears, but for now it's a hopeless cause. That's why continuing to push the issue is disruptive, especially since you've been doing so for so long. So why continue? Why not focus on other aspects of the article? regards, Jim Butler(talk) 18:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I guess it comes down to this: What if you're wrong about Wikipedia policy? I contend that you and the other editors here not supporting inclusion may be. The large majority of the editors who have voiced their opinion on this matter agree with inclusion and don't see any policy violations. Given the good possibility that you may be wrong about policy and I may be right, why should we disengage from these conversations. If anything, these conversations can help us all learn Wikipedia policy better. Remember, I am totally open to the possibility that I am wrong too. However, given the amount and quality of the sources which all together confirm and show the relevance of Barrett lack of Board Certification; given that all editors here can at least agree that the proposed content is true; and given that the large majority of editors support its inclusion, I currently tend to think that I am correct. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Sure it's possible that I (and those who agree with my position) are wrong. But in a BLP situation, the default is to leave it out if in doubt. The idea is that if I'm wrong about keeping something out of the article, the potential harm is less than if you're wrong about putting it in. So even if you think you're right, others simply do not agree with you, so it's disruptive for you to persist with this futile cause. thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 21:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
This article script continues to drift, in reverse, into Hollywood movie fantasy. With the deletion of BvR and King-Bio, major losses on Dr Barrett's legal theories/positions, the plantiff's propositions thoroughly repudiated in the court systems, are not even noted. Losing 7-0 at the California Supreme Court is a very notable situation. The stalled board certification is not an isolated problem here and Levine is not being disruptive to point out the "Polly Annish" failings of the current Bio section.--I'clast 06:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

messages for Levine2112 (shows no sign of stopping his massive disruption) Your are creating massive disruption on the talk page of the Stephen Barrett article. I hope you realize (after repeated discussion to exhaustion) there is no consensus among editors. We do not continue to debate when it has become obvious we cannot reach consensus after a very long and lengthy discussion. The discussion has been about 3 months old and over 400 Levine2112 talk page edits. Its time to stop. Now, please stop or you are more than likely to be blocked or restricted from editing. I wish to prevent you from being on the wrong end of a block. If you listen to my advise you are more than welcomed to continue collaborating on Wikipedia. If you refuse to learn from your mistakes (talk page disruption) and persist in disruption you will be greeted with a block. I recommend you take a wikibreak. Have a nice day. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 02:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It takes two to dispute. Sorry. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your apology for your massive disruption. Your recognition of your disruptive behaviour is important. Now then, you can take this off of your watchlist for a while or move on. Thank you for your cooperation. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 02:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't get it. Why the harassment of Levine? Didn't he (Barrett) fail his boards? Didn't he come here, state that he did then clarify what happened? If Barrett is OK with this information, then why isn't everyone else? It's not Levine's fault that Barrett failed his boards. It is a fact of Stephen Barrett's life. So what's the big deal. It's OK with Barrett, so why the protectionist push? AvB seems OK about including it.
This discussion could have ended a long time ago if the fact that Barrett failed his boards was included in a simple, non-threatening way like Levine and AvB have suggested. Why does Mr.G, think that threatening Levine will cause him to suddenly see it Guru's way. Does Guru expect Levine to thank him for the suggestion and 'friendly' advice? What do you think the naughty committee would think about your 'suggestion' Guru? Steth 02:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
QG's continued threats should be noted, Levine is not the disruptive party. Levine, as well as a previous supermajority, is saying that board certification is encyclopedic; to me the minimum point after multiple accommodations. Its absence and the "QW negative block" are a serious problem.--I'clast 06:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Levine is the disruptive party, as he's continued to make arguements agsinst Wikipedia policy, after it's been explained why they are against Wikipedia policy. The details or the merits of his (other) arguements are no longer relevant to that problem. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Please chill out, everybody. A few weeks ago we had a structured Dispute Resolution and Levine2112 asked for external input via the RfC. Then it turned heated and nasty. There are several culprits on both sides but I am going to point finger at Quackguru, whose behavior is under formal investigation [21] Quackguru is not in the position to criticize others. The long line of attacks on Levine2112 are unjustified and IMO a sign that the other side feel they are losing the argument. MaxPont 15:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone here has almost 500 edits to this page since March 22, over 20% of all edits here during that time. A majority of that editor's edits simply repeat the same arguments over and over and over again, ignoring past discussions. This is disruption, plain and simple. --Ronz 16:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

more messages for Levine2112

You have been previously warned about your disruptive behaviour at the talk page of the Stephen Barrett article. You are continuing to push this matter after a warning. I wish to prevent you from being blocked but you have not listened to my advise. You new post has caused more disruption after the discussion of the BC has been rejected by no consensus a long time ago. Please stop pushing for the BC issue to continue or your editing priviledges may be revoked or restricted. Again, the board cerification thing has been rejected as no consensus among editors. We have already been through this before. You are aware there is no consensus but you seemed to have ignored this fact. Now stop. I hope you take this valuable advise to heart. Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 19:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Levine is not the disruptive party. WP:BLP policy has been discussed, vigorously and selectively asserted to the promotional exclusion of balance and the crumbling of 2 of 5 pillars - the Bio section fits neither Wikipedia is an encyclopedia...is not...a vanity publisher and Wikipedia has a neutral point of view,. That Bio section remains quite adulating, incomplete and inaccurate. Never minding the dynamics of the primary court records - WP:RS part of WP:BLP debates, Levine did point out the individual's sourced statements about certification, separately allowed under WP:BLP. With a previous supermajority for including such material, Levine has points that are a fine grind with small changes in the back & forth and the need to answer questions and challenges that are either repetitive themselves or only small changes. So there is a lot of duplicate verbiage. Also some attitude that I have seen here risks abuse on WP:CONSENSUS as well as the attacks on Levine.
Some of the smallest improvements to veracity here have taken almost infinte patience for otherwise minor edits. The still not balanced (and incomplete) Bio section still presents as an Augustan authoritative figure, as blemish free, a highly controversial author with many legal and scientific positions that have unraveled in this millenium with significant losses in both areas. Unbalanced includes promotional trivia without meaningful significance ("at least one vote"). Far beyond sympathetic treatment, continuing into the other sections, the descriptive phrasing implicitly promotes Dr Barret's views including dismissal of any who disagree, out of hand, e.g. "rapists and murderers". An interesting view for a much promoted author who makes sweeping, conclusory health judgements while persistently (decades) muffing (or ignoring) input numbers approximately 10 - 100 fold off among other "...incomplete data, obsolete data, technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo" as well as going down in flames, 7-0, in a landmark California Supreme Court decision, also currently unmentioned.--I'clast 00:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

A Thought Experiment

Latest comment: 17 years ago25 comments6 people in discussion

A thought experiment might break the SB BC logjam. Let us imagine that a particular prominent doctor had passed his boards first time. Let us further imagine that it is generally considered that this same doctor is regarded by all responsible authorities to be a man of thoroughly unsound judgement or a quack. Would it be appropriate to say in a Wikipedia article about him: "Although he passed his boards Dr. X is generally regarded by most responsible authorities to be misguided in his medical opinions."? Or would it simply not matter? Does this thought experiment lighten the darkness? robert2957 18:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I like it. But I've already been there - Changing perspectives is one of the ways I test my opinions (or biases of you will). As you may have seen, I've asked Levine2112 to try on the other side's moccassins. I would never have asked him that if I hadn't done the reverse myself already. So, overlooking the weaknesses of the experiment and taking on its essence: I'm happy to say, my answer stays the same. The sentence can go into the article when reliable secondary sources have written that and the amount of attention it is given by them makes it sufficiently notable to be included. Our policies are based on that concept. In fact the relevant WP policies have been designed to keep crank stuff out. We will be behind the times when major paradigm shifts take place. But not for long. We can wait until things become clear. We do not have to identify today's Semmelweises or today's witch doctors. They will be identified for us. And then... we write.
As a thought experiment, you really don't want me to go any further. Working from memory alone I have an enormous number of examples for you, examples that will put me squarely on the side of those who have suffered from evidence based medicine, Major Deity syndrome (a mental disorder of some MDs), and much much more. Those who have, rightly or wrongly, identified their own Semmelweises and seen them suffer at the hands of what is claimed to be science. If, say, a number of CFS advocates (representing 800,000 patients) dismiss a doc as a man of thoroughly unsound judgement or a quack on their web sites, it doesn't go into the encyclopedia unless they make the papers, or (since wise Wikipedians have lots of leeway) write a reliable article based on verifiable information. I have seen a deletionist include a partisan minority article attacking a mainstream scientist for that reason alone. But if a doctor has testified in court cases for years, being instrumental in imprisoning innocent people or taking their children away due to the bogus diagnosis of Münchhausen by Proxy (it exists, but in these cases the dx was wrong)... a professor claiming things based on bent statistics, a kind of Intelligent Design in reverse, juggling figures to derive conclusions not about a creator but about a murderer... and his testimony is summarily dismissed after many years... Or how about my dad dying at 39 due to a medical error which never made the papers because we forgave the doc, seeing him heartbroken, and believing he would not let this happen again if he could help it, ever...
Wikipedia is there to neutrally describe what we know. Not to crucify people or make them into saints. WP:TIGER. AvB ÷ talk 21:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Interestingly I agree completely with AvB with regards to the thought experiment. I too would be in favor of including this into the hypothetical Dr. X article when reliable secondary sources have written that and the amount of attention it is given by them makes it sufficiently notable to be included. In terms of the Stephen Barrett article, I feel that we do have several reliable secondary sources that demonstrate the notability of Barrett's lack of Board Certification. I really appreciate this thought experiment, Robert2957. AvB, please understand that I have put myself in your shoes the whole way through this dispute and have tried my best to understand your rationale. As you say, Wikipedia is here to neutrally describe what we know. Well, we all know that Barrett is not Board Certified. I don't think adding this verified fact to this article is tantamount crucification of the man. It's a well-documented fact which Barrett himself say that he has been public about for over thirty years. The proposed re-insertion of this is worded about as neutrally as it can be - simply stated: Stephen Barrett is not Board Certified. No judgement either way; just a statement of a verified fact. If you can understand that position, then you are truly standing my shoes too. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
My view on your rationale is very simple. You believe the things you say about Barrett, Bolen, Negrete, chiropractic, etc. It must be quite unpleasant to see editors here view things the same way Barrett does. I, on the other hand, couldn't care less what Bolen et al. say. This is the way the world works; different people use different tactics to right the wrongs they see. Much of WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:RS has been devised to prevent biased editors who think they are neutral from skewing articles with their personal views. It all boils down to sources. In cases like Barrett's, it must feels pretty unfair that the sources viewed as reliable by Wikipedia have given so little attention to his opponents and/or his shortcomings. NPOV means Wikipedia is biased towards the majority viewpoint. The net effect of this all is that neutral editors look biased in the eyes of editors representing a minority. If the latter demand equal time/space (in line with their beliefs), they look like POV pushers in the eyes of neutral editors. But you should realize that any editors who do hate the Bolens of this world, who are very pro-Barrett, in short, POV pushers on the other side of the spectrum, also need to abide by what the sources say. Nevertheless, as long as Barrett is seen as one of the good guys by the mainstream (science, media, physicians...) we must describe him as such, abhorrent as it must be to you. On the plus side, we need to attribute opinions. (perhaps more or changes tomorrow, I'm falling asleep) AvB ÷ talk 01:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
If that is how you feel, then I am afraid you haven't been standing in my shoes but rather some strawman's mocassins. I don't side with Bolen or Negrete. I think Barrett points out some legitimate scams, but a lot of his work is biased and filled with innuendo; an as he presents his views as the "mainstream views" (they aren't, BTW), his website can be quite deceptive. I get the feeling that you think I sympathize with Bolen and Negrete and I curse Barrett. If that is what you believe, then I am afraid I haven't given you the correct impression in all of this discussion. In fact, I am rather impartial here. I am not an alternative medicine or mainstream medicine practitioner. I had no knowledge of Barrett before coming to Wikipedia. I have no dealing with or about Barrett outside of Wikipedia (e.g. participating in blogs and forums, etc.) What I have learned here though is that Barrett likes to give the impression that he is the mainstream. He is not. I am afraid also that you have WP:NPOV wrong when you say that it is biased toward the majority viewpoints. This is incorrect. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias. The interestring thing here though is that Barrett's lack of Board Certification isn't a "viewpoint". It is a fact. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
It may sound weird to you, but the above confirms my view of your rationale. I believe you are (almost certainly unwittingly) a prime example of the editors who are confusing their own POV (MPOV) with WP:NPOV. As to NPOV's inherent bias, I'm afraid you stand alone. "Without bias" means that we heed the "proportionately" and make sure editor bias does not morph the article away from the proportions found in the real world per reliable sources. As to Barrett's not being mainstream, you're entitled to this opinion, but you have never sourced it. As long as our reliable sources report that mainstream scientists, doctors, etc. praise and support him the article will give lots of space to Barrett's views. We cannot give equal time/space to partisan attack sites (if they're worth mentioning at all), and even the space reserved for measured critique appearing in reliable secondary sources is limited. "Proportionately" means editors must assign weight to the various POVs covered in the article, assign space etc. on that basis, and within that space decide which components of the POV can be mentioned in toto, which have to be summarized, and which have to be kept out due to space = proportion = weight constraints. The BC issue (all of it, i.e. criticism and response, in context) would be one of those components if it would have been discussed in reliable sources. Thus sayeth our bedrock policy, NPOV. AvB ÷ talk 11:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
AvB, there is no proportionality in the Bio section or the next section, it's a 100% very favorable side of the guy's story. We have spent months making it slightly more factual, less billboard promotional and better sourced. It is still highly incomplete - no legal studies mentioned, no Supreme Court, no board certification and we have not asked for that much space either.
The "reliable sources" you referred to have massive COI shortcomings in QW/pharmaceutical/altmed areas and are very dated (mostly 5-20+ yrs ago), not current. Your current mainstream assumptions for medicine and science in a number of QW related areas may rest on a large bed of OR, unless you count some stagnant backwaters too. Dr Barrett's articles often contradict *current* mainstream medical science as been discussed at length before, including else where. Levine is not quoting attack sites (e.g. Bolen), it would be more accurate to say that he is quoting attacked sites or related professions. Remember, QW is in fact literally an attack site that actively promotes lawsuits.--I'clast 10:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
First, I note the "we" in your response. It might be helpful to document the characteristics of the POV you represent.
I see you believe that there is "no proportionality" in parts of the article. I don't agree with just about anything you're saying here. My opinion is based on the article's current sources and the quality/acceptability of the new sources (=individual articles/press releases/etc) mentioned in the BC discussion. I see a vast majority, both societal and scientific, supporting and praising Barrett, Quackwatch, etc. If anything, the article gives too much space to detractors. Your arguments do nothing to change this observation.
Nevertheless, in the spirit of the thought experiment that started this thread, I have a suggestion for you. If you really want to make this into a plausible argument, you need to make it much more explicit. Many current sources favorable to Barrett need to disappear and quite a few new sources critical of him need to appear. You (and perhaps others) may want to list the article's current sources that you feel are not or no longer reliable, as well as any sources you feel are reliable and should be used in the article. It should go without saying that there need to be arguments for both. From there you could come up with a shortlist of specific POVs and a suggestion for the relative space/location/importance they should have in the article. It might help if you could also list the relative importance of each POV's arguments/thoughts/points of criticism/etc within the POV itself. From there we could mount a brief discussion (e.g. by limiting the number of contributions per person to 4?) To be honest, I would expect this to end in chaos, disruption and a massive amount of wasted time all around. But when carefully done, in the spirit of the wiki, this should result in something all parties can live with. Note that this is not something I've just thought up. It is the way we expect our editors to work together towards a common goal. AvB ÷ talk 11:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
PS Last time I looked, the article body contained a whopping 54% of criticism. Tony has removed the litigation stuff, leaving an article with 37% fully dedicated to criticism, and more interspersed in the remaining text. AvB ÷ talk 12:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The "we" is short hand for my earlier comments that longstanding editors here are functionally polar, even though the individual editors may be independent.
My points are the simple, pronounced lack of factuality on several normal points in the Biography that indicates (to me) a possible bias operating here and fails to accurately answer questions that a normal reader expects to be addressed accurately and completely, especially in such an important health related area.
I see a vast majority, both societal and scientific, supporting and praising Barrett, Quackwatch, Apparently a rather small or quiet "vast" societal remainder supporting Dr Barrett after 40 years , despite the link farms, [22] (say, vs one of his much later sparring partners, like Mercola[23]). Scientific praise - not lately - that's OR and unsubstantiated after the repeated court losses & (non)expert determinations and the publication of more authoritative science (NIH, etc) in contradiction of his positions (e.g. contradicted on vitamin C critiques by several recent national authorities 2001-2006 as well as earlier analyses showing some fatal fundamental flaws 20 years ago) as well as the direct analyses and reviews like scientist Joel Kauffman presented or SB's "disappearance" from "top" journals. The "societal and scientific" support that you claim is more the uncritical residual of highly successful marketing and adverstising such as with the Reader's Digest articles in the 1970s, the general societal mood folloiwing the "miracle drug era" of antibiotics, and pre-Internet media monopolization of news & views, all now long gone in the haze of high priced, recalled dangerous drugs and expose' 2001+. Again, I don't see current sources, say 2005/6+, that show this vast majority, at all.
The majority of old sources, not current, do not need to "disappear", these normal, simple Biographic facts need to be included: (1) the landmark California Supreme Court case, (2) college legal education (claimed as a source of legal expertise), (3) and, um, of course, "BC". I am looking for conceptual acknowledgement so that the the properly sourced phrasing can be developed and edited in (unlocked).--I'clast 21:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
That's just your opinion. If things have changed, you need reliable sources saying that. I see no other way for you to make this into a plausible argument than doing it along the lines I suggested. Regarding the novel argument that sources are old: that is not a problem whatsoever. The content is attributed to sources, and the reader can see the dates for themselves. There is no need to remove them; that's not at all encyclopedic. And in order to include new information, we need reliable secondary sources. AvB ÷ talk 00:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
PS I think you have just illustrated an important problem people may have with editing Wikipedia: they want it to contain the truth (their version of it). However, Wikipedia is not about truth, but about verifiability as defined in our rules. It will always be behind the times. But if something is important, it will be described in reliable sources at some point. Only then do write about it. Users who do not agree are not welcome to edit Wikipedia. They only have the right to fork. AvB ÷ talk 00:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Almost a total misread. This is normal encyclopedic editorial thinking, apparently thought to be excludable in the Barrett article space by some editors. (1) the California Supreme Court case has many, many WP:RS,V sources L.A. Times, EFF, USA Today, Mercury News, Washington Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Newsday, Associated Press, PC INpact(France) etc, (2) Most people (and editors) would say that accounting for 1.5 years of college in a several page Biography is encyclopedic, especially if the training is later claimed as a basis for expertise, used for several decades, and a specific subject of several trials. It also has a WP:BLP acceptable source - Dr Barrett's CV, among others. (3) I think everyone fairly soon may be very pleasantly surprised to get a V RS quote on the board certification (if dead trees will move less slowly).

I said that I wasn't planning to remove notes and quotes for age, just that significant events had superceded them and made them "old" and not (or less) current. Recently NAS, NIH and other authorities have substantially contradicted some of Dr Barrett's more sweeping, disparaging conclusions, just as have the courts, all in WP:RS sources (PNAS, CMAJ, various Times, etc). A smart or informed MD/PhD is not going to publicly buck that frivolously. The "vast majority" OR/claims would be quite interesting to compare with any *current* surveys about what levels technical illiteracy reaches, especially in any professional setting where some degree of due diligence is expected (at least by the lawyers) rather than on the cruise ship surveying all the pharma reps, wine in hand, several down, more to go.

I have repeated and sourced some of the newer dated related material, 2002-2006, so many times elsewhere (but not planning to add it directly to this article although it affects WP:V on Dr Barrett's science claims). I asked for conceptual recognition - rough agreement and/or comment before starting to edit with V RS sourced (...properly sourced phrasing can be developed). So, I'm guessing it was in the late hours there, I am not abjuring any WP rules in my planned edits, I am not planning to start any forks, and I am hopeful that at least some editors appreciate my efforts to constructively contribute sourced and science based edits to WP.--I'clast 11:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Using the California supreme court case as something to refute my reasoning is a straw man fallacy. It satisfies the policy constraints I've explained over and over again and thus can be used in context. If you have new reliable sources, by all means bring them on. If they supersede older material, we can expand the article and report on the change. Conceptual recognition: I've given my view several times now. Nothing much has changed. Barrett is the establishment's hero. His image has suffered very little damage over the years as far as reliable secondary sources are concerned, while detractors are portrayed unfavorably. The question is not whether or not this has changed (I too have an opinion there but, like yours, it can't be used in the article) but whether or not a change has been reported in reliable secondary sources. Maybe I am not aware of reliable secondary sources that would change things. Or maybe the reliable sources are behind the times. If so, so are we, but it will make the encyclopedia before the deadline. We don't have a crystal ball telling us what reliable sources will be writing in the future. By the way, what percentage of the article do you feel needs to be given to criticism/detractor opinion/etc? AvB ÷ talk 12:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


Not notable

You write: "It's a well-documented fact which Barrett himself say that he has been public about for over thirty years." I question that statement, and until I read a quote from Barrett to that effect (the last half of your sentence), consider it a misrepresentation. Please provide that quote. -- Fyslee/talk 22:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that I am not board certified has been known by chiropractors for more than 30 years and has never been a sectret. -- User:Sbinfo (Stephen Barrett) diff -- Levine2112 discuss 23:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe there are some subtleties to the language here, but your wording seems to give the impression that Barrett himself has been making this information public for all these years, which I don't believe to be the case. Why would he mention it at all unless asked? It's not the kind of thing anyone would write in their CV.
Levine2112, please provide an example of him mentioning it when unprovoked or responding to the unfair mentioning of it by his enemies.
Someone else (a) knowing about it, and him (b) publicizing ("been public") it, are two very different matters, as I will explain below:
Barrett came here to Wikipedia, not to openly confirm and back up the fact of his lack of board certification (which he has never misrepresented), but to counter potentially libelous claims being made here regarding the fact, claims which are a perpetuation of Tim Bolen's slurs and attacks. There is a world of difference! It has never been an issue in the real world or during his entire career, including testifying as a psychiatrist while he was in practice. It's an unnotable fact. Its only "notability" is the fact that his main detractor (Tim Bolen, whom he is now suing for libel) has attempted to make it notable by misleadingly using the fact against him to imply wrongdoing, misrepresentation, or lack of qualifications to do what he does, which is to expose quackery. Board certification is totally unnecessary in that endeavor, so it is still unnotable. Again, there is a world of difference! So far only those with a heavy agenda against him mention it, and they do so in an adversarial manner as part of an attempt to smear him.
In his response here he made it very clear how unnotable the fact is:
  • "In addition, the whole discussion of my psychiatric experience hasn't the slightest relevance to my writing activities." -- User:Sbinfo (Stephen Barrett) diff
When impartial third-party sources start reporting it as a notable fact in a neutral context (and context is what we are lacking) we can begin to cite them. That's the nature of Wikipedia's WP:OR (and WP:SYN) policy - we are always "behind the curve" (time wise) when reporting things, and the WP:BLP policy means we are even more behind the curve when dealing with potentially sensitive information about living persons. The main reason this is potentially sensitive is because of its misuse to attack Barrett. If there had been a situation involving him where board certification had been necessary, then the fact would have been notable, but I don't know of any reliable source reporting such a situation. It has never been relevant during his career as a psychiatrist, and certainly not during his later "career" in exposing quackery and healthfraud. It is simply not WP:NOTABLE and thus fails inclusion criteria here. -- Fyslee/talk 07:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Why Barrett came to Wikipedia is irrelevant. We can't be expected to interpret his intentions or state of mind. That he wrote his lack of Board Certification has been known for 30 years and it has never been a secret is very relevant. This means that including this information here cannot and does not violate BLP. You have a point about WP:NOTABLE except that if you read the policy closely you may note that it doesn't apply to content; only to articles on the whole. Barrett's opinion on whether or not his lack of certifcation affects his writing is irrelevant. One, because Barrett is notable for more than being a writer. Two, as a writer, speaker, witness and general dispenser of health advice to the masses, Barrett's complete verifiable medical credentials are obviously relevant. It would be one thing if Barrett was notable for being a writer of children's stories or for being a painter. Then, who cares if he failed his Boards? But Barrett is notable for his work in medicine; thus his medical credentials are plainly relevant - including his lack of Board Certification. That this information has gained more prominence because his detractors have brought it to the spotlight is irrelevant. What is relevant is that it has been public information for 30 years and Barrett claims that it is not a secret. While his critics claim that Barrett concealed this info, Barrett claims he has not. I say let's leave out the opinions and just focus on the fact. We are building the man's biography; not his curriculum vitae; so that Barrett chooses not to include his lack of Board Certification in his CV is irrelevant. There is no violation of WP:SYN as there is not an A + B = C situation here. All we have is "A"; a verifiable statement from several sources. WP:SYN concerns itself with two verifiable statements ("A" and "B") from two distinct sources and then combining those two statements to arrive at an original position "C". We don't even come close to violating WP:SYN with the statement: "Barrett is not Board Certified." All we have is "A". There is no "B". And thus there can be no "C" nor can there then be a WP:SYN violation. If you still believe we do have a violation, I would very much like to here your logic (A + B = C) on this one. Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 07:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
"But Barrett is notable for his work in medicine; thus his medical credentials are plainly relevant - including his lack of Board Certification." How to use OR to make something notable, an example above by Levine. Shot info 08:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
First, what OR do you think I performed? I am saying it is plainly relevant. No reasearch needed, but if you need research to show the relevance of this content, look no further than all of the source which I have already provided. Remember, that you consider these sources "reliable" or "biased" is irrelevant. All they need to do is show that this information is being discussed, has been the subject of a lawsuit and has been included in research papers. All of this adds to the relevance of the information, but not all of it adds to the verifiability of it. Sure, a biased source might not be reliable in terms of verifiability; however, this information - Barrett is not Board Certified has been verified by reliable sources including Barrett himself. That is why in the survey above, we all agree that this information is factual. Second, can you please contribute to this discussion without being so disparaging and hostile toward me or anyone else? It would certainly help these proceedings. I hardly think this kind of behaviior will do us much good during mediation, nor do I expect it to be tolerated. Now then, I am more than happy to converse amicably about this matter, but from now on, I will not respond to your uncivil comments. I hope this is understood by you. -- Levine2112 discuss 08:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I can only speak for myself, but I immediately noticed an all too familiar pattern here, the slight twist of meaning that makes it a straw man and OR. You wrote:
  • "But Barrett is notable for his work in medicine"
That is not true. Even the only piece of research he was slightly involved with that was published was in the area of exposing quackery. He is notable because of that activity, not in his capacity as a practicing MD. -- Fyslee/talk 23:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the twist of meaning is wrongly placed here. I didn't say that Barrett is notable for being a practicing doctor. I said that he is notable for his work in medicine. Exposing quacks is work in medicine as quacks are pretenders of medical skills. Also, Barrett is notable for dispensing medical advice to the masses. So, yes, Barrett is notable for his work in medicine. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Fyslee, If SB's enemies mention his lack of BC unfairly, when would it be fair to mention it? Or is it always unfair to mention it? robert2957 15:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it would always be unfair. It would have to be in the context of him actually misrepresenting himself or acting in a capacity where board certification was relevant, which he has not done. It has never been relevant during his career as a psychiatrist, and certainly not during his later "career" in exposing quackery and healthfraud. It is simply not WP:NOTABLE and thus fails inclusion criteria here. What could happen is that some new situation could arise where it became notable. If that happened and it was notable, then when impartial third-party sources start reporting it as a notable fact in a neutral context (and context is what we are lacking) we can begin to cite them. -- Fyslee/talk 22:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Misrepresentation would only make discussing board certification more germane, stating this fact has little or nothing to do with fairness to SB. Bd-cert is also relevant, but was not *necessary*, to his being an expert psychiatric witness. WP:NOTABLE is for articles, Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content. Many readers certainly would disagree (some have been here already) as to the relevance of board certification (or attempt thereof) in roughly establishing his capabilities and knowledge to gauge or weight his opinions on various subjects amongst so many opinions and articles (especially those signed along with his MD), including psychiatric subjects. Educational and professional attainments (and experiences otherwise) are vin ordinaire for many WP biographies that have far less relevance than such a vociferous, prolific author as Dr Barrett. The current article misrepresents the qualifications, by omission(s), of Dr Barrett - a significant public health commentator based on his fairly successful PR efforts (and legal strategems) to *project* his MD as the voice of science and medicine in the 1970s into the 1990s. A more factual article would clarify and dispel confusions that last to this day, a fundamental service of encyclopedias.-I'clast 01:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

How many websites?

Latest comment: 17 years ago21 comments9 people in discussion

The statement that SB runs 22 websites which appears in the lead is taken from Barrett's own words. In fact, as you will find on the Quackwatch website: "The sites marked * are under construction and have little content" . There are eight such sites and they do indeed have little content. I suggest that the lead should say that SB "runs Quackwatch and some other related sites" robert2957 19:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

So here's the whole change, slightly simpler reading: Barrett runs Quackwatch and some related sites dealing with what he considers to be "quackery and health fraud." Any objections? *ducks for cover* ॐ Metta Bubble puff 02:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Reads well to me, and more accurate. -- Levine2112 discuss 03:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
While ignoring the sources? Hmm, I suppose it isn't the first time the anti-Barratt editors have argued one way while arguing the opposite at the same time... Shot info 03:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh come on now. Seriously. Just be nice. What are you saying about the actual edit suggestion? What do you suggest we say? "Barrett runs 22 websites, half of which are under construction"? It's unmaintainable. Do we keep increasing the number everytime he opens another subsidiary website? Surely it's better to say he runs several related sites. How does that detract from him in any way? ॐ Metta Bubble puff 04:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
So what does the V RS say? Heres a redflag - the use of the word "accurate" with no substanciation. Ignoring policy, the MO of key editors here in Barrett land, specifically one with a lot of time on his hands. Shot info
The link provided above by Metta Bubble shows a link to Google the information. I suggest using it. There are a lot of hits about them and if I counted correctly, there are 22 websites. It does state that the last update was 4/23/2007 but there is information there but I only looked briefly at one of the one's with the *. Also, my understanding is that for a BLP of a person is that the information about that person can be used with there sites. Now all of a sudden what Dr. Barrett says about book counts, the amount of websites, etc. he has are all being disputed. I don't understand, sorry. I understand that there are site that are black listed and not allowed, IE; Quackpot and others but Dr. Barrett's site is not listed as unusable as far as I understand. --CrohnieGalTalk 08:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any major issues here about using "several", Dr Barrett's statement and site, just taste, detail and housekeeping. "Several" (more than two) is more "permanently" accurate (e.g. like the "several", now 50 states), avoids the active/construction discussion and perhaps suggests less additional prose.--I'clast 09:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry maybe I am dense but would you please clarify what you are saying above? It isn't making any sense to me. If you are saying that using several websites rather than a number, what are you going to use as a citation for this? Barrett's website, and if this is what you mean then why not just put what Barrett says on his website instead making confusion? --CrohnieGalTalk 10:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I am saying that I am relatively indifferent to whether "several websites" or "22 websites..." are used nor do I think that source (micro)citation on the potentially shifting number here is critical where link farming has been a previous issue also. I generally agree with the fact(s), have no great preference although I think Metta Bubble made decent points about clean prose and housekeeping where Dr Barrett, etc might not always keep the number current - I just hope we aren't starting to get our panties in a wad again when I see phrases like "ignoring the sources", "anti-Barrett editors", "V RS", "redflag", "accurate" starting to surface.--I'clast 11:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Given that one side crows about a "fact" and the same are wanting to dodge another "fact" which is probably _more_ relevant to a BLP (not to mention is glaringly obvious with the sources and doesn't need OR to make it notable), it just points to the anti-Barrett and anti-BLP bias of these editors. Don't forget, one editor has got his 480+ panties in a big wad trying to force consensus. The irony is delicious. Shot info 02:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC) [[24]]
Gosh, that doesn't sound very gracious for helpful comments over style. Frankly as a *reader*, I think "several websites" is more favorable to QW/SB than "22 websites" - so many sites for an (new) unknown entity would seem like some kind of fringe or extremist sockpuppet spamsite or pufferfish to me, but I am willing to go along either way.--I'clast 09:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Refernce to "22 websites" is unduly self serving. Eight of them hardly exist. What we need is something like: "Quackwatch plus a number of allied websites" robert2957 16:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It isn't unduly self-serving in its original context. Maybe it is unduly self-serving here (although indirectly; I don't think Barret himself has added it). But to me 22 in this context makes the intro look like a blurb for a laundry detergent with 22 newly synthesized enzymes. "Several" or "a number of" perhaps? AvB ÷ talk 16:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
It is unduly self serving. It makes Barrett look bigger than he is. robert2957 16:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
YMMV. Have you read it in context (Quackwatch home page)? It looks natural to me there. Only in the article does it read to me the way it reads to you. Regardless, I agree this should be changed. According to you because it makes Barrett look bigger than he is, according to me because the current intro makes Barrett look worse. Same result. AvB ÷ talk 16:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I have no trouble with a slight revision:
  • "Barrett runs Quackwatch and a number of other websites dealing with what he considers ...." (plus the reference so people can look it up themselves and themselves determine the situation)
Is that satisfactory? If so we can place a tag here requesting unlocking and make that one change. -- Fyslee/talk 23:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Fyslee, I am delighted to be in agreement with you about something at last! Excellent suggestion. →robert2957 04:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC) →

I suspect we agree on far more than you realize, but our personal opinions can't be included in the articles themselves, so I don't always express my opinions, even on the talk pages. Let's wait and see if others provide their opinion on this matter. If we can get a consensus, then we can move forward. -- Fyslee/talk 06:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I think Fyslee has a great way to end this part of everyone's disagreement. If others agree with what is proposed please state so, this way at least we can end one problem. --CrohnieGalTalk 11:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I accept. I'd also like to suggest the addition of an html comment that notes < --exact number deliberately omitted, see talk-- > I hope that's simple enough. I wouldn't want some editor coming in and thinking we were simply lacking the figure and try to fix the edit by changing it back to 22. Good grief, we'd be back to square one. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 00:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Request to make a small change as described above: {{editprotected}}

This is an archive - I don't know why your conversation got here, but I'd recommend moving it back to the talk page and then making the request. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments about the notice at the top of this page about mediation.

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I would like to have people look at the mediation request [25] and to take note of the list of parties involved. There are a bunch of editors who have been involved from the beginning and have even recently posted to this talk page that are not listed in the parties involved.

Involved parties

I am bringing this to everyone's attention in case they did not notice the notice above or get a notice from Levine2112 about the mediation. I have not said anything there and will not do so until all editors are given the information about the mediation. I am sure Levine didn't mean to leave the others out but everyone needs to be told about this who has been actively involved. I do not mean the third party request for information at the different boards this has gone to unless it is something that also should be done. Thanks,--CrohnieGalTalk 08:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

If there is anyone I left out who wants to participate, feel free to join in. I apologize, this conversation is long with many participants involved at varying degrees so forgive me if you have been overlooked. As I type this I realize that I left out Arthur Rubin and MastCell. Sorry, nothing personal. Just an oversight on my part. Feel free to add yourself to the list. I certainly hope we can all move forward with this RfM and I am equally hopeful that the Mediation Committee (along with our cooperation) will help us arrive at a satisfactory resolution to this matter. Thanks all. -- Levine2112 discuss 08:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Levine, I do feel you did not do this intentionally at all, I hope you understand that it was not an attack or a put down. I posted this so the others would also know because sometimes those boxes at the top aren't always noticed and read. I really do believe your heart was in the right place and that this was an honest error. --CrohnieGalTalk 08:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I have tried to gather the list of editors who were active throughout this going through the archive to the present. The people I found who need to be listed and notified are the following; Fyslee, Arthur Rubin, MastCell, JoshuaZ, Hughgr, David D., Jim Butler, and Tony Sidaway. Did I miss anyone? Levine, are you going to add these and notify them. I would appreciate it if you would, thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to encourage everyone who has decided not to participate in the Mediation to change their minds. We have reached an impasse and have tried all other applicable methods of WP:DR. Mediation is our only remaining option - other than continue the debate here on this talk page. I am confident that a formal mediation will be most enlightening and finally resolve this issue. As for those who Crohnie has pointed out that I forgot to list as parties to this mediation - again I apologize. I will however refrain from inviting anyone else as the current replies of "disagree" pretty much nulifies the possibility of this mediation moving forward. That being said, if any of you are checking in and reading this, please feel free to add yourself to the mediation (as Jim Butler was kind enough to do for himself - again, sorry Jim. It was a total oversight on my part - nothing personal I assure you). Thanks all for your consideration. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

A Matter Of Time

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Given that SB is not BC and that he is prominent, is it not merely a matter of time before universally acceptable reliable secondary sources start stating this fact? So why not just wait for a bit? robert2957 10:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

If they think it's somehow relevant, they will. As indicated very early in this discussion, editors could even try to get it published in a RS. AvB ÷ talk 12:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


The Ultimate Resolution?

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Has it occurred to anyone else that we might all be just a bit crazy? Is it normal to be spending so much time on this BC business?

Perhaps it is. And if so, a resolution is at hand. All we have to do is to get at least one friend to contribute and induce them to get more friends to join in. A pyramid scheme of course, but there's no MLM and no financial loss. As the circle of Wikipedia editors grows people around the world will sooner or later be contributing with great and extraordinary passion. From every workplace at the end of each day there will be a stampede to the internet cafe (they won't be able to wait until they get home) where the keyboards will be worn out by the passionate views of the new members of the pro and anti factions. Those who herd yaks in Mongolia will come down from the hills and fields to put their spoke in. As this goes on, friends and families will fall out as controversy conflagrates the world. But there could be wonderful benefits. Tony Blair will find something to do in retirement. Prisoners just out of prison will get so absorbed in the SB BC controversy that they will find acrimonious debate more absorbing than crime. The people of Qatar and North Korea will successfully demand free internet access (I believe they don't have it at present in those countries) and the clicking of mice and keyboards will be the source of a permanent background hum like the microwave background radiation that permeates the universe.

Sooner or later 50%+1 of the world's population will have expressed a view. And when the 3000,000,001st editor has put in his two pennyworth, BINGO! The fact will have become incontrovertibly notable. Assuming of course that a reliable secondary source can be found to back the contention that this is a significant proportion of the world's population. robert2957 15:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

<grin>. Perhaps it isn't normal then? But if it is, we could easily use this as a means to generate money. I mean, one cent per person makes $30,000,000; I'm sure if we gave $29,900,000 away to the chiropractors who have suffered at Barrett's hands, and spent the remaining $100,000 on getting him board certified now, he would be a better doctor and a better man for it, he would use the new insights so gained to update his website to inform the world about the benefits of ear candling, and stop all the cries of his opponents forever. It would end with a group hug. But will he retain the admiration of his mainstream ex-peers? Will reliable sources write about it, and will those reliable sources be chiro trade orgs? How will Jimbo respond? How will Bolen respond? Will Negrete defend Barrett as he is sued by Polevoy? Will all these questions and more be answered? AvB ÷ talk 18:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Robert and Avb, I enjoyed reading this!  :) --CrohnieGalTalk 18:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is his family relevant?

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

It isn't clear to me why it is relevant to include Barrett's family members. Can someone enlighten me? --Leifern 16:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It is inevitable that people will want to know such details about prominent individuals. This is why it is unrealistic rigourously to enforce a policy against the inclusion of any trivia. robert2957 16:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I am not proposing that we "rigorously enforce" any kind of policy. I am asking why this information is included, and if there is no good reason beyond the notion that someone "inevitably" would want to know about Stephen Barrett's kids, I suggest we take it out until someone makes a stink about including it. --Leifern 17:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I second that emotion...;-) -- Fyslee/talk 18:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Is It Notable After All ?

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

The ABMS on its website states : "Certification by an ABMS Member Board is widely recognized by physicians, healthcare institutions, insurers and patients themselves as an essential tool to judge that a physician has the knowledge, experience and skills for providing quality healthcare within a given specialty. It is considered the gold standard because of its unique physician-directed approach for assessing qualifications."

Given that SB sometimes offers views on psychiatric subjects, does not the ABMS explanation of the meaning of BC render SB's lack of it notable? I don't know myself. robert2957 11:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC) →

This has been discussed before. This references the new standard that predates postdates Barratts time as a professional. How many doctors who were not board certified in the 60's, for whatever reason, went back and retook those exams in the 90's because of the lack of the the above "essential tool"? I don't know, but I would be surprised if they were not all grandfathered in due to their experience. In summary, one can't seriously compare credentials from the 60's with those from the 90's. It's comparing apples and oranges and is original research that can never give a satisfactory answer. David D. (Talk) 13:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. I regret to say that I was unaware of the previous discussion. robert2957 13:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Unless I'm misunderstanding something, I suspect that David D. meant "postdates"... Barrett was part of the majority of about 2/3 of psychiatrists who were not board certified back then. The standards have changed for the better, and I suspect Barrett would certainly hold a modern shrink to a higher educational standard than he and his peers were held to without being hypocritical or unfair at all. To judge older docs by today's standards is improper and discounts their experience and the situation at the time. Even the current high standard named above would only make much sense when applied to Barrett if he were dealing with some heavy duty complicated psychiatric cases, which he is not. Ordinary run of the mill stuff is within the reach of any psychiatrist, board certified or not. -- Fyslee/talk 13:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Correct, I mean postdates. David D. (Talk) 20:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Another Thought Experiment

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Let us suppose that a very prominent professor of medicine had noticed the following things that I have noticed on the Quackwatch website and said the things that I shall say about them:

In reference to the National Centre For Complementary And Alternative Medicine and its testing of what are termed alternative treatments Barrett says: "It remains to be seen whether such studies will yield useful results. Even if some do, their benefit is unlikely to outweigh the publicity bonanza given to questionable methods." here How does SB know that it is unlikely? More important, what does this mean? The only significance I can attach to this is that if this research or this research had been done by NCCAM then battalions of health fraudsters would by now be invading the USA or at least governing in California.

He quotes Wallace I Simpson with approval to the effect that NCCAM should be defunded here

and Quackwatch carries the (worth reading) testimony of Thomas J Moore against the Access to Medical Treatment Act here in which he calls for greater funding of the "[T]iny office in the National Institutes of Health devoted to alternative therapies" which later became the NCCAM.

Now, suppose this prominent professor were to say that these irrationalities and inconsistencies made him think that SB lacked the kind of balanced judgement necessary to lay down the law about medicine, would it make any difference if SB had been a board certified psychiatrist? I say it would not. Compared to such considerations it would be a minor issue. We have spent enough time on the BC issue. I have changed my mind about it and have sometimes thrown out points of view for discussion without being of a firm opinion myself. Those who think that Barrett has shortcomings must find notable critics to support them. It is time to move on. As I have said before, perhaps we are all a bit crazy. The SB article would in no major way be vitiated by inclusion. But if the BC issue is notable, notable secondary sources will appear. robert2957 17:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC) →

I'm out of this article for awhile....

Latest comment: 17 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion

First I am told I didn't do my research well enough about another editor, which I should say is none of my business to do so. I made a comment to Metta because he was the one who said he was the editor that had no involvement, but yet now there are attacks and almost outting of other editors. I think this page is so uncivil and I just don't play this game. I try to be polite and try to learn and behave like others would like editors to do. I am not taking my points from other editors, I may be disable and slow but I still do have a brain of my own. So bye everyone for at least a while. --CrohnieGalTalk 19:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it was entirely reasonable for me to defend you calling me a meatpuppet. However, I hope you cool off okay. There's no acrimony.reply was to a comment that has been struck ॐ Metta Bubble puff 22:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe Crohnie needs to cool off. For one thing there were personal circumstances you may not be aware of (assuming you're not following Ronz's talk page). Secondly, your bedside manner regarding a patient with Crohn's Disease leaves a couple of things to be desired. You have driven an editor away from editing this article.
Please answer the question: did someone invite you? AvB ÷ talk 00:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
What's with the third degree you are putting on Metta Bubble? This is highly inappropriate behavior. For the record, I didn't invite Metta Bubble to this article. When he awarded me the Barnstar it was before he/she and I ever worked together that I know of. I think the Barnstar was out of the blue, if I remember right.
I got to say really quickly how disappointed I am that the Mediation got rejected; that some parties were unwilling to collaborate to finally end this dispute. Well, I can only hope we can reach some resolution amongst ourselves by continuing discussing this here. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  1. My behavior is calm and measured, especially when compared with Metta's.
  2. Please inform yourself of the facts before accusing me of "highly inappropriate behavior".
  3. Thanks for sharing the information that you did not invite Metta.
  4. I have not commented on the Barnstars and cannot help you there.
  5. As to the mediation, I was still considering it when it was rejected. Continuing the discussion here is not allowed unless new arguments are presented.
  6. Metta, given that Levine did not invite you, I'm still wondering whether someone else did. I would not go so far as to say that I smell a rat, or will get a checkuser going, but I am not entirely convinced this was not canvassing. AvB ÷ talk 02:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Avb. I already accepted Crohnie doesn't have the fortitude to sustain her accusations against me and I let it slide, no hard feelings. However, you have dragged out her exit from this conversation, simultaneously launching a new attack where you -- unbelievably -- actually use her disease to launch some kind of special-needs guilt-trip, effectively making Crohnie a pawn in your attacks. I'm sure she'll forgive you but I would doublecheck my affiliations if I were her.
I've replied to your questions on your talk page. I too am disappointed mediation was unsupported. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 03:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
You're entitled to that opinion. Your unfeeling attitude says it all as far as I'm concerned. This is just a website. Not a battlefield used to hurt people and damage their reputations in real life. Totally out of proportion. AvB ÷ talk 12:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Your accusations about my motives are unfounded, petty and vile. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 00:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I believe that Metta Bubble discovered this page by following the edit history of Ronz that was very active on Talk:Reiki a few weeks ago MaxPont 08:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Ibid ॐ Metta Bubble puff 08:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Anyone still reading and interested, see my talk page for Metta's post and my response. AvB ÷ talk 12:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm with MaxPont on this. I always assumed Metta Bubble had followed me here. --Ronz 15:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Serious questions for Metta Bubble

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

You wrote in the edit summary of this edit: rv: it's hypocritical of you to revert my headers as personal attacks and then try to insult me with this header

  1. Where did I revert your headers as personal attacks?
  2. Why do you think that the header "Criticism of Metta Bubble's line of questioning regarding AvB's affiliations" is an attempt to insult you? I think it is a neutral description of Fyslee's post. You're free to give the rest a different header.

For the record, I did not intend to insult you. I'm sorry you're taking it that way and hope you will cool off okay. I'm tired, looking forward to a good night's sleep. AvB ÷ talk 02:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted. All good. Sleep well. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 03:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Anyone still reading and interested, see my talk page for Metta's post and my response. Unfortunately, some important questions I have asked in good faith remain pending. AvB ÷ talk 12:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Refusal to accept Mediation

Latest comment: 17 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

For several weeks editors from the pro Barrett camp have complained that the debate drags on forever and that there is no “closure”. A week ago three editors (all from the pro Barrett camp) [26] refused to accept an invitation to Mediation. (All editors from the other side accepted Mediation.) After that the same circle of pro Barrett editors continued to whine about the lengthy debate. This is hypocritical. In my opinion this is also disruptive and could almost be construed as a bad faith tactical move. MaxPont 09:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

First I'd like to make clear I am not in any camp. This article has been a learning tool for me to learn the rules of BLP. I don't care one way or the other about Dr. Barrett other than trying to do things according to the proper rules. Second, you came to my talk page and demanded a reason from me as to why I voted against the mediation and I answered your request with a thoughtful reasonable answer. Cabal didn't work, and all the arguing that goes on here started there and the mediation stopped do to all the incivility. I don't see another mediation helping anymore than that one with so many dug in so deep on their belief. Some of you have very strong feelings about Barrett, which in my opinion, is what is preventing this article from going anywhere, and which is why I am not here that much anymore. --CrohnieGalTalk 12:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Anyone against moving this immediately to the archives as a violation of WP:TALK, WP:CON, WP:CIVIL, and WP:HARRASS? --Ronz 14:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, highly. The harsh tone on this talk page is unfortunate. My posting above does not mention any names and in no way stand out compared to a number of previous posts. The refusal to accept Mediation is disruptive and should be brought to attention. If the debate here "goes round and round in circles", I would expect the editors who complain about this to come up with a suggestion to resolve the deadlock with one of the available Dispute Resolution methods. Ronz, try to persuade your fellow editors to accept Mediation - or suggest another DR. MaxPont 17:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Other than the editor causing this disruption, does anyone else want to comment before this is removed? --Ronz 14:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Please leave the section alone. Ronz, such refactoring distorts the record and itself has been cited by ArbCom members. Refactoring makes it difficult to tell when & what has been said and is going on. Although I may not agree that refusal to mediate is ipso facto disruptive, it seems at least a missed opportunity and is a part of the record of the search for means to resolve the disputes here. In some cases, refusals may not help individual relations or credibility either. I suggest leaving this for normal archival in about 9-14 days.
As a means of going forward, I might suggest a separate subpage for trial edits (and perhaps different versions) on the litigation section since article space is locked.--I'clast 17:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, no. WP:TALK, WP:CON, WP:CIVIL, and WP:HARRASS are policies that we wont ignore. --Ronz 18:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Repeating for those who are missed it: I'm suggesting moving this converstion immediately to the archive, as has been done with many inappropriate comments in the past that have no business being on this page. --Ronz 18:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the links pointing to other editors above (I found a better link supporting my argument) MaxPont 18:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Great! You've taken steps away from WP:NPA. Now please remove the rest per the policies that I actually mentioned. --Ronz 18:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Can you try to convince all editors to accept Mediation.MaxPont 07:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^ Pennsylvania Department of State, Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs License Verification Page, Stephen Joel Barrett. Accessed 1 March 2007.
  2. ^ a b c d Curriculum Vitae [27]
  3. ^ a b Ann Wlazelek, "Allentown critic of quacks moves to 'milder winters'", Mcall.com, June 13, 2007. available online
  4. ^ Pennsylvania Department of State, Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs License Verification Page, Stephen Joel Barrett. Accessed 1 March 2007.
  5. ^ User:Sbinfo (Stephen Barrett) commenting at Wikipedia
  6. ^ Anti-chiropractic groups spreading ‘stroke’ lies online, World Chiropractic Alliance.available online
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stephen_Barrett/Archive_10&oldid=1098310917"