| Revision as of 16:35, 18 April 2009 editValjean (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers95,500 edits →Talk:Stephen Barrett/Archive 13: nice with some order here← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:33, 9 February 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,025,583 edits Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion | ||
| (446 intermediate revisions by 64 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{ |
{{Skip to talk}} | ||
| {{Talk header|noarchive=yes |search=no}} | |||
| {{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= | |||
| {{Homeopathy/Warning}} | |||
| {{WPBiography|living=yes|class=B|priority=|old-peer-review=yes|needs-photo=yes|nested=yes}} | |||
| {{Not a forum}} | |||
| {{Rational Skepticism|class=B|nested=yes}} | |||
| {{Round in circles}} | |||
| |blp=yes}} | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|class=B|listas=Barrett, Stephen| | |||
| {{WikiProject Biography|old-peer-review=yes}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=low}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Notable Wikipedian|Sbinfo|Barrett, Stephen}} | {{Notable Wikipedian|Sbinfo|Barrett, Stephen}} | ||
| {{archives|search=yes}} | |||
| {{off topic warning}} | |||
| {{Round In Circles}} | |||
| {{Homeopathy/Warning}} | |||
| <!--Template:Archivebox begins--> | |||
| {| class="infobox" width="315px" | |||
| |- | |||
| ! align="center" | ]<br />]---- | |||
| |- | |||
| | | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| |}<!--Template:Archivebox ends--> | |||
| ==Time to ignore those who want to use this page as a battleground== | |||
| ]: "Misplaced Pages is a volunteer community, and does not require its users to give any more time and effort than they wish. Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other users." | |||
| Let's not get sucked into letting editors once again use this talk page to attack Barrett and try to Wikilawyer a way into introducing these attacks into the article. If editors want to add information, the burden of evidence is on them, per WP:V, to provide sources. Because these are WP:BLP issues, these need to be high quality references. The information should also adhere to all other Misplaced Pages policies, especially WP:NPOV and WP:OR. | |||
| If these editors continue to disrupt this page, I'm sure we can find an admin to apply arbcom enforcement here. --] (]) 02:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: Yes, Ronz, I agree we need a 3rd party in here. | |||
| :: --] (]) 23:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm sorry to say but yes this is necessary at this point. The latest edits are getting personal about the editor not the edits. (I'm not posting links because I don't feel it is necessary to stir the pot.) I think the questions that have been asked have been answered now and in the past. I gave some links as requested, to some of the conversations in the archives but no response to them other than from Shot who makes the point about notability. I think it's best to give this a rest with what is going on here and at the RS notice board. Please, everyone, take a breath and a break, I am. --]] 12:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: yes, I did not appreciate Fyslee/BullRangifer implying that I am a sockpuppet/meatpuppet by bringing in and saying . This is an ] and certainly not in good faith. | |||
| ::--] (]) 23:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Again, it appears that some editors are just using this page as a battleground. --] (]) 14:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Board Certification: Fresh Start == | |||
| Last night, I went through some of the history of the arguments for / against the inclusion of Barrett's board certification status. I did find where 3rd parties did state their opinion: | |||
| ]: | |||
| look at the opinions of ] (one of the Wikipedians in the Mediation Cabal ), and ] who is a Misplaced Pages Administrator. Basically, they both said: | |||
| <blockquote>"He is not board certified (citation), but he responds by stating that 'It is not necessary to be board-certified to practice psychiatry'"</blockquote> | |||
| in addition, Piotrus came here to add his comments to the talk discussion going on here at the time here:] to verify his opinion. | |||
| Since this seems to be reasonable to 2 3rd party administrator/mediators that are more objective than any of us, I am fine with making the sentence in question: | |||
| <blockquote>Barrett is a 1957 graduate of the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and completed his psychiatry residency in 1961, but was not board certified. When questioned about this, Barrett stated that it is not necessary to be board-certified to practice psychiatry.</blockquote> | |||
| == External links modified == | |||
| to make it NPOV in the way the 3rd parties specified. | |||
| --] (]) 02:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
| :Disagree - but this has all been said before - need the tertiary sources supporting why it's important. ] (]) 22:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I have just modified {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes: | |||
| : Agree - ] is a valid and important part of ]. Personally, I think the "why it is important" is rather obvious. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 02:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071103051137/http://new.thegoodwebguide.co.uk:80/index.php?rid=1772 to http://new.thegoodwebguide.co.uk/index.php?rid=1772 | |||
| *Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://www.health.gov/scipich/ | |||
| When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}). | |||
| :what policy says we need 3rd party sources "supporting why it's important"? ] (]) 21:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{sourcecheck|checked=false}} | |||
| :: ]. - ] <small>(])</small> 21:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 02:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::: That Stephen Barrett is not Board Certified is not a viewpoint. It is a fact (a well documented one at that). I don't see how ] applies. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 22:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Defamation == | |||
| :::: We've been through exact issue before. NPOV applies. For those who don't want to check the archives: | |||
| ::::# There are an infinite number of facts that apply to Barrett. We only report those that have ]. | |||
| ::::# This argument makes the assumption that a "fact" is not a viewpoint. However, here on Misplaced Pages, we build this encyclopedia based upon what we can verify. | |||
| :::: "Facts" have no special status. See ], "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." --] (]) 23:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Why nothing about Barrett’s failed defamation suit against chiropractor Tedd Koren? It is relevant to his work. ] (]) 04:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Levine2112, you glibly state that it's a "well documented" fact. That's exactly the problem. It's NOT at all "well documented"! That it's a fact isn't questioned, but the sourcing is a big obstacle. The only sources that have mentioned it at all are hate sites that are blacklisted here. TTBOMK, no V & RS have mentioned it at all. It has always been a non-issue in real life and in cyberspace. That those who hate and libel Barrett have mentioned it, and that editors here who feel the same way do so, doesn't really cut it. | |||
| == Psychiatric boards == | |||
| ::::: I'll repeat what I wrote above (with a slight tweak for relevance here): Take it to ] and get a decision. I have never had any objection to including the material IF it could be sourced properly and included in accordance with our policies. The attempts that have been made here to include the information have always been motivated by a desire to frame the information as a criticism, which isn't valid. | |||
| that Barrett "failed his psychiatric boards.” Is there a credible source to substantiate that claim? ] (]) 04:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: It has never been an issue, and no RS has ever commented on it at all, much less raised it as an issue. Get a decision at RS/N, since it would be a highly unique and unusual matter to use Barrett's very short talk page comment(s) as a source. In fact, it would require a policy change! | |||
| == Self-Sourced Content == | |||
| ::::: Reliable sourcing is required for nearly all material here, especially controversial stuff. The only way this information has been published was as a part of a very dubious source, so we don't have any context other than that. We need a reliable second or third party source. So go for it. I am just as interested as you in finding out what the community says about this. -- ] (]) 00:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: We've already been to RSN ] and there definitely was a consensus from third-parties that the sources were reliable enough to state that Barrett is not board certified. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 01:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Are you sure your linking to the right area of RS/N. There is no consensus on the link you provide - only you dismissing arguements that you don't like and agreeing with those that reinforce your POV. Of course there is a discussion about primary and secodary sources - but that is nothing that wasn't said here before and above in fact. Curiously there even are third parties telling you to get better sources (but I wonder who then dismisses them). ] (]) 03:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Barrett appears to be the original source for many references which, according to Ronz via ] and ] violates several policies. A consistent editing policy seems necessary for both articles. Either interviews and articles are legitimate or they are not. Unless there's a WP:HYPOCRISY policy I missed? --] (]) 13:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::An editor claimed there are but has refused to show any source is reliable. If a source is reliable then why it is not in the article or in discussion at this talk page? ] (]) 04:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: @Shot info. Yes I am sure that I am linking to the correct area. Are you sure that you are reading the correct area? I see there that the thrid-party opinions there stated that the primary sources which I presented met RS. I don't see me dismissing any arguments there (although I do see such ] from editors here). Read the RSN post again. You will see that not only are third-parties stating that RS is met, but they are also proposing wording for the article to include the information (that Barrett is not Board Certified). Are you really denying that? -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 17:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Please show and not assert which references are reliable per ] and ]. Also demonstrate how this is relevant to Barrett. If this is not shown soon then I think the next step is archiving this entire discussion. ] (]) 17:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ''(Edit conflict)'' Can we please just end this discussion, again? 39 months of trying to get this information into the article to no avail is an incredibly huge waste of time for us all. It would be a different story if new sources or new approaches were being discussed, but that's clearly not the case here. --] (]) 17:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :This is the way admins and the leaders of Misplaced Pages want it, to continue the discussion. ] (]) 17:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think we can archive the talk page now. ] (]) 01:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've archived the previous one, as it was obviously being used to attack other editors and generally being used to make this page a battleground. --] (]) 01:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Discussions about the status of QW (and thus Barrett) here at Misplaced Pages == | |||
| == ] == | |||
| For some odd reason, existing discussions have not been announced here, which is a big violation of our usual practice. There are two major places where participation is encouraged: | |||
| I went ahead an archived the discussion. If there is anything that an editor wants to discuss that was archived then bring it up here or start a new section. ] (]) 02:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * ] | |||
| : ]: | |||
| * ] | |||
| : <blockquote>Decisions about when to archive, and what may be the optimal length for a talk page, are made according to the Misplaced Pages policy of consensus for each case. If possible, archive talk pages during a lull in discussion, thus maintaining the context of a discussion by not cutting it off in progress.</blockquote> | |||
| : I'm not sure the discussions in 2009 are finished. You are supposed to ask the people involved before archiving. A better place to archive would have been in the last quarter of 2008 when there <s>were no</s> weren't many discussions at all. so.. I moved the discussions starting in 2008/2009 back, and left the 2007 in the archive. | |||
| : --]|] 03:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 16:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :: How about asking the editors involved if discussion is finished before editing? That is what consensus means. Now, all of a sudden, even though there have been many edits the last couple of weeks.. QuackGuru, and now Fyslee/BullRangifer just archive everything without asking if the discussions of the last week are finished. | |||
| == Rule 11 Sanctions in "Quackwatch" Libel Case == | |||
| :: Please don't archive this talk page until all editors are done. | |||
| :: --]|] 08:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I'm not sure if there's anything worth using here, but someone else may think so, so leaving it here. -- ] (]) 01:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::: It's sure nice to see this page back in some semblance of order, after the archived material was restored several times in a willy nilly fashion, making it a total mess, with 2009 stuff coming before 2008 stuff, and the references section somewhere in the middle of the page, which can really screw up the references. -- ] (]) 16:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Probably not without more coverage. Applies to ] as well. --] (]) 02:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 19:33, 9 February 2024
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Stephen Barrett article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to complementary and alternative medicine, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Stephen Barrett. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Stephen Barrett at the Reference desk. |
 | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting. |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
 Archives | ||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Stephen Barrett. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071103051137/http://new.thegoodwebguide.co.uk:80/index.php?rid=1772 to http://new.thegoodwebguide.co.uk/index.php?rid=1772
- Added
{{dead link}}tag to http://www.health.gov/scipich/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Defamation
Why nothing about Barrett’s failed defamation suit against chiropractor Tedd Koren? It is relevant to his work. Nicmart (talk) 04:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Psychiatric boards
It is asserted that Barrett "failed his psychiatric boards.” Is there a credible source to substantiate that claim? Nicmart (talk) 04:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Self-Sourced Content
Barrett appears to be the original source for many references which, according to Ronz via Naveen Jain and Naveen Jain Talk violates several policies. A consistent editing policy seems necessary for both articles. Either interviews and articles are legitimate or they are not. Unless there's a WP:HYPOCRISY policy I missed? --Lawfulneutral (talk) 13:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Discussions about the status of QW (and thus Barrett) here at Misplaced Pages
For some odd reason, existing discussions have not been announced here, which is a big violation of our usual practice. There are two major places where participation is encouraged:
- Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is Quackwatch an SPS and thus not allowed as a source on BLPs?
- Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#SPS and Quackwatch
BullRangifer (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Rule 11 Sanctions in "Quackwatch" Libel Case
Rule 11 Sanctions in "Quackwatch" Libel Case I'm not sure if there's anything worth using here, but someone else may think so, so leaving it here. -- Valjean (talk) 01:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Probably not without more coverage. Applies to American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine as well. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 02:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)