| Revision as of 03:30, 19 April 2009 editHipal (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers138,068 edits →Board Certification: restoring stale tag, which is not under dispute← 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 | ||
| (436 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--> | |||
| == Board Certification == | |||
| {{Stale|Discussion continued ] ] (]) 02:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)}} | |||
| concerning the edit of adding the Barrett's board certification notice: | |||
| # The is a valid source for board certification. If Barrett was Board Certified, he would be registered there.. and you can bet that the "Board Certified" would be on his . As you can see, there is no note of board certification. | |||
| # At ] just last week, that we can include the fact that JSE is not indexed in Web of Science based on it not appearing on WoS. The same principle applies here. Barrett is not listed on ABMS. Fyslee's words at JSE: ''The included sentence is a simple, easily falsifiable statement. Anyone who can show that it is indexed can just remove or modify the statement, using a citation as evidence for justification to do so.'' Now let's apply the same standards to Barrett: ''The included sentence is a simple, easily falsifiable statement. Anyone who can show that Barrett is board certified can just remove or modify the statement, using a citation as evidence for justification to do so.'' | |||
| since QuackGuru reversed my edit in less than a minute (I'm impressed with the speed of the reverts on this article), I will redo the edit with the added statement used by Fyslee for JSE. | |||
| ] (]) 18:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :This board certification issue has been used as an attack against Barrett, within Misplaced Pages as well as elsewhere. Because of this, it is considered a ] violation. --] (]) 19:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: It is also not worthy of the lead, if anywhere, as it isn't an issue regarding his ability to practice, licensure, etc. ] <small>]</small> 19:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Just want to note that Ronz has accused me of being libelous on my page. I have asked him to address these type of comments here. In order for my comments to be libelous.. they must be untrue statements. The fact that Stephen Barrett is not Board Certified is a true statement and is not libelous. Board Certification is a matter of public record.] (]) 20:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I think you'll find that it is a warning, correctly placed on the editors talk page, and I suggest you follow it. I'd have used the BLP one myself, but consider this your BLP warning if you like. ] <small>]</small> 20:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ].}} | |||
| ::::: Professional and Educational background is quite pertinent for a person that has made his name by representing himself as an medical expert. | |||
| ::::: ] (]) 21:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: In what sense has he represented "himself as a<s>n</s> medical expert"? Please give an example. He was considered a medical expert on the subject of psychiatry while testifying in his professional capacity. He testified in numerous cases regarding patients. In other situations he's considered an expert in quackery and health fraud, which isn't exactly the same as a medical expert, but which often, but not always, requires extensive medical knowledge, which he unquestionably possesses, in common with many other MDs. Note that being a medical expert in court doesn't even require that one is a licensed medical professional. There are experts who testify in court proceedings on medical subjects who aren't even MDs, much less board certified. The establishment of such expertise is apparently a matter subject to other criteria than the mere possession of a medical degree or board certification. -- ] (]) 20:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: from Barrett's website, : | |||
| :::::::: <blockquote>Stephen Barrett, M.D., a retired psychiatrist who resides near Chapel Hill, North Carolina, has achieved national renown as an author, editor, and consumer advocate. In addition to heading Quackwatch, he is vice-president of the National Council Against Health Fraud, '''a scientific advisor to the American Council on Science and Health''', and '''a Fellow of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP)'''. In 1984, he received an FDA Commissioner's Special Citation Award for Public Service in fighting nutrition quackery. In 1986, he was awarded honorary membership in the American Dietetic Association. From 1987 through 1989, '''he taught health education at The Pennsylvania State University'''. He is listed in Marquis Who's Who in America and received the 2001 Distinguished Service to Health Education Award from the American Association for Health Education. '''An expert in medical communications''', Dr. Barrett operates 23 Web sites; edits Consumer Health Digest (a weekly electronic newsletter); '''is medical editor of Prometheus Books'''; and has been '''a peer-review panelist for several top medical journals'''. He has written more than 2,000 articles and delivered more than 300 talks at colleges, universities, medical schools, and professional meetings. | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| :::::::: I think it would be a good guess that since Quackwatch is Barrett's website, that Barrett wrote that about himself. | |||
| :::::::: I think Barrett's medical and educational credentials are very appropriate, especially since his notability is linked to his ability to evaluate different modularities of medicine, and this is definitely linked to his medical and scientific background. | |||
| :::::::: ] (]) 04:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: I agree that Barrett likely wrote that about himself, but I disagree that ''"his notability is linked to his medical and scientific background."'' His medical career is totally unnotable, and his work as a researcher the same, with notable moment to my knowledge. | |||
| ::::::::: No, he's notable because he's outspoken, totally non-], controversial, an activist, a famous scientific skeptic (in the top 20 of the 20th century), initiates the exposure of quackery and health fraud in a few instances, and mostly does in-depth journalistic work on quackery and health fraud cases already noted by the FDA, FTC, BBB, news media, etc.. His work is also published in magazines, journals, the television and other news media and various official reports, and then he also writes and edits books. To top it off, he has learned to use the internet to spread his message, and has harnessed a large group of individuals who will help him in that endeavor. (All done very simply and cheaply.) THAT'S what makes him notable. Hardly anyone knows him as a doctor or as a scientist. -- ] (]) 04:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: While I was writing the above, I see you , which demonstrate that you understand my point, even though you hadn't read it yet ;-) You're absolutely correct. Without his medical and scientific background, he wouldn't be so well-prepared to do what makes him notable -- ''"his ability to evaluate different modularities of medicine."'' THAT'S still what makes him notable. -- ] (]) 04:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::: then you agree, Fyslee, that his medical and professional background is an important part of his "notability" and his ability to evaluate various medical modularities and the credentials of the people that practice them. Therefore, I think that his Board Certification status is relevant to his notability and should be included. | |||
| ::::::::::: ] (]) 05:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::: No. Don't put words in my mouth. That is pretty much the opposite of my point, which is that it is NOT the reason he is notable. His notability is related to his understanding and criticisms of medical modalities that do not conform to the scientific method (IOW unproven or disproven methods), or are being marketed improperly. The certification matter is different and needs a RS so it can be placed in proper perspective. -- ] (]) 05:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::: ok, Fyslee, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. But.. let me get this straight. You think his educational and professional background have nothing to do with his ability to evaluate different types of medicine and other people's credentials? That all you need to evaluate other people's credentials and other medicine is to be outspoken,controversial, an activist, a famous scientific skeptic (in the top 20 of the 20th century), initiates the exposure of quackery and health fraud, and is published in the media? Actually.. I think a lot of people on both sides would agree with that evaluation, (and a lot of people would qualify) and that is why . | |||
| ::::::::::::: However, We are talking about what he claims to be, an "expert" and therefore able to judge/evaluate medicine and practitioners. Even if you don't think his professional and educational background is important, most people do think it is important for any person claiming to be an "expert" in a scientific/medical field. | |||
| ::::::::::::: ] (]) 06:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::Out of interest, hows this improve the article? Especially since it doesn't make any claim to "expert" status at all? (now do you see where OR is beginning to take you?) ] (]) 06:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::: Stmrlbs, you're being quite disingenuous above. There is a large consensus that . -- ] (]) 06:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::: Now you're being disingenuous by ignoring what I have written. They are obviously related, and I answered your question, but since you have an ulterior motive and wish to use my answer for other purposes, and have done it twice now, including putting words in my mouth which I don't believe, I see no point in attempting to answer you again. You should have just answered my question to begin with, instead of leading us on a wild goose chase. This tactic reminds me of a another user, one who can't stick to the point. You originally made a claim and I asked the following question and made a comment. Stick to it and we'll be fine: | |||
| :::::::::::::: "In what sense has he represented "himself as a<s>n</s> medical expert"? Please give an example. He was considered a medical expert on the subject of psychiatry while testifying in his professional capacity. He testified in numerous cases regarding patients. In other situations he's considered an expert in quackery and health fraud, which isn't exactly the same as a medical expert, but which often, but not always, requires extensive medical knowledge, which he unquestionably possesses, in common with many other MDs. Note that being a medical expert in court doesn't even require that one is a licensed medical professional. There are experts who testify in court proceedings on medical subjects who aren't even MDs, much less board certified. The establishment of such expertise is apparently a matter subject to other criteria than the mere possession of a medical degree or board certification. | |||
| :::::::::::::: Just answer the question: "In what sense has he represented "himself as a<s>n</s> medical expert"? Please give an example." I'm only asking so I can determine what you mean by "medical expert". We need to be on the same page, and THEN move forward. -- ] (]) 06:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::: Fyslee, I gave you a perfectly good example of Barrett representing himself as an expert on his own website. It is not my problem if you don't like it.. but I think a neutral 3rd party would agree that Barrett is making statements about his expertise on that page. | |||
| ::::::::::::::: You are also assuming bad faith by saying that I'm leading you on a wild good chase and have an ulterior motives. As for the statement out of the blue that I remind you of someone else and "can't stick to the point", I don't know who you think I am, but if you try a tactic of alluding that I am some person that you've had problems with before, and make it part of this argument, I will take it to Misplaced Pages Admin. | |||
| ::::::::::::::: You asked to see an example of where Barrett claimed he was an expert, and I gave it to you. You seem to want me to allude to court cases.. I don't think that is necessary. He says enough on his own website to make that statement. | |||
| ::::::::::::::: ] (]) 07:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::: No, no, and no. Once again you're changing your original wording. What you provided didn't help, since he nowhere uses the expression "medical expert". He doesn't make that claim there, but you claim he does claim to be a "medical expert". That's a very special expression with a limited use. Just stick to your original point and you won't get into trouble. You used a term "medical expert", not just "expert", even stating that he ''"made his name by representing himself as an medical expert."'' | |||
| :::::::::::::::: Please provide an example of him doing THAT. What you provided shows him claiming to be an "expert in medical communications", not a "medical expert". I did make a point (he didn't) that he "was considered a medical expert on the subject of psychiatry while testifying in his professional capacity," and that was never considered a problem, and his lack of board certification was never a problem. The rest of my comment makes it clear that his medical knowledge and experience are sufficient to give him the proper starting point to make ''the types of judgments he makes''. And when that comes short in some situations, as it inevitably will, he has a host of other professional friends and specialists, including board certified ones and Nobel laureates, whom he can draw upon for help. That's why Quackwatch is far more than Barrett. BTW, "in 1986, he was awarded honorary membership in the American Dietetic Association", so they considered him an expert on that subject. | |||
| :::::::::::::::: He's considered an ''expert in quackery and health fraud'' (my words), and we have plenty of RS that establish that fact. THAT is his unquestioned area of expertise. If you want to claim expertise for him, then THAT is it, and he's often considered the world's most notable expert on those subjects. When it comes to the subject of him being used as a RS, it isn't his own opinion of himself that cinches the point for us, but the opinion of other RS, and they certainly do that! He's in very good company, and none of them even mention his lack of board certification, since that isn't necessary for what he does. It's irrelevant. Raising the bar too high only creates a straw man for you to criticize. That's not fair or right. | |||
| :::::::::::::::: Now if you are really going to continue to belabor this point, stick to documenting your own statement that he ''"made his name by representing himself as an medical expert."'' Find a statement where he does THAT, and let's look at it together. Since this discussion has long since had little relevance to improving the article, but is rather you misusing this talk page to criticize Barrett, you are welcome to come to my talk page with your evidence. If you don't have evidence of him "representing himself as an medical expert", then I suggest it's a straw man which you have been using. It has been used by others, but I've never seen the claim documented. -- ] (]) 13:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::: Miriam Webster's definition of EXPERT: | |||
| ::::::::::::::::: <blockquote> having, involving, or displaying special skill or knowledge derived from training or experience</blockquote> | |||
| ::::::::::::::::: Fyslee, if the training and experience needed to be an 'expert' on Quackery and Health Fraud is not science and medicine (and law, now that you bring fraud as a field that Barrett is an expert in), then what ''is'' the training and experience needed? | |||
| ::::::::::::::::: ] (]) 02:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::: You haven't documented your claim yet. Get busy. I'm a skeptic and you have made a questionable claim. You must document it or drop it and any line of reasoning based on it. | |||
| :::::::::::::::::: As to your question above (about "expert", not "medical expert"), you know the answer, and I'm not going to answer it for you, especially when you for the third time attempt to put words in my mouth (I definitely don't agree that it "is not science and medicine (and law,..." Are you a Scientologist? You don't seem to be able to stick to the subject, but insist on twisting things in a very obvious manner. You aren't even sneaky about it. -- ] (]) 05:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::: I've documented my claim. And I'm tired of your insinuations that I'm a puppet (scientology/"remind me of someone else"). I've started a new section to start fresh as this discussion is going nowhere. | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::: --] (]) 02:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::::: No, you haven't documented your claim. Read your pricise wording. You haven't emailed me either. This is indeed going nowhere, and the hat is standard practice for this type of situation. Our comments are still here. -- ] (]) 04:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::::: Please tell me what you think this situation is and where it says an editor (not an admin) can just hat a whole conversation with other people's comments without notifying the other people involved. I do not want my comments hidden, and you never talked to me before you did this. | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::::: As far as emailing, if you have something to say to me, say it to me on my Talk page. That, I know, is standard practice. | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::::: --] (]) 05:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::::::: I want to get to the bottom of this and have started a thread ]. This discussion is personal and circular, which violates ], which is why I put a hat on it. That's standard practice here. END OF DISCUSSION HERE. -- ] (]) 17:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::::::: this conversation is also continued ] and ] | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::::::: --]|] 03:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Please respect WP:BLP and WP:BATTLE. Editors can and do get blocked for repeatedly violating them. Seems to happen a lot with Barrett-related articles, where editors try to bring disputes and conflicts from outside Misplaced Pages. | |||
| ::::::There has been extremely long and thorough discussions on the board certification issues. The only editor contributing here that may not be aware of ] is Verbal. --] (]) 21:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: It looks like this mediation was never resolved? this from the documentation on the mediation: ''"Barrett contends that he has never tried to hide this information. Offering this info at Misplaced Pages was Barrett showing how open he was with this information."'' | |||
| ::::::::This is another reason that this is not a case of WP:BLP. | |||
| ::::::::] (]) 22:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: No, the mediation was never resolved. That's irrelevant. What is relevant is that it lists multiple policies and guidelines that are violated with every attempt to include this information. Most important of them, and the one most strictly enforced, is WP:BLP. | |||
| ::::::::: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." - WP:BLP. | |||
| :::::::::The material is most definitely contentious, given that it's used to attack him. So, yes, it is a BLP issue. | |||
| :::::::::The material has never been sourced by an independent, reliable source. Instead, when editors have actually offered sources, they all come from poor sources that are attacks on Barrett from people looking to defame him. So yes, it is a BLP issue. --] (]) 22:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: Ronz, my source was the - the American Board of Medical Specialties (recognized as the "gold standard" in physician certification). This is a reputable, reliable source. Stephen Barrett has said himself that he has never tried to hide this. So.. why are you? | |||
| :::::::::: actually.. I think this should go to arbitration. I think an unbiased 3rd party should decide | |||
| :::::::::: ] (]) 23:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::: Arbitration would not be a bad idea. Perhaps it will have better results this time. -- <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> 01:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::"my source was the ABMC" Yes, I looked. This tactic of trying to introduce the material has been tried and failed. Without a source demonstrating that this information is important, knowing that this information has been used to attack Barret, it's a BLP violation. Placing it in the lead section is especially problematic. Personal arguments and insistence is not reason to include the information, but rather an additional reason not to include the information per WP:NPOV and WP:OR. --] (]) 17:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Another discussion on this has been going on since February here: ]. Again, Verbal appears to be the only editor unaware of this discussion. --] (]) 21:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : If you are one of the editors who are in favor of excluding the factual information regarding Barrett's lack of Board Certification from this article but you also are in support of the inclusion of JSE not appearing in the Web of Science at that article, please discuss why. What's the differences between the sources, the information to be included and the article topics, and how is this relevent to your different feelings for including/excluding material in each article? -- <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> 01:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC) <small>Since this question was not answered here, I have reposted it below in its own subsection.</small> | |||
| ::The Board certification has been discussed at length but I will repeat my reasons for why it should be left out. At the time that Dr. Barrett was an active doctor, board certification was not at all common practice. and This was discussed A search of the achives will probably find more discussions. I also found this. As for this, Barrett has been retired for a long time so I would think this wouldn't have him in it. Just for the record, I too lurk Levine's talkpage and saw the multiple discussions that went on without comments from me. I say leave it out still. It's not important for his time and can be a possible issue with ] because it is used to damage the doctors reputation. I am now out of here again. I do not want to participate in the same old arguments and the behaviors this article always seems to bring out. Thanks for listening though to my input. Oh, as to Levine's question above I have no comment at this time because I haven't a clue what it is about, sorry --]] 10:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Probably should be asked why is it notable? Then after we sift out the original research - we are left where we have been for several months. ] (]) 06:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Crohnie Gal, your links are to good studies on Board Certification, but I'm not quite sure why you think they support your point? Both links are different prints of the same study: , and this study concludes that: | |||
| ::: <blockquote>The results of this study suggests that most recent graduates of residency training programs who attempt the ABPN process are likely to become board certified, and the majority will do so by passing both components on the first attempt.</blockquote> | |||
| ::: As far as to the percentage of psychiatrists that were board certified at the time Barrett was in practice, I have seen Barrett's comments on that, but not much else. So.. imo, this is to be taken with a grain of salt without some stats to back it up. | |||
| ::: Again, as far as damaging Barrett's reputation, I'm talking about the phrase "but was not board certified". The sentence | |||
| :::<blockquote>"Barrett is a 1957 graduate of the and completed his psychiatry in 1961."</blockquote> | |||
| ::: would be changed to: | |||
| ::: <blockquote>Barrett is a 1957 graduate of the and completed his psychiatry in 1961, but was not board certified.</blockquote> | |||
| ::: That's it. It is a fact, and it is appropriate given what Barrett is notable for, and he has said himself, that he has never tried to hide this fact. | |||
| ::: --] (]) 23:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| Just so no editors are left out, Ronz seems to want to discuss the mediation on my talk page, too - here: ] | |||
| ] (]) 07:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Question === | |||
| If you are one of the editors who are in favor of excluding the factual information regarding Barrett's lack of Board Certification from this article but you also are in support of the inclusion of JSE not appearing in the Web of Science at that article, please discuss why. What's the differences between the sources, the information to be included and the article topics, and how is this relevent to your different feelings for including/excluding material in each article? -- <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> 23:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I have not taken a stand either way on the board certification issue and don't intend to do so now. However, one obvious difference between these two situations is that Barrett is a ] while the ''Journal of Scientific Exploration'' is not. Thus, ] applies to Barrett but not to the ''Journal''. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 23:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: Thank you for the entirely valid response, MastCell. From BLP: ''When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.'' That Barrett is not Board Certified is '''sourced''', it is '''neutral''' (provided that we are not using this material to make any conclusions), and given the nature of the subject's notability it is certainly '''on-topic'''. In terms of privacy, let's remember that the subject himself came to this very discussion page to confirm that he had not passed one-half of his board certification exam and has never retaken the exam. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 00:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : As far as the validity of the 2 sources, ABMS vs Web of Science, the ABMS Board Certification is a well defined type of classification, in that it is clearly defined what a person needs to do to get certified, and the information is publicly accessible. The Web of Science is not so clearly defined.. How does a publication get into the Web of Science? I was surprised to find out the Economist is not in the Web of Science (the Social Sciences Citation Index) and yet this is a very reputable publication (and used as a reference by news media, etc.). Daniel B. Klein, Economist, and chief editor of ], wrote a paper on the Web of Science selection process , and said this: | |||
| :<blockquote>''Over the years ISI has issued various statements about how journals are selected for inclusion, usually mentioning many factors. But these statements are scanty and noncommittal. No single factor is sufficient, but many are presented as important or even necessary. However, examination of the journal lists and other forms of probing reveal that many of the criteria that seemed to be necessary are not, in fact, necessary. ISI has not even seen fit to issue statements specific to the diverse indices, such as Science Citation Index, Social Science Citation Index, and the Arts and Humanities Citation Index, where numerous basic differences would seem to call for criteria tailored to the rubric covered. Thus it is no wonder that ISI receives so many inquiries asking for clarification of the process. It is also noteworthy that the people chiefly interested in discerning the criteria, namely journal editors and publishers, are people disinclined to question or criticize ISI. Like pharmaceutical companies seeking approval from the Food and Drug Administration, the parties most likely to have first-hand knowledge of the process, including its disappointments, are those least likely to make noise about it. So far as I know, there has been no scholarly inquiry, examination, or criticism of ISI’s journal selection practices'' | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| : So, I think the Web of Science is a much weaker source, because of its lack of clear definition of what it means to be included in the index (other than status), and the fact that the information is not publicly accessible (from what I could ascertain. | |||
| : that being said, I certainly think that if the editors hold that the negative, exclusion from the Web of Science is a valid source, then definitely, exclusion from ABMS is a valid source. Plus, like Levine2112 pointed out, the statement from Barrett himself. | |||
| : ] (]) 00:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::So where are the sources that say that this is notable? Otherwise it's just an exercise in OR. ] (]) 02:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: IIRC, Barrett did not come here to "confirm" the matter, but to straighten out the libelous way in which the fact was being used by ] and his supporters here at Misplaced Pages. Since Misplaced Pages's talk pages are not RS, we can't use them. The other source, TB's twisted account of something that may or may not have occurred in a court case (and we don't even have the transcript!), is certainly not a RS. TB is notorious for fabricating things, often creating very detailed but bogus conspiracy theories. -- ] (]) 05:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@Shot info - go read WP:N and tell us how it applies here? ] (]) 20:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Go read ], then ], finally ] particularly the sections on primary, secondary and tertiary sources - once you have these sources they tell us the notability of a particular point. If you cannot get the sources to show something is worth including (ie/ "notable") then it isn't worth including (per ]). This is editing101 here but I'm glad you asked. Also, perhaps you should (re)read ] and then perhaps you might get an understanding why more experienced editors know that posts here on Misplaced Pages talk pages are not sources to be used in Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 00:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::OH come on! I just "(re)read WP:V" as you linked, and came across WP:SELFPUB. Maybe YOU should go (re)read WP:V including WP:SELFPUB. When u say "notability of a particular point "Within Misplaced Pages, notability refers to whether or not a topic merits its own article." but we're not talking ABOUT whether "a topic merits its own article"! But thanx for the "shot"gun approach to alphabet soup policies, u may as well have put WP:X, WP:Y, and WP:Z in there too ] (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 00:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :::::::Not our proplem if you you don't understand policy. Maybe you should just try harder? ] (]) 00:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@Fyslee - WP:SPS says that we could use barrett's posts as a source if we could confirm it was barrett ] (]) 20:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Take it to ] and get a decision. I have never had any objection to including the material IF it could be sourced properly and included in accordance with our policies. The attempts that have been made here to include the information have always been motivated by a desire to frame the information as a criticism, which isn't valid. It has never been an issue, and no RS has ever commented on it or raised it as an issue. Get a decision at RS/N, since this would be a highly unique and unusual matter. 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. -- ] (]) 00:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Question about Edit == | |||
| Concerning I can understand why Joel Kauffman's review of Quackwatch should be on the[REDACTED] entry for Quackwatch, rather than here... | |||
| However, as per Ronz's comment that this has been discussed before, there are 13 archives of discussion here. Can someone tell me where it was decided that a partial quote of Stephen Barrett's answer to the question of bias on his site is supposed to be more "objective" than the full answer that Stephen Barret gave and has up on his website. I would like to read where this was discussed, decided, and by whom. | |||
| thanks. | |||
| ] (]) 23:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Time to ignore those who want to use this page as a battleground== | |||
| ]: "Misplaced Pages is a volunteer community, and does not require its users to give any more time and effort than they wish. Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other users." | |||
| Let's not get sucked into letting editors once again use this talk page to attack Barrett and try to Wikilawyer a way into introducing these attacks into the article. If editors want to add information, the burden of evidence is on them, per WP:V, to provide sources. Because these are WP:BLP issues, these need to be high quality references. The information should also adhere to all other Misplaced Pages policies, especially WP:NPOV and WP:OR. | |||
| If these editors continue to disrupt this page, I'm sure we can find an admin to apply arbcom enforcement here. --] (]) 02:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: Yes, Ronz, I agree we need a 3rd party in here. | |||
| :: --] (]) 23:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm sorry to say but yes this is necessary at this point. The latest edits are getting personal about the editor not the edits. (I'm not posting links because I don't feel it is necessary to stir the pot.) I think the questions that have been asked have been answered now and in the past. I gave some links as requested, to some of the conversations in the archives but no response to them other than from Shot who makes the point about notability. I think it's best to give this a rest with what is going on here and at the RS notice board. Please, everyone, take a breath and a break, I am. --]] 12:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: yes, I did not appreciate Fyslee/BullRangifer implying that I am a sockpuppet/meatpuppet by bringing in and saying . This is an ] and certainly not in good faith. | |||
| ::--] (]) 23:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| 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> | |||
| to make it NPOV in the way the 3rd parties specified. | |||
| --] (]) 02:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == External links modified == | |||
| :Disagree - but this has all been said before - need the tertiary sources supporting why it's important. ] (]) 22:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
| : 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) | |||
| 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: | |||
| :what policy says we need 3rd party sources "supporting why it's important"? ] (]) 21:25, 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}}). | |||
| :: ]. - ] <small>(])</small> 21:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{sourcecheck|checked=false}} | |||
| ::: 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) | |||
| Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 02:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::: We've been through exact issue before. NPOV applies. For those who don't want to check the archives: | |||
| ::::# There are an infinite number of facts that apply to Barrett. We only report those that have ]. | |||
| ::::# This argument makes the assumption that a "fact" is not a viewpoint. However, here on Misplaced Pages, we build this encyclopedia based upon what we can verify. | |||
| :::: "Facts" have no special status. See ], "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." --] (]) 23:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Defamation == | |||
| ::::: 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. | |||
| Why nothing about Barrett’s failed defamation suit against chiropractor Tedd Koren? It is relevant to his work. ] (]) 04:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: 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. | |||
| == Psychiatric boards == | |||
| ::::: 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! | |||
| that Barrett "failed his psychiatric boards.” Is there a credible source to substantiate that claim? ] (]) 04:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: 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) | |||
| == Self-Sourced Content == | |||
| ::::::::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) | |||
| 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) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| == Discussions about the status of QW (and thus Barrett) here at Misplaced Pages == | |||
| 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) | |||
| 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: | |||
| : ]: | |||
| : <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) | |||
| * ] | |||
| :: 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. | |||
| * ] | |||
| ] (]) 16:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :: Please don't archive this talk page until all editors are done. | |||
| :: --]|] 08:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Rule 11 Sanctions in "Quackwatch" Libel Case == | |||
| ::: 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) | |||
| 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) | |||
| :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)