Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:35, 23 April 2009

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. This article has had a peer review which is now archived. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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. Sbinfo (talk · contribs) / Barrett, Stephen Barrett, Stephen

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.

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.

Archives----
October 2005 – July 15, 2006 July 20, 2006 – July 27, 2006 July 27, 2006 – Sept. 18, 2006 Sept. 18, 2006 – Oct. 28, 2006 Nov. – Dec. 2006 Jan 2007 Dec 2006 – February 2007 March 2007 – April 2007 April 2007 April 2007 – June 2007 June 2007 – Aug 2007 Aug 2007 – Sept 2007 Sept 2007 – Dec 2007 2008 Jan 2009 –

Board Certification

concerning the edit of adding the Barrett's board certification notice:

1. The "American Board of Medical Specialties" 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 curriculum vitae. As you can see, there is no note of board certification.
2. At Journal of Scientific Exploration just last week, Fyslee said 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.

Stmrlbs (talk) 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 WP:BLP violation. --Ronz (talk) 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. Verbal chat 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.Stmrlbs (talk) 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. Verbal chat 20:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

here.}}

Professional and Educational background is quite pertinent for a person that has made his name by representing himself as an medical expert.

Stmrlbs (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

In what sense has he represented "himself as an 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. -- Fyslee (talk) 20:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

from Barrett's website, Stephen Barrett, M.D., Biographical Sketch:

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.

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.

Stmrlbs (talk) 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 only one notable moment to my knowledge.

No, he's notable because he's outspoken, totally non-politically correct, 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. -- Fyslee (talk) 04:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

While I was writing the above, I see you added some crucial words, 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. -- Fyslee (talk) 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.

Stmrlbs (talk) 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. -- Fyslee (talk) 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 Quackwatch has not been recognized as a reliable source in Misplaced Pages.

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.

Stmrlbs (talk) 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?) Shot info (talk) 06:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Stmrlbs, you're being quite disingenuous above. There is a large consensus that QW is a RS. -- Fyslee (talk) 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 an 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 an 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. -- Fyslee (talk) 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.

Stmrlbs (talk) 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. -- Fyslee (talk) 13:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Miriam Webster's definition of EXPERT:

having, involving, or displaying special skill or knowledge derived from training or experience

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?

Stmrlbs (talk) 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. -- BullRangifer (talk) 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.

--Stmrlbs (talk) 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. -- BullRangifer (talk) 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.

--Stmrlbs (talk) 05:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I want to get to the bottom of this and have started a thread here. This discussion is personal and circular, which violates WP:TALK, which is why I put a hat on it. That's standard practice here. END OF DISCUSSION HERE. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

this conversation is also continued here and here

--strmlbs|talk 03:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I wish to note here that I think Fyslee/BullRangifer and I did come to an agreement here that Barrett's background in medicine, science, and law is very important to Barrett's expertise in quackery and health fraud.

--strmlbs|talk 01:15, 20 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 Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-04-05_Stephen_Barrett is Verbal. --Ronz (talk) 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.

Stmrlbs (talk) 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. --Ronz (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Ronz, my source was the "ABMS" - 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

Stmrlbs (talk) 23:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration would not be a bad idea. Perhaps it will have better results this time. -- Levine2112 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. --Ronz (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Another discussion on this has been going on since February here: User_talk:Levine2112#question_about_a_past_mediation. Again, Verbal appears to be the only editor unaware of this discussion. --Ronz (talk) 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? -- Levine2112 01:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Since this question was not answered here, I have reposted it below in its own subsection.

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 here and other archives but this is the first one I found. A search of the achives will probably find more discussions. I also found this. As for "American Board of Medical Specialties" 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 WP:BLP 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 --CrohnieGal 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. Shot info (talk) 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: Achieving Board Certification in Psychiatry: A Cohort Study, and this study concludes that:

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.

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

"Barrett is a 1957 graduate of the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and completed his psychiatry residency in 1961."

would be changed to:

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.

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.

--Stmrlbs (talk) 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: User_talk:Stmrlbs#Talk:Stephen_Barrett Stmrlbs (talk) 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? -- Levine2112 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 living person while the Journal of Scientific Exploration is not. Thus, presumption in favor of privacy applies to Barrett but not to the Journal. MastCell  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. -- Levine2112 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 Econ Journal Watch, wrote a paper on the Web of Science selection process "The Social Science Citation Index: A Black Box—with an Ideological Bias?", and said this:

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

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.

Stmrlbs (talk) 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. Shot info (talk) 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 TB 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. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

@Shot info - go read WP:N and tell us how it applies here? 70.71.22.45 (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Go read WP:NPOV, then WP:OR, finally WP:RS 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 WP:WEIGHT). This is editing101 here but I'm glad you asked. Also, perhaps you should (re)read WP:V 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. Shot info (talk) 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 70.71.22.45 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC).

Not our proplem if you you don't understand policy. Maybe you should just try harder? Shot info (talk) 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 70.71.22.45 (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Take it to RS/N 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. -- Fyslee (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Time to ignore those who want to use this page as a battleground

WP:BATTLE: "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. --Ronz (talk) 02:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Ronz, I agree we need a 3rd party in here.

--Stmrlbs (talk) 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. --CrohnieGal 12:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

yes, I did not appreciate Fyslee/BullRangifer implying that I am a sockpuppet/meatpuppet by bringing in oblique comments about scientology and saying "you remind me of someone else" in a deprecatory manner. This is an Ad hominem attack and certainly not in good faith.

--Stmrlbs (talk) 23:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, it appears that some editors are just using this page as a battleground. --Ronz (talk) 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:

Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_1#Stephen_Barrett: look at the opinions of Wjhonson (one of the Wikipedians in the Mediation Cabal ), and Piotrus who is a Misplaced Pages Administrator. Basically, they both said:

"He is not board certified (citation), but he responds by stating that 'It is not necessary to be board-certified to practice psychiatry'"

in addition, Piotrus came here to add his comments to the talk discussion going on here at the time here:Talk:Stephen_Barrett/Archive_10#Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources.2FNoticeboard 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:

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.

to make it NPOV in the way the 3rd parties specified. --Stmrlbs (talk) 02:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree - but this has all been said before - need the tertiary sources supporting why it's important. Shot info (talk) 22:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree - WP:3PO is a valid and important part of WP:DR. Personally, I think the "why it is important" is rather obvious. -- Levine2112 02:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

what policy says we need 3rd party sources "supporting why it's important"? 70.71.22.45 (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:PROMINENCE. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

That Stephen Barrett is not Board Certified is not a viewpoint. It is a fact (a well documented one at that). I don't see how WP:PROMINENCE applies. -- Levine2112 22:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

We've been through exact issue before. NPOV applies. For those who don't want to check the archives:

1. There are an infinite number of facts that apply to Barrett. We only report those that have WP:PROMINENCE.
2. 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 WP:V, "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." --Ronz (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Levine2112, you glibly state that it's a "well documented" fact. That's exactly the problem. It's NOT at all "well documented"! That it's a fact isn't questioned, but the sourcing is a big obstacle. The only sources that have mentioned it at all are hate sites that are blacklisted here. TTBOMK, no V & RS have mentioned it at all. It has always been a non-issue in real life and in cyberspace. That those who hate and libel Barrett have mentioned it, and that editors here who feel the same way do so, doesn't really cut it.

I'll repeat what I wrote above (with a slight tweak for relevance here): Take it to RS/N and get a decision. I have never had any objection to including the material IF it could be sourced properly and included in accordance with our policies. The attempts that have been made here to include the information have always been motivated by a desire to frame the information as a criticism, which isn't valid.

It has never been an issue, and no RS has ever commented on it at all, much less raised it as an issue. Get a decision at RS/N, since it would be a highly unique and unusual matter to use Barrett's very short talk page comment(s) as a source. In fact, it would require a policy change!

Reliable sourcing is required for nearly all material here, especially controversial stuff. The only way this information has been published was as a part of a very dubious source, so we don't have any context other than that. We need a reliable second or third party source. So go for it. I am just as interested as you in finding out what the community says about this. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

We've already been to RSN before and there definitely was a consensus from third-parties that the sources were reliable enough to state that Barrett is not board certified. -- Levine2112 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). Shot info (talk) 03:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

An editor claimed there are reliable sources 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? QuackGuru (talk) 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 behavior 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? -- Levine2112 17:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Please show and not assert which references are reliable per WP:RS and WP:V. 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. QuackGuru (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

wow wow wow... go see the thread that he linked from RS/N an u will SEE that he doesn't have to demonstrate this is relevant to Barrett because there was consensus at RS/N that to mention the fact that he is not board certified we only need those primary sources and that YES we can mention that he is not board certified 70.71.22.45 (talk) 00:41, 21 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. --Ronz (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the way admins and the leaders of Misplaced Pages want it, to continue the discussion. QuackGuru (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we can archive the talk page now. QuackGuru (talk) 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. --Ronz (talk) 01:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Summary

I thought I would summarize where we are.

• As I stated at the beginning of this section, two 3rd party sources, one an administrator and one from the Mediation Cabal, said that they didn't feel there was a problem with adding this:

"He is not board certified (citation), but he responds by stating that 'It is not necessary to be board-certified to practice psychiatry'"

• Both 3rd party sources said this should not be a WP:BLP violation
• This fact is verified by reliable sources (a couple being from the quackwatch site 1).
• Professional and Educational background is very important to Barrett's expertise in quackery and health fraud.

--strmlbs|talk 05:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, and in the meantime to show notability, please supply the source(s) that supports "Professional and Educational background is very important to Barrett's expertise in quackery and health fraud". If there are no sources - then there is no reason to insert the information - as articulated by many above and also over at RS/N. Shot info (talk) 06:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Notability (WP:N) has nothing to do with article content. Of course Barrett's professional and education background is important to what makes him notable. If not, then why do we include information such as: "Barrett is a 1957 graduate of the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and completed his psychiatry residency in 1961. In 1967 and 1968 he followed part of a correspondence course in American Law and Procedure at La Salle Extension University (Chicago)"? -- Levine2112 06:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You keep refering back to WP:N knowing full well this is a WP:OR issue. You know this (having been engaged previously in the discussion over the years), so why do you keep on about it? Shot info (talk) 06:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned "notability" because you stated above that we must "show notability". There is not WP:OR violation per the consensus at WP:RSN where the editors stated that the sources which we were using were sufficient to merit inclusion of the material in question. I only keep on about it because I am amazed by the gross WP:OWN abuse editors are exhibiting here seemingly in an effort to whitewash this article. But, if you think about it, the text which strmlbs is proposing is not a criticism, as some editors here are trying to paint it. It is a neutral expression of a verified information which even allows for Barrett's own expressed point of view on it. -- Levine2112 07:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Please show and not assert your view. QuackGuru (talk) 07:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

What does that mean exactly? What view are you asking me to show which I or someone else here hasn't shown ad nauseum only to fall on deaf ears? Please be as specific as possible in your request. -- Levine2112 07:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I already explained this. Please show how this is relevant to Barrett. QuackGuru (talk) 07:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This is what you explained: Please show and not assert which references are reliable per WP:RS and WP:V. Also demonstrate how this is relevant to Barrett. Now then, if you read the post to WP:RSN you will see the answer to the first part. There, there was a consensus that the sources were reliable enough to verify and include the information that Barrett is not board certified. So that takes care of WP:RS and WP:V. The second half is where you ask me to demonstrate how this is relevant to Barrett. Well, it is as relevant to Barrrett as is the rest of his verifiable medical and legal education/credentials, which are enumerated in this article. It is relevant to Barrett because he is dispensing medical advice on his website and thus his medical credentials are without a doubt significant. It is relevant to Barrett because it has been a subject of at least one lawsuit. It is relevant to Barrett because he himself came to Misplaced Pages to set the story straight - that he took the board cert. exam once, failed one half of it, and never re-took the exam.

Now it's your turn. How can you possibly prattle on that I have not shown my view? How can you assert that RS and V haven't been met when the consensus at RSN disagrees with you? How can you believe that Dr. Barrett's lack of board certification is not relevant when he dispensing medical advice to the masses, when it has been a subject of at least one lawsuit, when Barrett himself felt compelled to come to Misplaced Pages to set the record straight on this matter? Please don't just give me another litany of alphabet soup. It's time for you to show and not assert your view. Thanks. -- Levine2112 07:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

If Professional background and education has nothing to do with what makes Barrett notable, then I think all references to his background and education should be taken out. Perhaps you don't need education and experience in anything to be an expert in quackery and health fraud. I don't think the rest of the world will agree, but if that is what everyone is saying, then I think it should apply to the whole article - positive and negative. And if this is a WP:OR violation, then I think we should go through the rest of the references and those that point to Barrett's site should not be allowed.

--strmlbs|talk 07:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

That did not establish how this is relevant to Barrett. QuackGuru (talk) 07:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Even though relevance has clearly been shown as nauseum, I am still curious - which policy (or policies), in your opinion, demonstrates that that relevance of such information needs to be established? Please quote directly from the policy (or policies) those sentences which you believe are applicable to this discussion. -- Levine2112 07:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to know this, too. I looked and couldn't find a policy which stated this either.

--strmlbs|talk 07:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh man come on! I totally agree that it is obvious that this is 'relevant to Barrett' perhaps you should show how it ISN'T relevent to Barrett 70.71.22.45 (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain how this is relevant. According to previous comments, editors think they can add irrelevant text to this article unless I find policy that states an article is based on relevant facts. This is a bit odd. Let's use a little common sense. QuackGuru (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I explain quite explicitly above how this is relevant. There's nothing odd about it. But I will re-ask my question to you: How can you believe that Dr. Barrett's lack of board certification is not relevant when he dispenses medical advice to the masses, when it has been a subject of at least one lawsuit, and when Barrett himself felt compelled to come to Misplaced Pages to set the record straight on this matter? Common sense, you say? Common sense seems to dictate that Barrett's lack of board certification is quite relevant. -- Levine2112 19:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The BC thing is not relevant because no sources have been presented to demonstrate the relevancy. QuackGuru (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The consensus at RSN disagrees with you. -- Levine2112 19:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

There never was consensus and no sources have been presented to demonstrate the relevancy. If you disagree then provide the source which demonstrates the relevancy. QuackGuru (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Please re-read the discussion at RSN. The consensus is clear and "relevancy" is not an issue. Please demonstrate otherwise or stop with the WP:IDHT defense. -- Levine2112 19:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I requested a reference and asked anyone to demonstrate the relevancy. It has not been shown how it is relevant. QuackGuru (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You have been provided with ample references per a consensus at RSN and told exactly why this is relevant in the posts just above. Your denial of these facts are absurd and childish. As such, please note that I will simply ignore you until your comments show maturity.

Does anyone else disagree that reliable sources have been presented and confirmed by RSN and that relevancy has been adequately demonstrated (even though not expressly required)? -- Levine2112 20:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

If you think it is relevant and the sources are relieble then why you did not add it to the article. I assume it is because you think there is no consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 00:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Levine2112, you are repeating here and in edit summaries things you have claimed before, and they are misleading. You state that:

1. "he dispenses medical advice to the masses,"

• No. He exposes false medical advice given by quacks and frauds. To do that he must mention current medical knowledge. The contrast must be made clear. Dispensing any advice would be an inconsequential byproduct of exposing quackery. There is nothing unusual or criticizable in Barrett's manner of doing that, and board certification is totally irrelevant to that matter. He's certainly not doing what Mercola does, which is indeed "dispensing medical advice to the masses" for a huge profit.

2. "when it has been a subject of at least one lawsuit,"

• No. Where has his board certification status been the "subject of" a lawsuit? It was mentioned in a lawsuit, but was not the subject of the lawsuit.

3. "Barrett himself felt compelled to come to Misplaced Pages to set the record straight on this matter"

• He did not come here to announce the fact or make sure it was included. Barrett set the record straight because this fact was being misused on the talk page. His exposure of its libelous use shouldn't be used as an argument for using it.

His board certification status has never been relevant in any context outside of being misused as part of libel. That is its only "relevance", and we don't use libelous settings as RS. During his whole career it was an irrelevant issue, and even afterwards it has no relevance to anything he does, especially since he isn't actively in practice. If we had RS which discussed it and gave it some relevance in the real world, that would be an entirely different matter. Then we'd know what degree of weight to give it and how to frame its inclusion. I almost wish we had such a source. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Does Barrett dispense medical advice to the masses? Let's see. Through his 20 or 30 websites he advises the public on which kinds of doctors and treatments to avoid and which ones to trust. I'm no doctor, but that sure sounds as though he is dispensing medical advice to the masses. And as such, board certification is entirely relevant - this even according to the subject himself!
2. Was Barrett's lack of board certification a subject of at least one lawsuit? Please read for yourself. It sure seems like his lack of board certification is mentioned an awful lot. Remember, I said a subject, not the subject. Fyslee/Brangifer is the one who changed my words, so who is really being misleading here?
3. Why did Barrett feel compelled to come to Misplaced Pages to tell us the full story of how he took and failed his board certification exam and decided never to take them again? Does it really matter why? The facts are: he came here, he verified that he is not board certified because he failed half of the exam. We are not using this nor any other source to cite a libellous statement; for to be libellous the statement has to be false. This is not the case. That Barrett is not board certified is clearly a true statement, verified by several sources including ABMS (a source which Barrett himself states is a good place to find out whether or not a doctor is board certified) and court records.

Fyslee/Brangifer, above you state that "If we had RS which discussed it (Barrett's lack of board certification) and gave it some relevance in the real world, that would be an entirely different matter." You are neglecting the fact that we have a consensus from third-parties at RSN that indeed we do have sources reliable enough to present the information. So what's left? What else can you present to keep this verified and relevant information out of this article? -- Levine2112 07:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The above is just OR in it's purest sense. To date nobody has provided any source that substanciates the passage and shows it's relevance to the subject of the article - instead relying on the sythesis of 2 or more sources to produce the result (or even worse - relying on SPS material). There was no consensus at RS/N - only those who don't wish to hear that continue to say there is. And there is no consensus here for inclusion. Moral is - get a source and take your OR elsewhere. Shot info (talk) 07:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to include this irrelevant factoid. He's not a registered homeopath either, nor a certified Russian translator. Nor can he speak latin, but that doesn't stop him being able to use latin terms. It is irrelevant to list qualifications that do not effect his status that he doesn't have, and is an implicit and uninformed smear. Verbal chat 08:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

But wait Verbal - you cannot be part of the new consensus because of the <koff> consensus at RS/N overrides you - why - well because I believe it to be so. What do you mean that there is no consensus at RS/N - of course there is - let me repeat this slowly for you - there ... is ... because ... I ... said ... so. QED. Shot info (talk) 08:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

What exactly are you saying, Shot_info when you keep saying this is OR? Are you saying a court document on Barrett's site is not a reliable source? For what reason?

--strmlbs|talk 17:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:OR states:

To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Misplaced Pages editors.

Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources.

--Ronz (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep OR101 - Levine knows this, but he's played this game for several years now so we have become used to him. But for other editors, it's a clear sign of ignorance of Misplaced Pages's policies. Shot info (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

Um, the Fonorow suit, for instance, directly relates to Barrett and confirms that Barrett is not board certified.

All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Misplaced Pages editors.

Yes, the Fonorow source is a primary court document, however we are not using it to make any interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims. We are using it to verify a specific statement which the source suppports sans interpretation, analysis, or synthesis.

Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources.

Again, the Fonorow source by itself states/verifies that Barrett is not board certified. The only reason why we have presented so many alternate sources to verify this information is because you have demanded such secondary sources (even though the consensus at RSN already supported inclusion - essentially we've been jumping through hoops for you for quite sometime and every time we successfully jump through the hoop you claim "I didn't see it, do it again.") Shot info, our patience for your incivility is petering out. Please bow out or ditch the attitude. -- Levine2112 23:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Levine, (re)read OR - then include the source that makes it notable (actually you have a problem with that word so let me use another that others have used - relevant) to the subject at hand - without your OR (which you persist - yet again above - and you wonder why editors don't listen to you). There was no consensus at RS/N regardless of how many times you assert it. For somebody who likes quoting WP:IDHT, perhaps a mirror is needed? As for you running out of patience - well you know where to go to try to get a consensus. In the mean time perhaps you should realise that your arguments didn't hold water in the past and continue not to hold water today. Shot info (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not presenting any OR. I am presenting a source which discusses the subject and his board certification. There is nothing original about the research. It's one source and it deal with Barrett and his lack of board certification. And yes, there was a clear consensus for inclusion at RSN. Third party editors were giving advice on how to phrase the sentence to be included, in fact. If you really believe that every piece of information in this article requires a seconday source which states, "This information is relevant to the subject because..." then be prepared for this article to shrink down considerably. There is a lot of information on this article which is only being sources to primary sources such as the Quackwatch website. Do you really want to remove all of that too? -- Levine2112 23:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You are - remember it's trivia (aka "a minor factoid" something RS/N found as well and numberous editors have pointed out to you in various wordings throughout the talk) - and you have had to go into a looooong explaination of why it isn't trivia. Of course this explaination is your OR - as you haven't a source to say that - you've drawn your conclusions from many sources - you don't have a source that states it (other than your unreliable sources). You know it's OR to draw a greater conclusion from a court case (as we discussed long and hard at BvR). So where are the secondary sources (from reliable organisations of course rather than your normal cadre of Barrett-haters) that draw the conclusions that you are drawing here? Mind you - this has all been said before but I understand you have a new editor to perform for. In the meantime (like all the many times beforehand) you aren't doing your arguments any justice by arguing the same dismissed points again and again. Shot info (talk) 03:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Shot info, please spell out exactly what conclusion I am drawing. Please spell out the research which I am performing which is original. All I am asking to be including in this article is that Barrett is not board certified. This information is plainly verified by the Fonorow lawsuit document which exists on the Quackwatch website. How is this any different from using Barrett's bio on the Quackwatch website to verify his other credentials? You keep accusing me of OR. Please elaborate on your accusation. What research am I performing which is original? -- Levine2112 04:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I have, wheren't you just accusing some people (so, many, other, people) of engaging in what you are doing? Mirror, where's that mirror.... To use the lawsuit information outside the context of the lawsuit, you need sources that say that - and you haven't (other than your Barrett-hate sites). You keep failing to address the trivial nature of this factoid as well - hence the reason you probably are scraping the barrel for sources. Don't worry, this is quite typical for irrelevant information and an indicator thereof. As for your other wikilawyering - maybe you should try some other bios to understand what writing one involves - rather than asking me when I stopped beating my wife? Shot info (talk) 04:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The lawsuit information verifies the information. What's better is that it is reliable under the penalty of the law. There is no policy which I am aware of that says we can only use such information in the context of a lawsuit. That makes no sense. Your argument is extremely weak. -- Levine2112 04:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You're the one failing to provide adaquate sources to convince enough editors to gain consensus. This is your argument failing - not mine. Shot info (talk) 04:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Shot_info, What is OR about "CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT DUPAGE COUNTY, ILLINOIS"?

And, I just read WP:OR. I can't even find the word "notable" or "relevant" in it. So.. I don't know what you are talking about.

--strmlbs|talk 02:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you responding for Levine? Shot info (talk) 02:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Levine needs anyone to respond for him.

--strmlbs|talk 03:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Good, you need don't need a response to your questioning of my answer to Levine then? Glad you've cleared that up. Shot info (talk) 04:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I wonder what the edit count is on this one issue? If I remember correctly, two years ago it was over 1,000 edits, about a third from a single editor. Maybe we're at 1,500 or so now? If so, does that change anything? --Ronz (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

No.

--strmlbs|talk 02:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't Ronz, didn't in the past, why should anything change :-) Shot info (talk) 02:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else find it unbelievable that this argument is still going on? As to the board certification issue, I seem to remember reading on this talk page about two years ago (maybe three) that it was fairly common when he graduated not to be board certified. It seems fairly clear that we cannot use this as a black mark against him by todays standards. It's like comparing apples and oranges. Can't we just get rid of it? Surely his expertise, if any, is judged from his years of experience gained practicing medicine, not from exams at the beginning of his career? David D. (Talk) 03:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the way Misplaced Pages works. Which sources are the most reliable and how is the board certification thing relevant. QuackGuru (talk) 03:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Surely this is not evidence that[REDACTED] works :) As to board certification, it is not relevant. A brief scan of the discussion above seems to confirm that many agree on this point. And those that don't are arguing as if we're in a court of law. Last time I checked we;re not and this should not be about scoring points over commonsense. David D. (Talk) 03:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Barrett is the source of the statement made that it was fairly common when he graduated not to be board certified. I don't think we can say this is exactly an objective statement. There has been no reliable source for any real data about what percentage of psychiatrists were board certified when Barrett was practicing.

--strmlbs|talk 03:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Common sense says if it was important then he would not have had a job. David D. (Talk) 03:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

David said: Common sense says if it (board certification) was important then he (Barrett) would not have had a job.

Then why does Barrett devote a page in his consumer education section Board Certification: What Does It Mean?, where Barrett tells people that the ABMS Verification Service provides a simple way to check whether a doctor has ABMS-recognized certification. Barrett himself is telling people how to check to see if a doctor is board certified. Sure seems to me that Barrett is saying Board Certification is a relevant part of any doctor's background.

--strmlbs|talk 05:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It is now, but back when Barrett graduated (and the ABMS probably didn't exist), it wasn't nearly as important. Only about a third of psychiatrists were board certified, and Barrett was among the majority who weren't, and that lack never caused him any problems. It has never been demonstrated to be relevant for what he did or does. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Barrett is the source of the statement that only a third psychiatrists were board certified - a subjective statement. There has been no reliable source cited for any real data about what percentage of psychiatrists were board certified when Barrett was practicing.

--strmlbs|talk 06:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

With regard to the content you say "Barrett himself is telling people how to check to see if a doctor is board certified". I just read it more completely and what he seemed to emphasis was that people should be aware that not all board exams are equal, i.e. some are not what they seem. But why are we heading down this road of microanalysis of what is a board exam and is it useful? Board certified or not he had a long career in medicine, why would anyone need more to write quackwatch or be an expert in the area? David D. (Talk) 06:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC

I think it is obvious that Board Certification is a relevant part of any doctor's background. I think it is obvious that a person's medical, science, and law background is relevant if they are evaluating quackery and health fraud. This is not microanalysis. This is common sense.

--strmlbs|talk 06:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

From my perspective it looks like there will always be a reason to bring down the reputation of one that disputes certain practices as quackery (not just Barrett). Since we are not here to prosecute why are we doing this? Raking through court files for damning "evidence" from prosecutors is a strange way to source an objective article. And it's even more bizarre when it seems to be some peoples job to ensure such "factoids" (thanks Verbal, that is a good word for this) are inserted no matter what. Remember, this is three years on and it's the same arguments occurring here on this talk page. Are there any of his peers saying he does not represent the consensus view of the medical community? If there was a backlash from that community against his work I might open my eyes, but if all we have are court documents then we're on shakey ground. It is a distorted view from lawyers not from his peers. David D. (Talk) 13:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree. Let's analyze this. We have a factoid that has never been used as other than part of libel against Barrett. We have editors who wish to poison the well against Barrett by promoting that libel, or parts of it, in any manner they can, and they're seeking to include this factoid without proper context. To make this quite plain, we have one major driving force behind this (aided by likeminded editors). Levine2112's hatred of Barrett has been clearly documented by his own statements at Misplaced Pages, and he really should recuse himself from this subject as he effectively acts as TB's meatpuppet here, whether he does it deliberately or not. The libel campaign in the real world is being maintained at Misplaced Pages by him, and this is part of it. It needs to stop.

If we actually had a large section detailing the libel campaign that has been occurring for some years now (and which is unsettled until the coming lawsuit against the main perpetrator is finally decided and finished), we really have no context other than the libel. No matter how it is worded, it will have to be sourced to the libel, which has been repeated and retold by many of Barrett's enemies both here and elsewhere. This is all a very non-NPOV manner of editing. Libel is not a RS. It violates BLP. We would need mainstream, neutral sources which deal with this, and we don't have them. That would change the matter completely, but until then this is SYNTH, OR and BLP violations. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right, Fyslee/Brangifer. Libellous statements are certainly not a reliable sources. However, in this case, I believe that the statement that Barrett is not Board Certified was never found to be libellous. Also, I have no hatred nor animosity toward Barrett. I defy you to document otherwise. I do think that he is has acted unethically (who hasn't?) and I don't put the same confidence in his essays as others here do. But while we are talking about recusing certain editors, don't you think that your COI here has been well documented? Do you really feel that it is okay for you to be here campaigning so much given your relationship with Barrett? -- Levine2112 16:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

See my comment above: "I see no reason to include this irrelevant factoid. He's not a registered homeopath either, nor a certified Russian translator. Nor can he speak latin, but that doesn't stop him being able to use latin terms. It is irrelevant to list qualifications that do not effect his status that he doesn't have, and is an implicit and uninformed smear" There has been no good reason given for including this, the only reasons go against OR and BLP, and are intentionally attempting to mislead the reader. Verbal chat 07:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the many discussions about bc comes to the same consensus, that this factoid is not needed for this article. I suggest that everyone finally close these discussion before there is more heat than light. Tempers are starting to get a little heated at times and nothing is being accomplished. So who's for closing this already? I know I am. If I remember correctly, the lawsuit being used as a ref is the suit that started the mudslinging, wasn't it? Anyways, let's just end this already, pretty please. --CrohnieGal 11:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Stephen Barrett/Archive 13

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. QuackGuru (talk) 02:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Help:Archiving_a_talk_page:

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.

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 were no weren't many discussions at all. so.. I moved the discussions starting in 2008/2009 back, and left the 2007 in the archive.

--strmlbs|talk 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.

Please don't archive this talk page until all editors are done.

--strmlbs|talk 08:51, 18 April 2009 (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. -- BRangifer (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice try, BullRangifer.. implying that I mixed up the order. The reason it was out of order is that

1. Ronz archived just "== Stephen Barrett is falsely represented - why is this? ==" in Jan 2009, so this was placed right after the 2007 archive.
2. Then 2 days ago, Ronz archived just the "Board Certification" section (which was in the middle of the talk page) - without asking anyone, without consensus - just did it. This went after 1.
3. Then.. within 15 minutes! of Ronz's archive, QuackGuru archived the rest of the page - without consensus. This was placed after 2.

No wonder the order was messed up. I come back later.. and the talk page is gone. So, I restored it from the archive as it was in the archive, not realizing it had all been mixed up by the separate archives of Ronz and QuackGuru.

--strmlbs|talk 08:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the archives, creating a new one for the 2008 discussions, and another for the 2009 discussions so far. --Ronz (talk) 03:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Ronz, this does look a lot better, but why do you still have these sections that are here on the current talk page also in archive 15?

--strmlbs|talk 09:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted those sections out of archive 15 which are still currently here on the talk page.

--strmlbs|talk 04:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This talk page has repeatedly being used as a backdoor article. I think all the archives should have a hat. Any objections. QuackGuru (talk) 07:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

yes, I object. The talk page is for discussion.

--strmlbs|talk 07:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You have not objected to my specific proposal. My proposal is not about making any changes to this talk page. Again, does anyone object to my proposal. QuackGuru (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

QuackGuru, can you be more specific as to what your proposal is? Are you talking about hatting the links to the archives here? or going to each archive and hatting the whole archive?

--strmlbs|talk 19:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you hat all the archives. If you are not interested then I could hat the whole archives. QuackGuru (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the archives for this talk page should be treated any differently than the archives for any talk page. One of the main purposes of talk pages is to arrive at consensus and discuss the topic. Differing points of view are normal on talk pages. Why do you think the Barrett pages should have special treatment?

--strmlbs|talk 20:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I explained this already. This talk page has repeatedly being used as a backdoor article. QuackGuru (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You have not defined what you mean by "backdoor article". Regardless, I don't want my comments hatted.. either here, or on the archives.

--strmlbs|talk 04:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

While the archives do contain lots of nonsense, there is no reason to hat them. They should be treated like all other archives. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs of people
• Old requests for Biography peer review
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Skepticism articles
• Unknown-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• Articles with connected contributors