Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hipal (talk | contribs) at 14:35, 18 April 2009 (→Time to ignore those who want to use this page as a battleground). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 –

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)

(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)

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)

• 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