Talk:Stephen Barrett/Archive 10

message: This policy deals with viewpoints. That Barrett is not board certified isn't a view point. It is a verified fact. WP:WEIGHT also says: An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Barrett is a doctor and a medical critic; the topic of his board certification has been a subject in at least two lawsuits and has been mentioned in several widely read articles and reseach papers. This information has enoguh significance for at least a brief mention (i.e. Barrett is not board certified.) -- Levine2112 discuss 19:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:WEIGHT]] 

message: This policy deals with removing unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material. This doesn't apply as we do have reliable sources to make the statement that Barrett is not board certified. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:BLP]]

message: This policy refers to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. That Barrett is not Board Certified is indeed a published fact that has been reliably sourced. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:OR]]

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_in_articles_about_themselves
According to policy it should be relevant to their notability; or it should not be included. End of discussion. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 17:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (First, thank you for spelling out your objection!) My response is two-fold. One, Board Certification is relevant to his notability. Barrett is a doctor and a medical critic. Therefore his medical credentials are entirely relevant. It is not as if we are talking about what his cat's name is. We are talking about a widely recognized certification in the medical community. Two, we are relying on more than just Barrett's own comments as a source. We also have the court documents which detail that Barrett is not board certified. The self-published source (Barrett's discussion at Wikipedia) just adds to the verifiability of this information. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Therefore his medical credentials are entirely relevant." This is just an opinion that you hold along with Barrett's detractors. -- Ronz  18:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the medical community as a whole, Board Certification is considered a relevant credential. Barrett's detractors may think that not having Board Certification disqualifies Barrett as an expert witness or makes his opinions less qualified, but that is not what we are saying here. We are simply stating the verified fact that Barrett is not Board Certified. We are not making an argument for or against Barrett with this statement. It is neither praise nor criticism. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read this carefully. You have not demonstrated how the board cerification thing is relevant to his notability. It did not affect his career. It is a moot point. We cannot synthesize controversy. So, that makes your argument irrelevant. You want policy. You got policy. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 18:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Board Certification is relevant to Barrett's notability, but that is beside the point. The policy which you are citing (WP:SPS) referes to self-published sources. The court documents which verify that Barrett is not Board Certified are not self-published. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SPS refers to Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves. The source is questionable because it does not prove notability. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 18:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "The source is questionable because it does not prove notability." Huh? That doesn't make any sense to me. Please clarify. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, the court documents (which verify that Barrett is not Board Certified) are not self-published sources, nor are they of questionable reliability. Thus, this policy is not applicable. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The source is questionable because it does not demonstrate the notability of the board thing. The key is notability as it applies to this policy. Read: it should be relevant to their notability; How is this bit of information relevant to his notability? :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 19:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that you may be misreading this policy. The source doesn't have to be relevant to the subject's notability (which it is, BTW); the content needs to be. Again, this policy referes to self-published sources and those of questionable reliability. Therefore, it doesn't apply to the two court documents as sources. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not relevant to his notability

message: Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons in biographies and elsewhere. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability. You like policy. Here is more policy. Have a nice day! :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 18:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks again. The content (that Barrett is not Board Certified) is neither biased nor malicious. We are not dealing with a point of view here; the content is a verified fact (not an opinion). -- Levine2112 discuss 18:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The content seemed to be bias because it is pushing a point of view by his detractors. The critics are trying to run a smear campaign when the board thing is a moot point. There is no clear demonstration of relevancy to the person's notability. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 18:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Barrett is not Board Certified. This is not a point of view. This policy is not applicable to this content. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The detractors are trying to make something out of nothing. Synthesize controversy. This policy applies here. You said you want policy. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 19:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do want policy, and I thank you for participating in this cooperative manner. I understand what the detractors are trying to do. We are not doing that here. We are simply adding content verified by a reliable source. Again, this is not a point of view; this is a fact. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And what are the detractors trying to do? Are you trying to do the same here? What is the difference? Nothing or something. Please clarify. Hmmm. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 19:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All I am doing here is adding relevant and verifiable content from a reliable source. I have no other agenda. I am not here to figure out what Barrett's detractors are trying to do, but apparently it is their point of view that Barrett has tried to hide the fact that he wasn't Board Certified. That is contentious and has been directly refuted by Barrett here at Wikipedia. Again, I am not trying to insert these detractors' point of view (that Barrett was forced to admit that he wasn't Board Certified), but rather I am trying to insert the verifiable content that Barrett is not Board Certified. That's all. Again, this policy is not applicable because this content is neither biased nor malcious. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no basis for you accusation. I am not pushing any agenda. Please read WP:AGF. What's more, the agenda which you are accusing me of pushing is not at all what I am doing. Once again, the agenda of Barrett's detractors is to push the idea that Barrett has denied/hidden his lack of Board Certification. My proposed entry does not even allude to that. Simply, I am asking to put in verifiable information that Barrett is not Board Certified. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The inclusion of this information appears to promote an agenda and biased viewpoint.  This point been brought up many, many times in our past discussions here, but it's worth repeating.  There are no assumptions of anyone's motives here, let alone accusations, only the simple observation that this information has been used to attack Barrett. -- Ronz  20:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 20:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Levine2112, there is no accusation. It is the apprearance of pushing an agenda. I am AGF. In accordance with policy: I now insist on you providing a reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability. The bar has been raised to both third party reliable sources and the clear demonstration of relevance because of your appearance of pushing an agenda (whether you are or not). :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 20:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This policy is going to stick. Detractors have used this bit of information for their agenda. This appears to be agenda driven and I AGF. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 20:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You said you want policy. You got an ocean of policy. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 20:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no appearance of agenda pushing. This information doesn't promote any agenda or point of view. The agenda which you are referring to - that of Barrett's detractors - is to show that Barrett has been hiding the fact that he is not board certified; that he was reluctanct to divulge this information. Barrett's own words here at Wikipedia show just the opposite; he is completely open about this information and it has been available publicly for 30 years. The ocean is a desert with its life below and the perfect disguise above. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an appearance of agenda pushing promoted by his detractors who are quick to talk about the board cerification thing which is what you continue to push for. Since there is an appearance you must comply with the above mentioned policy. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 16:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First. This bit of information is bias/agenda driven because of the detractors who point to the board thing. Second. Levine2112 has certified there is an appearance of an agenda driven push because of his never ending post after post beyond exhaustion when there is no consensus. Of course, I love and am AGF. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 17:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The key is the appearance. For example, the never ending posts. The detractors are quick to talk about the board thing. That is an agenda. This policy is valid and is on point. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 18:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I am afraid that you are misunderstanding the policy and the detractor's agenda. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Biased_or_malicious_content Biased or malicious content]

message: It seems like there's some confusion here when Levine2112 says, "So one way or another, at least the information that Barrett is not board certified is going into this article."
I disagree.  There's no consensus that this information will go into the article, and no reason to think at this point that it will. -- Ronz  19:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For months now, you have been arguing that we don't have reliable sources. It turns out we do. I am just asking you to keep an open mind to the possibility that you may be wrong about other policies as well. I am certainly doing the same, meaning that I am totally willing to accept that I may be wrong about policy as well. Thank you. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope.  "For months now, you have been arguing that we don't have reliable sources." I've made no such statement.  It appears you've overlooked what I actually said and the context in which I said it.  Please go back through my previous comments and notice the what I really said and the context. Please don't use your mistakes in reading what others have written as justification for accusing them of being wrong. -- Ronz  19:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No consensus - only proposals - tangent

message: I'm repeating my previous post since the previous discussion got off topic. -- Ronz  20:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been confirmed that we have reliable sources stated that Barrett is indeed not Board Certified. If you have other issues with inserting this information, please elaborate. Bear in mind that your previous contentions hinge on having a reliable source. Now that we have confirmed having several reliable sources, I am not sure that your contentions still apply. Please describe them so we can have a civil discussion and please continue to assume good faith with me here. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Bear in mind that your previous contentions hinge on having a reliable source"  No, my previous comments did not.  Please stop framing my perspective this way. See the many, many previous discussions. -- Ronz  21:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:Weight, WP:BLP, and WP:OR all hinge on having no sources or sources of questionable reliability. Now that we have confirmed that we have reliable sources, your orignal arguments might not hold water. Please take the time to relist your arguments that you believe still apply. Your cooperation will be most helpful for all parties here. Thank you. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No consensus - only proposals - back on topic

message: I'm not going to repeat, but summarize: We have no consensus, only proposals.  Until there is consensus, the article doesn't change. -- Ronz  21:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have no consensus based on wrong interpretation of WP:RS. Now we know for sure that we have reliable sources from the primary sources alone. This changes everything. Please restate your arguments in relation to this new discovery. Thank you. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "This changes everything." It changes nothing at all.  We already agreed that we could verify the information.  Numerous other issues prevented us from reaching consensus on what to do with that information.  All this has been said many times. -- Ronz  21:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those issues dealt with - for the most part - not being able to say that this information was verified by a reliable source. We now can say that for sure. WP:RS has been met. Therefore, I am kindly asking you to list your current arguments against inserting this information. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Please read this comment given to us by a very experienced Wikipedian. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ronz is right. Levine2112, you're also once again ignoring the fact that the burden of evidence is squarely on the shoulders of those who want to reinsert disputed material. This and other basic Wikipedia tenets have been explained to you very often. I think you should be more willing to accept explanations and consider opinions offered you by other (often more experienced) editors that go against your POV. You seem to have no such problem with explanations and opinions that seem to support your POV. AvB ÷ talk 21:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, please WP:AGF. Second, I am open to every editors opinions regardless of their experience at Wikipedia. Currently, the most experienced Wikipedians looking at this issue are saying that we have met the burden to insert that Barrett is not Board Certified. We have met the burden, so unless another policy can be cited which insertion of this material would violatae, I see no reason to delay. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "I see no reason to delay"  You mean besides a lack of consensus, or are your overruling that? -- Ronz  22:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lack of consensus is based on moot arguments, unless you have new arguments which you would like to discuss. I am open to hearing them. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Did you read Jhonson's comment? it is not necessary to support primary documents with secondary ones. If a primary document says "he is not board-certified" then that may be quoted and cited and you're done. Or how about Pitorus' comments? If there is consensus that the primary sources you have are stating he has no board certification, they are enough for it. Well? -- Levine2112 discuss 22:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Lack of consensus is based on moot arguments" I disagree that the arguments are moot.  I just think you overlooked the fact that we reached consensus long ago that the information was verifiable, and all the arguments concerning why the information still cannot be included. -- Ronz  22:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then feel free to list out your arguments in the space I provided. Be sure to quote policy. Thanks. This sort of cooperation will certainly help resolve this matter. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No consensus - only proposals - again

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stephen_Barrett#Biased_or_malicious_content Here is one perfect example being discussed in another section above that confirms that this is against policy to add this information. Don't forget, there is no consensus to add this trivial point. We finally have a resolution on this matter. We have turned the tide. We have a flood of policy on this. We are drowned in policy. We all must comply with the waves of policy. Have a nice day! :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 16:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no consensus to keep this information out of the article either.  MaxPont 16:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No consensus either way is still no consensus. Thanks for your kind help to resolve this matter. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 16:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As Mr.Guru has been told several times, this policy doesn't apply for two reasons: 1) The content is neither biased nor malicious. It is a verified fact and not a point of view. 2) This policy only refers to self-published or questionably published sources. The court documents are neither self-published nor questionably published sources. -- Levine2112 discuss 16:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Biased_or_malicious_content As Levine2112 has been previously told, policy does apply in this case. There is a reason we have policy. It seems Leveine2112 dos not understand this policy. Hmmm. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 17:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, spell it out for everyone here. How is saying the verifiable fact, "Barrett is not Board Certified" either biased and/or malicious? -- Levine2112 discuss 17:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have already answered this question in the precise section. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 17:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems Levine2112 has ignored we have no conensus in any direction and continues to push this matter. This gives an appearrance of pushing this point to no end. There is specific policy on this. Wikipedians should comply with policy. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 17:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your argument here is that this content is malicious and biased because it supports the POV of Barrett's detractors. The problem with this line of reasoning is that the content is not a POV. Barrett is not Board Certified. This is a verifiable fact. The POV of his detractors is that Barrett was reluctant to admit that he is not Board Certified. The POV of Barrett is that he was not reluctant to admit this. We are acheiving a neutral point of view by simply stating that he is not Board Certified (and leaving out whether or not he is reluctant to say so). I think this makes it pretty clear why WP:BLP#Biased_or_malicious_content doesn't apply in this case. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 'against policy and against consensus'

message: I am responding the the request for commnet in the medical section I was directed to above.  My comment is that the fact that Dr. Barrett is not Baord Certified is relevant and non-trivial and belongs in a biographical article.  It's inclusion is consistent with the various Wikipedia policies cited above.  Three paragraphs on the subject would be too much.  One or two or three lines would be appropriate.  RalphLendertalk 17:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's that simple, it seems entirely reasonable to me. I note that there is a brief reference to this in the intro, which seems appropriate. --Marvin Diode 03:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you highlight in the green you have here?  Please take it to my talk page, thanks, ----CrohnieGalTalk/Contribs 19:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC

message: Board ceritifcation was not the popular and was not the norm when Barrett began his career. In fact, it was irrelevant to his career. It had no impact or bearing to his career. Detractors are quick to talk about the board thing because they cannot pin/attack him with anything else. Levine has not demonstrated the point to adding the board thing. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 17:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Levine, thanks for the apology.  But I still agree with the others, it's not important.  You say why it is important, I have the right to say it's not.  ----CrohnieGalTalk/Contribs 17:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You do have that right. Absolutely. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Levine, I have been involved in a lots of disputes with Risker. Risker is not a third-party. Risker has been a party in disputes against me. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 07:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we had to exclude everyone from being a third-party with whom you've had a dispute with, I'm sure we would have a very short list. I am assuming good faith that Risker expressed his/her honest opinion on this manner. -- Levine2112 discuss 09:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok all of you, please chill out.  It's not getting anywhere except causing bad blood amongst the editors here.  I think this subject has been beaten to death already, it's time to move on.  ----CrohnieGalTalk/Contribs 11:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another suggested compromise (section break)

message: :::You've made almost 400 edits to this talk page since you restarted this dispute in March, about 1/3 of all the comments here.  You're repeating the same questions that you made when you first started this dispute over and over and over, seemingly paying no attention to the many, many replies you've received, and the many in-depth discussions discussions about them. You've made your WP:POINT. Give it a break! -- Ronz  19:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And you have yet to make your point. Spell out your BLP concerns so we can address them. Spell out any other policy concerns you may have. I have spent most of these last three months trying to get you to do so. You have refused. It it possible that this comes down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT for you? I will continue this conversation until there is satisfactory resolve. That means that we either arrive at a consensus or that editors with greater knowledge of policy lay out exactly why the content can or cannot be included. Again, I am fully open to the possibility that it cannot be included. If you would like to end this discussion so badly then I would think that you would be more cooperative in providing your policy concerns clearly and succinctly for any third-party editors. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Levine2112 seems to know what third-party editors are. Therefore, he probably knows what third-party references are and we do not have any. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 20:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Go for it, there's only so many edits by one editor in one article for about 6 words over 15 months that one can handle.  It's quite obvious that one editor is being rather obsessive on the matter.  Shot info 22:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say that I am shocked at how long and how much verbal vomit has been regurgitated in the past few months here.  I get exhausted just trying to keep up never mind post an opinion.  If there is a way to end this already, then I say go for it.  People are all exhausted by this now, I think everyone at this point.  ----CrohnieGalTalk/Contribs 19:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 400+

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Request_comment_on_users
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Levine2112
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wp:de#Dealing_with_disruptive_editors
Levine2112 has had behaviour issues recently. We can open a request for comment about this. Any thoughts. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 20:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it, there's only so many edits by one editor in one article for about 6 words over 15 months that one can handle.  It's quite obvious that one editor is being rather obsessive on the matter.  Shot info 22:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say that I am shocked at how long and how much verbal vomit has been regurgitated in the past few months here.  I get exhausted just trying to keep up never mind post an opinion.  If there is a way to end this already, then I say go for it.  People are all exhausted by this now, I think everyone at this point.  ----CrohnieGalTalk/Contribs 19:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: another option (solution)

message: Alameda.Court.CA - here is a repository of related court information from Barrett v. Clark case. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Levine for this link, I was kind of doing this backwards I think when I was researching.  I have looked through this and would like to ask everyone, which probably also belongs on BvR, if anyone saw the entry of June 26, 2006?  It states that a lien was placed against Rosenthal for a past amount of monies owed.  What is the thought of this being added?  Please, I am just asking!  Thanks----CrohnieGalTalk/Contribs 12:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Barrett v. Clark

message: Please bear with me on this.  If you would clear your thoughts about the board certification disputes it would be helpful.  What I would like to suggest is some thoughts.  
If you were to go to a doctor's office and boldly written is a notice in the front waiting room stating that this doctor(s) are not board certified, would it make you walk out the door because it was a negative?  Another way to say this is a lot of doctors now put up notices in the waiting room that they carry no insurance coverage.  This is the same kind of thing, would an office notifying you that they don't carry insurance in case of an error make you walk out the door thinking that they will butcher you or cause you harm?  I thought that maybe putting this is context like this might bring thoughts; at least I hope this does. My point is that a lot of people see the insurance notice and yes they do walk out in fear of errors that will harm them. ----CrohnieGalTalk/Contribs 12:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're as good as your last years work. Board exams must be weighed vs experience.  I'd be far more worried if the sign said this is a new doctor who has passed all his board exams but has not had a good nights sleep. David D. (Talk) 16:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks David, I really needed some humor today.  :)  ----CrohnieGalTalk/Contribs 17:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I thought of an unconventional way about the dispute 

message: I added the fatc tag to this commentary. Can't this be worded better?? Thanks! --Tom 15:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't perfect, but it's a direct quote from Time magazine. I've added the cite. I must say the longer I look at the article, the clearer it becomes that Barrett's partisan critics are given more than equal time in this "biography" while mainstream articles are very timidly quoted, and out of context at that. The full quote is: His site--filled with useful links, cautionary notes and essays on treatments ranging from aromatherapy to wild-yam cream--is widely cited by doctors and medical writers and draws 100,000 hits a month. It has also made Barrett a lightning rod for herbalists, homeopaths and assorted true believers, who regularly vilify him as dishonest, incompetent, a bully and a Nazi. AvB ÷ talk 17:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good quote. Include the whole thing. -- Fyslee/talk 22:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some such popular magazines (which carried many highly advertised conventional nostrums pharmaceuticals, some since withdrawn as various degrees of dangerous) are having trouble keeping up to date with the science articles of the medical schools that don't support Dr Barrett's statements or track Dr Barrett previous posts on many dubious things, now in the 21st century.--I'clast 15:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lightning rod

message: ... IMO, Barrett apologists come across with a wierd sort of 'true-believer' protector of the emporer and his NO CLOTHES type of mentality.  SB is OK with the notion that he was unable to pass his boards, even getting off the throne to appear here to say so.  But for some reason, a sort of protectionist cabal scurries about to hide this fact (board failure = no clothes = rear-end exposed)afraid of anything that they feel sounds negative about the boss-man.  Oh, well.  There are two sides to every coin, eh, Avb?   Steth 16:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't be too confident about my opinion of Barrett if I were you, Steth. AvB ÷ talk 23:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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

message: * No. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1. Is the statement criticism (either direct or implied)? 

message: * No. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2. Would the statement be more appropriate in a criticism/controversy section than in a general biography? 

message: * No. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  3. Is the statement potentially libelous? 

message: * No. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  4. Is the statement too sanitised (i.e. lacking a critical relevance aspect)? 

message: * Yes. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  5.Is the statement relevant to Barrett's notability? 

message: * Yes. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  6. Is the statement true, as far you are personally satisfied? 

message: * Yes. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  7. Are the sources high quality enough to satisfy [[WP:V]]? 

message: * Yes. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  8. Are the sources high quality enough to satisfy [[WP:RS]]? 

message: * Yes. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  9. Are the sources high quality enough to satisfy [[WP:BLP]]? 

message: * No. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  10. Could the statement potentially harm wikipedia in repercussions? 

message: * Yes. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  11. Do you think court records suffice as a source ever? 

message: :* i.e. "Chiroweb claims Barrett being uncertified is important because... yada " or "Court documents state Barrett was not board certified..."
* No. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  12. Would attributing the phrase to a specific source be any better? 

message: * Yes. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  13. Can a survey clarify this issue? 

message: :* My apologies for this question. I think it's relevant.
* Yes. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  14. Is there a biased group of editors focusing on this article (either way)? 

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

message: This discussion has long been over. This may be an attempt at a 'back door article' to run a smear campaign against Stephen Barrett. Please stop. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 01:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What does a 'back door article' mean? -- Levine2112 discuss 02:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: *Is it time for some editors to admit they have a bias and they are seemingly being dishonest? Hmmm. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 00:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we all agree that the above comment is totally uncivil and inappropriate? -- Levine2112 discuss 16:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 16. Why are some editors making false statements they have [[WP:BLP#Biased or malicious content|third-party refs]] to satisfy BLP? 

message: There seems to be a very vehement edit war about this:
: He has been named among "Other outstanding skeptics who received multiple votes or at least one first-place vote" beyond the top 10 outstanding skeptics of the 20th century by Skeptical Inquirer magazine.
The reference given is http://www.csicop.org/articles/19991214-century/
"Skeptical Inquirer Magazine Names the Ten Outstanding Skeptics of the Century."
What's all that about?  What's the big deal? --Tony Sidaway 02:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All from an editor who agrees that that lack of board certification is notable.  Curious how notable is only notable when certain editors apply some OR to it all.  Shot info 02:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The certification board is a national body which SB had no control or influence on, the CSICOP methodology and reporting has neither the standing nor the personal independence that the Psych/Neuro board did.  The fact of a lack of board certification is not OR.  There is the overwrought question (given other WP biographies' similar interest)  as to the secondary pedigree(s) and claims of a presupposed "conventional righteousness" but not notability about the fact's existence.  This kind of exclusionary behavior about a notable minority (DC) brought about decades of legal warfare in 
  Wilk et al.--I'clast 11:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh I dunno.  CSICOP is a pretty well known organisation that promotes scientific skepticism, and if its fellows and consultants name someone in the top eighteen skeptics of the twentieth century I think that's undeniably significant, because it tells you how well he is regarded among his peers. --Tony Sidaway 11:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ordinarily I might agree if the subject weren't so closely interrelated (a "favorite son") with the organization and so far from the planned award population. Given the rather bifurcated nature of the "also rans" from the "top 10" list, *not* a "top 20" list, this seems OR to say listees are top 18 of the century as well as the rather thin "at least one vote" note. It really does make the WP article look peacock lightweight, incestuously partisan and redundant. I am going to suggest that he needed to be on the original "top 10" list to be encyclopedic here. That he *is* a fellow of the CSI seems the more encyclopedic part, already mentioned in the Bio.--I'clast 11:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The paragraph about a CSICOP award

message: Barrett is a 1957 graduate of the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and completed his psychiatry residency in 1961. He also completed 1<SUP> 1/</SUP><SUB>2</SUB> years of legal studies by correspondence through LaSalle Extension University in 1968. He was a licensed physician until retiring from active practice in 1993, and his medical license is currently listed as "Active-Retired" in good standing.[2] He testified as an expert psychiatric witness in some court cases but never achieved board certification in psychiatry. A longtime resident of Allentown, Pennsylvania, Barrett now resides in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.[3] He has said that his appreciation of medical science probably began with a college course in medical statistics.[4]
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by I'clast (talk • contribs).
:No. This ignores three months of discussion regarding the BC thing. The same arguments apply to a number of other changes also proposed here. No need to reiterate everything here. AvB ÷ talk 12:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS Where are the sources? AvB ÷ talk 17:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Very good suggestion. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd like to see the sources also please. I'm not sure about the word "achieve" either. I also note editors the division on whether board certification can be included. Nonetheless, working towards a better wording is a positive step. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 03:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed 1st paragraph of Bio

message: I would like to have people look at the mediation request  and to take note of the list of parties involved.  There are a bunch of editors who have been involved from the beginning and have even recently posted to this talk page that are not listed in the parties involved. 
===Involved parties===
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
I am bringing this to everyone's attention in case they did not notice the notice above or get a notice from Levine2112 about the mediation.  I have not said anything there and will not do so until all editors are given the information about the mediation.  I am sure Levine didn't mean to leave the others out but everyone needs to be told about this who has been actively involved.  I do not mean the third party request for information at the different boards this has gone to unless it is something that also should be done.  Thanks,--CrohnieGalTalk 08:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is anyone I left out who wants to participate, feel free to join in. I apologize, this conversation is long with many participants involved at varying degrees so forgive me if you have been overlooked. As I type this I realize that I left out Arthur Rubin and MastCell. Sorry, nothing personal. Just an oversight on my part. Feel free to add yourself to the list. I certainly hope we can all move forward with this RfM and I am equally hopeful that the Mediation Committee (along with our cooperation) will help us arrive at a satisfactory resolution to this matter. Thanks all. -- Levine2112 discuss 08:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Levine, I do feel you did not do this intentionally at all, I hope you understand that it was not an attack or a put down.  I posted this so the others would also know because sometimes those boxes at the top aren't always noticed and read.  I really do believe your heart was in the right place and that this was an honest error.  --CrohnieGalTalk 08:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tried to gather the list of editors who were active throughout this going through the archive to the present.  The people I found who need to be listed and notified are the following;  Fyslee, Arthur Rubin, MastCell, JoshuaZ, Hughgr, David D., Jim Butler, and Tony Sidaway.  Did I miss anyone?  Levine, are you going to add these and notify them.  I would appreciate it if you would, thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments about the notice at the top of this page about mediation. 

message: *
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
I am bringing this to everyone's attention in case they did not notice the notice above or get a notice from Levine2112 about the mediation.  I have not said anything there and will not do so until all editors are given the information about the mediation.  I am sure Levine didn't mean to leave the others out but everyone needs to be told about this who has been actively involved.  I do not mean the third party request for information at the different boards this has gone to unless it is something that also should be done.  Thanks,--CrohnieGalTalk 08:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is anyone I left out who wants to participate, feel free to join in. I apologize, this conversation is long with many participants involved at varying degrees so forgive me if you have been overlooked. As I type this I realize that I left out Arthur Rubin and MastCell. Sorry, nothing personal. Just an oversight on my part. Feel free to add yourself to the list. I certainly hope we can all move forward with this RfM and I am equally hopeful that the Mediation Committee (along with our cooperation) will help us arrive at a satisfactory resolution to this matter. Thanks all. -- Levine2112 discuss 08:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Levine, I do feel you did not do this intentionally at all, I hope you understand that it was not an attack or a put down.  I posted this so the others would also know because sometimes those boxes at the top aren't always noticed and read.  I really do believe your heart was in the right place and that this was an honest error.  --CrohnieGalTalk 08:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tried to gather the list of editors who were active throughout this going through the archive to the present.  The people I found who need to be listed and notified are the following;  Fyslee, Arthur Rubin, MastCell, JoshuaZ, Hughgr, David D., Jim Butler, and Tony Sidaway.  Did I miss anyone?  Levine, are you going to add these and notify them.  I would appreciate it if you would, thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Involved parties

message: Given that SB is not BC and that he is prominent, is it not merely a matter of time before universally acceptable reliable secondary sources start stating this fact?  So why not just wait for a bit?  robert2957 10:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they think it's somehow relevant, they will. As indicated very early in this discussion, editors could even try to get it published in a RS. AvB ÷ talk 12:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Matter Of Time 

message: Has it occurred to anyone else that we might all be just a bit crazy?  Is it normal to be spending so much time on this BC business?
Perhaps it is. And if so, a resolution is at hand.  All we have to do is to get at least one friend to contribute and induce them to get more friends to join in.  A pyramid scheme of course, but there's no MLM and no financial loss.  As the circle of Wikipedia editors grows people around the world will sooner or later be contributing with great and extraordinary passion.  From every workplace at the end of each day there will be a stampede to the internet cafe (they won't be able to wait until they get home) where the keyboards will be worn out by the passionate views of the new members of the pro and anti factions. Those who herd yaks in Mongolia will come down from the hills and fields to put their spoke in. As this goes on, friends and families will fall out as controversy conflagrates the world. But there could be wonderful benefits.  Tony Blair will find something to do in retirement. Prisoners just out of prison will get so absorbed in the SB BC controversy that they will find acrimonious debate more absorbing than crime.  The people of Qatar and North Korea will successfully demand free internet access (I believe they don't have it at present in those countries) and the clicking of mice and keyboards will be the source of a permanent background hum like the microwave background radiation that permeates the universe.
Sooner or later 50%+1 of the world's population will have expressed a view. And when the 3000,000,001st editor has put in his two pennyworth, BINGO!   The fact will have become incontrovertibly notable.  Assuming of course that a reliable secondary source can be found to back the contention that this is a significant proportion of the world's population.  robert2957 15:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: <grin>. Perhaps it isn't normal then? But if it is, we could easily use this as a means to generate money. I mean, one cent per person makes $30,000,000; I'm sure if we gave $29,900,000 away to the chiropractors who have suffered at Barrett's hands, and spent the remaining $100,000 on getting him board certified now, he would be a better doctor and a better man for it, he would use the new insights so gained to update his website to inform the world about the benefits of ear candling, and stop all the cries of his opponents forever. It would end with a group hug. But will he retain the admiration of his mainstream ex-peers? Will reliable sources write about it, and will those reliable sources be chiro trade orgs? How will Jimbo respond? How will Bolen respond? Will Negrete defend Barrett as he is sued by Polevoy? Will all these questions and more be answered? AvB ÷ talk 18:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Robert and Avb, I enjoyed reading this!  :) --CrohnieGalTalk 18:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Ultimate Resolution? 

message: It isn't clear to me why it is relevant to include Barrett's family members. Can someone enlighten me? --Leifern 16:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is inevitable that people will want to know such details about prominent individuals.  This is why it is unrealistic rigourously to enforce a policy against the inclusion of any trivia. robert2957 16:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not proposing that we "rigorously enforce" any kind of policy. I am asking why this information is included, and if there is no good reason beyond the notion that someone "inevitably" would want to know about Stephen Barrett's kids, I suggest we take it out until someone makes a stink about including it. --Leifern 17:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I second that emotion...;-) -- Fyslee/talk 18:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is his family relevant? 

message: The ABMS on its website states :  "Certification by an ABMS Member Board is widely recognized by physicians, healthcare institutions, insurers and patients themselves as an essential tool to judge that a physician has the knowledge, experience and skills for providing quality healthcare within a given specialty. It is considered the gold standard because of its unique physician-directed approach for assessing qualifications."
 
Given that SB sometimes offers views on psychiatric subjects, does not the ABMS explanation of the meaning of BC render SB's lack of it notable? I don't know myself. robert2957 11:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed before. This references the new standard that predates postdates Barratts time as a professional. How many doctors who were not board certified in the 60's, for whatever reason, went back and retook those exams in the 90's because of the lack of the the above "essential tool"?  I don't know, but I would be surprised if they were not all grandfathered in due to their experience. In summary, one can't seriously compare credentials from the 60's with those from the 90's.  It's comparing apples and oranges and is original research that can never give a satisfactory answer. David D. (Talk) 13:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your comment.  I regret to say that I was unaware of the previous discussion. robert2957 13:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unless I'm misunderstanding something, I suspect that David D. meant "postdates"... Barrett was part of the majority of about 2/3 of psychiatrists who were not board certified back then. The standards have changed for the better, and I suspect Barrett would certainly hold a modern shrink to a higher educational standard than he and his peers were held to without being hypocritical or unfair at all. To judge older docs by today's standards is improper and discounts their experience and the situation at the time. Even the current high standard named above would only make much sense when applied to Barrett if he were dealing with some heavy duty complicated psychiatric cases, which he is not. Ordinary run of the mill stuff is within the reach of any psychiatrist, board certified or not. -- Fyslee/talk 13:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, I mean postdates. David D. (Talk) 20:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is It Notable After All ?

message: Let us suppose that a very prominent professor of medicine had noticed the following  things that I have noticed on the Quackwatch website and said the things that I shall say about them:
In reference to the  National Centre For Complementary And Alternative Medicine  and its testing of what are termed alternative treatments Barrett says: "It remains to be seen whether such studies will yield useful results. Even if some do, their benefit is unlikely to outweigh the publicity bonanza given to questionable methods."   here             How does SB know that it is unlikely? More important, what does this mean?   The only significance I can attach to this is that if   this research or  this research had been done by NCCAM then battalions of health fraudsters would by now be invading the USA or at least governing in California.
He quotes Wallace I Simpson with approval to the effect that NCCAM should be defunded  here
and Quackwatch carries the (worth reading) testimony of Thomas J Moore against the Access to Medical Treatment Act here in which he calls for greater funding of the "[T]iny office in the National Institutes of Health devoted to alternative therapies" which later became the NCCAM.
Now, suppose this prominent professor were to say that these irrationalities and inconsistencies made him think that SB lacked the kind of balanced judgement necessary to lay down the law about medicine, would it make any difference if SB had been a board certified psychiatrist?  I say it would not.  Compared to such considerations it would be a minor issue. We have spent enough time on the BC issue. I have changed my mind about it and have sometimes thrown out points of view for discussion without being of a firm opinion myself. Those who think that Barrett has shortcomings must find notable critics to support them.  It is time to move on. As I have said before, perhaps we are all a bit crazy. The SB article would in no major way be vitiated by inclusion. But if the BC issue is notable, notable secondary sources will appear.
robert2957 17:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Thought Experiment

message: You wrote in the edit summary of this edit: rv: it's hypocritical of you to revert my headers as personal attacks and then try to insult me with this header
# Where did I revert your headers as personal attacks?
# Why do you think that the header "Criticism of Metta Bubble's line of questioning regarding AvB's affiliations" is an attempt to insult you? I think it is a neutral description of Fyslee's post. You're free to give the rest a different header.
For the record, I did not intend to insult you. I'm sorry you're taking it that way and hope you will cool off okay. I'm tired, looking forward to a good night's sleep. AvB ÷ talk 02:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apology accepted. All good. Sleep well. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 03:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone still reading and interested, see my talk page for Metta's post and my response. Unfortunately, some important questions I have asked in good faith remain pending.  AvB ÷ talk 12:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Serious questions for Metta Bubble