Talk:Stephen Barrett/Archive 9

message: Following up my previous request for current references, {(cn}}, to support the text, "...is...", this is what I found: Ann Int Med reviewers, author absent 2002, 2003,  2004,  2005, 2006; JAMA reviewers, absent  2004, 2005,
2006.  I have accordingly improved the text to update & reconcile for concrete current information from the cited sources.--I'clast 09:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify: The citation-needed tag is there because so far we only have two journals and the article says "several".  Is the tag still necessary? --Ronz 16:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We could change "several" to "two" and then remove the tag. Sound like a plan? -- Levine2112 discuss 19:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not unless you can provide a source stating there are only two journals.  Otherwise it sounds like original research. --Ronz 19:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't "several" constitute original research? The only research we have shows that in the past he has been on two peer review boards. Where does "several" come from? -- Levine2112 discuss 20:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, I see "several" on Barrett's own biography sketch on his site Quackwatch. This is a primary source though, no? Don't we nned reliable secondary sources to confirm this? -- Levine2112 discuss 20:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I just helped SB out on WP:V, 2/3. WP:NOT is still a problem here, without *any* WP:RS source showing notability, "peer...several top journals", is in far worse shape on vanity & OR on notability than "...neurology portion" has been. So maybe {(cn}}^3 or delete.--I'clast 20:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: fact checking

message: I apologize for that. Your writing to Crohnie indicates that you feel that the "push" to have the fact (that Barrett isn't board certified) is fueled by editors wanting more criticism in the article. I think you can see how I was tripped up. Again, I apologize. So, for the record then, you don't consider the insertion of the fact (Barrett not being board certified) to be a criticism? Right? BTW, let's move this back to Talk:Stephen Barrett. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I find it irrelevant.  The topic is not notable.  The off talk page discussions are more about WP policies and their application to make better articles, the usage of Stephen_Barrett is principally as an example (in my case).  Shot info 01:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. But do you think it is criticism to mention that Barrett is not Board Certified? Yes or no. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who cares?  There is no sec source saying it's notable.  If and when there is, we can report what such a source says, including whether or not they said it was criticism.  Now would you mind leaving this alone for awhile, please?  Your repetition is disrupting the talk page.  You've made your point.  Yours in the most civil and AGF-ish way imaginable, Jim Butler(talk) 02:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm new to this page, and I haven't read the whole talk page, but it seems to me that no matter how distasteful a character may be, their bio is not the place for more than one or two paragraphs of criticism which merely give the reader an understanding that there is controversy, and a lead on where to go to find out more.  Why is there a huge section on criticism here, but very little at the quackwatch page itself? Does Barrett pretend to have more qualifications than he does? Suggest just moving this over to the Quackwatch page. It ought to be relevant, as he seems to run his own show.  But maybe I haven't looked around enough. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 08:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Martinphi! I am going to attempt to give you a brief summary, so you don't neccessarily have to read this entire page of discussion. Our issue here is not about adding more criticism but rather a biographical fact. Barrett isn't board certified because he did not pass his exams. This information was offered to Wikipedia by Barrett himself. In trial, Barrett had offered this information under oath. His critics jumped all over this and sent out a press release that said Barrett was "forced to admit" it under oath. Because of this statement and others of its kind, Barrett started a number of libel lawsuits. This information (Barrett not being certified) can be found in legal documents and several widely read news publications covering Barrett's trials and tribulations. The current proposal on the table here is not to add this factual information to the Criticism section (which BTW only makes up about one-tenth of the article space), but to add it to Barrett's biographical data along side his other credentials. We don't have a reliable source using Barrett's lack of this credential as a criticism, but as I mentioned, we do have reliable sources (including Barrett himself) verifying this information as fact. So we WP:N and WP:V completely satisfied. Please note that a lot of the rest of Barrett's biographical information comes to us only from the Quackwatch website without a secondary source. Here at least, we have primary and secondary sources confirming this fact and establishing its notability. I hope this helps you get a general idea of the background of this discussion. Please feel free to read the details above. I apologize for being one of the contributors to its great length. :-) Anyhow, we would love your input here. I have noted the good work you and Jim Butler do over at Pseudoscientific topics and welcome your contributions and suggestions here. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't have any sources to give us context or weight for this information, other than unacceptable ones from critics. Without acceptable sources, we're violating WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:NOR, and WP:NOT#SOAP. --Ronz 17:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That's really nice of you Levine- I thought everyone over at the pseudoscientific List hated me- they're doing an RfC on me.  Thanks for the summary! Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it's now time to summarize these sources again and show why they're unacceptable.   --Ronz 23:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do these include the secondary and tertiary sources that Levine2112 mentions? --Ronz 22:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''copied from Ronz' talk page''

message: There has been a lot of off-talk-page discussion about this article and I am trying to reign it in and bring it back here to the proper place.
My question to Shot info (and anyone else here) remains. Do you consider it to be criticism, if we were in fact to mention that Barrett is not board certified? -- Levine2112 discuss 01:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I find it irrelevant.  The topic is not notable.  The off talk page discussions are more about WP policies and their application to make better articles, the usage of Stephen_Barrett is principally as an example (in my case).  Shot info 01:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. But do you think it is criticism to mention that Barrett is not Board Certified? Yes or no. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who cares?  There is no sec source saying it's notable.  If and when there is, we can report what such a source says, including whether or not they said it was criticism.  Now would you mind leaving this alone for awhile, please?  Your repetition is disrupting the talk page.  You've made your point.  Yours in the most civil and AGF-ish way imaginable, Jim Butler(talk) 02:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm new to this page, and I haven't read the whole talk page, but it seems to me that no matter how distasteful a character may be, their bio is not the place for more than one or two paragraphs of criticism which merely give the reader an understanding that there is controversy, and a lead on where to go to find out more.  Why is there a huge section on criticism here, but very little at the quackwatch page itself? Does Barrett pretend to have more qualifications than he does? Suggest just moving this over to the Quackwatch page. It ought to be relevant, as he seems to run his own show.  But maybe I haven't looked around enough. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 08:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Martinphi! I am going to attempt to give you a brief summary, so you don't neccessarily have to read this entire page of discussion. Our issue here is not about adding more criticism but rather a biographical fact. Barrett isn't board certified because he did not pass his exams. This information was offered to Wikipedia by Barrett himself. In trial, Barrett had offered this information under oath. His critics jumped all over this and sent out a press release that said Barrett was "forced to admit" it under oath. Because of this statement and others of its kind, Barrett started a number of libel lawsuits. This information (Barrett not being certified) can be found in legal documents and several widely read news publications covering Barrett's trials and tribulations. The current proposal on the table here is not to add this factual information to the Criticism section (which BTW only makes up about one-tenth of the article space), but to add it to Barrett's biographical data along side his other credentials. We don't have a reliable source using Barrett's lack of this credential as a criticism, but as I mentioned, we do have reliable sources (including Barrett himself) verifying this information as fact. So we WP:N and WP:V completely satisfied. Please note that a lot of the rest of Barrett's biographical information comes to us only from the Quackwatch website without a secondary source. Here at least, we have primary and secondary sources confirming this fact and establishing its notability. I hope this helps you get a general idea of the background of this discussion. Please feel free to read the details above. I apologize for being one of the contributors to its great length. :-) Anyhow, we would love your input here. I have noted the good work you and Jim Butler do over at Pseudoscientific topics and welcome your contributions and suggestions here. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't have any sources to give us context or weight for this information, other than unacceptable ones from critics. Without acceptable sources, we're violating WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:NOR, and WP:NOT#SOAP. --Ronz 17:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That's really nice of you Levine- I thought everyone over at the pseudoscientific List hated me- they're doing an RfC on me.  Thanks for the summary! Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it's now time to summarize these sources again and show why they're unacceptable.   --Ronz 23:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do these include the secondary and tertiary sources that Levine2112 mentions? --Ronz 22:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New discussion to continue here at Talk: Stephen Barrett

message: Since there is no agreement about the notability of Barrett's board certification status I suggest that we put in a section headed "trivia" and list this fact under that. robert2957 05:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting suggestion, but please re-read Wp:blp#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy and see if you still feel that way. thx, Jim Butler(talk) 06:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not trivia(l) and IMHO, it's not even close to a privacy issue for a persistently public, "I am the media" person that asserts his expertise everytime he attaches that MD to opinions and articles launched from his sites, aimed at strongly influencing a global public with his POV.--I'clast 15:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From a purely stylistic perspective, "trivia" sections are explicitly discouraged by the Manual of Style (see Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles). MastCell Talk 23:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia

message: Is it either necessary or possible to uphold with absolute rigidity a Wikipedia policy such as the requirement that anything which is said in a biographical article should be of proven notability? As far as I know, the article about Leonid Brezhnev does not say that he was never able to give up smoking.  But this fact would interest most people who read about him simply because it is a fact about Brezhnev. As perhaps would the fact that Mr. Andropov was a diabetic who (I think) liked jazz.  The fact that a particular person whom I once knew gave up smoking the day he learned he had emphysema would interest nobody except his friends and acquaintances.  But does not the mere prominence of an individual create an interest in the perhaps smaller details of his life?  If Barrett had a keen interest in the xylophone or if he had been a junior chess champion would this not be interesting to know?  Likewise with board certification.  Perhaps the fact could be included simply because Barrett's prominence makes it interesting.  It doesn't seem to meet my intuitive  "Britannica criterion".  But then the Britannica is a paper encyclopaedia which has no space for a "Trivia" section. robert2957 18:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a reasonable suggestion, Robert2957; however I would point you to WP:TRIV which states that these sorts of trivia sections should be avoided. Given that we are already discussing his credentials, I think Barrett's lack of board certification would fit naturally into that section (as it was before). Sound good? -- Levine2112 discuss 19:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi Robert - agree with you on minor biographical details being potentially interesting, but still, the sort of stuff you mention does need to be first reported someplace in a reliable sec source such as a biography or periodical.  (Also, WP:BLP doesn't apply to dead guys.)  thx, Jim Butler(talk) 03:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, for the record, the 2/3 figure was as of 1964 (when Barrett took the exam) and this figure was given to us by Barrett. One out of three psychiatrists (not MDs in general) is still a significant figure, but I don't think that matters so much here for our discussion. Now then, Barrett was a licensed doctor until he retired in 1993. At any point in his ~30 year career, he could have retaken the exam. Again, I don't think that matters much in terms of our discussion here. A point that might matter, but would constitute an original research violation, would be to find out how many of those doctors who took the exam in 1964 passed? That might be a telling stat. Regardless, none of this should matter. Barrett is a notable figure based on his involvment in writing critical papers about the health care industry and serving as an expert witness for health care related legal procedings. His qualifications and credentials are entirely relevant -- more so than his Chess playing ability or penchant for jazz music; though things such as those may be nice to add to bring some additional flavor to the article. I appreciate your thoughts and suggestion on that and would be interested in finding out some of these more trivial details about the man. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: To meet WP:OR the information must come from reliable sources and it should not be synthesized from sources to advance a position. --Ronz 20:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, Robert2957, we have a verifiable fact that Barrett did not pass the exam in 1964. Let's say we find a verifiable fact that there was a 10% pass rate that year. So we have fact A and fact B. The problem comes when we try to put fact A and B together to try to arrive at some original expression C - that not many people passed the test that year so we shouldn't hold it against Barrett (Or if there was a 90% pass rate -- that most everyone passed the test that year so we should hold it against Barrett). Just because A and B are true,  we can't necessarily state C to be true. That is a violation of WP:OR. Make sense? -- Levine2112 discuss 20:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: For more details on this, check out WP:SYN specifically. Feel free to drop me any questions here or on my talk page. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Amen to that. That's why I'd just as soon leave point B out because of the inference to an unwritten point C. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Who are these "SB true believers"? Are they the same people as I'clasts "QW supporters"?  Are they editors here, authors of articles we're using as sources, or people that we don't care about in the least? --Ronz 23:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inevitable Leeway ?

message: Based on our informal poll above, changing opinions, and new editors who have come here to the discussion (Robert2957, Leifern, Martinphi) and expressed their position, the current tally for including the information about Barrett's lack of board certification is 11 in favor to 5 opposed. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In favor, but only in the context of another article which gives the needed context. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree that the material should be included as a fact and stated simply with one or two of the best citations that show the statement is a fact and Wikipedia:Verifiability.  A also keep wonder why, if this is such a contentious issue that the matter isn't simply brought to mediation or Arb? RalphLendertalk 22:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A request has been put in several avenues to help us resolve this. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Maths%2C_science%2C_and_technology#Clinical_and_medical_topics, Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biographies and Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-04-05_Stephen_Barrett. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With David D. graciously accepting Crohnie's compromise, the poll numbers are now looking like 12 in favor and 5 opposed. It should be noted that Crohnie's suggestion is a short mention of Barret's lack of BC and doesn't mention that SB didn't pass the test and opted not to retake it. I think it is a fine compromise and in good faith with the spirit of Wikipedia collaboration. I am wondering if AvB, Ronz, Jim Butler, Shot info and/or Arthur Rubin will be willing to agree to Crohnie's compromise as well. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From your comments last night, my understanding  is that you were willing to stipulate our exact area of disagreement:  whether any of the sources you listed (see end of this section) qualify as verifiable secondary sources (and that if they do, then the primary source material is fine to use).  If we can boil it down to that, that's a simple question to take to the broader community.  regards, Jim Butler(talk) 17:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I truly believe that this is at the heart of our disagreement. I anxiously await mediation/arbitration to give us some resolve on the sourcing issue. I believe that consensus (even when it is 12 to 5) doesn't necessarily trump policy. And if at the end of the day, mediation/arbitration determines that not one source given meets WP:SOURCE to establish verifiability and notability of this information, then I am willing to accept that. As I have said throughout this discussion, I have an open mind and am willing to accept that this information doesn't belong in this article if someone can show me the policy which demonstrates that. Thus far, I am unconvinced. Hopefully, we will have some resolvew in the form of mediation/arbitration soon. Thanks for all of your input, Jim Butler, thus far. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good news. Our mediation case Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-04-05_Stephen_Barrett has been accepted! -- Levine2112 discuss 18:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you too!  Hope I summarized our discussion accurately.  best regards, Jim Butler(talk) 08:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: "I personally find it very frustrating that no notable critics have so far made my notable criticisms of Barrett." Exactly! --Ronz 22:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Another excellent statement.  You're doing a great job of showing how we need to consider the information in the context of the source, and only present information as appropriate for the source.  You're not talking about "facts" or "truth".  You're not trying to determine importance by asserting it without reference to sources.  You're frustrated because the sources you want aren't yet available. --Ronz 15:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm saying you're describing the situation very well.  I'm referring back to my earlier discussions about "facts" and "truth" , which is in reference to WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."  I'm not questioning anyone's good faith, and not sure why you've brought it up. --Ronz 04:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not been a fan of the "delicensed" campaign, either.  Encyclopedic silence is the appropriate way to handle such scurrilous, nonfactual material. However, professional qualifications, sometimes including lack thereof, as well as maximal achievements are very pertinent to building a relevant biography.--I'clast 23:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Amen to that. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: State of the discussion

message: I've posted comments on the Mediation Cabal case at Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-04-05_Stephen_Barrett.  Please have a look and see whether I've framed the issue properly.  Thanks much, Jim Butler(talk) 08:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just noticed that the guy who accepted this case blanked my and Levine2112's comments because they weren't precisely in the format he liked.  He expects participants to adhere to his own rigid and idiosyncratic format and to read his personal essays on neutrality and mediation.  No thanks.  I'm interested in substance, not process.  Based on my two experiences with the MedCab, I'm not impressed with it.  It seems to me to be a vehicle for hungry editors to "prove themselves" as potential admins.  I agree with the basic principles of WP:DR, but see no reason to dignify the MedCab under these conditions.  Levine2112, I'll chime in if you wish to take this to formal mediation. thx, Jim Butler(talk) 16:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have put my two-cents in over at Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-04-05_Stephen_Barrett. I have to say that I kind of liked the format of it and anthony cfc's  essay on neutrality was a quick, informative read. (I was unable to read his essay on mediation as the link wasn't working.) However, that being said, it seems that he has lightened the formality of the mediation format per your suggestion. This must have been in the middle of adding my position when he did so. Thus my position is in his suggested format. And although now he isn't requiring this format, I think we should all strive to keep our discussions and postions there as organized and succinct as possible. I look forward to the resolve which this mediation will bring. Cheers all! -- Levine2112 discuss 17:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good; that editor was open to being more flexible.  You framed the issue well, as far as I can see; will add comments later.  thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 18:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: MedCab case

message: After reading the Stephen Barrett Talk page I think the remaining contentiuos issue is whether the magazine Dynamic Chiropractic is notable and reliable enough to justify inclusion of the Board Certifaction in the article. Some facts that can establish notability for the magazine are collected below.
Dynamic Chiropractic has been published since 1983 (Library of Congress record) and is the number one trade publication for the Chiropractic profession. 
. The magazine has a circulation of 60.000 
Dynamic Chiropractic is a professional trade magazine and not a scientific peer reviewed journal. However it is notable enough for the community of Life Science academics to sometimes be mentioned or used as a reference. A search for “Dynamic Chiropractic” in the database PubMed 
 returned 39 articles
In spite of it the rather narrow industry focus of the magazine, Dynamic Chiropractic is sometimes quoted and mentioned by main-stream media. A few examples are provided below (sources available in Factiva).
The Washington Post (20 Dec 1987) "Candidates Barraged With Questionnaires" 
About questions to political candidates from variuos stakeholders in society. The questions from Dynamic Chiropractic get a paragraph. 
Los Angeles Times (27 Jun 1990) "Church Seeks Influence in Schools, Business, Science Series: THE SCIENTOLOGY STORY" 
About controversies around front organizations for the church of Scientology.  Dynamic Chiropractic mentioned as a newspaper resisting this infiltration.
Journal of Nutrition (1 Nov 2006) "Glucosamine Supplementation Accelerates Early but Not Late Atherosclerosis in LDL Receptor-Deficient Mice"
Dynamic Chiropractic used as a reference of a “lay” publication.
New York Law Journal (25 Jan 2005) "Litigation Review; Black Box Evidence; Civil Implications" 
A Dynamic Chiropractic article used as a reference.
Austin American-Statesman (15 Oct 1993) "WHAT THEY'RE READING Series: THE LATEST WORD" 
Five Austin chiropractors what they were reading. Dynamic Chiropractic mentioned.
The Sacramento Bee (8 Mar 2007) "Chaos on chiropractic board; The governor's appointees -- including ex-bodybuilding chums -- accused of 'coup.'" 
Article about controveries around gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. The “industry magazine Dynamic Chiropractic” mentioned three times in article. 
The Sacramento Bee (9 Mar 2007) “Governor fuels board furor; He's criticized for saying chiropractic panel should represent the industry”
More about controveries around gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. The “industry magazine Dynamic Chiropractic” mentioned.
Journal of the American Dietetic Association (1 Aug 2000) "Provision of nutrition counseling, referrals to registered dietitians, and sources of nutrition information among practicing chiropractors in the United States" 
A study conducted by Dynamic Chiropractic used as a reference.
The News & Observer (18 Feb 2007) "Law favoring chiropractors, Black's doing, might not last" 
Dynamic Chiropractic mentioned 
Argus Leader (31 Oct 2004) "Wider acceptance fuels chiropractor boom" 
Section about how to chose a Chiropractor drawn from Dynamic Chiropractic 
Roanoke Times & World News (8 Sep 2003) "HOST FOR CHENEY'S VISIT IS CALLED 'EFFECTIVE FUND-RAISER'" 
About a philatropist donating funds to Chiropractic, mentioned in Dynamic Chiropractic 
MaxPont 23:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MaxPont, I think this information is topical and pertinent to the Mediation Cabal. Would you be opposed to posting the gist of it in the Mediation forum? -- Levine2112 discuss 00:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is important to note that mainstream media sometimes cite this publication when reporting on chiropractic. This is similar to Wikipedia's rule that we can use e.g. someone's web site in the article on the person in question, which does not make it a reliable source in Wikipedia terms. I would be interested if say the NYT would be citing material on Barrett originally published in Dynamic Chiropractic. AvB ÷ talk 01:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: PS I don't think a PubMed search on Dynamic Chiropractic returns articles published in Dynamic Chiropractic. In fact most articles in this search (31 out of 39) are from: J Manipulative Physiol Ther. - I would be interested if that journal had anything to say about Barrett. AvB ÷ talk 01:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: For what it's worth, I did a PubMed search and Dynamic Chiropractic is not listed in their journal database nor are any references from the magazine cited in the article database. The 39 hits generated are merely articles that contain the words "dynamic" and "chiropractic" but none were published in the journal Dynamic Chiropractic. Rhode Island Red 14:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a point, I did a phrase search and missed that it said: "Quoted phrase not found". I don't have access to the full-text articles in PubMed. However, I did search in another of their databasee PMC  where you can read the full-text article. PMC returned 67 articles and also signalled that "Quoted phrase not found" but when I looked at the articles I found 3 articles explicitly mentioning or refering to Dynamic Chiropractic.  Strange. MaxPont 15:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Notability of Dynamic Chiropractic

message: In December I checked the claim that Barrett had written 50 books by a simple cross-reference between the biography on his website and Amazon. I found that for most of his “books” he was the editor of volumes with several authors or that he was the author of a single chapter in multi-authored books. The correct number was somewhere around nine books. After identifying that the claim was untrue, I removed it from the Wikipedia article.
The conclusion from this little piece of trivial (and WP permitted) original research is that Barrett seems prone to gross embellishments, bending the facts in his own favor, and recklessness with the truth. The claim that he has written 2000 articles and delivered 300 speeches appears in the same biography. Taking that into account, it is reasonable and obvious to assume that the statements are false. Therefore they should be removed from the article. MaxPont 09:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the real conclusion is that your OR doesn't belong in WP.  Find a RS that V's your POV and then discuss.  Otherwise, it's just your OR supporting your POV.  Shot info 09:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? So you want to restore the claim that he has written 50 books. MaxPont 14:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: MaxPont, you've admitted to original research in order to back your edits. Find a new argument or accept the fact that original research is not a valid approach here. --Ronz 15:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OR or not OR. Do you want to push for re-introducing the factual error that he wrote 50 books? MaxPont 18:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Max Pont is saying that he could not verify an assertion that appears self-congratulatory by a wide margin after a substantial effort to check.  So WP:V where are the notable 50 books written by, perhaps even in substantial part ca half, vs written in, a chapter or merely one of multiple editors) vs "original research".  I would err toward apparent accuracy in the ways people normally read the sentence rather than legalistic definitions and assertions like a recent, former president on personal foibles. In such as case, at most, "Barrett asserts that he is an author of or contributor to (over) 50 books" seems the outer limits.  Max Pont's problem with the assertion is not just a mere OR, it is actually a problem with WP:V and WP:RS for an individual with some known and self admitted biases.--I'clast 06:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: As for the 50 books, maybe we should count verify theese, and add the correct number . I count 51 books, not counting the ones where he's just contributed a chapter. --Ronz 15:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   Read the lines above: I count 51 books. Isn't that OR?  MaxPont 18:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is not OR. --Ronz 20:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that we should discuss WP:WEIGHT.  We don't need additional sources for verification though. --Ronz 18:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So if we believe WP:Weight is an issue, should we remove the information until the policy has been satisfied? -- Levine2112 discuss 19:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Where are these factual errors?  All I see so far is you coming up with your private method of determining how many books Barrett has contributed to, which you've decided not to share with us.  You then use your own count to discredit sources.  Further, you appear to have no comment on my honest attempt to verify a source that lists such books, other than asking if verifying a source is the same as original research.  And then you claim that our behavior borders on farcical? --Ronz 01:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If WP:Weight is an issue, Ronz, should we not remove the info until WEIGHT can be determined by a reliable secondary source? -- Levine2112 discuss 03:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There don't appear to be any factors to justify removing it.  It's not a minority viewpoint.  Not controversial.  Not something that would be deemed insignificant to the subject of the article.  I don't see any BLP or OR issues with keeping it. --Ronz 03:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gosh, then to bring this full circle, it would seem we have no justification for keeping the information regarding Barrett's lack of Board Certification removed. Hmmm. -- Levine2112 discuss 09:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your sarcasm is not appreciated, nor is it appropriate. Read what I wrote, then read some of the discussions about the certification that I repeatedly warn you about ignoring (if you ever read them at all).  Then stop wasting our time with your povpush. If you don't understand, ask questions that demonstrate that you've at least read what you're commenting on. Thanks. --Ronz 15:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems unnecessarily hostile. WP:AGF please. Your summation at the mediation was that you felt that WP:WEIGHT hadn't been satisfied. Now that you're faced with the same dilemma (but with even less sources), you're willing to look the other way and let the information stand? Why? -- Levine2112 discuss 16:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if you find it hostile.  I've explained myself.  You're falling back on your habit of asking for repeated explanations while ignoring past explanations.  Stop wasting my time. Sorry that you find my expectations that you'll repeat your past behavior as not assuming good faith of you. We still have the round-in-circles tag on this page.  As you know, I take it seriously. (And you're wrong in your summarizing my take on the mediation). --Ronz 18:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: As I said, you're wrong in your summary of my perspective.  More importantly, you're assuming bad faith on my part that I'm looking the other way when presented with an identical situation.  I'm not.  The situation isn't identical.  I've explained why it's not the same.  --Ronz 18:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:CIVIL please. Stop your repeated accusations that I ignoring your explanations, wasting time or going in circles. The only circles I see here is your incivility and inability to have a mature discussion with me without resorting to hostility. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry that you don't like me pointing out that you're just ignoring explanations. If you don't understand the multiple explanations you've had about OR, WEIGHT, BLP, etc then you'll just have to accept others' judgements. As for incivility and not assuming good faith, how about you clean up your recent comments here to meet the standards that you're trying to hold others to, starting with your 09:26 comment and especially your 16:57 comment? --Ronz 19:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are absolutely no uncivil personal comments toward you or anyone else in either of those posts. If you are detecting that, please quote me exactly that which you find offensive. As for me, I take offense by your lack of good faith in repeatedly assumming that I am ignoring Wikipedia policy, being disruptive and wasting your time. These are hostile comments which you clearly launch at me. Hence, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Now then, let's stick to the point. The only difference between the information which you would like to keep included now and the information which you would like to keep removed are that the information regarding Barrett's authorship has only one primary source, may be inaccurate and is favorable to Barrett; whereas the information about Barrett's lack of board credentials has several primary and secondary sources, is wholly accurate and isn't favorable to Barrett. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, you won't take responsibility for your own behavior, and criticize others for what you perceive as similar behavior.  I guess this conversation is ended.  You don't understand OR, WEIGHT, BLP, and you refuse to pay attention when others try to explain, or at least others' explanations of them and how they relate. --Ronz 23:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More hostility from you. Move on past this incivility please and just address the issues at hand. We have no secondary sources to establish the context or weight of Barrett's authorship; yet you elect to keep this information with a verify tag. But when we have primary and secondary sources that establish both weight and notability of Barrett's board certification history you are in favor of expunging it. I am just trying to understand your apparent inconsistency here. Please explain (and no more personal attacks on me or anyone else). -- Levine2112 discuss 23:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Explanation given. Sorry you don't understand. --Ronz 23:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please restate then. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, no.  We've been through this before, including your hostility to having it pointed out that we've been through this before. --Ronz 00:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So point me to the place where you've spelled this all out for me. Or restate it here. That way you can always point to right here anytime I claim that you've never answered the question: Why are you being inconsitent with the application of Wikipedia policy in terms of Barrett's authorship and Barrett's lack of board certification? (There is no hostility from me so once again, please WP:AGF.) -- Levine2112 discuss 00:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, no.  By the way, since you're obviously not going to clean it up yourself, you're being incivil and assuming bad faith in your repeated claims that I'm being inconsistent in my application and interpretation of policy.  Your lack of understanding is not justification for this type of incivility. --Ronz 00:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can't or won't answer the question, I can have no understanding of your edits. On the surface, they appear inconsistent policy-wise. I have asked you to explain yourself, and you have refused. There is no hostility coming from me; just curiosity. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Ronz, please. You are an intelligent person. Reread how I checked the book list on the bio page with Amazon. For most of the titles Barrett did not appear as “author”. Pretty transparent to me. Do you really want to push for an interpretation of “his 50 books” where books with one chapter written by Barrett are included in the definition?  MaxPont 10:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but your original research is not an argument for anything.  I've verified from a source I've provided that there are 51 books he's contributed to, not including books he's contributed a chapter to. --Ronz 15:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, this is a biography isn't it?  Shot info 22:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ie/ WP:BLP [].  I'm letting Max's changes stand for the moment, however I fail to see why the article cannot say "According to Barrett..." which it did.  Of course Levine is just using this as a wedge to include material which the community decided is not valid for this article, while failing to not that his arguements contradict the arguements of MaxPont to make the specific changes.  Shot info 23:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Shot info, the community hasn't decided anything. Based on the stroll poll on this page, the community was actually more in favor of including it. Mediation is pending to help us resolve this issue. In the interim, I just thought I could draw some parallels between this discussion and our differences on whether or not to include Barrett's lack of Board Certification. I thought that noting these parallels would bring some greater clarity to both issues. If we can get past the incivility and just talk policy and make our points clearly and cooperatively, I believe we can acheive this together. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I believe the community has decided...except for a minority of editor(s) who for a variety of reasons refuse to accept the information as discussed (and discussed, and discussed, and discussed...).  There is little parallel.  One is information claimed in a self-published biography, the other is published by poor RS sources which require OR to give context otherwise it's just trivia.  WP:BLP tells us what to do, especially since it has been used to defend the board rating before [] but seems to be conveniently ignored when it's most glaring usage in a BLP is required.  Ronz has answered your question.  Your refusal to accept his answer is symptomatic of you not liking the answer you are given and only accepting of the answer you want.  Shot info 04:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Show me the community's decision. Point me to it. Anyhow, with regard to the board certification, to refresh your memeory, we have a primary source from Barrett stating this (just as with the authorship issue - see the parallel?). The authorship sources stop there though, but with the certification, we have several other primary sources and many more secondary sources. But you are right; Ronz has answered my question. And so have you. Doesn't mean that either of you are correct in your understanding of policy. And with this authorship issue, I find it curious that you both seem to be contradicting your prior interpretation of policy. I welcome this, however. It shows that you are capable of seeing things from a different point of view (even if it is just to suit your own personal dispositions about the subject). Hopefully, you will recognize that the way you are interpreting policy now should also be the way you interpret it in regards to the Board Certification issue. I have faith - good faith - in both of you. -- Levine2112 discuss 04:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Please observe WP:AGF. The lack of consensus in the RfC was for one proposed way of adding the information. The way the mediation should have gone is a series of suggestions and compromises. I would have liked to see that happen rather than the free-for-all attack on me. Round-and-round is your claim, not mine. I have not found a contradiction in your interpretation of the policy toward Barrett's authorship information versusBarrett's lack of board certification because you haven't been commenting on policy here. For the most part, your role here has been to harass me. If you want to talk policy with regards to these edits, I am more than open to it. If you want to continue to harass me, then I am going to choose to simply ignore you or to continue to delete your uncivil comments. What's it going to be? -- Levine2112 discuss 17:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Round in circles seems to be a good description of your behavior with this article in the past 15 months.  For instance, you still have not identified a single reliable secondary source to support your claims for mediation, yet you continue to  claim you have done so.  On close examination, you don't even appear to understand what a secondary source is.  Yet here you are again today, claiming that you have such sources. At some point this behavior of yours has got to stop.  You don't understand the issues, yet you fill this talk page with your accusations that editors are working in bad faith to prevent the edits that you've been fighting for the past 15 months. --Ronz 17:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am willing to consider that maybe you're right. Are you willing to consider that I am? That the circles here have been form as the result of your repeated accusation that I am the one going in circles? Or that perhaps it is you who is mistaken about a the secondary sources? That the reason this has been going on so long is that you are the one who doesn't understand the issues? That you are the one working in bad faith? Are you open to this possibility? I sure am. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: from  WP:V Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves -  Material from self-published sources and sources of questionable reliability may be used in articles about themselves, so long as: ... * it is not contentious;    * it is not unduly self-serving;...  Especially after MaxPont's attempt to verify the "50" statement in any near quantity in forms that are of a clear, agreeable meaning to the readers rather than the beneficiary, the asserted unverified claim is contentious and potentially self serving.--I'clast 09:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Methinks "unduly" and "potentially" are rather different adverbs.  The claim is from a V and RS.  Shot info 09:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was trying to be polite and allow for possible further sources. So far, no more have been presented.--I'clast 09:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 50 books, 2000 articles , 300 speeches - true?

message: :::::Ronz, please. You are an intelligent person. Reread how I checked the book list on the bio page with Amazon. For most of the titles Barrett did not appear as “author”. Pretty transparent to me. Do you really want to push for an interpretation of “his 50 books” where books with one chapter written by Barrett are included in the definition?  MaxPont 10:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but your original research is not an argument for anything.  I've verified from a source I've provided that there are 51 books he's contributed to, not including books he's contributed a chapter to. --Ronz 15:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, this is a biography isn't it?  Shot info 22:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ie/ WP:BLP [].  I'm letting Max's changes stand for the moment, however I fail to see why the article cannot say "According to Barrett..." which it did.  Of course Levine is just using this as a wedge to include material which the community decided is not valid for this article, while failing to not that his arguements contradict the arguements of MaxPont to make the specific changes.  Shot info 23:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Shot info, the community hasn't decided anything. Based on the stroll poll on this page, the community was actually more in favor of including it. Mediation is pending to help us resolve this issue. In the interim, I just thought I could draw some parallels between this discussion and our differences on whether or not to include Barrett's lack of Board Certification. I thought that noting these parallels would bring some greater clarity to both issues. If we can get past the incivility and just talk policy and make our points clearly and cooperatively, I believe we can acheive this together. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I believe the community has decided...except for a minority of editor(s) who for a variety of reasons refuse to accept the information as discussed (and discussed, and discussed, and discussed...).  There is little parallel.  One is information claimed in a self-published biography, the other is published by poor RS sources which require OR to give context otherwise it's just trivia.  WP:BLP tells us what to do, especially since it has been used to defend the board rating before [] but seems to be conveniently ignored when it's most glaring usage in a BLP is required.  Ronz has answered your question.  Your refusal to accept his answer is symptomatic of you not liking the answer you are given and only accepting of the answer you want.  Shot info 04:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Show me the community's decision. Point me to it. Anyhow, with regard to the board certification, to refresh your memeory, we have a primary source from Barrett stating this (just as with the authorship issue - see the parallel?). The authorship sources stop there though, but with the certification, we have several other primary sources and many more secondary sources. But you are right; Ronz has answered my question. And so have you. Doesn't mean that either of you are correct in your understanding of policy. And with this authorship issue, I find it curious that you both seem to be contradicting your prior interpretation of policy. I welcome this, however. It shows that you are capable of seeing things from a different point of view (even if it is just to suit your own personal dispositions about the subject). Hopefully, you will recognize that the way you are interpreting policy now should also be the way you interpret it in regards to the Board Certification issue. I have faith - good faith - in both of you. -- Levine2112 discuss 04:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Please observe WP:AGF. The lack of consensus in the RfC was for one proposed way of adding the information. The way the mediation should have gone is a series of suggestions and compromises. I would have liked to see that happen rather than the free-for-all attack on me. Round-and-round is your claim, not mine. I have not found a contradiction in your interpretation of the policy toward Barrett's authorship information versusBarrett's lack of board certification because you haven't been commenting on policy here. For the most part, your role here has been to harass me. If you want to talk policy with regards to these edits, I am more than open to it. If you want to continue to harass me, then I am going to choose to simply ignore you or to continue to delete your uncivil comments. What's it going to be? -- Levine2112 discuss 17:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Round in circles seems to be a good description of your behavior with this article in the past 15 months.  For instance, you still have not identified a single reliable secondary source to support your claims for mediation, yet you continue to  claim you have done so.  On close examination, you don't even appear to understand what a secondary source is.  Yet here you are again today, claiming that you have such sources. At some point this behavior of yours has got to stop.  You don't understand the issues, yet you fill this talk page with your accusations that editors are working in bad faith to prevent the edits that you've been fighting for the past 15 months. --Ronz 17:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am willing to consider that maybe you're right. Are you willing to consider that I am? That the circles here have been form as the result of your repeated accusation that I am the one going in circles? Or that perhaps it is you who is mistaken about a the secondary sources? That the reason this has been going on so long is that you are the one who doesn't understand the issues? That you are the one working in bad faith? Are you open to this possibility? I sure am. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: from  WP:V Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves -  Material from self-published sources and sources of questionable reliability may be used in articles about themselves, so long as: ... * it is not contentious;    * it is not unduly self-serving;...  Especially after MaxPont's attempt to verify the "50" statement in any near quantity in forms that are of a clear, agreeable meaning to the readers rather than the beneficiary, the asserted unverified claim is contentious and potentially self serving.--I'clast 09:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Methinks "unduly" and "potentially" are rather different adverbs.  The claim is from a V and RS.  Shot info 09:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was trying to be polite and allow for possible further sources. So far, no more have been presented.--I'clast 09:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: V & OR

message: So we're finding ways to ignore WP:V now?  I've verified 51 books.  No one has contended this.  Do any of you even think for a second what it would mean if we removed or changed all content that was verified less rigourously?  We wouldn't have an encyclopedia at all.  Is that what the editors here want, to do away with Wikipedia completely?--Ronz 14:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read my comment below ("Hilarious ...")  MaxPont 21:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So your response is a long-winded personal attack concluding with the need to go to ArbCom? Better you find someone you can respect and trust and go over WP:DR, WP:CON, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:POINT, WP:DE, etc. --Ronz 23:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The semantics of asserting "author" without further qualification are clearly an issue. See also.--I'clast 08:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a lot of issues here.  If we can't get the problems with WP:DR, WP:CON, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:POINT, WP:DE, etc. undercontrol, how are we going to make any progress actually improving the article? --Ronz 19:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 51 has been verified

message: :Ronz, for the sake of curiousity, clarity and cooperation, can you please explain why you feel this authorship information and the board certification information are different policy-wise? I would appreciate it. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can explain that one.  It's a question of whether it's notable in context.  Barrett's list of publications has been published by him on his web site; (in theory) independently verifiable by the publisher(s), who are not agents of Barrett; and is relevant to his notability.  That he failed the exam is only available from court documents, statements made by those opposing him in court, and his edits in Wikipedia; and its relevance has not been established.  I see two differences; verifiability from secondary sources, and relevance.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 19:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Except you left out a couple of other secondary sources which verify Barrett's board certification info; most notably news articles and research papers. But yes, the board certification issue does have verifiability from secondary sources, unlike the authorship information - which can only be verified by WP:OR. But with regards to relevance, I disagree. I think given Barrett's notability, his credentials are wholly relevant. Are there any other differences you see? -- Levine2112 discuss 19:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's enough, as I don't agree it's notable.  The question of board certification does have verifiability from secondary sources, and I see little reason why it shouldn't be in the article.  It had been there for a while.  That he failed one part of the exam does not have verifiability from secondary sources which are at all reliable, and we also need a secondary source for it being notable, as a number of editors don't believe it.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am glad that you agree that there is little reason why the board certification information shouldn't be in the article. Again, I am willing to compromise and include only that Barrett is not board certified and leave out the part about him failing the exam. This compromise was proposed by Crohnie and the majority of editors here (all but 2 or 3) accepted it. I am still willing to have this compromise implemented and finally put this dispute to rest. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found another secondary source to add to the notability of Barrett's lack of board certification. "True Lies About Anti-Aging and Growth Hormone" by Fintan Dunne for MyLongLife.com. Read it here. The excerpt says: But in a 2005 legal case against chiropractor, Dr. Tedd Koren, DC, Barrett conceded that he was not a Medical Board Certified psychiatrist because he had failed the certification exam. I don't know if this is the strongest secondary source as it is self-published on one of the journalist's website (a similar situation to Barrett's articles self-published on Quackwatch), but the author is a respected journalist in his particular milieu - conspriracy theories, cover-ups, et cetera. Anyways, add it to the heaps of primary and secondary sources we have which discuss Barrett's lack of board certification and add relevance and notability to this infomation. -- Levine2112 discuss 07:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: First of all WP:TE is "tendentious editing" not "tedious editoring". Second, you are being uncivil. Please engage in the discussion and stop with your disruptive attacks on me and other editors. -- Levine2112 discuss 03:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tedious, tendentious, and disruptive.  For instance, you've disrupted the discussion I started here on the topic of verification to continue your harassment of me, and unending push to get your way.  Definitely, tedious, tendentious, and disruptive.  Take some responsibility for your behavior. --Ronz 15:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And the disruptivve attacks on me continue... -- Levine2112 discuss 16:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You disrupt a discussion, then complain when it's pointed out to you.  I'm afraid I don't see your point. --Ronz 16:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simple. Discussing policy on an article's talk page is not disruption; attacking another editor is. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I don't see it that way. --Ronz 18:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're entitled to see it however you would like, but please no more personal attacks and incivility. Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Sorry, but I don't see it that way" --Ronz 19:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "You're entitled to see it however you would like, but please no more personal attacks and incivility. Thanks." -- Levine2112 discuss 22:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean like the personal attacks and incivility that you're supporting below? --Ronz 00:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not supporting any incivility nor personal attacks. Below I am merely agreeing that an ArbCom would be a good idea. If you have a grievance with the behavior of another editor, please discuss it with that editor. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks Anthony for taking time to check in here while you have some important real life situation you need to tend to.  ----CrohnieGalTalk/Contribs 13:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Authorship vs Certification

message: Apparently an ArbCom arbitration is being sought by Levine2112 and MaxPont. My opinion on the status quo: 
# We have a content dispute where WP:DR has not been exhausted. Possible next step(s): finish Cabal mediation. If unresolved, e.g. WP:MEDCOM, or WP:3O variants like the ones suggested by Ronz, asking the people at WP:BLPP or WP:NPR. If unresolved -> no consensus -> if in doubt, leave it out. Content disputes are outside the remit of ArbCom.
# We may have a situation here: Incivility where WP:DR has not been exhausted. Possible next steps: one or more editor behavior RfCs; if unresolved or ignoring consensus ->  WP:3O, Medcom mediation, arbitration. 
# We may have a situation here: Disruptive editing where WP:DR has not been exhausted. Possible next step: RfC(s) regarding e.g. the debating methods in debates such as the "board certification" one. I for one can easily tell where debate ends and disruptive editing begins. Although I think the involved editors are editing in good faith, the results are often indistinguishable from protracted trolling. It's causing editors to leave certain articles alone. (I'm one of them.) I'm not pointing fingers, which I believe is not going to help here. My point is that the debating style becomes very disruptive after a week or so. This has to stop one way or another. I'd like to see some uninvolved input on how to accomplish that.
# Annoying ArbCom with requests to assess content disputes or situations where WP:DR has not been exhausted is also somewhat  disruptive. Low-level incivility requests are even less likely to be honored.
Just my opinion of course. Thoughts anyone?  AvB ÷ talk 10:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several issues that are not resolving that apply policies in contradictory ways or still seem to be hagiographic trivia. I am surprised that two are still in such sad shape: board certification and "8th runner up" below the *list* published by his own CSICOP society. I've commented on "50" elsewhere above--I'clast 09:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to enumerate situations editors believe to be close to needing intervention by the ArbCom. I drew the line at known content disputes that are at the very beginning of WP:DR, as well as latent and embryonic ones. In that context, your examples, in addition to being vague, do not seem to parse to me. But I may be wrong, so could you please point out specific user behavior disputes that in your opinion are nearing arbitration? Content disputes that are so exceptional that they warrant ArbCom intervention? Anything else where "ArbCom" is more than an empty threat? AvB ÷ talk 12:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than get into behavior issues, I am merely pointing out that the remaining areas of contention are rather small, and should be obvious when compared to other similar encyclopedia articles for scope and relevance. i.e. (1) unsuccessful board certification as relates to maximum professional qualification of an author that continually criticizes other doctors and their fields of research, if not in legal dispute with many, seems generally pertinent in an encyclopedia, (2) the "8th runner up" from an associated site is (self) promotional and nonencyclopedic in nature, (3) unqualified, inconsistent or ambiguous assertions (or proposals) of contribution and authorship that read somewhat like the old Soviet statistics of achievement from official sources.--I'clast 18:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And the fact that it is a BLP with undue WEIGHT with the amount of criticism compared to similar encyclopedia articles.  Pointed out before Pointed out before but conventially forgotten in the rush to push pov. Shot info 23:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right – at least a few balancing facts in the biography would be useful.  The hard core scientific criticism on Dr Barrett's writings (stuff like complete failure to experimentally address or even identify a hypothesis correctly, much less recognize other, similar sympathizers' rather blatant, adversarial subreptions favoring pharmaceutical competitors) does seem a little slighted. Perhaps his sometimes now publicly rebutted activities and statements haven't been as notable to the mainstream press since then.--I'clast 01:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Status quo re ArbCom arbitration

message: Given that Levine2112 thinks "We must keep working on establishing a consensus here" even though we don't, I offer this compromise:
Let's pretend that we have a reliable secondary source documenting Negrete's criticism of Barrett being not certified, and this pretend source demonstrates that this criticism is important enough that we should actually mention it in the article.
That said, I think we can come up with something that doesn't violate BLP, OR, NOT#INFO, and NPOV/WEIGHT.  It would, of course, be a part of the Barrett v. Koren section.
Anyone have a problem with this, other than we're pretending to have a source that we don't actually have? --Ronz 02:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a real source that isn't Negrete's criticism which documents that BArrett is not board certified. -- Levine2112 discuss 04:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide a reference from an independent source which demonstrates its notability, relevance, and importance. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 04:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right here for one. -- Levine2112 discuss 05:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "We have a real source that isn't Negrete's criticism " check Shot info 05:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That does not seem like an independent, neutral source. A bias reference would not be acceptable, IMHO. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 05:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is independent of the trial. Every newspaper is biased to some extent. -- Levine2112 discuss 05:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The World Chiropractic Alliance is not a neutral source. Oh, by the way, you may want to brush up on policy around here because it is about verifiable and not truth. The trivial matter you want to include does not meet policy guidelines and there is no consensus. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 06:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The WCA article passes WP:RS. That Barrett is not board certified has been verified. Most of the editors here agree, two of which are admins. :) -- Levine2112 discuss 06:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats your opinion, I think. You have failed to demonstrate the relevancy using independent, neutral sources. It fails to meet Wikipedia guidelines. Despite having no consensus, you continue to push this trivial matter to no end. The resolution is no consensus. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 06:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think just how most of the editors here think, including two admins. Are all of our opinions about WP:V and WP:RS wrong? I am curious. From which policy are you getting the idea that I must demonstrate relevancy using independent, neutral sources? WP:RS says that articles should be based on reliable, published sources. WCA, for instance, is a both reliable and published. Please help me understand where you are coming from. -- Levine2112 discuss 07:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry you need help understanding policy. We go by policies such as verifiable and not truth using neutral, published sources and not bias references. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 07:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are incorrect. Nowhere on WP:SPS does it say neutral published sources. I am unsure from where you are getting the word or concept of "neutral" in terms of sources. Please explain. Furthermore, WCA is not considered self-published as it is not a self-published book, personal website, nopt a personal blog. WCA is a reliable secondary source here. I hope this helps you with your confusion on policy. -- Levine2112 discuss 07:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Ironically, this has been pointed out to this editor before, yet here we are...again...  Shot info 07:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Mr. Guru for pointing out that policy.  It also says [[Self-published sources (online and paper)
Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and personal blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.[3]
Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.
Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP.]]  The site is self serving and an attack site which brings the question, what use is it?  ----CrohnieGalTalk/Contribs 10:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After reading this above thread and reading the policies shown, I withdraw my recommendation at this time to add the material into the article.  I would appreciate not to be pressured about this nor considered not having relevent information.  I do not know policies like all of you and I am still trying to learn but have a slow learning curve.  Stephen Barrett not being certified is not important and is trivia so again I repeat I am reversing my decision at this time.  If this needs to continue than I suggest someone bring it to a higher level because we are getting no where fast.  Sorry for the confusion, ----CrohnieGalTalk/Contribs 11:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are free to do whatever you want. Though I find it interesting that when you are pressured from "the other side" you don't seem to mind as much. Let me assure you that neither QuackGuru nor Shot info know policy very well (at least by what they have demonstrated above). WCA is not a self-published source - no more than any magazine. The same goes for Dynamic Chiropractic (as MaxPont has pointed out even further above). These two are widely read publications, each with their own reliable publication process which you can read about on their websites. Both publication had nothing to do with the trial where Barrett related his lack of board certification; thus both articles are completely independent on reporting this information. Both articles show the importance of this information - that the doctor critic is not board certiifed. Very relevant. It is not like we are putting in information about which color Barrett painted his kitchen or the name of his childhood pet. This is not trivia. He is a medical critic and these are his medical credentials. On topic and supported by reliable primary and secondary sources - as Arthur Rubin (an admin more often on the other side of the dispute from myself) put it, there is no reason why Barrett's lack of board certification shouldn't be mentioned. -- Levine2112 discuss 15:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WCA is a self-admitted promotional website dedicated to the sole interest of chiropractic advocacy. I would not expect anything less from this type of website. Read how they paint themselved as. BTY, do you want a chiro to touch your neck? Ouch! :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 17:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The key is for all parties involved to understand that there is no consensus. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 17:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "QuackGuru nor Shot info know policy very well" well, it's obvious that Andrew has no idea what WP:CONSENSUS says (amongst others).  Here's an essay that will help with his decision making process.  Shot info 22:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Levine2112 clearly understands WP:Consensus, he's also been quite polite and followed procedure.  I think some editors would do well to honor at least 5 or 6 of those points in the aforementioned essay to Levine.  Also Wikipedia:Five pillars #1, "Wikipeidia is an encyclopedia" seems particularly imperilled here by the biography section's drift from sympathetic treatment of a controversial figure fixation toward outright adoration.--I'clast 00:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's quite obvious that he has just as much understanding of WP:CONSENSUS as you do of WP:COI.  It would also be appropriate if you let your pet edits go as well and review WP:BLP sometime, something you keep ignoring by your uncivil comments above.  'Shot info 01:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think my understanding, along with Levine's, may more parallel the admins understanding and I am remaining civil. I have addressed this more below, ,  Slanting the balance of articles as a form of defence of some figure, group, institution, or product is bad for the encyclopedia.--I'clast 03:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is more reflective of your assumption of bad faith that editors at "slanting the balance of articles as a form of defence".  Perhaps if you actually read what editors are saying rather than just backing up your POV warrior, you might find that there are several reasons they object.  Hence why I recommended that you engage in some other BLPs to learn how to develop some knowledge on consensus building.  Shot info 04:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, my "assumptions" were covered earlier, below. In case this policy link was not working for you, , a more pertinent part, again as earlier & below, On the other hand, the removal of reliably sourced critical material is not permitted. I have read the objections here, repeatedly. The Biography section has still promotional concerns and is still factually deficient.--I'clast 04:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First one, then another, will the real policy diff please stand up?  All your shifting around will make one dizzy.  Given your perchant for COI, I strongly encourage you to take your accusations to RfC.  After all, it is following the policy no isn't it?  Or will this be yet another baseless accusation.  Come Colonel Sandurz, what's wrong....chicken? :-) Shot info 05:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: it's a long way to Tipperary, I commend Levine for all his effort.--I'clast 18:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a question: If the World Chiropractic Alliance is not a neutral source, can anybody specifically define what healthcare-related publications are neutral sources? Would the British Medical Journal qualify as a neutral source, for example, bearing in mind that it [makes its money largely from pharmaceutical industry advertising]? --Vitaminman 20:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt anyone can.  Of course, we don't need to restrict ourselves to healthcare-related pubs. -- Ronz  22:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A different suggestion - Tangent about whether we already do have a source

message: I'm repeating my compromise because the previous discussion got completely off track.  I would like editors to consider and comment on my compromise as written.  I think it identifies the key area of disagreement that we currently have.  Specifically, we do not agree that we have a source that shows, by adhering to WP:WEIGHT and related policies/guidelines, that the issue of Barrett's credentials is important enough to be included in the article. --Ronz 17:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretend source?  Yes I have a problem with this.  I am trying to learn policy not bend or break them.----CrohnieGalTalk/Contribs 18:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is with the Biography section, incomplete - not board certified, and still fluffy - like the eighth runner-up *below a whole list* (Top Skeptics of the Century) "with at least one" vote (for a member), puffery tagging onto the great names farce seems to project a pronounced bias.  The simple solution to the first part is to just briefly state the bare fact about board certification, once.--I'clast 18:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your problem is not with the article but with WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT.  It is probably worth your while to edit some other BLP articles to gain an understanding what is and isn't acceptable in this encyclopedia.  Shot info 01:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly such an interpretation in the Biography section presupposes any edit less than praising should be given zero weight according to some editors' comments, contrary to both WP policy and many examples. Oh, btw, from  WP:COI - Defending interests: On the other hand, the removal of reliably sourced critical material is not permitted. Accounts of public controversies, if backed by reliable sources, form an integral part of Wikipedia's coverage. Slanting the balance of articles as a form of defence of some figure, group, institution, or product is bad for the encyclopedia.--I'clast 03:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, you said it, and you even quoted it, yet you just don't seem to get it.  You're letting your POVs get in the way (again).  Shot info 03:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, some here may be letting their POV get in the way.  I checked the Biography sections on two of my favorites actually on the "Ten Outstanding Skeptics of the Century" list,  Asimov and  Einstein, and they contained far more "less positive", less career relevant information than has been allowed here at the SB Biography section, whom had at least one vote.--I'clast 03:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "far more "less positive", less career relevant information" (??????) As I said you're letting your POVs get in the way (far more or less :-). Shot info 03:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the hopefully helpful links.--I'clast 04:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A different suggestion - another tangent

message: "But seeing as we have several reliable primary and secondary sources which verify and give weight to this information, I reiterate what Arthur Rubin has said, there is little reason not to include a brief mention of Barrett's lack of board certification."
Let's put an end to this. Consensus disagrees with you Levine2112. That's why I've offered my compromise. -- Ronz  17:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More editors here (including the only two participating admins) agree that we have reliable sources to at least state briefly that Barrett is not board certified. I want everyone here to be satisfied however when we do insert the information. That is why I have offered my compromise. The majority of editors here support my compromise. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Levine2112, you may want to check out WP:Consensus in the light of WP:Voting is evil. Also note that the admin status of users involved in a dispute does not give their opinion extra weight and repeatedly belaboring this point may well irritate them. AvB ÷ talk 19:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I get it. I do. But in the face of so much support from so many, I am surprised that consensus cannot be established. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: "at least state briefly" So you're now trying to demonstrate support for a different statement?  That's fine, but has nothing to do with the point of this discussion topic. -- Ronz  19:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually quite on topic. "Brief mention" has always been part of my original compromise. And this discussion - which you started - quotes me talking about the support we have for a brief mention. So why are you saying it has nothing to do with the point of this discussion topic? Now then, my compromise still stands and I hope in the name of good Wikipedia spirit you will be moved to accept this fair proposal. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reiterate: If a brief mention in the biography is your compromise, I remind you of the fact that this all began when I removed such a brief mention from the biography. AvB ÷ talk 20:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note to AvB: The compromise has a mention that is even more brief; whereas we would be leaving out that Barrett failed one-half of his exam. We would only say that he is not board certified (see Crohnie's wording above). Would you be opposed to that brief of a mention or do you think you can help settle this dispute by agreeing to this extremely fair compromise? BTW, if you have differenty wording in mind, I am more than opening to it. Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As before, what you're proposing is not a compromise to me. It's worse than the disputed language you wanted in the article. It's extremely simple. You want the info in the article, I don't want it in the article. Not only do you want the info in the article, you also want it in the lead or Barrett's CV (as if it was important at the time). You do not want it in the criticism section where it belongs. And finally you want to publish it out of context. That's a lot of requirements to base a compromise on. Ronz's proposal meets you halfway. My compromise would be to publish it together with its context and in the criticism section. Barrett's detractors say x, Barrett responds y. I'll probably still oppose my own compromise, since the Criticism section is much too long already, but at least I think it's viable. Your compromise is not. It violates NPOV, NOR and BLP. AvB ÷ talk 13:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: This has already been discussed and rejected by the community. Question for Levine2112. Do you understand there is no consensus and there has been a long discussion about this? If you do understand this, it is time to drop it. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 20:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand consensus, but I disagree that it is time to drop it. Sorry. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you understand at the moment there is no consensus. When will it be time to drop it? :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 21:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When there is a consensus? When an RfC comes through? When all parties agree to a compromise? -- Levine2112 discuss 21:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not work like that. Many people have spoken about this. It has gone on long enough. It has been given a chance multiple times. Please put this behind you. Do you agree and understand? :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 21:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree and understand. There is no consensus to leave the material out either. We are striving to reach a consensus. I would appreciate your help. I have suggested a fair compromise completely in line with Wikipedia policy. There shouldn't be any issue, yet you and others keep inventing them. Therefore this dispute continues. This dispute will end when you agree to the generous and fair compromise. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please clarify. Do you understand after multiple lengthy discussions there is no consensus. This is a yes or no question. Why should the dispute continue when there is no consensus. We go by consensus here. Do you agree? :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 21:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but Wikipedia works by building consensus. That's why this dispute continues. What we are doing here - incivility aside - is exactly for what Wikipedia is designed; going through various dispute resolution techniques (including negotiating, discussion, straw polls and mediation) to establish a consensus. We don't give up when there is no consensus. Do you agree? -- Levine2112 discuss 21:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree to this. Wikipedia works by consensus but not pushing for consensus until an editor gets their way after repeated attempts have failed. There comes a point in time to let it go and move on. When do you think it is time to drop a dispute when there is no consensus? A month a year or five years? How long? What is your time frame? You said: We don't give up when there is no consensus. is rather an odd statement to me. There is a point in time to "give up." This has been a fruitful discussion but enough is enough. Do you agree? :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 21:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't agree. Wikipedia works by building consensus. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide me with the policy that Wikipedia works by allowing a certain editor or editors to never stop until they get their way on Wikipedia. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 22:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You have not answered my question to my satisfaction. When consensus cannot be reached after much much discussion after discussion is it time to drop it or keep going to a seemingly never end? All the discussions about the proposals have been rejected. Do you agree? :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 22:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to answer this to your satisfaction as I believe communication is essential for reaching a consensus. So let me be clear. Wikipedia is about building a consensus. Nowhere in the policy on consensus does it discuss futility. Wikipedia is living and breathing and its editing is ongoing for the life of Wikipedia. Therefore, there is no end to trying to reach consensus. (What's more, consensus can change!) When consensus cannot be reached through civil discussions, there are several other methods of dispute resolution that can be employed. We have tried a number of these approaches with some success but still a consensus has not been reached. I think negotiation and compromises will be a great way to solve this dispute; however, we are also awaiting an RfC. Now then, please reciprocate and answer my request: Please provide me with the policy which describes when you give up on trying to acheive a consensus. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did my best to listen to your argument. I disagree with your proposals. It is done and over with on this talk page. Have fun. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 22:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No agreement on existance of reliable secondary sources

message: (Repeating another topic that was side-tracked)
"But seeing as we have several reliable primary and secondary sources which verify and give weight to this information, I reiterate what Arthur Rubin has said, there is little reason not to include a brief mention of Barrett's lack of board certification."
Let's put an end to this. There is no consensus that such sources exist.  Does anyone dispute this? -- Ronz  22:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that consensus has not been established. We need to work to establish one. Thus far, no one disputing the sources provided have given good reason why they shouldn't be considered reliable sources. If you have grounds why the Dynamic Chiropractic and WCA article cannot be used (let's start with these two), please provide your policy explanation. Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Let's stop saying otherwise then. -- Ronz  22:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No consensus on existance of reliable secondary sources