Talk:Stephen Barrett/Archive 5

message: I'm very concerned that a portion of the Barrett v. Koren section was copyvio.  When I removed it, a reworded version was reinserted by another editor.  I've removed the section until we're certain what sources are actually being used and that those sources are verifiable per WP:V. --Ronz 16:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reworded it to get around the copyvio issue. What's the issue now? Levine2112 20:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:V - What sources are being used and are they verifiable? --Ronz 21:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a court document referenced following the paragraph. What's the issue? I will look for more citations, but the court document is truly enough. Levine2112 21:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we keep out the copyvio information in all forms, I think we'll be ok as long as we keep the entry on the court case to a minimum.  I'd be much more comfortable with a verifiable source (a online scan of the court document mentioned, for instance).  --Ronz 21:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What part do you think violates copyright? And why? Levine2112 21:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The part that I removed with the copyvio comment, which you then reworded and reinserted.  Is there some doubt about what we're talking about there, since you did the editing in question? --Ronz 22:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you think it is a copy vio? That is my question. Why? There is no plaagiarism now that I have rewritten it. So why do you still consider this to be a copyvio? Levine2112 00:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies. I should have been clearer from the start.  There was a copyvio.  I removed it.  You added it back in a reworded form.  While that certainly clears up the copyvio problem it brings up the WP:V concern: what sources are we actually using?  The referenced one?  The source of the copyrighted text? Both? Are there others also being used but not referenced? Are there other, similar copyvio's? --Ronz 05:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And after I clear up the WP:V, what will you find wrong with this next? Can you just tell me know so I can save time? If you see any more copyvio's, feel free to add "quotation marks". Levine2112 06:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I sympathize with what I'm interpreting as frustration. If we had verifiable, secondary sources it would all be so much easier, but then I've said this before. Meanwhile we continue with what we have. --Ronz 06:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But this information passes WP:V with flying colors. It is completely verifiable. WE are dealing with court records and secondary sources. What's the issue? Levine2112 06:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Barrett v. Koren

message: It is shocking the blatant and obvious Barrett bias here. Where is the evidence of the Judge claiming what is written here? Why does Wikipedia allow this supposively encyclopedia to be just another Barrett front group for disinformation? There was a directed verdict in this case and to delete this and add something with no evidence to it's accuracy destroys the credibility of Wikipedia. Ilena 03:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Pro" Barrett, please, anybody reading the article would be shocked to see how much (over 50%) of this "biography" is devoted to criticisms.  Shot info 04:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone reading this article would be appropriately informed with the most notable and verifiable information about the subject. Levine2112 07:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The information is in blatant violation of WP:N, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:BLP. --Ronz 17:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The attacks, personal and otherwise, are not appreciated.  You may want to read WP:NPA. --Ronz 05:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pro-Barrett bias?

message: I have a suggestion - perhaps the section entitled "Credentials" would better be described as "Criticism"?  Jance 03:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a subheading in the criticisms section, but that may not be apparent to readers. It sure does concentrate on criticisms. -- Fyslee 16:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I see that now.  It appears that some of the criticism is warranted.  I read the case re King Bio and was appalled.  I can't imagine anyone going into court with such lame arguments, and such a dearth of evidence.  It is mind-boggling.  I am not talking about sophisticated nuances or obscure points of law, but the very most basic principles of civil (including tort) law.  If you sue someone you don't argue that he (the defendant) must prove your case.  You do not generally put the Plaintiffs on as expert witnesses.  I was simply dumbfounded.  Talk about frivolous lawsuits.  Jance 00:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: I do not think Ronz is overwhelmingly biased, from the short contact I have had with him.  And I do wonder why Fyslee reverted an edit that included a reference to a Wikipedia talk page.  I don't have a problem with providing a reliable resource in Barrett's defense, but to cite to a talk page where Barrett supposedly defended himself is a bit much.  In fact, the two court cases are pretty clear as to what happened. Jance 20:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm interpreting David D's comments to be in response to Ilena's only because David and I responded at almost the exact same time. --Ronz 20:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the defense, and your interpretation is correct, but Jance is referring to Ilena since she quotes her use of overwhelmingly biased. David D. (Talk) 20:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You all completely lost me, now.  I think David's statement is correct.  I figure it's time for me to get back to work, and stop playing on WikipediaJance 21:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're not sure who you (Jance) is referring to, David or Ilena.  I thought it might be David that you were commenting on, so gave my perspective.  As for Ilena's comments, it's just more of her personal attacks against me. --Ronz 21:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh.  I meant Ilena's comment.  I didn't think she was correct in stating that you were 'overwhelimingly biased', based on my short contact with you here.Jance 22:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: woah

message: I have looked in both Wikipedia:Reliable Resources and the Bio on Living Persons info.  There is nothing I see that would permit the subject of a bio to defend himself in the article from an excerpt from the talk page.  This is just bad form.  If Fyslee has something that I missed, please provide it.  Otherwise, I think this particular source needs to be deleted.Jance 21:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  It definitely fails the spirit of WP:RS. David D. (Talk) 21:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was added here .  I don't understand the justification either.  Also, the section has been substantially rewritten since. --Ronz 22:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Barret's comments on talk page

message: I revised the article on Barrett v. Rosenthal - please take a look, as it also relates here.  I can't believe I spent half a day reading these c ases and editing.  The Act is interesting though, as is the controversy surrounding it.  I have learned a lot...  Anyway, I am utterly wiped out.  I welcome input.Jance 03:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Barrett v. Rosenthal

message: Doesn't it seem inappropriate to anyone else that so many of Barret's so-called critics are merely people who are biased against him because they're exactly the sort of person he's trying to call attention to?  Would you ask a rabbit for comments on a wolf's diet?  Sahalian is clearly not in a position to comment objectively on Barret since he's hawking exactly the kind of product that Barrett is trying to warn people off of.  Lorraine Day is another example.  And Tim Bolen is simply a nutcase.  Let's restrict commentary on Barrett to people who aren't specifically targets of Barrett's quackbusting.  --Curtis Bledsoe 04:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I pointed out above, the entire section has severe problems with WP:N and WP:NPOV.  WP:OR too at the root of it all.  It relies entirely on primary sources to push a point of view.  It's a massive edit war in the making until there is more respect for WP:N, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:BLP and the related guidelines, policies, and maintenance processes. --Ronz 16:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So what do you think we should do?  --Curtis Bledsoe 04:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Curtis, if you read the sections below, I think we all address this.Jance 04:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Barrett's detractors

message: I have been mocked for mentioning this posse ... seen it called a "satire page" ... when in fact, it is a group, which includes Barrett and Fyslee and several others, who proclaim that they go after "net quacks" and that their official sites are ncahf.org an quackwatch.com. Here is an archived page: [1]. I just checked, and within the last few weeks, they have removed the current site showing the Posse together. Here is an archived listing of their websites: Our web sites: www.quackwatch.com www.healthwatcher.net www.ratbags.com www.ncahf.org [2]. This Posse was formed the same year as Barrett and Team launched several SLAPP suits against critics and those who practiced modalities which they disagreed with. These members are seen on blogs, usenet and various chatgroups in various disguises advertising NCAHF/QW and attacking the same people as the plaintiffs are suing. Anyone, like Barrett, who calls himself "the media" (isn't he humble) will use the various mediums to push their viewpoints and minimize their opposition. Have a lovely day and thank you. Ilena 16:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And what does this have to do with the article?  I propose this be immediately to the archive as it is a distraction for those who actually want to discuss the article. --Ronz 16:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for asking. This is one of the many, many medium that Barrett wages his wars from. Do not remove this Ronz. This is about Stephen Barrett, who listed his name on this Posse for 6 years. Barrett (and you in his behalf) do NOT get to pick and choose what he wants the public to know about his operations. Happy holidays. Ilena 16:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Barrett isn't here, unless you still think I'm Barrett (I'm not Barrett, nor do I have any association with him).  We have policies and guidelines to keep such "wars" in check.  If you think there are POV problems here, then point them out as they come up.  The article is already marked indicating it's neutrality is disputed. There is no need for long and repeated comments on why you feel there are problems here. --Ronz 17:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please let me update your information. My edits were removed from the moment I came to Wikipedia exposing NCAHF's questionable corporate status. State records were called POV and removed by you and others. When I first began to read here ... Barrett Vs Rosenthal was unrecognizable to the facts of the case. Jance has done an admirable job of getting the basics of this article correct. I am very familiar with being ganged up by people defending Stephen Barrett and his questionable operations and his "feuds" (SLAPP suits that go for over 6 years and end up in The Supreme Court of California). Thank you and have a lovely holiday. Ilena 20:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rag-tag Posse of Snake-Oil Vigilantes 

message: What seems inappropriate is attempting to censure a Barrett "detractor".  But since you asked, I am not a target of Barrett's.  In fact, I tend to be skeptical of most "alternative" medicine/treatments, and have had no particular interest in that or in Barrett.  And I personally think homeopathy is nonsense, and have read and agreed with a couple articles I read by Barrett. In short, I have not had any strong opinion on the guy.  I did not much care for the "tort reform" groups who quote him but I don't know if he is affiliated with that or not.  I am also aware that many MDs and the AMA (a lobbying group for doctors) hate lawyers and lawsuits (especially those against doctors.)  That said, it would not be surprising if Barrett is part of that, but I don't know.  If he is, it would surely be quite the irony.
That said, I have today read these cases.  I find them interesting, primarily because they involve constitutional issues and I am an attorney.  What I found, though, is appalling.  What I see here is a  collossal arrogance, an abuse of process and the epitome of barratry.   Even the courts slammed him, for suing a company and then expecting the company to make his case for him.  Then he argued that he should be granted the same authority as the government, in investigating "fraud".  All of this as he holds himself out as an expert in these areas, and even presenting himself as an expert witness in court.  I have never seen anything like it.  
This is a man who goes around the country suing those who disagree with him.  
The following discussion has been deleted from this article, but I am now thinking it should be added back.  It goes to the heart of the problem with his actions :
False Advertising - (and I will add, one of many frivolous lawsuits Barrett has filed)
One of the stated missions [46] of Quackwatch Inc. is "assisting or generating consumer-protection lawsuits." [47]
NCAHF v. King Bio
In 2001, NCAHF (Plaintiff) sued King Bio Pharmaceuticals (Defendants), a homeopathic pharmaceutical company, for false advertising and unfair business practices. The court granted a directed verdict for Defendants, after Plaintiff presented its case. Plaintiff suggested in its initial trial brief that it could not prove the elements of its claims, and argued that only "slight" evidence should be required to shift the burden of proof to the Defendant. 
The court explained the fundamental and elementary principle in civil actions - that one filing a lawsuit has the burden to prove its claims by a preponderance of the evidence. The court then stated that Plaintiffs had no evidence, apart from the testimony of two "expert" witnesses, to prove any of the elements of their claims. The court stated that by law, the testimony of both witnesses (Barrett and another member of the board of NCAHF) should be given little weight, because neither witness was qualified to testify as an expert on the issues raised. The court further stated that both witnesses had a "direct, personal financial interest in the outcome," and were "zealous advocates" rather than "neutral or dispassionate witnesses or experts."
The Court concluded with a sharp rebuke:
"The logical end-point of Plaintiff’s burden-shifting argument would be to permit anyone with the requisite filing fee to walk into any court in any state in the Union and file a lawsuit against any business, casting the burden on that defendant to prove that it was not violating the law. Such an approach, this Court finds, would itself be unfair."
CURTIS, do you think the court here, and the appellate court which affirmed these statements (and the decision) are "lunatics" or just bitter detractors and biased?  Do you know how rare a directed verdict is?Jance 05:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of Barrett's involvment with King Bio, the case should either appear here, or over at NCAFH not both.  I personally think it should be over at NCAFH as it was made by the NCAFH.  Also, remember WP:OR it is not wikipedia's place to discuss "it goes to the heart of his actions".  Shot info 05:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This guy is notable precisely for his zealous advocacy - his self-appointed role in ferreting out "quack" science...  And part of that is indeed what looks like barratry to me - of course, I wuold not suggest stating this in the article, os any WP:OR is just here on the talk page.  It is very difficult to read those cases and not arrive at this conclusion!  Discussing the cases in the article is surely not  WP:OR. I agree that this info should not be duplicated.  But I also think that this is an important point in the Barrett bio since he was intimately involved in bringing this case (he was not only the 'expert' witness, but also was on the board of NCAFH.  I'm just not sure where or how to say it without duplilcation.  Thanks. Jance 05:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And his advocacy is mentioned in the opening paragraph, coupled with the very, very, very, very, very extension list of "critisms" (of which I would like to prune back to a few paragraphs + a link) should give the reader an idea of what, why, where and how.  It isn't really wiki's place to say if his actions are "wrong" or not, hence WP:OR.  Shot info 05:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This case should be an example of the zealous 'advocacy'.  We don't have to editorialize, since the court's comments speak for themselves.  That is not WP:OR.  It is part of a bio and part of an example of what he does - when I said "actions" I was not editorializing.  This is who he is, and what he does.  That is part of a bio,  I also agree that the long laundry list of critical quotes should be pruned.  However, the discussion on criticism should be there - just tightened up.  I still think what I wrote on King Bio is an exmaple of a section that was 'tightened up' without excessive quotes etc.  Jance 06:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Barratry]]

message: I admit it.  I have gotten sucked into this, when I vowed to not waste the day... alas.
I have looked at the section on "Accusations" (Which I changed to "Allegations") and I don't even know where to start.  This is way too long, and has long quotes back and forth between Barrett and his critics, presumably.  This is not encyclopedic.  I do think the criticsim of Barrett is a large part of his notability, and maybe notoriety.  Courts have blasted him for bringing lawsuits without any evidence to prove their claim (the King Bio is stunning).  Since Barrett is the founder of this orgnization and the "expert witness" in it, I feel this is as much related to Barrett as to NCAHF.
Alternative medicine companies also are critics - understandably since they are targets.  And maybe there some of these companies should be reigned in.  But how?  By Barrett filing a plethora of lawsuits, where he has neither the expertise to tesitfy as an expert witness in court, nor the authority to investigate these companies (as the court suggested).  
So my question is summarize the issues - who are his critics and why.  What the courts have said about his penchant for filing lawsuits against those who disagree with him, and against those whom he has labeled "Quacks".  I don't see that a personal spat between some alternative medicine doctor and Barrett is enlightening.  What if we start on the section, and try to outline the issues that make him controversial? Jance 06:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wp:blp#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_controversial_material allows for the removal of material without regard to the 3RR rule.  Under that, all the material from primary sources not backed by better sources as well can be removed.  Following that alone, you could make a good argument that the entire section should be removed because of the source material is so poor. --Ronz 16:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section should stay, but most of the quotes should go.  Barrett is known for controversy and suing people, in addition to his online "consumer" advocacy.  A well-known magazine or newspaper  and  court case (any relevant court case is, by WIki standards, acceptable for use in a bio), could describe these issues.  I absolutey agree that each of these web-site spats (in the "Accusation" section are not adequately sourced.
There should be a criticism section, because of the many court cases and public policy issues.   Barrett has made a name for going around suing people/companies  who disagreed with him or with whom he disagrees.  In fact, court cases do lay out three different issues:  Barrett's penchant for suing, his bias, and his lack of qualifications for holding himself out as an 'expert'.  Jance 17:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that many, if not all, the controversial cases should stay.  The he said, she said, he said, she said style though is a diasaster and completely unencyclopedic. There is just no need for such depth. David D. (Talk) 17:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed on agreement?  (I need coffee).  Yes, I started reading that section and my eyes glazed over.  A laundry list of quotes is bad form, even if properly sourced.  That was my original point.  The three criticisms should be stated clearly and succincty, with maybe one or two examples, using a court case and any other properly sourced material.  Even the Village Voice would be an adequate source;  the website of an alternative practitioner would not.  Yes, Quackwatch website is a link, but that is because the bio is about Barrett.  Quackwatch should not be used in the body of the article as a source.   I believe all the cases should stay, since they all reflect these criticisms.  Jance 17:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Village Voice reference is by far the best of the lot, though not good.  Start with it alone maybe? --Ronz 18:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Pateince, politness and persistence will prevail and win over everyone.  Time is on our side. We just have to find the right text and sources to craft an interesting, fair and readable section. David D. (Talk) 18:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, David.    A little bit at a time, maybe?  Some sources that should be acceptable include all of the court cases (since the judges in those are very pointed in their criticism of Barrett and his lack of a case); the Village Voice, and The American Chiropractic Association website (that should be a legitimate source).  There is ample material even in these three sources to discuss the controversy and criticism.  From what I have read, this is the criticism that is supported by documentation and is of public interest:   Barrett is taking it upon himself to go after those who criticize him, and anyone connected with alternative medicine, by suing them.  And the lawsuits he files are mostly unfounded.  That is not a comment on the 'truth' of his criticism of various alternative med companies/treatments.  However, it is a comment that he is not going through normal democratic avenues to change regulatory law (which is his ultimate goal, it seems).  He is holding himself out as an expert, where he has not met the legal standards to qualify as an expert (per the court case, particularly Bio King trial & appeals court.)  The court wrote that not only was he a psychiatrist, and not an epidemiologist, statistician, expert on nutrition etc etc, but he also has not held a medical license since 1993.  Why is that important?  Well, the court wrote that there is no documentation of continuing education as is required of licensed medical doctors (and other fields as well, I will note) to keep up in the latest research.  We have only his word.  Barrett also argued that he should be given the same authority to invesitgate fraud as an attorney general, but even an attorney general must prove his case.   Barrett argued that he should be able to sue a company and then produce no evidence, but instead the burden of proof should be shifted to the defendant to prove he didn't do what Barrett alleged.   I found King Bio opinion astonishing, and it is about as harsh a rebuke as I have seen in a court opinion.  (well, with the exception of one US SUpreme Court case where Justice Stevens pointed out to a lower court that only the US Supreme Court can overrule the US SUpreme Court.).  Jance 18:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The ACA ref is just a letter to the editor, or am I missing something else? --Ronz 18:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a letter by the President of the ACA, published by the ACA via their website. That should be considered a RR.  Jance 19:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it will have to do. --Ronz 20:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Joel M. Kauffman's analyis of Barrett's research (or lack thereof) is well-founded and certainly notable. That should certainly remain. Deepak Chopra is about the most notable person we mention in this article (Pauling and Weil are certainly up there too). I understand about losing Bolen's rants here, provided that they stay as part of Quackwatch (per the agreement of when Bolen's article "Quackpotwatch" was deleted from Wikipedia). I don't know if the whole Ray Salhelian debacle should remain, but certainly the part where he holds Barrett up to his own standards. Levine2112 22:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the only issue is whether or not there it is a reliable resource.  Is it pubished anywhere other than his own website?  Jance 22:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It doesnt matter if Chopra is a notable person.  What matters are WP:N, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:BLP.  --Ronz 23:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are way too many initials for me.  Is there or is there not a reliable resource to cite? Jance 01:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was responding to Levine.  I don't see anything else reliable.  I'm cringing as is with Village Voice and ACA. --Ronz 01:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand.  And my point is that I do not see where there is a reliable resource quoting Chopra or Kauffman.  One way to look at this, is to realize that the criticism itself does not have to meet any 'scientific' standard, but merely must be reliable as to whether or not it originated from where it claimed.  I think that most would conclude that Village Voice & ACA are reliable sources.  Whether you agree with them or not, is not the point.  These sources could surely be used as examples of those who disagree with Barrett...  and the court cases, of course - those belong under the criticism section.  As an 'outside' reader, I would be interested in these points - although personally I would not find particularly credible the ACA or the Village Voice comments... but that is my own bias (admittedly) regarding most alternative remedies, including chiropractic...  What I would find credible are the court opinions.  Jance 01:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Chopra was quoted - I believe - in the Time magazine article about Barrett. Why does the ACA and the Village Voice make you cringe, Ronz? I'm sorry but your biases will not dictate this article, nor will your opinions of what is notable and what is not. We have verifiable sources from notable critics... enough said. Levine2112 08:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop making make assusations of bias against me. --Ronz 16:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Why? Because we need quality, secondary sources here  - sources that another editor won't come along and remove per Wp:blp#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_controversial_material, along with all the material from those sources. --Ronz 17:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No accusations. I am merely pointingout a bias which you have made clear here. The ACA and the Village Voice are quality secondary sources on the topic of Stephen Barrett. Oh, and so is Time magazine. Don't forget that. Levine2112 18:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Accusation.  There's nothing clear to me.  --Ronz 00:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Need help

message: I googled and found a reference, with a citation.  I can't verify the citation, but it seems to look valid.  Inclusion of a sentence on this is probably not bad, and does tend to show a growing list of baseless lawsuits filed by Barrett.  And back to Kauffman, I can't find any source that would be considered reliable for inclusion of his analysis.  Jance 23:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Koren case?

message: I think it might be useful to find other BLP articles on controversial people to help us with this one.  The first I found was Amazing_Randi - controversial, heavily criticised, and involved in a number of legal disputes (some of which were very naive on his part). --Ronz 02:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is probably a good idea.  I suggest that Levine /or others also look where you did (I don't know where that is) and see if you all can agree on another admin/? who has been involved in a similar issue.  Jance 03:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I'm suggesting is for the editors to try to find other articles similar to Barrett's to list here for us all to learn from.  Randi's is the only one I've found so far where there is a wiki article and it is indeed similar. --Ronz 04:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok.  I am too tired to look at it tonight, but your suggestion is a good one.  Perhaps other editors can try to find similar articles, as well.  It sounds like someone else should look at all this.. Jance 04:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Thats a good idea, Ronz.  But it needs to be taken section by section, paragraph by paragraph.  Otherwise, we will continue to see edit warring.  I looked at the article on Amazing Randi - it is entertaining (no I had no idea who he was), and readable.  There are links to what look like individual websites or articles of somewhat questionalble verifibility.  But I did not look at it closely, so I may be wrong.  I would welcome whoever helped with that article ...  This looks like it could use some more editors who have dealt fairly with very controversial subjects.  The Randi article does seem to parallel this, rather closely.Jance 19:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already requested help from Randi editors and WikiProject Biography. As for the continued edit warring, I think you're right. I don't think that it will be helpful listing what makes Barrett's article so contentious. --Ronz 19:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fresh eyes are welcome. I have dealt with plenty of contentious articles in my time at Wikipedia and though it sometimes gets rough, fairness always rises to the top. Especially when editors behave cooperatively, do their best to fullfill simple requests, back up their assertions properly and generally are clear about who they are and where they are coming from. Levine2112 03:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Randi article has about 5% devoted to criticisms.  Shot info 06:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Joseph Mercola's article is pretty much on par with the amount of criticism with the current Barrett article, the main difference being that the criticism is pervasive through out Mercola's article rather than just contained to the specified sections. Levine2112 07:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I took this into account, problem is this article is over 50% "criticism" (to use a word) and Mercola's around 30%.  Please, I am only pointing this out NOT to cover up Barrett's actions but merely as a request to clean up what appears to be overly long and detailed critics when only some key ones (or several) will suffice.  This is why I keep (and have kept when I stumbled across this article) pointing out the "rules" for these sorts of articles in WP:BLP.  Regardless of how the subject is "notable" (for a given interpretation of WP:N) WP:BLP does not allow us to make a BLP article a sop for criticism.  If you feel Mercola's is so, then I suggest it is pruned as well.  Shot info 12:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the direct criticism section (Accusations of bias and lack of objectivity) is so overlong, as it is the all the damn litigation that blows the article up, and then expands the Credentials section and its relevance. Face it, someone needs (-ed) to take a diet off the litigation candy, it's messing up our biography ;->--I'clast 13:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Too many colons.  I agree that the section on litigation is silly.  I see no reason to highlight each and every libel case.  It would be better, imho, to write an intelligible paragraph about the criticism of Barrett's litigationm, and cite the cases as examples.  There is a way to do this, as a legal citation that presents the holding of the case within parentheses.  
The main criticism that I see of Barrett is that he has continuously litigated dubious or frivolous claims, against those whom he claims defames him, as well as the "alternative med" practitioners.  The one case (King Bio) shocked me, because it drew such a sharp and sarcastic rebuke from the judge (rightfully so).  This had nothing to do with the merits of homeopathy, but had everything to do with policy, and how to properly object to controversial medical practices.   Barrett attempted to 'subvert' basic rules of evidence (shifting the burden of proof).  Moreover, he presented no evidence and held himself out as an expert witness without any credentials to meet admissibility requirements.  That would not have passed muster for Frye, let alone Daubert (the standards for admissibiility of expert testimony).  I find this far more interesting than arguing the merits of 'alternative' v. traditional medicine.  But then I am biased, I suppose.  Jance 18:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't include the Litigation sections in the estimate of how much of this page is dedicated to criticism. Litigation is not criticism; it is historical information. That for the most part it turns critical for Barrett is just the way it goes. But it shouldn't be counted as part of the criticism section. Therefore, I would say that the criticisms section is on par with other BLP's of similar nature and if it is a bit longer than others, I would suggest that it is deservedly so. Considering how much criticism Barrett puts out there, he is bound to have it come back. You reap what you sow. Levine2112 18:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, perhaps not.  The problem is that if we use that perspective to justify our edits, then we're all in violation of NPOV. --Ronz 20:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True enough.  Then leave it in its own section.   I suspect most people would consider it a criticism - excessive litigation?  Come on now, where are all those doctors who complain that there are too many lawsuits?  ;-)  Jance 23:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To find someone who says that Barrett is guilty of excessive litigation would be a criticism. However, merely listing out Barrett's litigation (with a description of the case, the outcome, and notable judge opinions) is not a crtiticism. Levine2112 23:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lighten up, Levine.  I was trying to be tongue in cheek.  Gad, Wikiipedia can be tedious.  I don't know why I stick around here; it must be some kind of masochistic addiction.  ;-)  Jance 23:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't being heavy... sorry it came across that way. Tone can be so easily misinterpreted here. (Maybe we should use emoticons :-) ) I just want to make my point that the litigation section isn't criticism and shouldn't be counted as such when calculation percetages (although I don't think this a valid way to edit an article... some people have more criticism than others.). I sincerely appreciate your work here, Jance. And I wouldn't want you to bow out. Certainly, there is a form of mascohism keeping me here too, I think. Levine2112 00:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's ok, Levine.  I didn't mean to jump on you, either.  I've had some rather ugly experiences on Wikipedia with those who take themselves far more seriously than anyone in *real* life would.  Somehow, I think/agree that the Barrett litigation should stay - however you want to address it.  The litigation is a major factor in Barrett's fame/infamy - whether you call it a 'compliment", criticism, or neither.  As Stephen Colbert would say, it takes colossal b*** to do the things Barrett has done.  Now I better get off this Wiki thing before some cyberthug with no sense of humor attacks me with a WP:TLA.  Jance 00:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good God, someone even has an article on TLA (three letter acronym).  My use of it was a joke.  Sigh.   Oh - and I never much liked emoticons, but I have to admit that I now prefer them over the ubiquitous WP:TLA.  <evil grin> Jance 00:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yep.  This would be good for guidance - unless the example is one of those articles that is dominated by one or two people.  Jance 01:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another approach

message: Would someone help me with this?  I was trying to summarize what I had read in the article, that I think did have a citation, but I lost the source.  Someone added {citation}, rightfully so.  This does need a source.  
"Barrett admits he is not qualified to analyze studies in the context of "traditional medicine", but he claims to have the expertise to critcize a broad range of alternative health theories and practitioners, using similar medical studies."   Jance 00:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Was this from a previous version of the article? Levine2112 01:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, it might have been from the time or even village voice article. I paraphrased, where he said it was "over his head".  I was trying to summarize to concisely state the point.Jance 15:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation?

message: I wrote "His ire has been directed ..." of Barrett.   Is it really POV to write this, when Barrett freely discusses his disgust with these "quacks" (esp the Hulda Clark types).
Someone wrote "he crtiicized"..   I was trying not to be POV, but to be interesting.  "Criticize" seems milktoast somehow, and overused.  Any thought?  This is not a big deal either way, but thought it might be less boring to use different words occasionally.Jance 15:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: A subsection for each case reads badly.  It looks nearly procedural, and odd in the context of this article.  I would again recommend a paragraph, with the cases as examples. Jance 15:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Defamation cases

message: There were two sections on qualifications.  Please don't shoot the messenger. I am only trying to consolidate.  The redundancy of topics was confusing.  When it got to "credentials", my eyes glazed over again.  Why do we care about whether or not he flunked his boards, only had 1-1/2 years of legal correspondence, or all the specific criticisms of him regarding this from individuals most people have never heard of?  The CA court succinctly excoriated Barrett and his "qualification" to provide expert testimony on these issues.   Maybe we can add back something about Barrett being a consumer advocate, but not an expert in all these fields.  I am surely open to suggestions. 
:I might add (for Barrett's critics) that I think this paragraph as written summarizes the criticism, and is more powerful than a long drawn out list of quotes and dissection of Barrett's lack of boards etc. Jance 16:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also changed the reference for the court case.  Findlaw is a more reliable source than "Quackpotwatch".  And, cases should be cited by the reporter. Jance 17:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, one of the cases is the trial level (which was affirmed) and it is not in a reporter, but found at the actual court.  EG it has to be pulled..Jance 23:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Qualifications

message: Curtis, every statement in the paragraph about the case is supported by the case.  Do you know what "Id" means?  Do you want me to put the reference behind every sentence?  This case is relevant to the criticism of a public figure.  I actually happen to rather like Barrett, but I think this kind of action is disgraceful.  And, of COURSE he vehemently goes after quacks - he makes no apology for it.  And the quacks vehemently retaliate.  Do you really want to water it down to say everything is "criticism"?  There is nothing POV about that sentence, since it accurately portrays the emotion that both sides feel about it.  Good grief, this is silly.   Jance 23:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ALso, I have gone out of my way to remove statements that seem irrelevant, and unreliable sources.  To delete an entire paragraph for no reason is vandalism.  I even added "(An "expert witness" is a legal definition, and qualification sometimes requires specialized education or experience in the particular matter that is before the court.)  This was in an effort to put the paragrah in perspective.  If you really have a problem with this, then your interest is having a biased article.  The fact is Barrett is controversial - among those he criticizes.  Is this suprising?  Since the only reason he is famous is because of his going after these practitioners /quacks (whatever name you have for them), you don't think those issues should be in the article?  That is ludicrous on its face.Jance 23:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I searched the entire document you listed as your source for the claim and was unable to find the statements you attributed to the judge.  If you're going to quote court statements, please be sure you have support for those quotes.  --Curtis Bledsoe 23:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Name one.  I described the case exactly.   If there is something there not in the case, I will remove it.  Jance 00:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: NCAHF presented no evidence that King Bio's products were not safe and effective, relying instead on a general attack on homeopathy, made by witnesses who had no knowledge of, or experience with, King Bio's products, and who were found to be biased and unworthy of credibility.
The trial court defines who those two witnesses were - Barrett and another NCAHF doctor.Jance 00:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Curtis you have to stop

message: These are the facts stated:
# The lawsuit was dismissed for the reasons stated
# The judge said the plaintiffs produced no evidence (they went into each type of evidence not presented, such as documentary evidence etc) except the testimony of these experts (both NCAHF board members and one who is Barrett)
# The judge stated the testimony should be given little weight
# For the reason that they were not experts in the matters raised (and the judge went into some detail about that)
# The judge also discussed Plaintiff's argument to shift the burden of proof upon "slight" showing by the plaintiff.
# The last sentence is a quote, and I removed part of it that was there.
Note:  I added the "This is true in medical (regulatory) issues, but is not true in a court of law in a private lawsuit." and that is not in the court case.  I added it to explain why NCAHF (Barrett's org) may not have fully understood the argument they were  presenting, and why it probably sent the judge off (that is my speculation).   The judge was downright sarcastic in the opinion.  I have tempered that dramatically. Jance 00:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NCAHF presented no evidence that King Bio's products were not safe and effective, relying instead on a general attack on homeopathy, made by witnesses who had no knowledge of, or experience with, King Bio's products, and who were found to be biased and unworthy of credibility.
The trial court defines who those two witnesses were - Barrett and another NCAHF doctor.Jance 00:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Paragraph at Issue

message: Let's discuss the article.  What about an intro in this section?  I had pared it down, and unfortunately I did not provide any kind of context.  For example, this was in the "Village Voice":
Barrett, a former psychiatrist in Allentown, Pennsylvania, doesn't sugarcoat his bitter pills. His site is a virtual hit list of therapies he finds too illogical to be tested for their validity. Chiropractic, acupuncture, homeopathy, vitamins and herbs, relaxation techniques, and preventive nutrition plans, as well as specific practitioners like Dr. Bernie Siegel, M.D. (author of Love, Medicine & Miracles and Peace, Love & Healing), Deepak Chopra (ayurvedic guru), and myriad others, are included in the quackery roundup.
Barrett, now a full-time journalist and book author and never a medical researcher, says he exposes underresearched, illogical therapies with little written about them. Yet he also says he examines reams of material to reach the conclusions published on his site, which are then often quoted as undisputed fact in the mainstream media.
Barrett depends heavily on negative research and case studies in which alternative therapies do not work, but he says that most case studies that show positive results of alternative therapies are unreliable. "It's easy to look at something like chiropractic, see what they're doing, and describe what they're doing wrong," Barrett says. He adds that he does not criticize conventional medicine because "that's way outside my scope."
So, we know that Barrett is a retired psychiatrist, who is now a full-time journalist and book author.  The main criticism seems to be that without experience in medical research or any specific medically related area, he criticizes that which he considers "alternative medicine."  Is that true?  Isn't this the main issue?  The court pointed this out, as well.  That is not a value judgment.  But this does seem to be the criticism, by courts and by those whom he calls quacks.  One could also include in this section that he "examines reams of material to reach the conclusions published on his site" - eg he has advisors who are medical researchers (if this is true), etc., and relies on mulitple sources. Any suggestions?  I repeat that I think his board exams are not relevant to the article, and a focus on that misses the point.  In fact, an objective or unaffiliated reader would wonder 'huh?' as I did.  Jance 00:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Qualifications

message: There is no reason to censor my link, other than censorship. Barrett's links are all over people's pages he has sued ... he sued me and lost and I want my link to remain here. It is vandalism and Barrett bias to remove it. Ilena 01:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is enforcing Wikipedia policy. If you'd stop warring and spouting accusations of vandalism and bias long enough to learn what the rules are and which you are violating, you might become a good contributor. As it is, you are being disruptive, argumentative, hostile, and generally a pain. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am a Critic of Barrett who has beaten him in litigation