Talk:Stephen Barrett/Archive 7

message: Using "Quackwatch" as a source is fine for some things.  However, I do not think it is appropriate to cite to the subject's own website as a source for the awards he has received.  That is bad form.  It is also unnecessary, when we have sources for the awards mentioned.  In fact, I found two of the sources, rather than deleting the awards. Jance 00:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: There was a false statement that Barrett had not appealed his loss to Rosenthal in Barrett Vs Rosenthal at the appellate level. In fact, his petition for rehearing was denied. I have fixed this inaccuracy as to the court record Ilena 04:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unfactual information removed 

message: In the Stephen Barett article we read: He or NCAHF has initiated a number of lawsuits against those engaged in what he considers unscientific medical practices. He has also offered testimony as an expert witness on psychiatry, FDA regulatory issues, and homeopathy and other areas of "alternative medicine." (An "expert witness" is a legal definition, and qualification sometimes requires specialized education or experience in the particular matter that is before the court.)
A California court dismissed a lawsuit filed by Barrett's organization NCAHF that accused a homeopathic pharmaceutical company (defendant) of "false advertising" and "unfair business practices."[24] Plaintiffs presented no evidence, apart from the testimony of two expert witnesses, to prove any of the elements of their claims.[25] 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. Plaintiffs mistakenly argued that the burden of proof should be on the defendant to prove that its products were safe. The court further stated that both witnesses were "zealous advocates" rather than "neutral or dispassionate witnesses or experts". Id.'''''
I find this confusing.  If the debacle mentioned in the second paragraph  was the one and only time he had ever offered expert witness testimony on homeopathy, then it is misleading to say in the first paragraph that He has also offered testimony as an expert witness on ... homeopathy ....  If it was the only time his evidence as an expert witness in relation to homeopathy had ever been rejected then this should be made clear.  In fact, whether he has offered testimony as an expert witness tells us nothing unless it can also be verified that when he did so his status as an expert witness was accepted by the court. I think this section should be pulled until it can be made clear on how many occasions and in relation to what areas his evidence has been so accepted, and by how many courts it has been rejected. robert2957 09:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that this section should be pulled.  It represents an important criticism of Barrett/ NCAHF.  I think the NCAHF mission includes going after those it considers quacks, and this includes legal action - do you need a reference for that?  And, if that is not the case or if this is the only time Barrett/NCAHF has done this, then this should be removed.  It is my understanding that it is not the situation  And, this particular case does represent one complaint some have of Barrett, in the words of a court.  By the way, I have no involvement in homeopathy either, as a consumer or practitioner.  In fact, I don't think much of most 'alternative' medicine.  I am an attorney, but have an undergrad degree in electrical engineering/math.  And as an attorney, I do not represent, or sue alternative med practitioners. Jance 23:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I only said that it should be pulled until it can be made clear on how many occasions and in relation to what areas SB has been accepted as an expert witness.  What do others think ? robert2957 02:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  This is a court case, and a valid and relevant (notable) source.  I know of at least one other case, from 'googling' - there, it appears that a similar false advertising case was brought, but there may have been more evidence, since Aroma Vera Inc. seems to have at least partially lost in the trial court.  I am not going to look at the NCAHF website tonight, but will.  Regardless, this is sufficient for this paragraph in the criticism.  The issue is the use of courts by a private person litigating "quackery."   I have no problem using this other case as an example of where NCAHF 'won'.  However, there is no doubt that there has been more than one lawsuit. Jance 02:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You do not understand the case.  Or, you have not read it.  Dr. Barrett testified and the court said his testimony was to be accorded "little weight" because he lacked the qualifications on the issues raised and he lacked objectivity.  The only way to describe it was a 'sharp rebuke'.  Are you an attorney?  The section is not unsatisfactory.  I'm sorry you disagree, but it stays, unless there is a consensus otherwise.  Jance 17:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: "He has also offered testimony as an expert witness on psychiatry, FDA regulatory issues, and homeopathy and other areas of "alternative medicine." (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 material should not be included unless it can be shown that he has been accepted as an expert witness by the courts in question.  robert2957 18:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: An expert witness is a witness, who ... is believed to have special knowledge of his subject beyond that of the average person, sufficient that others may officially (and legally) rely upon his opinion.
It should then be made clear whether and if so when Dr Barrett's evidence has been accepted by a court as that of an expert witness.  All we know at the moment it that he has offered such evidence in the list of matters referred to in the article and that it was rejected as such in the King Bio case. robert2957 18:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: No.  The case is accurate as described.  Please read the appellate case; and you can read the trial opinion via Quackpotwatch, or pull the case yourself from the citation.  Both the trial court and the appellate court were very clear about what occurred.  This paragraph is contained within the section called 'criticism'.  I do not believe that I have ever seen a more pointed and more critical opinion by a court.  The direct quotes provided encapsulate the essence of the criticism.  However, if you want to add cases where he has been accepted as an expert witness, be my guest.  Finally, the wikifying to 'expert witness' is more than adequate.  I regard any attempt to delete the quotes and this paragraph as unacceptable bias.  I am not a Barrett-hater.  I also see the importance of providing relevant criticism - especially when by a court.  In my opinion, this criticism is more potent than any by those whom Barrett crticizes.Jance 06:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I removed the sentence about "expert witness" in the intro.  It was very clear in the court that he did testify in the plaintiff's case-in-chief.  It is equally clear that his testimony was deemed (go back to quote).  For you to belabor this is pointless, in my opinion.   I did delete the sentence about "expert witness".  The court referred to this as "expert" testimony but was not clear whether it ever formally accepted him as an 'expert' witness.  We can remove that portion of it.  YEs, there is a distinction between being certified or qualified as an expert v. testifying about something based on one's own knowledge- evidently, in this case, it is a distinction wtihout a difference, since the court refers to it as 'expert' testimony, Barrett did testify, but there is no information as to where or when the court qualifed him as an expert (and indeed, the court did not consider him an expert on the matters before the court).  I can change that introductory paragraph although it accurately depicts the purpose of his testimony...  Jance 13:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expert witness ? 

message: In the first paragraph of the Stephen Barrett article it says : "He says that he bases his writings in consumer protection, medical ethics, and scientific skepticism."  Should this basic introductory paragraph also contain the fact that he describes himself as an expert in medical communications? This is a very prominent part of the way he presents himself to the public. It appears under the heading
Stephen Barrett, M.D., Biographical Sketch to which you are directed on the home page of Quackwatch. robert2957 14:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does that link work?  It did not for me.   Jance 03:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision Of The Lead ? 

message: In view of the fact that defamatory information, which is unfair to Dr. Barrett, about the status of his licence to practice medicine is all over the internet should the Wikipedia article should state something like this: "Dr. Barrett voluntarily relinquished his licence to practise medicine and retired.  [citation needed] This is not the same as being delicensed [citation needed].   He was never board certified as a psychiatrist because he failed an exam [citation needed]. 2/3 of the psychiatrists of his time were not board certified [citation needed]. "
By the way, as an Englishman, I didn't understand what board certification meant.  For those who may not know what it means and why it may be important, Dr. Barrett explains this [http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/QA/board.html here. He also provides guidance on the matter of checking whether a particular board is genuine. For those who may wish to know whether their own physician is board certified, Dr. Barrett provides a weblink on the home page of Quackwatch to an organisation known as Healthgrades. robert2957 12:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dr. Barrett retired.  "Voluntary relinquishment" still sounds like a disciplinary action, which to my knowledge did not occur.  Doctors retire all the time.  He probably let his license lapse, which is often the case.Jance 15:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: No problem, Robert.  Board certification is pretty important today, but it may not have been years ago.  I still contend that is irrelevant to this article. Jance 16:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the thousands of targets of Barrett, many, many far more qualified and degreed and licensed than he, it is extremely notable that he flunked his boards in the 60's and refused to retake them. This is a patient protection. He had the 60's, 70's, 80's and early 90's ... 4 different decades to do so. With no board over him, it was less scrutiny to the 'watcher.' He operates CredentialWatch and has spent years investigating and attacking others licenses and credentials. That makes it extremely notable that  he never passed any boards. When he gave up his license, although he still pontificates and sues and calls himself an "expert" on things he has no education in, there went any checks and balances over him by State or Med Boards. Thank you. Ilena 16:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  interesting article on the high percentage of Psychiatrists who can pass the Board and do. Ilena 16:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I guess we can agree to disagree.  The point is that very little of his writing is related to psychiatry.  So I do not see the relevance.Jance 01:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Board Certification And Licensing Again 

message: I am trying to get the title to footnote 17 to read as it should : 'Doctor Who ?'
'Diagnosing Medical Fraud May Require a Second Opinion' but I can't. Can anyone help ? Thank you. robert2957 15:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have fixed it. -- Fyslee 09:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnote 17

message: There is a lot of precedent that people directly involved with a person should not be editing related articles.  I am formerly asking  to stop editing Barrett related articles. Your edits are not improving this article but instead being used to forward your OWN agenda. Please do not bring your arguments with Barrett into the wikipedia domain, but please do use your energy to edit other articles in wikipedia where your edits will be less contention and more constructive. I hope you can see this is a sensible step forward. David D. (Talk) 21:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry David. Please tell me how Barrett should be allowed to restate his case and claim libel, even after the Supreme Court of California has ruled on it against him. I also do not understand how those with one link away from every website of Barrett's empire, can post his links all over Wikipedia, but I am not allowed any links to my legal non profit foundation. I disagree that I bring nothing of value to the discussions of Barrett. For example, in June I tried to post that his NCAHF had been suspended for several years, but was blocked and it reverted as it his operation was legal. Now, after much ado, the article is less POV and more balanced. Also, there was a clear error in regards to Barrett Vs Rosenthal regarding Barrett's appeals that I corrected yesterday. No one else would have known this and this unfactual / unverified point would have been left on. I am further confused as to why there are Wiki articles filled with Barrett's viewpoint as a critic, even after courts have ruled him to be "biased and unworthy of credibility." I could name 20 articles that sound more like Quackwatch (which in itself is an attack site against those he deems worthy of defamation) than anything encyclopedic. I am a serious health advocate and activist with a support group of several thousand of women, run a legal non profit foundation, and have been a target of Barrett's for years. I am not the only activist who has been successful in defending myself against his meritless SLAPP suits. However, I am outnumbered here, as those in his operation, seem to have a full time job defending his articles. Thank you. 21:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are pleny of editors here who are writing the article from your perspective. In the past there have been good, productive discussions that have involved editors from all perspectives being considered.  For this reason I am confident that this article will never become and advert for Barrett or Quackwatch. Let others fight your battles and move onto greener fields. That is how it should be done in wikipedia. David D. (Talk) 22:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect, few have the knowledge that I do having to defend myself from his team on many, many, many fronts. I don't know if you realize that I came to Wikipedia last month because the article on Barrett Vs Rosenthal was unrecognizable. One example, it is being claimed that Barrett has never been sued as if this were a verifiable fact. It's not. He's been sued in the last month. Also, with no apparent legal corporation behind his NCAHF for several years, NCAHF could not get served/sued. During this time, it was being claimed on Wikipedia that NCAHF was a legal California corporation and any edits to link to the State files would get immediately reverted to claim it was. Thank you. Ilena 22:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So write to  and complain about the inaccuracies in the article about yourself. He takes this sort of thing seriously. But two wrongs don't make a right and what you are doing here is actively discouraged by wikipedia. David D. (Talk) 22:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent. Thank you. Ilena 22:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We really do have an inherent bipolar problem here (who else really knows the details?). I think that it is fundamental to this article, similar to lawyers' adversarial process between two sides for the truth to emerge, with more restraints available & expected. I think that Ilena would be more effective if she could try to keep her edits to one edit per am or pm in a section, giving other editors more time to get around to examine these matters and try to make sense out of the various views (it would also help Ilena focus on her phrasing *and* be less cyclically abrasive to the other pole).  Likewise some of her counterparties could sometimes be a little less provocatively critical of her attempts to identify & deal with issues and a little less exploitive on their knowledge of the rules with her. IMHO, Ilena has a valid point about some pro-Barrett biases dominating here and she does pick up biases that I (and probably the others) couldn't even identify.--I'clast 02:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  More importantly, by your ignoring the behavioral problems here while making accusations of bias, you only escalate the problem. --Ronz 02:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not ignoring the problems, rather trying to work through them as fast as possible where I personally have time and awareness limits. I think that a clean job will let Ilena lose interest here, us too. This is simply not an easy place to be with disparate b/g & interests. Ilena is not the only pov here, just less Wiki skilled, drilled & committed. We are also dancing with active BLPs. So I grit my teeth and try to help mediate, educate, advocate & conclude for a better article.--I'clast 03:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wise words and it worked before.  Specifically I remeber we nailed the Kaufman section which has been stable since.  I admit it is hard work.  Best strategy is to remember you are typing to a human being.  i know it sounds corny, but if we were doing this in real life i am sure the arguments would be fierce but polite. I am sure we would respect each others ideas more.  David D. (Talk) 03:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You did not sit in the condominium board meeting I did today.   ;-) Jance 03:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I do. We're not yet done here.--I'clast 02:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a problem --Ronz 02:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: User:Ilena objectivity

message: Barrett did not appeal the ruling (that IR's statements were non-defamatory opinion) to the CA Supreme Court.  I thought I read somewhere where Ilena said this was not factually accurate.  Where did you find that information?Jance 21:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FYI on Barrett v. Rosenthal

message: A concurring opinion is not binding, although it may be persuasive in future cases.   The ruling in the majority opinion is binding.  Dicta usually refers to obiter dicta which are part of the opinion but not legally binding.  "Obiter dictum" (singular) is editorializing; may be (and likely is) an accurate statement of law.  However, "dictum" or "Obiter dictum" is often considered an 'aside', or an extraneous opining or explanation.  In Barrett v. Rosenthal, any comment in the opinion regarding statements against Barrett would be considered dicta since the only issue before the court was Section 230 as it related to one statement against Polevoy.  I hope this helps.  
The statements against Barrett were considered opinion, therefore not defamatory.  Opinion, no matter how vile, is not actionable.  If I said, "X is a moronic, evil pig", I would not be defaming anyone.   That statment is inflammatory and mean, but it is not defamation. Jance 21:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another FYI re court opinions & defamation

message: 1) "In November 2000, Barrett and two associates sued Hulda Regehr Clark, Tim Bolen, Jan Bolen, David P. Amrein, Ilena Rosenthal, and their related companies." This is not accurate as to me (Ilena Rosenthal.)Ilena 03:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you suggest a more accurate wording here, on the talk page, and then we can work together to get a sentence that everyone agrees is acceptable for the article. David D. (Talk) 04:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it slightly.  "their related companies" were not sued.  I don't know who wrote that, but I changed it to "unknown defendants"  (the actual suit names "Does 1-100".)  I also spelled out the plaintiffs.  I will leave it to you all to decide if you want first names, titles, etc.   Jance 14:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unfactual comment 

message: "...To defend ourselves, several of us have filed suit for libel."[28] Comments about Barrett have been ruled to be opinion and not libel,  by every court, including the Supreme Court. They reiterated, in the final words of Judge Moreno in their Opinion: "As the lower courts correctly concluded, however, none of the hostile comments against Dr. Barrett alleged in the complaint are defamatory." I would also like to comment that the anti-SLAPP statute was created to stop meritless suits as this one, intended to silence critics. Barrett still claims he was 'libeled' but no court has agreed with him. This appears to be another attempt to retry the case here. Have a lovely evening all. Ilena 03:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a lousy paragraph, and misleading, since courts found all but one of the statements non-defamatory opinion.  While I think other cases are pending,  in the same 'Barrett v. Clark' case, it is unlikely that statements found non-defamatory in one case will be found defamatory in another.    In fact, I don't see a need for this or any of these quotes.  Especially since the case against Ilena is over.  Jance 14:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the paragraph is relevant in an encyclopedia article on Wikipedia about a living person.  The material reflects history and on-going disputed and the nature and quality of those disputes.  RalphLendertalk 15:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  My question is whether or not these cases are still ongoing.  If they are not, then the quote is not accurate, anbd there is not an on-going dispute.  Are there any cases related to the quote that are ongoing - eg have not been ruled on or settled?Jance 19:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using Barrett's comment here with no balance 

message: Apparently, two and perhaps 3 lawsuits have recently been filed and served against Barrett, so the comment about this is misleading. Thank you. Ilena 16:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you offer a specific suggestion here on what you'd like to change, add, or edit and then, based on comments, your material can be added or replace what is there.  RalphLendertalk 18:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on Barrett never being sued 

message: "...from the illegal Mexican cancer "treatments" to the more tolerated (and regulated) fields of chiropractic and homeopathy." Putting quotations around treatments is POV. Further, Barrett criticizes many treatments that are NOT illegal in Mexico. Chiropractic and homeopathy are perhaps "tolerated" by him (since he has been unable to stop them) but they are legal and a part of the medical system in the United States. Thank you for any help in removing his POV from this article. Ilena 16:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you offer a specific suggestion here on what you'd like to change, add, or edit and then, based on comments, your material can be added or replace what is currently in the article.  RalphLendertalk 18:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we've lost too much context with the changes now with just "Mexican cancer treatments".  This is an article about Barrett, so I think we need to be careful of removing Barrett's pov vs writing a npov article.  I'm not sure what to add until others weigh in. --Ronz 00:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Looking much better. However, homeopathy and chiropractic are legal treatments, not just tolerated. That is total POV. Thank you. Ilena 00:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote that sentence (about more tolerated and regulated)... if you are going to say  chiropractic & homeopathy are "legal", should we say the Mexican cancer treatments are illegal in the US?  Jance 01:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think not.  The more I read it, the more inappropriate these changes appear.  We're talking about Barrett's pov in an article about Barrett.  Removing his pov is inappropriate, especially in a section where we're talking about how controversial his pov is and how it's caused him to bet the target of legal attacks. We just need to make it clear that it is his pov, while we don't misrepresent his pov. --Ronz 01:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made some adjusmtents in that section to reduce redundancy and POV issues. I think it flows much better now. Levine2112 01:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Getting much better. "involvement in legal system" may be more accurate if it said something like, "Barrett's use of the legal system to attack those with which he disagrees has also spawned controversy about his objectivity and qualifications to pass judgment on those he deems "quacks". Have a lovely day. Ilena 14:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Nice work, Levine2112.  Simpler is better. --Ronz 16:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep.Jance 22:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Wording 

message: I would like to see this subsection moved outside of "Litigation Controversy" as it is has little to nothing to do with litigation. This should be in a separate section entitled "Criticism". Everything else is "Litigation Controversy" can stay. I am going to be bold and make this change. Levine2112 18:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: looks good.Jance 22:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Qualifications and objectivity

message: I removed this paragraph, which misrepresents its source.
:* Village Voice journalist Donna Ladd has questioned Barrett's objectivity.  She has further observed that Barrett relies only on negative research to criticize alternative medicine, rejecting any positive studies as unreliable.  Further, Barrett insists that alternative therapies should be disregarded if they don't conform to established scientific principles. From the same article, Peter Barry Chowka, a former adviser to the National Institutes of Health's Office of Alternative Medicine, says of Barrett: "He seems to be putting down trying to be objective," and goes on to compare Barrett's work to "medical McCarthyism".
First, the article itself does not question objectivity, but quotes something of Chowka to that effect (from the article):
:“He seems to be putting down trying to be objective,” says Peter Barry Chowka, a former adviser to the National Institutes of Health’s Office of Alternative Medicine. “Quackwatch.com is consistently provocative and entertaining and occasionally informative,” Chowka added. “But I personally think he’s running against the tide of history. But that’s his problem, not ours.”
Second, the characterization of relying only on negative research seems to me to mischaracterize the thrust of this paragraph:
: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.
Third, Chowka clearly does not compare Barrett's work to medical McCarthyism, but the idea of having one big government watchdog for websites:
:“A power struggle has been going on for decades between those who have the power and the insurgents,” Chowka says. “Give people the benefit of the doubt,” he adds, calling for an end to “medical McCarthyism.” “We no longer need a nanny state or a government-appointed watchdog to filter information to us.”
Obviousy there is some material in Ladd's article that is useful, but the paragraph that I've removed seems to me to misrepresent it.  Bucketsofg 16:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a great article and good reference. Please work at rewriting it rather than deleting. Thank you. Levine2112 19:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *In this case, I think rewriting wouldn't solve the problem.  As I explain above, none of the things that are attributed to Ladd's article can be sustained in light of what the article itself says. If you think there is material that is useful, you are perfectly entitled to do so and should go ahead.  Bucketsofg 21:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraph as it was written did not accurately represent what was stated.  What Chowka refers to is Barrett's disregarding alternative therapies without further research because he deems them illogical.  That is not the same as saying they do not conform with scientific practices or research.  And, this is a more interesting point as well.  Should expensive research be done on, say for argument's sake, "zappers" that Hulda Clark says will treat everything from cancer to menopause (I made up this)?   I would agree wtih him on this one.  But I can also see how and why that is seen as brash and biased, by someone else.  That does make this article interesting.Jance 15:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Jance. Great wortk as usual. Levine2112 19:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  village voice 

message: I see that unilaterally, the no longer true edit regarding Barrett's "never been sued" comment has been reverted. I have spoken with the plaintiff and indeed, the case for defamation was filed against Barrett in Allentown, PA, and he has been served. I believe this fact is indeed notable, all things considered and should be a part of this article. Thank you. Ilena 21:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. However, we need to get a reliable second-party source stating that this suit is underway. Court record would be great or something from a party not involved in the suit or with either party. Levine2112 21:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted it back.  It is not OR to leave out a questionable paragraph.  It would be OR to make an affirmative statement that isn't necessary, or is without support.  I thought it was a rather questionable paragraph, anyway. Jance 02:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You make an excellent point yet again! Levine2112 02:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I have to third that, or fourth or whatever. --Dematt 02:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also will note that the article scientific skepticism exists, and should remain (Ronz readded it).Jance 03:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it was revived from a speedy delete. --Dematt 04:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did I miss the consensus vote? 

message: self-styled "alternative medicine" These may work on the QW page, but it feels very un-encyclopedic to me. I don't recall consensus with this type of language. Mr. Bolen has a registered California company, Tim Bolen, President Jurimed Public Relations & Research Group, Inc. Just a bit of balance and non-bias. 03:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made my attempt to make it NPOV and clarify the controversial relationship that they had. --Dematt 04:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was discussed somewhere, but I sure don't recall where now.  I think what you wrote is better.  I disagree with Ilena about adding his company.  Jance 04:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sure that this is one of the most discussed articles anywhere, other than perhaps Jihad or something like that;).  The business could be inserted, it gives Mr. Bolen an identity, which is not a bad thing from any POV.  IOWs, by giving him a business, it doesn't look like Barrett is attacking an everyday person, which draws sympathy from the reader. That's why I added the "opponent" part, to try and let the reader know that there was a real reason for a lawsuit here. --Dematt 05:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very POV, non encylopedic language