Talk:Stephen Barrett/Archive 11

message: Right now the lead states he is "the founder of the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF)." I question that statement. He is at best a co-founder. The previous lead stated he was "a founder", which is accurate enough. This needs to be corrected. -- Fyslee/talk 08:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article on the NCAHF agrees with you that he is a "co-founder", so I have changed the LEAD accordingly. SGGH speak! 19:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you. -- Fyslee/talk 19:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Founder of NCAHF? 

message: Why don't we start back with what I originally suggested?  That being: 
Barrett is a 1957 graduate of the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and completed his psychiatry residency in 1961, he is not board certified.
It comes to the point and is generic in what it says.  It also can be looked up if someone is interested.  --CrohnieGalTalk 16:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We cannot include the board thing against BLP policy. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 16:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a marvellous suggestion, Crohnie. I support it, yet I don't imagine it will gain a consensus (as evidenced by QuackGuru's response just above). Please note, however, that further above in "Notability again", AvB and I are working together to introduce this information in full context of the sources (as criticism), thus elimintating possiblie claims of WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:BLP. What are your thoughts? -- Levine2112 discuss 17:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed the conversation between you and Avb which is why I posted this again.  I have not changed my mind about this not being in the article.  I just thought if something was going to be put in that this is generic.   --CrohnieGalTalk 17:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I like your suggestion. I ought to afterall; run-on sentence aside, it is pretty much exactly what I have been suggesting for a while now. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Crohnie: She has not changed her mind about this not being in the article. According to Levine: He likes this suggestion Crohnie has made. It seems Levine now agrees with Crohnie. Super! :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 17:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like Crohnie's suggested wording to include Barrett's lack of Board Certification. I think that is pretty clear. I also think that it is pretty clear that your post here is just meant to be annoying. Please refrain. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Crohnie said in part: I have not changed my mind about this not being in the article. Crohnie's suggestion is, when in doubt leave it out. I too agree with Crohnie! It is pretty crystal clear. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 19:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, Crohnie was suggesting to include board certification in the bio, so you I'm guessing you'll change your vote when you realise your mistake. I too think the information clearly belongs in the article somewhere, and it's pretty inevitable it's going in one day. I'm happy with Crohnie's suggestion. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 02:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please take note of the title I have about this.  I haven't changed my mind and I still think it should not be put into the article but others are making suggestions so I thought my suggestion is more generic then what has been proposed yet. --CrohnieGalTalk 13:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  If we are trying for a compromise, new proposal then...... 

message: This talk page was becoming gigantic (446 kb!), so I have ruthlessly archived it.  If there are any threads that were unresolved and need to be rehashed, please pull them from the latest archive. Neil ╦ 17:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archived

message: I tend to agree with Levine here. > Levine said in part: All of the litigation listed are related to the same case, in a sense. That means they are all repetitive and can be shortened. Agreed?  Mr.Guru  talk  03:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: litigation

message: I'clast suggested above:As a means of going forward, I might suggest a separate subpage for trial edits (and perhaps different versions) on the litigation section since article space is locked.I think this is a good idea, and it would help focus the discussions by having a separate page which we can edit and refer to. --Ronz 18:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I am misreading the intention of this request, but I don't think that Barrett's pursuit of libel litigation is notable enough to garner its own page. I definitely think it needs to be part of Barrett's article as his libel litigation is in part responsibile for his notariaty. Above, I have listed four articles which discuss Barrett v. Rosenthal (and cases leading up to this landmark case including Barrett v. Clark). When the article becomes unlocked, my plan is to support much of the primary court records with these secondary (and third party) sources. If you would like to discuss how to implement these sources (as just backup sources, to give context, to give commentary, or in some other way), I am open to suggestions. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea, unless I'm misreading I'clast's comment, is to have a page separate from talk where we could work on the edits that we want to eventually go to the main page.  It would be a workspace for us while the page is locked. --Ronz 02:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds fine to me. -- Levine2112 discuss 04:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Subpage for trial edits: [[Talk:Stephen Barrett/Temp]] 

message: Given how often editor's are asking the same questions, and bringing up the same issues, would a FAQ be useful here?  I'm not sure it would be, given most questions are about other editors opinions or previous discussions.  Still, it's worth considering. --Ronz 19:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am unclear what you are requesting here. Give us examples of questions which you believe are frequently asked and have set answers which we can all agree to. Where would this FAQ exist? On the article? On this talk page? Elsewhere?-- Levine2112 discuss 22:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The FAQ would be a page separate from this talk page, similar to an archive.  I'm just throwing the idea out for consideration.  I'm not sure I can think of good questions to use either. --Ronz 02:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk:Intelligent design (side bar to the right of the table of contents) for an example. Avb ÷ talk 14:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a request for help on this by my mentor.  I'll get back to you when I know something.  --CrohnieGalTalk 00:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FAQ?

message: Here is a retired medical doctor who has taken on a mission to denounce and discredit areas of medicine that in his judgment constitute "quackery," and there are editors who believe that his credentials, or lack thereof, are irrelevant to the article, but the names of his children are relevant? And this we are supposed to take seriously? --Leifern 00:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm certainly having trouble taking these comments seriously.  See previous discussions please. --Ronz 02:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Abstain. I'm neutral on including or excluding the children. However, if the relevancy cannot be demonstrated it can be removed.  QuackGuru  talk 02:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I move for removing their names. The information isn't relevant to the article, and considering the hatred (also quite evident right here) and threats aimed at Barrett, there is no justification for also exposing them to such things. -- Fyslee/talk 00:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree with Fyslee. Avb ÷ talk 14:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree per Carl, AvB and Fyslee.  --CrohnieGalTalk 15:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names of children and spouse included, but failure to meet board standards is irrelevant? 

message: The NCCAM needs to be wikilinked to U.S. National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. -- Fyslee/talk 00:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Stemonitis 15:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikilink NCCAM 

message: BLP is about privacy and protection of persons for harm. Dr Barrett is a public person, even saying, "I am the media," who has long sought the spotlight to forcefully project his views in medicine and science as some form of popular authority. He has severely criticized others' research (see Linus Pauling in the SB article), commercial offerings (see KingBio) and communications (see Koren and Barrett v Rosenthal)  yet upon some legal challenges he has been decisively defeated at trial & appeal where his credentials have challenged for relevance (KingBio, Koren).   It is only natural that an encyclopedia accurately reports on his professional credentials without the bias as currently written. Indeed it seems seriously irresponsible to do otherwise with WP:RS, WP:V facts that are not even close to BLP. He's not under age, he is a public person, a public commnetator by intent, he has been in the news repeatedly, he displays the most positive parts of his credentials liberally, he says he is not thin skinned, and he is known to liberally rebuke those whom he claims defame him, and yet here, himself he confirms this specific fact, "not BC". It is material relevant to their[SB's] notability, as SB, MD.
 
Per AvB's mention, my sense of ArbCom & Badlydrawnjeff was that is was mostly about limits of inclusion for marginal biographies' AfD & DRV; privacy and minors; privacy and otherwise private people caught in the glare of a one-time public incident; grossly unjust or indecent harmful publicity; and Jeff's heavy handed approach to administrators - nothing that applies here. 
If AvB means to object to a fact, like "not BC" more recently caught in the glare of testimony in court, I have to say that a small, known *fact* exploding into greater view, is a much different kind of creature than a newly news (dis)covered person. Dr Barrett himself has said that this previously known (but not as-well-advertised) fact had been known (some? primarily NACM?) DCs for many years. The "BLP club" is being greatly distorted to silence simple, encyclopedic facts inconvenient to some editors' POV.
My comments about ad hominem pertain to Negrete, the person, as the prevailing lawyer in the course of his duties, issuing careful, legal, public statements on the results of a successful case of some public note. Your "unscientific press release" is simply a trivial, irrelevant redundancy stated prejudicially. Most news (articles), including press releases, are "unscientific", rather observational, hopefully verified information to varying degrees, anecdotal in nature - this almost seems like an attack on WP:RS policy for non-technical newspaper and magazine stories. Are you going to seriously try and tell me that most news seriously attempts hypothesis generation & hypothesis testing much less almost any form of active or repeated controls, sampling, measurement, statistical treatment and error analysis? "unscientific press release" is just prejudicial terminology.
Therefore the "contra not BC" editors' BLP claims appear to be empty, multiply stretched & greatly exaggerated assertions without effect on "not BC" fact being included in the Biography or Criticism sections.--I'clast 12:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'clast, the current discussion to which you were referred, started here. QV please. In the meantime I have removed your post; it contains blatant WP:BLP violations. Feel free to reinsert minus the violations. You are most welcome to your opinions (for all I know they may be true) but inserting them here as a statement of fact without any sources, and probably based on the (type of) unacceptable sources disputed here, is WP:POINT. Please stop. Avbtalk 20:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read and answered why the Langan intervention a poor policy citation that I consider to be one of two grossly over reaching or twisted policy interpretations including OR.  There is no excuse for continued factual denial in the biography.--I'clast 11:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you wrote in no way validates inclusion attempts or refutes policy-based arguments to exclude. The root problem is that about a dozen editors, generally quite experienced, accomplished and reputable, do not accept the sources brought forward so far. That means the info is unsourced: we can't link to those sources. It's a BLP issue, but even if WP:BLP would not exist, you still wouldn't be allowed to include it: any editor can remove such material straight away as original research. Just like most other editors, I'm now bowing out of the farce this BC discussion has turned into. Please note that silence, after all that's been said and done, does not imply a consensus to include. Avbtalk 13:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I too am leaving, as my talk page says, I am taking a Wkik break.  If anyone wants to get a hold of me go to my page and you can email me.  The last comments to me were enough to make me take a time out and rethink whether I want to be an editor on Wikipedia.  I expected things to be different then the regular internet, but I am disappointed.  So good bye.  I too, agree with Avb in saying my not being here doesn't mean I support any consensus, even the suggestion I made about BC.  --CrohnieGalTalk 14:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to see you go Crohnie. Pls say hi to <name removed for everyone here. I'm sure we are all waiting to see you again.--I'clast 23:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I Googled the name above - apparently it belongs to one of IR's nemeses. I think I'clast needs to explain the reference. I'm not even sure it can stay here on the talk page. Avb 08:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: On second thought I'm removing the name to prevent it from being made searchable in search engines. Avb 09:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: So AvB, with the Langan objection mincemeat, sheer force of numbers, apparently in a base other than 10, and retreat are the reason and method of fact denial. The objection isn't OR, the objection itself is POV. My view of pedigrees is a little different also.--I'clast 14:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: BLP & not impeaching a source, fine'

message: Regardless of the material this source is not acceptable. The site is an attack site and we don't link to it even to source the statement that the Earth is not flat. The court record linked to should be linked from elsewhere. Even so, it is a primary source without a secondary source. The other source does not cover the proceedings or the outcome. Hence, not acceptable even if Negrete's site was an acceptable reliable source. If you want to use it, post it on your non-attack blog or something and see if it is accepted. Levine, you are known for removing cites of blogs that host originally RS material. Why is this different? Avb 13:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Negrete's site as a source, court records as source

message: At some point in the restructuring of this article Bolen has been axed.  It seems very strange to have painful amounts of detail about law suits against people republishing Bolen's opinion pieces and yet have nothing substantial about the relationship between Barrett/Bolen?  One thing that jump to mind is was Barrett succesful in his libel case against Bolen, if not why is he suing all these other people for republishing his work.  As it stands this is a huge gap in the story. David D. (Talk) 15:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  It was strange how the Illinois lawsuits didn't even explain their Bolen link before. Almost all of this litigation stems from Bolen's letters being republished online. I also don't understand why Barrett didn't sue Bolen directly. Barrett apparently told the East Bay Express in 2001 that he couldn't find Bolen to serve him with process.  Bolen disputes that claim in a letter to the editor, but it's clear that Barrett initially couldn't get service or perhaps jurisdiction over Bolen.  Does Barrett explain this on his site?  I find it mysterious myself—the primary reason he lost some of these cases appears to be CDA immunity, which wouldn't apply to Bolen. Cool Hand Luke 16:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bolen

message: None of what Levine2112 writes above (here) applies, simply because this is a biography and very different rules apply as regards sourcing:
* Primary sources are expressly allowed and required in biographical articles;
* There is no danger of "linkspamming" (which could be a legitimate charge if done in this manner in another article not related to the subject);
* None of the links figure in search engines since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags;
* Documentation for the subject's notable POV are required and thus only primary sources will do;
* Not all the links are to Quackwatch, and some of them are not easily found (if at all) on the index page;
* WP:EL (which has no application here) is getting confused with WP:ECITE;
* WP:SELFPUB is being ignored. There is no violation of that policy here;
* "Linkfarm" applies to external links, not to directly sourced and specific references in articles, especially when those links are not in list form, but are mere numbers in reference format. They do not disturb the readers' ability to read the text, yet can easily be found, which makes the article of much more worth to readers.
We are only documenting the specifics of Barrett's controversial POV. This current sourcing is a great service to readers, and we're dealing with bytes, not paper. Wikipedia should be more, not less, than other encyclopedias. -- Fyslee/talk 09:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think linking the different items in the list to where it is located on QW is appropriate and makes for an easier read to the outsider.  I never liked just the list. When I saw the list with the added links and read it, it was much better and easier to access, never mind clearer to understand.  I say put the list back with the QW links that show where on QW you can locate Dr. Barrett's information on everything.  It wouldn't be over doing QW links since this is a biography about Dr. Barrett and linking to his site is allowed per WP:BLP.--CrohnieGalTalk 12:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Crohnie has a point. Agreed.  QuackGuru  talk 19:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bare list was bad, but since most of these items are verifiable on the front page there's no need to deep link. I believe this a a better solution editorially because it keeps the article size down and makes the references uncluttered. Everything is still verifiable—in fact, it's superior per WP:V because sites like the internet wayback machine will preserve the front page whereas the deep links may be lost. Cool Hand Luke 01:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The direct links point directly to the topic. Easier for the reader and is needed to comply with policy.  QuackGuru  talk 01:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tell me what part of what policy demands direct links. If anything, WP:V counsels against dumping a truckload of self-published references into an article. Cool Hand Luke 02:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The homepage just doesn't do it for me. The readers deserve better. A not so easy to find links is not the way. What does it for me? Just one click is all it took! This should be easy to understand. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Removing the direct links creates an unreferenced policy violation. The homepage is not each specific topic. Each direct link is. Cheers.  QuackGuru  talk 02:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I said nothing about truth, I'm also talking about verifiability. If we were to go all-out and actually use reliable third-party sources, they would just characterize the criticisms Barrett has made. That would not only be acceptable, but it would be superior to what you've done. The home page is precisely the same; it characterizes many arguments he's made, and it's available in archival form to boot. I'm beginning to wonder if we should cite this list using only third-party sources to avoid potential WEIGHT problems. Cool Hand Luke 03:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The home page is not each specified topic. The Wikipedia community demands references or it creates a policy violation.  QuackGuru  talk 03:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You really don't need to be patronizing. The homepage verifies that he has written on all of these topics. It says so. Verbatim. The ones that are not listed there are separately linked, so the whole list is verified. At any rate, you've convinced me that the list is an irredeemable WEIGHT/SYN problem. I'll try to source the topics he's well-known and cited for, and I will delete the rest. Cool Hand Luke 03:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything is referenced in accordance with policy.  QuackGuru  talk 03:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool Hand Luke, I am agreeing with your rationale and believe that in order to satisfy WEIGHT, we need to use third-party sources. For the ones which we can't find, those should be deleted. In fact, we went through this line of discussion in terms of Barrett's lack of Board Certification, and there QuackGuru agreed that without reliable third-party references, even an undisputed fact which Barrett's supports via first-party reference should not be included. -- Levine2112 discuss 04:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Here are some policies I think apply to this:  , ,, and on this one I think the last paragraph applies to this article;  --CrohnieGalTalk 13:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Precisely. Specific inline citations are the way to go. No syn, paraphrasing, etc. Just his words and where they are found. -- Fyslee/talk 14:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing of biographies a different matter 

message: How about just removing this whole section? 
'Spiked-online, in collaboration with the research-based pharmaceutical company Pfizer, conducted a survey entitled "What Inspired You?" of "key thinkers in science, technology and medicine". They asked: "What inspired you to take up science?" Barrett replied that his appreciation of medical science:
"probably began when I took a college course in medical statistics, and learned what makes the difference between scientific thought and poor reasoning. Medical school brought me in touch with the rapid and amazing strides being made in the understanding and treatment of disease. My anti-quackery activities have intensified my interest and concern in distinguishing science from pseudoscience, quackery and fraud."[16]'
It really isn't needed in the article at all from my prospective.  The rest of the items are enough.  Sometime items don't really need to be in the article, which I just recently read in another articles talk page.  I just don't think it is needed.  Opinions? --CrohnieGalTalk 11:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Deletion proposal has my vote, I haven't seen other Biographies with so much soapbox self-commentary, not to mention the rather nonacademic source with Pfizer's commercial sponsorship and the ad. Pfizer, the largest pharma, seems somewhat controversial here given the altmed - pharma wars and various history & allegations concerning QW & Dr Barrett.--I'clast 19:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Definitely not. -- Fyslee/talk 20:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pfizer's involvment has to be mentioned in the body (not iin the ref) to show context and weight; otherwise it should be deleted. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No it doesn't. --Ronz 20:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It is definitely not Biographic section or quality material, soapy (box), fluffy (huge space hog) and (self serving) opinion based. It is about the his POV leading to Activism, POV that would not be notable otherwise. Move it or dump it (preferred).  This is little more than a Pfizer ad page from a group of corporate paid bloggers, less than a tabloid.--I'clast 21:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Deletion is fine with me. Another way of handling the controversy is to rewrite the text in an encyclopedic (sic!!!) more detached indirect style with something like: Barrett states that his interest in Q began with a statistics course xxxx. He believes that he represtents Science, xxxxx and yyyyy" MaxPont 21:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Ambivalent, but Pfizer's "involvement" does not have to be mentioned and probably should not be mentioned if it's retained (see SYN concerns above).  I consider this source to be barely more than self-publication, and MaxPont's suggestion for rewriting it is the best I've heard. Cool Hand Luke 21:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Max's suggestion looks like a way ahead (fancy us being here to edit an encyclopedia!!!!!! :-). Shot info 23:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion proposal 

message: Sentence to be restored > The magazine Spiked-online named Barrett in a survey of 134
 "Key thinkers in science, technology and medicine."
According to Tim: The "quackbusters," we know, were originally organized, and funded, by the pharmaceutical industry. Insinuating there is a collaboration with Pfizer and Barrett has been used to advance an agenda and thus a BLP violation and weasel wording. For example, when referring to The New Yorker magazine we do not mention the sponsors because it would be weasel wording. This is also synthesizing a controversy. I believe in accordance with policy this edit should be reverted. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  01:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please deny this request. Tim Bolen's accusation doesn't appear on this page and it is clear from the article here that the collaboration with Pfizer is with Spiked online and not with Barrett. QuackGuru has been told this many times and he is the only one here making this inference. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please fulfill this request. We have policies for all us to adhere to. See: WP:WEASEL WP:BLP WP:SYN. Cheers.  Mr.Guru  talk  01:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only agenda exists in your mind. It is clear from the wording that the association is between Pfizer and SpikedOnline and not between Pfizer and Barrett. Thus no SYN, no WEASEL and certainly no BLP violation. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So why is it needed here and not here.  As you have pointed out (and I'clast) "the association is between Pfizer and SpikedOnline and not between Pfizer and Barrett". Shot info 07:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To describe the survey in full and to satisfy WP:WEIGHT. The Pfizer association demonstrates to the prominence of the survey and why it is given such a proportionate space in the article. I am not going to lecture you on the actual text WP:WEIGHT. At this point, I am sure we all can recite it verbatim. Suffice it to say, keeping the survey's association with Pfizer - an extremely large player in the health world -  reference demonstrates weight appropriate to its significance to the subject, Stephen Barrett - a player in the health world. If QuackGuru concucts something negative into this, we can't help. He could just as easily read something positive in this - that Pfizer sponsored a survey that chose Barrett for a reponse could seem like a prestigious thing. -- Levine2112 discuss 08:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Chill about QG, this question has been asked of other editors and you are the only one to answer.  So Pfizer has relevance to SB? Yes or no.  Because in one breath you say no "the association is between Pfizer and SpikedOnline and not between Pfizer and Barrett", and in another you say yes "keeping the survey's association with Pfizer - an extremely large player in the health world -  reference demonstrates weight appropriate to its significance to the subject, Stephen Barrett - a player in the health world".  Either it is relevant to SB or not relevant to SB.  Which is it.  If Pfizer has relevance to SB, then yes, I agree, needs to be in Stephen Barrett.  Shot info 08:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: There is problems with the wording of the sentence currently in the article. We have policies we should comply with. Right?  Mr.Guru  talk  02:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have been through stuff like this before such as the BC revisionism which was a BLP violation. Agreed?  Mr.Guru  talk  02:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the same problem but a new sentence. This is another endless ongoing debate to include against policy material. This is a very serious matter. When in doubt leave it out. BLP says do no harm!  Mr.Guru  talk  02:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current POV sentence in the article violates policy after policy. Articles must be written from a neutral view point. End of discussion.  Mr.Guru  talk  04:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:WEASEL|Pfizer]] [[WP:BLP|Promoting]] [[WP:SYN|Controversy]] 

message: I think that this section, with the removal about what I said above, fits into the article about Dr. Barrett.  --CrohnieGalTalk 12:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments about Spike 

message: I need to research this better to give an intelligent opinion on it.  --CrohnieGalTalk 12:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is one of the most fundamental technical criticisms of Dr Barrett, as well as an individual with no (prior) targeting by QW. Kauffman has been the subject of several rounds of consensus and debate.  The stealth deletion of it in the midst of other things and then trying to claim it as a de novo consensus would not be conducive to AGF. I *restored* the existing previous consensus, deleting it would be the new consensus item.--I'clast 17:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: To summarize my opinion on this: should be kept out as unimportant and shoddy research with serious ethical issues.  Kauffman has less than zero credibility in writing such a report, and the choice of publishers shows that. --Ronz 18:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually his most serious material previously has been independently referenced in *current* mainstream literature and vetted *to real MDs here at WP*.  A report on QW has no proper home in medical or science journals, it is not really significant in the technical sense (try finding the tons of articles etc in indexes at the library). What mention there is, is mostly popular media largely associated with a grandfathered uncritcal status for free/low cost content in pharma advert driven popular media. The choice of publishers more reflects the state of affairs in media and medicine. Your OR, "shoddy" and "unimportant", is POV, spurious, & not technically significant.  Ethics? what, going outside of the conventional pharma influenced channels? don't make me laugh.--I'clast 11:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NPA --Ronz 15:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This has been talk ad nauseum and there is no legit reason to keep it out. It is published criticism from a notable source. Thanks! -- Levine2112 discuss 15:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  The discussions haven't taken place.  The reasons havent been discussed.  WEIGHT and BLP will no longer be ignored here. --Ronz 17:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but it has, as you well know. YOu have been part of these discussion and we have shown that a published scientific journal (despite your OR opinion of it) satisfies WEIGHT and thus BLP. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but you know better to claim that we've come to consensus on the WEIGHT and BLP issues on it. --Ronz 17:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. Keep dancing. But no. Kauffman satisfies WEIGHT and BLP. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Learn to follow WP:TALK or be ignored. --Ronz 19:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kauffamn does not satisfy Weight or BLP. The reference is from a fringe journal. A clear violation of BLP.  Mr.Guru  talk  02:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kauffman 

message: I have moved the litigation section to a subpage for the rewrite. Consensus is for a rewrite. Please edit away.  Mr.Guru  talk  00:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fine to put it on a sub page, but leave the litigation intact until we are ready with the rewrite. Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: We already have a consensus for a rewrite and there is a policy violation.  Mr.Guru  talk  00:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But we don't have a consensus to delete it while we rewrite it. I certainly didn't agree to that (and I don't see anyone else saying to do that other than yourself). Please reinstate. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have established consensus to shorten the section. And thats exactly what I did. That was my rewrite anyhow. Cheers.  Mr.Guru  talk  01:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have consensus to rewrite the section; not to butcher it without discussion. Please revert. -- Levine2112 discuss 07:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: All the cases are related. So, maybe we could do with a summary of Barrett v. Clark and how it resulted in further legal action, being sure to mention Barrett v. Rosenthal? --Ronz 16:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the most appropriate way to condense the information, besides just not mentioning the other individual legal actions, is to remove information not relevant to Barrett, like some of the names and the actions of others. --Ronz 16:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have condensed the section in the work area. Please review.  Mr.Guru  talk  00:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better. Pretty much what I was thinking.  The references will have to be cleaned up, but I'd like to first hear what other's think of the content. --Ronz 02:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current article in mainspace is nonsensical. I will add the rewritten and much improved article.  Mr.Guru  talk  03:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not a good idea until other editors participate in consensus-building. --Ronz 03:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we should not keep nonsense in mainspace.  Mr.Guru  talk  03:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which references should be kept and which ones should we removed? Please review and decide.  Mr.Guru  talk  04:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, feel free to edit it. Thats what it is there for. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  04:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Subpage for rewrite edits: [[Talk:Stephen Barrett/Temp]] 

message: The deep links keep being removed, but it should be noted that these links are only citations for the topics that aren't straightforwardly listed on the QW homepage. In other words, they're absolutely necessary to verify those criticisms. Notice that only a minority of topics are deeplinked to avoid the perception of linkspam. This was a compromise solution, and it's one that some editors barely accepted for concerns about failing WP:V. Without links on traditional Chinese medicine, et al I'm positively sure that the block fails WP:V. Please restore to that version or give a good reason not to. Cool Hand Luke 18:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) We really do need secondary sources to show why any of these topics are notable. WP:V is only one factor. Again, I think we should go back to only listing the notable (as judged per a reliable secondary source) topics. 2) The only direct link which I removed are the ones that are linked to on the Quackwatch homepage. Please don't restore. We really need to satisify notability and cut down this list to only the most notable; otherwise, there are many other topics which Barrett has written about which could be added to this already unruly list. Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I agree that it's a issue per WEIGHT. I suppose, then, that you're doing editors a favor by not trying to remove the list wholesale; gives time to get secondaries for the listed topics. Fair enough. Cool Hand Luke 18:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You got it. But this topic has been open for months now and still no secondary sources. Further action? -- Levine2112 discuss 19:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Secondary sources, when describing Barrett, usually provide a list of the kinds of "quackery" he watches. We could probably cast a net over most of these from secondary sources, but I don't see it as a priority at this time. The list is editorially useful as-is. I think readers can immediately apprehend his style of criticism from this list of topics better than any other kind of third-party editorializing. Cool Hand Luke 21:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (copy of WP:WEIGHT policy) NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source... In accordance with WP:WEIGHT policy, we have reliable sources. According to WP:WEIGHT policy  primary references are reliable sources and acceptable. This improves the quality of the article. The compromise was reached by deep linking some which complies with WP:SELFPUB.  Mr.Guru  talk  23:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. We can't list every single thing which Barrett has ever written about and call them notable enough to be in an article. There is no criteria and thus no limitation and leaving the list as such is a clear violation of WP:LIST. We need to pare this list down to only those most notable and that have secondary sources or the entire list needs to go. -- Levine2112 discuss 15:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus has been esablished among editors based upon policy. Per WP:SELFPUB, primary sources are appropriate. Also it is best for the reader to read first hand what Barrett has to say.  Mr.Guru  talk  15:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never agreed to any consensus. Either has I'clast. Or MaxPont. Sorry. No consensus. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus is based upon policy. Please do not ignore policy. Do you agree with Wikipedia policy?  Mr.Guru  talk  17:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please reread my points and stop accusing me of ignoring policy. Thanks! -- Levine2112 discuss 21:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:SELFPUB to understand the rules. Consensus has been established and deep linking some was the compromise. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  22:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is this compromise made? -- Levine2112 discuss 22:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The compromise was made on this talk page. It was originally CHL's idea to deep links some. I agreed to the compromise. Do you agree with compromising.  Mr.Guru  talk  22:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Not to that compromise. I agree to removing all of the topics except for the ones that can be shown to be notable with some kind of secondary source. Per {WP:LIST]], we need to set guidelines for the list or remove it entirely. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: THF said in an edit summary on 21:44, 12 August 2007: Restore extensive footnoting. If we're going to have this list, it should be well-referenced; no justification for deleting information. I agree and we have set guidelines now.  Mr.Guru  talk  23:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What guidelines do you suggest? -- Levine2112 discuss 23:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:SELFPUB. Its a good start. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  23:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no guidelines there pertaining to WP:LIST. Your confusion stems from SELFPUB defending the ability to use one's self to demonstrate one's opinions. And certainly each one of these articles is individually just Barrett's opinions. However, a list showing what Barrett has written about is not a demonstration of his opinion. It is a demonstration of his work. As we can't list everything Barrett has ever written about here, we thus need to set up some guidelines. Make sense? One guideline I think we should implement is narrowing the list to only those with a secondary source demonstrating the WEIGHT of the article. Meaning, let's find other completely independent sources which refer to Barrett's article and demonstrates the article's notability. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its best for the reader to read exactly what Barrett has said. We are here to improve this article. Agreed?  Mr.Guru  talk  00:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. Creating an unwieldy and unregulated list without guidelines doesn't improve the article, but rather quite the opposite. Agreed? -- Levine2112 discuss 00:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Deep linking some does improve this article. Why do you object for allowing readers to read what Barrett has said?  Mr.Guru  talk  00:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am talking about cutting down this list, not about deep linking. Please keep up and let me know what guidelines you suggest for shortening this list per WP:LIST. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the compromise was a good idea to settle this matter. Again, why do you object for allowing readers to read what Barrett has said? Cutting down the list would degrade the article. What is your objections to deep linking some. This is an improvement to deep link some.  Mr.Guru  talk  00:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:LIST cutting down this list by setting some criteria for inclusion will improve the article. You seem to be going in circles now and I would rather prefer another editor's thoughts here. Otherwise, QuackGuru has not demostrated any valid reason for keeping such a long, unchecked list which without guideline is free to grow and grow and grow and become even more unwieldy than it already is. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is better for the reader to have some deep linked. Why you object to the reader going to Barrett's website. Reading first hand what Barrett has to say is an improvement for this article. Cutting down the list would be degrading the article. What you are trying to do is bad for this article. A compromise has been reached which I suggest you respect. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  02:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No compromise has been reached. You have not been able to even point to one. You have not addressed the concerns of WP:LIST. Please do. And then give me your suggestions for criteria for inclusion on this list. That would be most helpul. Thank you!!!! -- Levine2112 discuss 02:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A compromise was reached based upon policy. No need to continue this. What is better for this article and for the reader, you object. The article has been improved by deep linking some. What you want to do to this article is pantently on the wrong side of improving this article. I do not see why you do not understand that deep linking some is an improvement.  Mr.Guru  talk  02:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please point me directrly to this compromise which you speak of. Regardless, you have not address the WP:LIST issue. I am not discussing deep linking so I have no idea while you are still stuck there. Please keep up. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the above comments from the previous discussion on this topic on this page. Also, read the comments by CHL above. A compromise was reached and we do not have to address anymore issues.  Mr.Guru  talk  02:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read it thoroughly and I don't see any agreement with the compromise you are suggesting exists. I see that you agree that we need some inclusion criteria per WP:LIST. Let's please move on and discuss this. Otherwise, the list should be expunged. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I consider your comments to be boring to try to get me to continue or otherwise the list should be deleted. We do not continue the discussion for you to get a different result. No thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  03:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Only some have been deep linked and that was a good compromise. Reading first hand what Barrett has said is actually the best way for the reader to get informed about Barrett's opinion. Agreed?  Mr.Guru  talk  19:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The readers can easily apprehend his style of criticism from the direct references better than any other kind of third-party editorializing and thusly this improves this article by deep linking some. Understand?  Mr.Guru  talk  20:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reminder about the deep links

message: The list includes two-time Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling (for his claims about mega-doses of Vitamin C[33]), the National Institute of Health (NIH) Center for Alternative and Complementary Medicine, as well as integrative medicine proponent Andrew Weil.[34]I think this sentence should be removed per WP:NPOV.  If we don't have a source or two that we can use to make such a summary of what the list does and does not include, then we shouldn't mention it at all. Alternatively, we could try to come up with some inclusion criteria for such a list, such as listing all sources, individuals, and groups that are listed both on Quackwatch and have their own Wikipedia article. --Ronz 21:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:SELFPUB for the inclusion criteria of these sentences, I think.  Mr.Guru  talk  21:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That only applies if this is a direct quote.  The issue isn't that he has these lists, but why certain items from those lists deserve to be included in this article. --Ronz 22:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can include this because these are good examples and we don't have any alternatives. Sometimes we can IAR to improving an article, according to the co-founder of Wikipedia. Do you agree with the co-founder of this project who guided the community in its first year? Cheers.  Mr.Guru  talk  22:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem, besides NPOV is that I don't think they are particularly good examples.  --Ronz 02:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are fair examples and we do not have any alternatives to use. I understand this is controversial material but so is alternative medicine. The reader understands this.  Mr.Guru  talk  02:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the discussion. I'll return to this once the edit-warring and disruptions are once again brought back under control. --Ronz 15:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lets return to the discussion now. I'm just getting started. As I said, we can IAR to improve this article.  Mr.Guru  talk  03:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am being unbelievably cooperative! Ronz, per your request, the article is completely stable and under control now. You asked nicely to bring the article "under control," I suppose. In any event, we can return to this conversation.  Mr.Guru  talk  19:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Online activism

message: Is anyone going to have a problem with an article which was published in this publication? -- Levine2112 discuss 02:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At first impression, it seems like another ear candling chiro attack reference/website. Probably fails WP:RS.  Mr.Guru  talk  03:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So any source which disagrees with Barrett's stance on medicine is an attack reference? I think that is a wildly unfair (and incorrect) interpretation of WP:RS. -- Levine2112 discuss 05:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, you may want to take a look at WP:BLP. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  05:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [http://www.alternativemedicine.com/ Alternative Medicine] magazine 

message: A little background info is called for here. I see Levine2112 has added the discredited NZ report on chiropractic. It was so bad that the US government discredited it:
: A New Zealand Commission report in 1979 supported the safety of chiropractic; the report said "We are satisfied that chiropractic treatment in New Zealand is remarkably safe." (Report of the Commission of Inquiry Into Chiropractic 1979:p 77). According to the researchers, "By the end of the inquiry we found ourselves irresistibly and with complete unanimity drawn to the conclusion that modern chiropractic is a soundly based and valuable branch of the health care in a specialized area." However, the judge in the Wilk v. American Medical Association case described this report as "unsatisfactory", and a review of the report by the United States Congress' Office of Technology Assessment found 'serious problems' in its treatment of safety and efficacy issues.Wilk v. American Medical Association Summary
Since those issues (plus quackery-related issues not addressed by the commission) were the ones that Barrett and others saw as problematic, their position was vindicated, while the New Zealanders got pushed around by the vast and powerful chiropractic propaganda machine and came to rather stupid conclusions. -- Fyslee/talk 21:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fyslee, your opinion and the one judge's opininion is noted. However, they don't bare any consequence on the opinion of the NZ commision of Barrett. Neither the judge's nor the OTA directly comment on the NZ commission's conclusion about Barrett. That you believe the NZ commissions conclusions to be "stupid" and "vast and powerful chiropractic propaganda machine" or that you think the report has been "discredited" is fine for you, but again bear no consequence on this article. I might recommend starting an article for the New Zealand Report, if you believe you can do so from a neutral point of view. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be removed. This is discredited nonsense, bias, and POV material. Not satisfactory for an encyclopedia. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  02:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where has it been discredited? Show me, and I will show you where Barrett has been discredited. I think this is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and nothing more. -- Levine2112 discuss 06:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Any actual policies you want to cite here concerning the New Zealand report? -- Levine2112 discuss 16:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So to be clear, nobody has any really policy issues with the New Zealand Report. It is certainly a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards (maybe not Fyslee's and QuackGuru's standards, but that is irrelevant). So unless someone can give us a legitimate WP policy reason why not, I move to reinsert the reports remarks about Barrett's credibility once the article becomes unlocked. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do.  BLP, NPOV, RS.  --Ronz 17:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How does this violate any of those policies specifically? The New Zealand Commision was a government inquiry, their findings completely independent. NPOV can be acheived in how their findings of Barrett are presented. Don't forget that this article discusses and links to many of Barrett's attacks on the profession of chiropractic. This commision's finding that Barrett's chiropractic opinions are not credible helps acheive NPOV for this article. RS? Sure is is a relaible source. Remember, this is to be used to demonstrate one body's opinion. Right or wrong. This is not a source which declares facts, but rather the opinion of the group. Certainly the report itself is a reliable source of the commission's opinion. I am still unsure which part of BLP you feel this report does not meet. Please elaborate. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The discredited New Zealand report 

message: The Spiked Online survey and quotes are part of the biography section and a summary of the criticism of Barrett is part of the criticism section beginning with: Barrett's involvement in the legal system has also spawned controversy about his objectivity to pass judgment on those he deems "quacks." The info should be moved back to their original placement.  Mr.Guru  talk  04:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Spiked appears to be a highly politicized group that has its own history, agendas and conflicts. The "Survey info" has a large part of Dr Barrett's opinions about himself and should not be allowed to (conf)use the factual parts of the Biography section, especially when the material most relates to the Activism section.   The Barrett quote's length and his opinion has portions that are implicitly and explicitly disputed as contentious and self-serving in various sectors, including academic. Dr barrett's self congratulatory opinion piece is definitely not reliable material for the otherwise factual Biography section.--I'clast 09:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored the materials to their original proper place. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  10:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:SELFPUB policy for reasons to verify why the quote meets the inclusion criteria.  Mr.Guru  talk  10:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't disputing inclusion.  I was commenting on quality, size and location, that the quote is fluffy, puffy & long for a self congratulatory opinion to be used. The location you are pushing in the Biography section is quite improper, it promotes a self-serving statement as a fact by its location - where everything else *is* a WP:RS, WP:V fact. SB's quote is over long for the Biography for such a big text but minor point in time.  The Activism section addresses what is notable about the quote.--I'clast 12:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing wrong with having an opinion, unfortunately in this regard, policy and the consensus appears to be against you.  Shot info 12:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some real editing & printing problems here with the QW-WP VP.--I'clast 07:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please WP:AGF. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  19:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  layout