Talk:Stephen Barrett/Archive 3

message: I have reverted the undiscussed removal of the NPOV tag. Such a removal should be done only after discussion and as a consensus decision. Tags of this type are jealously guarded. They aren't just a part of the article, that can be removed by one editor acting alone.
There are still many areas that are not consensus viewpoints.
#The article has a disproportionately large amount of critical material, simply by volume, making it apparent to any new reader the POV of many of the editors. Some of that material is editorializing that extrapolates from facts into OR, instead of simply presenting the facts and letting readers go to the references and the links and decide for themselves. Even the references contain large quotes. I'm especially thinking of ref. 26 (King Bio), where the text in the article and the text in the reference duplicate some ideas. The idea should be summarized very briefly in the article, and the reference should show the citation and provide a link.
#There is still the issue of the relevance of board certification to his activities as a quackbuster (a term he rejects and dislikes). Its relevance should be seen in the light of the fact that far less than half of MDs were board certified back in 1967, and it never affected his career as a psychiatrist. That matter is still being hotly debated here at this very moment, and thus the removal of the NPOV tag is very inappropriate. The discussion of the relevance of board certification hasn't really even begun to discuss its relevance to his work with Quackwatch and anti-quackery activism, but it has improperly been applied to it. The issue should properly be focused on its relevance to his work as a practicing psychiatrist, which is one matter, which doesn't apply to his anti-quackery activities - another matter entirely. He is being held to a standard for one thing that doesn't apply to the other. Others who aren't even MDs are also experts in healthcare consumer protection and anti-quackery activities. They aren't MDs or board certified. His qualifications for that type of activity wouldn't even be addressed by board certification!
#To muddy the waters even more, that he even "uses" his MD credentials is often mentioned, as if that were improper. The guy is an MD, and will always be an MD. It is not improper under any condition for him to use MD after his name. That is not improper. It helps to identify him. It may or may not say something about whether or not he is qualified for any given activity. It all depends on what that activity is. Merely being an MD (even with a board certification) does not qualify one for his activities. While it helps, those qualifications are gained through experience, research, investigation, and plenty of help from other experts in various fields. There is no degree or board certification that covers those qualifications. (Maybe universities should start a degree program leading to the degree of CP.D. (Docter of Consumer Protection....;-)  Course work should start with critical thinking, logic, statistics, fundamentals of EBM, ethics, consumer protection law, etc.)
Those are just a few things that come to mind. They are not minor points of contention. Therefore, until they are settled, the NPOV tag should remain. -- Fyslee 20:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the NPOV tag because of this comment above. It didn't look "jealously guarded" and I didn't see any rationale for it. But now you've listed it. As for establishing the credibility (or lack thereof) of someone who makes it their professional business to attack the credibility of others, it is highly relevant and not POV to focus on it. These are not minor or insignificant. Stbalbach 02:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stbalbach makes a valid point which I have tried to make for a while. " As for establishing the credibility (or lack thereof) of someone who makes it their professional business to attack the credibility of others, it is highly relevant and not POV to focus on it. These are not minor or insignificant. " I fully agree that it is not POV, however each time an item is not favorable to the subject of the article it is critizised by a group of editors as POV. Thanks Stbalbach. NATTO 04:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Undiscussed removal of NPOV tag

message: The question about his qualifications in alternative and complementary medicine has been asked. From reading his C.V and looking at his web sites, he does have a medical degree ( M.D. ), was qualified and licenced ( until 1993 ) as a psychiatrist. I have not seen any formal training or qualifications in any alternative or complementary modality. He does not appear to have any training in homeopathy, accupuncture, herbal therapy or any other for that matter. He does not appear to have practiced  any of the alternative modalities as a stand alone modality or included any of them in his practice as a psychiatrist. It is difficult to claim expertise in a field when you have no formal training in it or any clinical experience. He could claim expertise in psychiatry but even there, he was never Board certified...
Of course I may have missed relevant information, if any is posted on his web sites. If anyone has evidence that he has any formal training in any alternative or complementary medicine, please post it on the talk page. NATTO 02:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Training in a specific medical area is not necessary to read and critique studies and information on the subject.  In fact, I doubt that any doctor would go out of her way to spend money and time training  in a field she believes is quackery.  That does not mean that she/he is not qualified to discuss it.jawesq 02:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NATTO, I agree with jawesq. You are implying that one can only be an expert in the area of training.  Many scientist switch fields and can be world class in a new field.  The point of a science degree is you learn the scitentific method and you learn to think critically. As far as I am concerned any biologist could look at the data available for the effectiveness of alternative medicine and determine if the conclusions are valid. It seems that Barrret's expertise comes from being familiar with the claims of alternative medicine. He is in a position to judge these claims and interpret how they compare with similar therapies in the medical field. David D. (Talk) 03:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not what I implied. I simply meant that to be an expert you need to have expert knowledge in a field, knowledge that is way above the average person. You can get that knowledge through formal training, relevant practical experience either in a clinical or research setting, ect.... Otherwise anyone could claim to be an expert in anything they wish... Dr. Barrett does not have any formal training in alternative medicine nor any practical, clinical experience that I could find. You do not become an expert just by reading " stuff ", relevant real life experience is relevant. As far as science is concerned, science is a tool with it's limitation and is not the ultimate solution to everything. There is more to health than just science. He trained as a psychatrist and could claim expertise in that field, however the vast majority of his peers being Board certified makes it difficult for him today to have high credibility in that field since he failed the Board exam. NATTO 04:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on what the offered testimony is. jawesq 13:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dr. Barrett's qualifications in alternative and complementary medicine

message: If anyone cites a court case, please take the time to look up how to do it.  I have observed many citations in this article are not at all the way court cases should be cited.  Here is an example of an improperly cited memorandum:
STEPHEN J. BARRETT, M.D., Plaittiff - Appellant, v. CARLOS F. NEGRETE; et at., Defendants - Appellees.] No. 04-55193 D.C. No. CV -02-0221 O-JML; No. 03-56663 D.C. No. CY -02-0221 O-JML. Filed Memorandum filed March 14, 2005.jawesq 03:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you supply the correct citation for that memorandum here, I'll put it in, or you can correct it yourself if you prefer. Jokestress 03:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is one example. Here is a reference for citing court cases, or other legal documents:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/citation/ 
The example above appears to be a memorandum, not a court case.  And from the way it is cited above, I would not know how to report it.  It would take me some time to sort it out, since I do not have much experience citing to memorandums.  However, this is how I would probably do it, without searching for more information:
 Barrett v. Negrete, et at (Mem. No. 04-55193 D.C. No. CV -02-0221 O-JML; No. 03-56663 D.C.; No. CY -02-0221 O-JML, March 14, 2005)
I don't guarantee this is accurate, but I think it was better than before.  I may look this up but not tonight!
Court cases are a bit easier...
An example:
Edmond v. Goldsmith, 183 F.3d 659, 660 (7th Cir. 1999), aff'd, 531 U.S. 31 (2000).
First names, titles are not used.
F.3d is the reporter, 183 is the volume, and 659 is the first page the case appears in the reporter, and 660 would be the 'pinpoint' or page the reference is found on. 
Then '7th Cir.' is the 7th Circuit (federal) court.  and 1999 is, of course the year.  
This case ruling was affirmed in a 2000 US Supreme Court case. (2000) indicates US SUpreme Court.jawesq 05:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe I will tackle some of this, but not tonight.  I could use some brush-up on legal citations. jawesq 05:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Court case citations

message: Hey ya'll, I know you've been sweating this article a lot and the POVs are pretty intense, but I have been eyeing the second sentence in the lead for awhile.  
:*He is a founder of the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF) and publisher of several websites that expose what he considers "quackery and health fraud," most notably Quackwatch.
My concern with the way it is written is that a person cannot "expose" something if it is not "fraud", which for NPOV you have to infer is possible. I would suggest moving the quotes to make it work better:
:*He is a founder of the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF) and publisher of several websites that "expose" what he considers to be quackery and health fraud, most notably Quackwatch.
It still says essentially the same thing, (I think:) --Dematt 03:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure that this is a big issue, since there already is a qualifier.  However, logically, you would be correct. jawesq 04:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your logic. Levine2112 05:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "describe" works for me.  Thanks!  --Dematt 13:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead comment

message: It doesn't matter whether he was "de-licenced" or if he allowed his licence to expire without being renewed. If he doesn't currently have a licence to practice medicine why does "M.D." appear after his name in the intro and next to his picture in the intro? savidan(talk) (e@) 07:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *This question of titles in an article is covered and solved in the WP Manual of Style.--Aspro 15:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: M.D.

message: Has he ever won any court cases? You can't tell from this article which seems to just list every case he lost, regardless of importance. It looks like a hatchet job to be honest. Secretlondon 11:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't find any victories for him; there might be though. The person who added most of the citations - user Jokestress - while extremely fair an unbiased with her edits, could be characterized as a pro-Barrett editor. I don't think her intent was to denigrate Barrett, but rather to just present the facts. The facts seems to be that he lost most, if not all, of his libel cases. The top of the section explains a possible reason why. However, if you find a victorious case for Barrett that is verifiable from a notable source (actual court records are preferred), please feel free to add it to this list. Thank you. Levine2112 18:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe he has settled a few out of court, so they wouldn't be registered. I think Mercola was one of those cases. See here. -- Fyslee 20:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This one is mentioned already on the Barrett article. So I guess not everything listed here are losses. They are all losses or settlements. Levine2112 21:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Has he won any court cases?

message: In light of the recent all inclusiveness discussion that the category headings are taking, do you think this article should discuss the concept of skepticism and pseudoskepticism? --Dematt 18:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. How would you defined skepticism and pseudoskepticism ? NATTO 21:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the heat this article generates would be easier for the reader to understand (which is de rigueur)  if there was references made in the text to  Pathological skepticism & Abuses of skepticism--Aspro 21:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Skepticism and pseudoskepticism

message: This is the group made for discussion of the neutrality disputed tag on the front of the article. Let us resolve whatever things we are disputing so that it may eventually come down in time. I've cleaned up here a bit. Nevertheless, this page is cluttered. What discussions are no longer active so they can be archived? Someone more familiar with these discussions please take initiative so that new talks can be opened with fresh perspectives. Tyciol 08:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality disputed

message: Please do not mass-delete other people's writings. The three paragraphs below were deleted but not archived. I guess it is not the only one. What is the justification for that?
Just a question: where is the actual evidence that "Barrett also had said that he was a "legal expert" even though he had no formal legal training"? All I can find, using the links in the article or using Google, are quack websites and quack-sympathetic websites claiming that he said he was a legal expert. But where is the original quote? If it is missing, it seems to be a rumor!
I can easily imagine him saying half in earnest, "I am sued every few months by quacks who want to silence me, so I am a sort of legal expert". That would hardly be the crime his opponents make of it.
I request that the rumor be either removed or qualified as a rumor. --Hob Gadling 09:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My deepest apologies for causing so much trouble. I have explained what happened below, and of course I wouldn't delete things in the manner suggested above. I have no motivation to do so, since I believe open discourse is best. -- Fyslee 20:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal expert

message: "Many practitioners criticized by Barrett" needs citation (of criticisms) and needs to be specific (which practitioners)Gleng 13:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations needed

message: * The home page of the website has a section on publications for sales. It is the third section from the top and has five separate sub-sections each leading to numerous other pages. 
Publications for Sale    
Consumer Protection Books (updated 7/20/06) 
Magazines, Newsletters, and Journals (updated 6/2/01) 
Sale: Specials and Clearance Items (updated 9/23/00) 
Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine (updated 8/15/02) 
Consumer Health Library: Recommended Reference Books (updated 7/20/06) 
As far as asking for donation, it is the first box on the right hand side with a link leading to a page with links to how to donate to the website.
This is obvious to anyone who looks at the home page so it should be part of the description of what the website does. NPVO.
The information that I added is thus factual, properly referenced and did not present a point of view, just the way things are.NATTO
:While I agree that Barrett sells books from his website, and that he asks for donations, this is not the primary purpose of his site.  I have chanegd the wording slightly to make it clear that the donations/sales are a funding source for a larger project.  --TeaDrinker 19:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selling books and asking for donations on Quackwatch 

message: * The phrase stating that Barrett is frequently called a quackbuster is factual. It is fair to say that he does not like the term. It is also fait to say that he list many people on Quackwatch as non-recommendable. The implication is clear , he is watching what these people are doing on a site that he calls Quackwatch. The reason for the term quackbuster comes from his activities so it should be included in the article. NATTO 02:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On being called a quackbuster 

message: * Fyslee. Is that a reference from a court decision or what the attorney have presented to the courts ? I am not a lawyer but the document appears to come from a lawfirm, not a court of law and is not signed by a judge but by an attorney, in this case Barrett's attorney.... Also the position for the reference, in the middle of the sentence, is bizarre. If indeed judges have made such comment specifically about Barrett, did they say only he was a public figure and the rest is added from a different source, or have judges said about Barrett : " Judges noted that his position as a public figure [45] has weakened his ability to defend himself ". Are the comments really made about Barrett or are they collated from other unrelated sources ? I refer you back to OR and bias. NATTO 04:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm too tired of trying to deal with your edits. You're spinning this anyway you want, with no regard for attempting to present a true picture of what's happened. If you want to do something useful, start by repairing the link. It has screwed up alot of references. It happened with this edit of yours. -- Fyslee 20:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Repaired. Levine2112 21:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch. I restored the earlier version which worked at the same time you caught my later error. Now the references work. It was a real mess! -- Fyslee 21:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fyslee, I hope you are better rested now. I apologize if I inadvertently "screwed up alot of references" I thought you would be more undertstanding in light of you own actions earlier.... As far as "spinning any way I want" I simply quoted what the judges said in the reference that you posted in the article. When the reference document is read it is clear that the judges have no sympathy for the fact that Barrett and Polevoy should be held to the standard of public figures as their actions shows clearly that they have sought this status while they want to be treated like private individuals in their libel suit.
Unlike you I abstained from adding a comment about how the legal requirements to public figure so badly affected Barrett's ability to sue others for libel. This interpretation is taken from another Wiki article about another totally different case. In the article in question there are no reference so it it not written to the same requirements as agreed with the Barrett article. However I left the link to the article so that reader can access it. Of course you have reverted everything so it is back to square one. NATTO 22:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Works for me.  Can you put a descriptive comment for 45 and 46 between the ref marks?  I have placed a need comment here holder there for now. i think the porse around them need to be tioghtened up a bit too.  is it multiple judges or one jude who has cited him as a public figure.  i think its multiple. David D. (Talk) 23:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  OK, It must be my computer then as I tried to access it again and it does work at my end. Sorry for the temporary problem on the talk page. For some reason part of the talk page disappeared when I made a comment on the above item and I had to fix it. NATTO 01:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference # 45 

message: * The following is quoted verbatim from the reference used in the article: "At trial, under a heated cross-examination by Negrete, Barrett conceded that he was not a Medical Board Certified psychiatrist because he had failed the certification exam.   This was a major revelation since Barrett had provided supposed "expert testimony" as a psychiatrist and had testified in numerous court cases.  Barrett also had said that he was a "legal expert" even though he had no formal legal training ".NATTO 09:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Has Stephen Barrett ever testified on a matter of psychology in court? I can only find references to his testimony in cases dealing with alternative medicine. TimVickers 19:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is what the critics say in the reference provided. Additional references would be good both on the issue of psychiatry and alternative medicine. On alternative medicine, I think the issue raised is that Dr. Barrett has not formal training or practical experience in any of the modalitities he has posted on his web site so he is not an expert in any of them. If I remember correctly, he says that there is no point in training in modalities that are quackery or fraudulent.... a circumferential argument... NATTO 20:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Are any references provided of him testifying as a psychologist on psychology? Otherwise we will need to add a note that no record can be found of any such case. This debate about an optional psychology qualification would otherwise seem completely irrelevant to his activities in the present day. TimVickers 20:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah-hah! It's in the article referenced, For years, Barrett has touted himself as a "medical expert" on "quackery" in healthcare and has assisted in dozens of court cases as an expert. Here the critics are talking about his expertise and testimony on alt. medicine. - not his testimony (if any) on psychology. TimVickers 20:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The quote is from the original reference from chiro.org. I didn't find anything new, I just read what was already there. TimVickers 21:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  Then both comments should be included, alternative medicine and psychology, since they are both form the same reference. 219.89.191.230 22:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What critics claim about his medical expert testimony