Talk:Stephen Barrett/Archive 1

message: A claim was made that Barret has filed 40 defamation suits & lost every time.  Two things make this an invalid criticism:
*The suits ostensibly meant here were filed by the National Council Against Health Fraud, which Barrett is a member of.  They were not filed by Stephen Barret himself.  Mention of these suits belongs on the page for the NAHCF, if there is one.
*The insinuation is plain hyperbole: 40 frivolous lawsuits that were all denied for lack of merit. From quackwatch.org: 'Overall, at least ten have been settled with agreements under which the defendants promised to stop making the false claims to which we objected. A few cases were dropped for technical reasons, such as our discovery that the defendant was not doing enough business in California to justify continuing the suit. In two other cases, involving about ten defendants, NCAHF received adverse rulings in which the courts rejected our legal theory that sellers should carry the burden of proving that what they claim is true. (The courts ruled that the state attorney general can enforce the law in this manner, but private citizens and public-interest group cannot.) These rulings don't prevent similar cases from being brought in the future, but they make them more complicated than they are worth.'  At least ten settled pre-trial under conditions favorable to the plaintiffs; several dropped for reasons having nothing to do with merit; two failed on grounds of legal merit.
If the statement must be made in any form on Wikipedia, it should be made on the NAHCF page & recognize the full truth of the matter.
(By the way, I'm getting a Wikipedia account now so as not to seem so anonymous--I'll be RubyQ is it's not already taken.)
Okay, I'm RubyQ now.01:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where are you getting your information from? I am gettign mine from a sources article. It seems like you have intimate knowledge. You say above: "our discovery that the defendant...". "Our" discovery? Are you part of NAHCF? Or part of their legal team? If you can cite your information from a notable source, I'd be more than happy for you to refute what I have put there. It sounds like you can. But right now, what I have put there is the only information that is sourced. Levine2112 02:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently you failed to note 'From quackwatch.org:' prefaced to the material within quotation marks in the quotation I used.  The source of my information, then, is the person alleged to have filed defamation suits.  Your source, from which you plagiarized at least two quotes word-for-word (actually the bulk of the paragraph in question here), makes a number of claims about the proceedings of a lawsuit.  The fact that Barrett's text is better put together & argued as against the website you mention (or its copies), (& lacks both marquee & blink tags plastered all over it) is, I think, a good sign.  But leave that to one side: the statement you wish to insert in the text of this Wikipedia article imputes a set of actions to an individual, something he casts in an entirely different light himself (not by him individually, not 40 consecutive losses, as it were), on the basis of a second-hand source that itself lacks citations.  In the absence of better evidence, evidence that would pass muster in any printed reference source, the statement has no place here.02:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: If the statement is intended to be a criticism of Barrett, it needs to be substantiated. If it's not a criticism, it isn't germane to the section devoted to criticism of the man.02:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Further, the entire acusation that Barrett has filed 40 defamation suits rests solely on that extensively parroted claim found in your source.  No enumeration of these supposed cases is given.  However, on the page I mentioned before on quackwatch.org, Barrett does enumerate the libel suits to which he has been a party.  They number significantly fewer than 40, five or so, & they have not all issued in losses.  On the other hand, as I quote in the addition to the article I have just made, the NCAHF has been invloved in false advertising suits involving about 40 defendents.  There seems to be some confusion between libel suits & false advertising suits.03:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Defamation suits

message: I have made a few changes to more accurately represent Barrett's views. Accusations should at the very least be accurate, and not based on editor's POV misunderstandings of his views. They are straw man arguments. His viewpoint on the term "quackbuster" is also now accurately presented, being his own words. He has never been comfortable with the NCAHF adoption of the term Quackbuster. Since he is not identical with the NCAHF, and the term was not originated by himself, he has never been comfortable with its use, and has never used it about himself. He is not much into militancy, but more into providing information.
Here is some information on the historical origins if the term:
The idea behind "quackbusters" originated in 1984, in connection with the creation of an eye-catching logo for the NCAHF.
It was a joint venture, the ideas and pencil sketches coming from William T. Jarvis, PhD (its President). Graphic artist Ellis Jones then transformed them into logos, badges, and T-shirts, featuring the duck "Quacky" in various situations and poses, the best known being Quacky wearing a snake oil salesman's hat and holding up a bottle of quack medicine. An example is shown here. 
Two other versions of the "duck" theme can be found at
*Quackwatch and
*The Quack-Files. 
The NCAHF Board Chairman at the time, Wayne Bidlack, immediately exclaimed "quackbusters!" when he saw it. (He was inspired by the then popular movie Ghost Busters.)
Since its birth, the term has played a significant role in the controversies surrounding anti-quackery efforts.
Not everyone allied with the NCAHF has been enthusiastic about this development, because quackery can be deadly, and is therefore serious business, thus the using of comic characters to portray the problem could be viewed as tending to trivialize it. However, since the serious approach has never been as successful in catching the public's eye, it has been judged by the originators as a worthwhile endeavor. The logo and term quackbusters were very successful and eventually became synonymous with the NCAHF. 
The term "quackbuster" - as used above - has no direct relation to the Warner Bros. film, Daffy Duck's Quackbusters, from 1988 (and actually predates the film), yet, in an ironic twist of fate, Daffy actually does start a "ghostbusting agency" in the film! Thus the history of the term comes full circle, ending up back at the original source of its inspiration.
When used positively (a minority of occurrences), "quackbusters" is a term adopted as a fitting self-description by some anti-quackery activists. They bear the title proudly, since it clearly identifies their relationship to quackery - they are against it.
Ironically, considering that he is accused of being the most prominent quackbuster, Stephen Barrett, MD, does not like the term because it can suggest militancy, and he never refers to himself as a quackbuster. He concentrates most of his efforts on providing consumer protection information. -- Fyslee 21:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, thanks for the run down. That was an interesting read. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 00:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Barretts' views, plus the history of the term "Quackbusters"

message: : Some editors here seem to have lost sight that the section being edited is the criticisms section of the article, not the defense against criticisms section. I have removed the coutercriticism information. Please place it somewhere else if it's necessary. Which it probably isn't. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 23:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focus 

message: Does not have the appearance of anything encyclopaedic, nor of being reliable as a source.  SHould it be in here?  Midgley 11:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bolen's site is pure ad hominem attack and conspiracy theory. He provides no evidence to back his charges, therefore the addition of his remarks is an undocumented POV attack, added by an anti-Barrett editor. Such editorializing is not allowed in articles. The Bolen remarks should be removed. His site is definitely not a reliable source, and only qualifies to be used on the Quackpotwatch article, or on an article about himself. It should also be removed from the external links. -- Fyslee 19:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bolen's website 

message: I also found that obscure.  SO I looked.  http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/tt2.htm is about number 3 in Google, there is a PBS one that may be better for reference from WP above it.  I'd say the experiment was an elegant piece of real science, with a simple and falsifiable hypothesis, good reproducibility, and by report a  clear outcome.  Very publishable.  Midgley 11:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rosa reference 

message: I restored mention of the SLAPPs to the lead section and trimmed it a bit.  See WP:LEAD.  I don't want the lead section to be too slanted toward any POV, but I do think that a "consumer advocate" getting sanctioned for a SLAPP is a bit unusual and exemplifies the criticisms voiced by advocates of alternative medicine.  Solaris68 02:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm asking for V RS to justify the words "sanctioned" and "frivolous" in the Criticism section please. Can't see any evidence of court-imposed sanctions, nor have found the word frivolous used in judgements. Gleng 10:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point; I removed "frivolous".  "Sanctioned" is used in this sense. Solaris68 05:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Doing a quick Google search, I was readily able to find the text from the Superior Court ruling here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here to just list a few. I think this ruling is well-documented thoughout the web for us to include it on this page. Please choose a source most to your liking and please reinstate the deletion. Levine2112 00:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Three sources don't present it, being 404 or advertising.  THe first one that does has a verson which is not that given above.  THe text removed appears to be editorial comment supported by what looks like or would easily be taken as an assertion it is a quote.  The best reference would be the court website - isn't that available?  Midgley 01:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found in all of these links except the one 404 page which I removed from the list now. I think the last two references {1 and 2) are the best since they show the entire ruling. Neither one of them are advertsing sites or at least there is no advetsing on the page with the ruling. They both just present the court's opinion. I'll look for the ruling on an official courts page, but either one of these should certainly suffice for the time being. I just found this one which even states: This is an html COPY of the original Court document signed by Judge Fromholz... None of the Judge's words have been changed. I think that one would do the trick to.Levine2112 01:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That one is on a site called bolenreport.net  If it falls within the WP:EL policy then it cold be linked to, but it continues to mystify me why such secondary soruces are preferred to a primary source such as the court archives, or a secondary source such as a law report which is not a protagonist.  It is clear above that there is dispute over the correctness of material from that source, so it would be better not to use it.  A recurring theme in WP is that if it is important, then someone who is not directly involved will refer to it and can be cited.  Midgley 14:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BolenReport...  He is a spammer, one of the sort who say that it is their right and anyone cooperating to stop him is infringing his rights.  http://www.bolenreport.net/feature_articles/feature_article027.htm  Is it seriously proposed that that site etehr satisifies WP:EL or is the best reference to that 5 year old case?  Midgley 11:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of who Bolen is, the reference is to the official ruling of Judge Fromholz. Unles you are accusing someone of doctoring the ruling, I think the statement has to stand. The page we are linking does no sell anything, it doesn't even link out to Bolen's site. It's a freestanding page, that aside from the bit of opinion at the top, does nothing more than present the judges ruling. If you don't like that this is pointing to Bolen's site, then please replace the link with either 1 or2. They are duplicate pages. Levine2112 23:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I'm missing something about the court concerned or American courts in general, but the document pointed to starts:-  "Pursuant to the Court’s order dated December 3, 2001 Defendants King Bio Pharmaceutical, Inc. and Dr. Frank J. King, Jr. hereby submit the following proposed revised statement of decision "  - IE it is written by the interested party, not by the judge.  It is also a _proposed_ statement - is there any reason we should not be shown the final statement?  THe date of it might be made more clear in the article as well, indeed a more comprehensive description of wins and losses should perhaps be added.  Awarding costs by the way is not, in English courts at least, a sanction.  Midgley 00:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The judge writes it. The parties sign-off or revise it. And then if all is agreed upon, the judge signs off on it. This is the final which the judge signed (as stated at the top). Further the part of this document that is being quoted is the judge's direct opinion that he signed off on. I am looking to find the court's copy of this online. Ihave been unable to do so at this point. Levine2112 00:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: SLAPPsuits

message: User 216.193.137.208 is Stephen Barrett. Everyone of his edits have been to delete information about his detractors and links to critical sites, or to add links to one of his various sites. Please refrain from self-promotion. If you don't like the criticism then get out of the public eye, Mr. Barrett. Levine2112 04:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's "Dr" Barrett.... Show a little respect. -- Fyslee 20:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: User 216.193.137.208

message: I have cleaned up the external links, limiting it to two on each "side" so as not to overwhelm a Wiki reader looking for resources to follow up on.  Also, it is not Wiki-like to "pile on" with lots of sites with similar things to say. I recommend that if someone prefers an (unlisted) site to one of the others on their side, replace the one of the two links with the preferred one, and not add to the list. 206.81.65.124 16:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to get too involved here, but Larry, the NPA personal attacks section is meant to squash attacks on editors, not attacks on article subjects. However, if the site is not notable and really only presents opinions rather than documentable facts and information, I would say that it doesn't deserve an external link. However, if it is notable and does present relavent information about Stephen Barrett, then it should be allowed. That being said, notability is a hard claim to support. Levine2112 18:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links section 

message: Sarner, how is listing out Barrett's court cases and their results considered original research, as you put it? Levine2112 20:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Orignial Research

message: I have "soft-banned" editors  and  from editing this article, as they appear to be engaging in inappropriate POV warring relating to the content of the article. I suspect they are likely reincarnations of  blocked users, and appear not to be making positive contributions to the article or this talk page. Should either of them edit, please revert any edits they make. Users have been informed on their talk pages. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 21:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like your actions are working quite effectively - not a single edit since this administrative action. I've never seen such an abrupt and severe action from an administrator before. It has chilled the atmosphere. Who would dare to edit here under these conditions? -- Fyslee 22:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just did, phear. What'd I miss in my absense? Owch, this page is too big, can someone archive it who knows which discussions are or aren't active?Tyciol 23:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OKO and Sarner banned from editing this article