Talk:Stephen Barrett/Archive 12

message: Areas where no census for change exits includes the edit war removal of Kauffman and the Spiked article's quote being extended beyond RS for the actual quote from Dr Barrett to a non-RS opinion.  Crowning "key" scientists etc,  Spiked is a non-notable science etc "organization", little noted other than its political associations and corporate media services. Pfizer is notable and could be considered a creditable RS as the largest pharma research company, however Pfizer attribution must establish the context. So far no one has been able to satisfy "key scientists..." with or without the Pfizer attribution, so leave out the opinion of "key scientists..." etc.  Kauffman's removal was merely stealth, editing warring, and finally timing at the edit protection to a version against prior consensuses, Sept'06-July/Aug'07.--I'clast 06:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm unaware of any policy or guidelines saying there must be something other than a "laughably barren" Criticism section.  I am aware of V, RS, BLP, and NPOV, which we've been working hard to follow. --Ronz 15:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kauffman's piece is from a fringe journal. We edit based on policy. Per WP:BLP, it fails the inclusion criteria. Agreed?  Mr.Guru  talk  06:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Per BLP? Please explaiin. -- Fyslee/talk 15:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Please read prior discussions. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  17:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Criticism will always be contentious and this criticism is some of the tamest we've seen. I don't see the big problem. He isn't libeling Barrett or attacking him as a person. So what if he's inaccurate. We would expect that from Barrett's critics, and that is not a good reason for exclusion. Just don't stretch BLP too far. -- Fyslee/talk 21:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scorecard

message: The No original research policy prohibits the "synthesis of published material serving to advance a position" in articles, but does not forbid editors from using their brains. Nor does it forbid our use of common sense or that we research different sources in attempts to uncover obvious, uncomplicated, and incontrovertible truths that any normal person would themselves discover if they read the sources.
Two sources written by Barrett (and thus permitted by WP:SELFPUB) are used to synthesize an undeniable fact (the identity of the osteopath), not to "advance a position" or a POV. There is no other possible interpretation about the identity of the oseteopath, who is named and thoroughly described, and both parties are also mentioned in the court proceedings. This does not violate WP:NOR or WP:SYN, but is simply good research and writing, precisely the type of thing editors are expected to do here and which they do all the time. We are not even adding 1 plus 2 to remotely arrive at our own tenuous "position 3". We are using 1 and 2 to easily establish that the osteopath mentioned in 2 is the same as the one actually named in 1, with no other possible interpretation. That is neither a "position" or a POV. We are using common sense and that is allowed and expected here.
THAT eliminates the use of WP:OR and WP:SYN as excuses.
We have also heard that WP:SELFPUB is violated on three points:
* it is contentious; (only in an editor's opinion, but not when using common sense)
* it is unduly self-serving; (only in an editor's opinion, but not when using common sense)
* it involves claims about third parties; (true, but that possible BLP problem is easily solved and is dealt with below)
THAT eliminates the use of WP:SELFPUB and WP:BLP as excuses.
The arguments we have so far seen using misunderstandings of WP:SYN and WP:SELFPUB to bypass the use of common sense have created a mental vapor lock bubble, ie a sort of mental block. I am proposing we use common sense to pop that bubble and get past that blockage. Fortunately WP:It's ok to use our brains here!
Since neither WP:NOR, WP:SYN, WP:NPOV, or WP:SELFPUB are being violated here, the only other possible objection is WP:BLP and one part of WP:SELFPUB. We can easily avoid those problems by not directly and openly using the osteopath's name. We use just three sources: the court record and both of the Barrett sources. We can use the Barrett sources precisely because SELFPUB allows it, especially in articles about the subject (and we would be remiss to not make use of that permission), and to make sure we don't violate WP:NPOV we attribute it properly by clearly stating that it is Barrett who says it on his website. Here's what it looks like:
One libel suit against an Illinois osteopath ended in Barrett's favor. The case was dismissed by mutual agreement in April 2003
 after the osteopathOsteopath sued in Illinois. made restitution. Barrett states on his website that the restitution included a retraction of the offensive material from the osteopath's website and a payment of $50,000 to Barrett.
I believe this version violates no policy and takes special care to protect anyone from harm, while giving this case the coverage it deserves. I propose we seek that it be included in the article. -- Fyslee/talk 00:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are using 1 and 2 to easily establish that the osteopath mentioned in 2 is the same as the one actually named in 1, with no other possible interpretation. is WP:OR, WP:SYN using several pieces *and* its wording, e.g. in...favor.  Also the disproportionate weight that you are giving this would imply resurrecting the entire litigation segment in all its glory, with far more independently notable material.  I also have a different, more nuanced interpretation, too, that includes the personal commitments or legal terms that Dr Barrett mentioned to support my interpretation. We simply don't know what exchanges or terms have been left out, you should insist on a V RS source to assume that burden. You've been informed by several editors (including admin) that this involves a 3rd party BLP, which you are still incorporating by reference  [15], where the self commentator has already earned multiple academic notice about various forms of bias, and ethics, for less inherently personal, partisan if not adversarial (contentious) issues.  The proposed paragraph still clearly violates SELFPUB as well as WEIGHT (if not SOAP), OR, SYN. You might want to review this part about using  reliable sources too.--I'clast 23:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything is fully referenced and passes the rigors of all Wikipedia policies.  Mr.Guru  talk  00:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Mercola is still mentioned in the footnote. No matter how the $50,000 claim is couched, it looks like a BLP violation to me. Moreover, we have no third party sources to establish WEIGHT for his supposed victory (which, for all we know, was settled for nuisance value). I think the current language sticks to the verifiable facts and gives readers the correct impression: "However, Barrett won a preliminary victory in at least one suit and the parties ultimately settled in April 2003." Cool Hand Luke 02:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a lot of primary refs in the section which was agreed upon to be included. I am just NPOVing section. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  02:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it currently POV? Cool Hand Luke 02:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a pile on of case after case. I just want to include what happens in one settled case. The reference section is very weighty with all kinds of cases that are about one side using primary court document refs. Barrett's statement and views about one settlement will bring some much needed balance. There are many parts to this story and this is an interesting one that came out in Barrett's favor. In any event, I just want balance.  Mr.Guru  talk  02:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, almost every case combines primary and secondary sources. That's a big reason the footnotes are so long (which at least some users complained about). The secondary sources are to provide context and WEIGHT—that is, that objecive notability that third parties found the result notable enough to write about. I think the text I quoted correctly tells readers what happened in this case without resorting to Barrett's retelling. Cool Hand Luke 03:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:SELFPUB, this is worthy to be in the article.  Mr.Guru  talk  03:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I just want to explain about the settlement. There are a lot of cases and a lot of explanations. This is one case that also deserves to be explained. There is a lot of info in the text and especially in the footnotes about other cases. This will bring an overall balance to the section.  Mr.Guru  talk  03:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but the dollar amount is not established by anyone but Barrett himself. That detail can't stand. Cool Hand Luke 03:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: and a payment of $50,000 to Barrett. Here is the end of the sentence. You are saying just shorten it without the dollar amount. Somthing like: with a payment to Barrett. Dollar amount removed. Please show me in your edit to be clear. Thank you.  Mr.Guru  talk  03:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, one thing is that three sentences on a verdict reported by no one looks like undue weight to me, but I'll try adding some language to make it look more like your version. Hold on a moment. Cool Hand Luke 03:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can add this to the end of the sentence: restitution, including a payment to Barrett. Please review.  Mr.Guru  talk  04:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. OK. I think this part is indeed common sense. Spelled "restitution" though. When a plaintiff wins favorably on a motion and then stipulates dismissal, they were obviously paid something in the settlement. Cool Hand Luke 05:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: One sentence is fine with me as long as it includes the main points and context. I will add more context.  Mr.Guru  talk  23:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misuse of WP:SYN and WP:SELFPUB to bypass the use of common sense 

message: This footnote requires sign in  and payment for articles thus it should be deleted.  Anyone have a problem with this?  --CrohnieGalTalk 13:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed the link because the page was moving too far to the right. Cheers.  Mr.Guru  talk  17:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Mr. Guru, I was in a hurry and put it up quickly, so thanks for fixing it for me.  Now what do you and others think of this link?  Is there another link to replace the information that is trying to be said that would bypass the sign in page?  Also, I have never had to move a section like this, but if this topic should be moved above the links above it, would someone please make the adjustments for me?  Thanks all, --CrohnieGalTalk 17:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This happens all the time on Wikipedia. We just leave the link and ref the way it is, I suppose. Sometimes there could be a web archived version to use.  Mr.Guru  talk  17:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologize for missing this one.  A reference needs only to have enough information to locate the reference, even if payment might be required to verify it.  Hence the link is fine, even if it were never free.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for responding Arthur.  No apology necessary since I posted this in the wrong place until Mr. Guru moved it for me.  I really thought that URL's that went to a link that required payment to get to the information was not allowed.  Sometimes these rules can be quite confusing for a slow ranger like me! :) Does this mean that this kind of link is exceptable throughout Wikipedia?  --CrohnieGalTalk 12:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote 7 

message: The 'selected publications' section can be expanded. It leaves a lot to be desired. Presently, it is very short. Any suggestions.  Mr.Guru  talk  16:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing I can think of is either going to the many sites of Barrett or checking places like Amazon and so forth to see what publications come up for Dr. Barrett.  Sorry this is the best I can think of right now.  --CrohnieGalTalk 12:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick search I found  Three books that Dr. Barrett helped with.  Though if I remember correctly there is a list on QW with more. --CrohnieGalTalk 12:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A search of Google came up with these:   I hope this is helpful, I'm trying but not real good at this kind of searching. :) --CrohnieGalTalk 12:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Also Stephen Barrett, M.D.: Books and Book Chapters -- Fyslee/talk 18:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Attention everyone. Please do some research and help expand this section. Share your ideas here. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  23:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Why are you looking for such things when Barrett has been an ordinary doctor, not a research scientist? Sure, it would be nice to find, but you're barking up the wrong tree. His work has been in other areas, especially since the 1970s when he began devoting more and more time to quackbusting activities. You should be looking for other types of publications and opinion pieces by him and others who have promoted his work. -- Fyslee/talk 06:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not looking for more books. Well, if anyone knows of other types of publications and opinion pieces by him or others who have promoted his work — I am all ears.  Mr.Guru  talk  15:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Stephen_Barrett#Selected_publications|Selected publications]] 

message: What I am really looking for is peer-reviewed articles Barrett has written. I must say, this is hard to find. Any suggestions.  Mr.Guru  talk  01:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you looking for such things when Barrett has been an ordinary doctor, not a research scientist? Sure, it would be nice to find, but you're barking up the wrong tree. His work has been in other areas, especially since the 1970s when he began devoting more and more time to quackbusting activities. You should be looking for other types of publications and opinion pieces by him and others who have promoted his work. -- Fyslee/talk 06:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not looking for more books. Well, if anyone knows of other types of publications and opinion pieces by him or others who have promoted his work — I am all ears.  Mr.Guru  talk  15:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selected publications revisited 

message: I have moved this non-summarized, QW group assertion The Science Panel on Interactive Communication...fraudulent...information here for reference and discussion.  I don't think that the underlying point is complete or current either, but I am waiting to see the reference(s).--I'clast 05:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I'clast, but its summary as its the main authority based piece of evidence from the Donna Ladd Village Voice article. Its a government (and science oriented) backing for the credibility (and notability) of Barrett's contribution. You may want critics in the lead section, but the more recent opinions seem to be realizing the importance of identifying fraud and pseudoscience on the web. Its clearly there for balance and no sources are required there as they have already been established in the main body of the article. Spoctacle 14:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-summarized, unreferenced QW material

message: As long as I'clast and Rosenthal continue their attacks and outing me I am leaving Wikipedia for a long time.  You should be ashamed of your behavior.  --CrohnieGalTalk 23:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What???? I assume something has happened offsite in USENET and I have zero presence there.--I'clast 23:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'clast said in part: I have collaborated with Ilena when she was here... I'clast also wrote: I have sometimes utilized Ilena's material and knowledge as a resource since she has significant background in USENET (ugh) but we are quite different. Hmmm.  Mr.Guru  talk  01:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...as I have [collaborated] with Fyslee and other editors vigorously opposed to her. Left out several pertinent parts.--I'clast 11:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Something to remember  Shot info 01:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to thank all the editors who convienced me not to leave.  Thank you.  --CrohnieGalTalk 16:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems that at least one user has tried to intimidate Crohnie from editing here in the past. If I see any of that happening on Wikipedia (especially revealing details of another user's identity in a harassing way), I will not hesitate in blocking the offender. We can't patrol what happens on USENET, but we will not tolerate it on Wikipedia. Cool Hand Luke 06:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm out of here 

message: She is listed as an editor of the Village Voice.  Unless I missed it, she is not listed as an editor.  I could be wrong and if I am would someone supply the link saying she is?  --CrohnieGalTalk 16:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will add a ref citiation at the end of the sentence to verifiy the text. Read ref number 37 ^ a b c d e.  Mr.Guru  talk  23:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Donna Ladd