Talk:Stephen Barrett

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
The subject of this article, Stephen Barrett, has edited Wikipedia as
Sbinfo (talk • contribs).
Archive
Archives
  1. October 2005 – July 15, 2006
  2. July 20, 2006 – July 27, 2006
  3. July 27, 2006 – Sept. 18, 2006
  4. Sept. 18, 2006 – Oct. 28, 2006

Contents

[edit] Rosenthal lawsuit issues

There seems to be an internal debate here about the Rosenthal lawsuit... about what the courts ruled and why they ruled the way they did. Below, I would like to invite all interested parties to state their issues about what is (and isn't) presented in this article regarding this lawsuit. Please follow my format below to keep it organized and above all, please be civil.

  • This is a sample of how we can format an error or omission from this article pertaining to the Rosenthal lawsuit. Please use this format and try to keep all of your points organized. After each point, please cite a reliable source which backs up the statement and then sign your post with the usual ~~~~. [1] Levine2112 18:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • A few things here. First, are the Rosenthal issues in the "Barrett v. Clark" suits different than the "Barrett v. Rosenthal suit"? Either way, edits need to be made to make it clear. Second, since there is a Barrett v. Rosenthal article, what's listed here regarding it should be minimal - much less than what is here already. Third, it's not clear if all these libel suits relate to individuals reposting Tim Bolen's opinion pieces. Again, this should be clarified. Overall, these sections have become a real mess. --Ronz 22:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
You may be interested in checking the talk page for Barrett v. Rosenthal. I have set up a similar errors/omissions template there as well. Levine2112 23:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Though her edits here are "bold", I think Ilena has a point. According to the court documents, the court didn't rule that it is tough to prove libel on a public figure. They ruled that there was no libel. They go on to say that "assuming arguendo" if they deemed it to be libel then it would be hard to determine because Barrett is a public figure... but as they said, this is just a hypothetical point. The ruling is that there was no libel. Levine2112 18:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed the unrelated and distractive quote regarding a "public figure." It appears that Barrett / Lee are attempting to confuse the reader as to why Barrett lost this case. In fact, there were 5 reasons besides them being "public figures":

Here is what the court actually said ... [2]

  1. Plaintiffs here cannot meet the evidentiary burdens with which they are faced, for each of several reasons.
  2. Rosenthal Has Published Nothing About Plaintiff Grell
  3. Plaintiffs Cannot Establish That Most Of The Statements At Issue Are Demonstrably False Statements Of Fact
  4. Rosenthal's Statement About Polevoy Is Protected By Federal Law (note: this is the ONLY thing that went to the Supreme Court ... one REPOSTED comment ... what Lee/Barrett wrote was that Barrett's case against was in question. That needs to be corrected also.)
  5. Plaintiffs' Claims Also Fail for Lack of Evidence of Actual Monetary Damages

C. Plaintiffs Have Not Shown Good Cause for Discovery

  • Plaintiffs Barrett and Polevoy Are Public Figures, Whose Claims Fail Because They Cannot Show Actual Malice
Plaintiffs' request to depose defendant Bolen and Ms. McPhee is fatuous.
In sum and in short, no plaintiff has any claim against Rosenthal: Grell is not even mentioned; Barrett can show no statement of fact, false or otherwise; and the one statement of fact to which Polevoy can point, the reposting of the Bolen piece, will not subject Rosenthal to liability. But assuming arguendo Barrett and Polevoy could point to a statement that would support a libel claim, their claims would fail because they are public figures.

Those are direct quotes from the court ... so it is clear that the "public figure" case cited here is not relevant to this case.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ilena (talk • contribs).

It's not clear to me at all. In fact, from what you yourself wrote "besides them being public figures" and of course it states "Plaintiffs Barrett and Polevoy Are Public Figures". --Ronz 20:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I was just rereading what was written about Barrett vs Koren and I have found no evidence that the courts ruled that Koren won because Koren had not proven malice. Is there a citation for this??? The evidence I found was different. Ilena 18:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Point of "A different type of suit" section?

I don't understand the point of this section of the article, other than to defame Barrett. --Ronz 21:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a separate section because it is a lawsuit in which Barrett had direct involvement... but was not a libel suit (as are the other lawsuits listed on this article). Therefore it is kept seperate. Now are you saying that have a seperate section is defaming to Barrett or do you have a problem with including what the judge factually stated about Barrett (cited from a reliable source... court documents)? Levine2112 22:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Levine is correct. It took alot of work to get these sections and subsections to work at all, and any small change can start a new edit war. Please leave them alone. The Rosenthal matter should be kept very minimal here and a link provided to the article, where more details can be provided. This article is not primarily about the cases, but about Barrett. The cases should be mentioned, and they are, but the Barrett vs. Rosenthal article should be used for more coverage of that case. -- Fyslee 23:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. The information is presented out of context, and has been used elsewhere to attack Barrett. Certainly, no attempt has been made to add each and every legal dispute Barrett has been a part of. It certainly looks like the selection criteria has been those legal disputes that can in some way be used to do the most damage to Barrett. I'd like to know the point, if I'm missing it, so I can take a stab at adding some useful context to balance the POV problems. --Ronz 02:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Ahhh! I misunderstood you and focused on another aspect of the subject. You are quite correct that the section (the whole litigation section, including this part) was started by and has been continually boosted by those interested in defaming Barrett. The current state doesn't relate to the whole subject, but only a compromise version for which some consensus existed, just to keep the peace. For example, an attempt to include the positive (for Barrett) fact that Mercola paid a large settlement, was removed. Other cases that Barrett has won have not even been attempted, since the whole subject is wearisome, but it should be attempted. Go for it! -- Fyslee 10:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Re:Mercola, the Barrett camp was invited/challenged many times to produce positive references that would suit WP:BLP (e.g. documents, checks, WP:RS articles; [3]) after trying an end run rumor-mongering style for a potentially defamatory situation. Still waiting.--I'clast 08:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't recall it that way. The evidence just wasn't accepted because it was reported by Barrett, even when it was clearly worded that it was his opinion from his website (which makes it an NPOV manner of presentation and acceptable on the subject's own article here). The demands for other forms of proof were unreasonable because of the nature of the case - settlements out of court are obviously not documentable by producing court records. The statement by Barrett is still there (it was never a "rumor") and has never been challenged by Mercola. Everything was done to sneak around having to include that information because it looked good for Barrett. There was no issue related to BLP, as there wasn't the remotest chance that it had any defamatory potential. (This is a whole different discussion for another thread that people can go back and investigate: here and here) -- Fyslee 08:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
These denials, representations and excuses are what I was talking about, I don't think Wiki is interested in BLP violations originating (including ones own associated blog/site) anywhere at Wiki. We obviously don't see eye-to-eye. I was kind of hoping someone had the gumption (or gall) to legally record (and publish) the actual settlement document(s) or even the scanned check with a deposit receipt.--I'clast 05:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
What on earth are you talking about? What part of what I wrote above and referenced don't you understand? -- Fyslee 05:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I am only talking about your Mercola 50k settlement claims - (1) in comment (edit summary) made above as the example, (2) earlier wiki editions of "Joseph Mercola" and (3) Stephen Barrett articles where your/SB/QW 50k claim wasn't documented well enough for a "negative" BLP reference to Mercola, as we all discussed before (i.e. the opposite "positive" self referential claim for SB on his article wasn't enough since it still was negative on JM). No Mercola reference is in the QW link mainly on Bolen/Clark that you just gave. I am not commenting on the Bolen stuff. Just you were complaining "For example, an attempt to include the positive (for Barrett)... Mercola paid...was removed." Just keeping the story on one part straight.--I'clast 12:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Basically what I'm seeing is the pro-Barrett side complaining because they have opposition! Oh my goodness, someone has created a criticism section, how unfair and POV. Pretty funny. -- Stbalbach 15:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. Nope, it seems that the lawsuits that Barrett won or had a settlement in his favor have been excised from this article; only the ones in which he lost as plaintiff have been included. I'm not weighing in (yet) as to whether this complaint is valid, only that it's not as described by Stbalbach. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Definitely no complaints because of the criticism section. It should be here. -- Fyslee 21:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Please feel free to add all lawsuits which Barrett has been directly involved in to this section. No one has excised any lawsuit from this article in a long time. If there is one that weighs more favorably for Barrett, please add it. Also, you can try to pull something else pertinent and directly about Barrett from the KingBio suit if you'd like. That the judge's opinion of Barrett is rather harsh and that this opinion is on public record is not the fault of any editor here. Levine2112 21:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
The only one I can find (which has recently been in this article) in which Barrett clearly had a favorable settlement was Mercola. By their nature, the details of settlements are not available from court records, so Barrett's word (from two versions of one of his sites) and the note that the settlement came immediately after a procedural rulling in Barrett's favor seems legitimate indications of success. Exact phrasing would be difficult, but it's clear we could say there was a settlement immediately following a ruling in Barrett's favor. Whether Barrett's statements as to the settlement could be included is unclear. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
The rules here are that the websites of the subject of the article can be quoted. It just needs to be made clear that it is a quote, and therefore the opinion of the subject. This is not a matter of opinion or interpretation, as with the other issues regarding Rosenthal's additions here. This is a concrete number that has been on Barrett's website for years now, and Mercola has never contested it. -- Fyslee 21:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Barrett's word on this case is no more reliable than Rosenthal's on her case. We need court records. So far we know nothing for sure about this case; even whether it was favorable to Barrett or not. Levine2112 21:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
The court record, if any, would show that the case was withdrawn in a settlement. It should be possible to find that record, but it's likely someone would need to go to the clerk of that court in person and request a copy. It's probably not in a published record, but only available on request from the court.
If we agree that Barrett's comment on the settlement would be includable if it could be established by court records that there was a settlement, I'm willing to investigate further. If we don't agree, I'm not willing to pay for a transcript for only my personal edification. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
The court record that there was a settlement would be enough to say that there was a case and that there was a settlement, but if we are willing to take Barrett's word on the terms of that settlement then we also must take the word of Rosenthal on the terms of her trial. This is only fair. Otherwise, we should just stick to court records and perhaps reputible publications. Levine2112 22:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
So am I misunderstanding if I say that the answer to my question is that this section is to document a criticism of Barrett? --Ronz 01:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely you are misunderstanding. This bit is included to document a notable case and Barrett's involvement in it. That its outcome reflects poorly on Barrett is just the circulmstance. Its existence in this article is without any POV other than the source's. Levine2112 02:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
So this is to document a notable case and Barrett's involvement only? Thanks for the explanation. --Ronz 20:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Re: settlements. If there is a settlement in the court record, by all means, report the actual facts recorded or even the existence of a settlement. Taking Barrett's words at face value as a reliable source is problematic (1) the court cases about expert witness, (2) intrinsic conflict of interest issues, (3) Kaufmann's academic dissections in JSE hit pretty hard (it's mostly Kauffman's not the media's creditials), (4) any review shows QW goes on about Pauling and vitamin C with tests of 0.2-3 grams once per day for colds/flu; Pauling said 1-2grams/hr for a first tickle (ca 20-40 g/d) might help abort it, C advocates (1976) talk about 40-200 grams/day in 1/2, 1, 2 hours - that's intellectually honest reporting??? Why should we trust the guys now? As for Fyslee's suggestion that we do OR on "...and Mercola has never contested it", this seems problematic in many ways. (1) What if Mercola is biding his time? (I actually know such a situation where a problem with a dominant adversary is not yet directly contested/publicized, but there may be a huge IP lawsuit that you'll read in WSJ in two years or so), (2) what if Mercola did settle, say $500/yr for 100 yrs or say 50k lump sum in 25 yrs, is that correctly reported as a current single digit?, (3) what if there also is a stipulation that Barrett will not publish a settlement details, see (1)? Is Wiki the place to experiment with one-sided, unverified material that negatively affects a BLP? I do support the idea that individuals should be able to document these things (e.g. settlement doc or check with deposit slip copies with an affadavit on Wikisource).--I'clast 22:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unrelated legal case

Regarding this matter of Wiki dispute:

  • In an unrelated legal case, it has been written that because of the extremely high burden of proof on the plaintiff, and the difficulty in proving essentially what is inside a person's head, such cases - when they involve public figures - rarely, if ever prevail. (See: New York Times v. Sullivan)

Please defend why it keep being reinserted in this article. Thanks. Levine2112 03:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This is fascinating. The issue of "public figures" is merely distraction but has been reincluded several times.
The Judges definitely enumerated that Barrett lost for a minimum of 5 reasons (clearly stated in the decision) AND had he not lost for those 5 reasons, THEN, the public figure issue would have made him lose.
This has been reinserted by people close to Barrett who have tried to limit details of Barrett's other losing cases (such as Barrett loses to Dr. Koren) ... yet keep attempting to get this off topic case included.
Wikipedia ... is this not supposed to be an encyclopedia ... not just another Stephen Barrett Front Group??? Ilena 05:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't appreciate being labeled part of a "Stephen Barrett Front Group". Please avoid insults and personal attacks per WP:CIVIL --Ronz 15:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Why besides my already given explanations? --Ronz 16:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Please give your explanations here, Ronz. As far as I can tell, the public figure issue was just "for arguments sake"; a hypothetical that had no bearing on the case. Levine2112 20:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
It's currently removed. I'm hoping that we can clarify the legal issues more without distracting from the main article topic. Certainly, the Barrett v. Rosenthal article should have some in-depth legal analysis. --Ronz 20:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, then please give you explanations over there. Thank you. Levine2112 21:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trying to understand this

I just came across this Barrett v. Rosenthal issue in the news so I thought I'd state my impressions after looking at the discussion. From what I can see (but I haven't looked carefully, so the following is just a loose interpretation), the trial court decision basically said

  1. It's well-established law that people are entitled to publish their opinions about anything they want, even if those opinions are crazy, as long as they're not stated as defamatory factual allegations.
  2. Most of the stuff Rosenthal published was opinion, so was not libellous even if crazy or ill-founded.
  3. The exception was the stuff she reposted from another discussion board, written by someone else. That stuff was not opinion and was actually defamatory and Rosenthal is liable since she reposted it.

Rosenthal then appealed the last part, claiming immunity under the CDA since what she had reposted was not her own writing. The appellate court said: right, that stuff may be defamatory, but the technical wording of the CDA means Barrett has to go after the original author and not after Rosenthal. Rosenthal got off on what the court seemed to see as a technicality, that the CDA's wording made it ok for her to publish other people's lies online as long as they were not her own. The court went on to indicate that Congress might want to revise the CDA to close this loophole.

YESQ!! The above comment is an accurate description of the CA Supreme Court deciison. Although the court said any further expansion of immunity (beyond republication) would require Congressional action. (not quite the same thing, but close, as what you wrote). The California supreme court did not even address whether or not Ilena's statement was defamatory, because it did not have to do so. She was a computer user who republished an allegedly defamatory statement. Users who republish 3rd party facts are immune from liability It did point out that Ilena's possible primary publication could be an issue, but that also was not before the court.

Is the above a reasonable summary? If yes, my view is as follows:

  1. As a piece of free speech jurisprudence, this legal case is of some notability to those interested in the pure legal angles, but IMO shouldn't receive much space in Barrett's biography, which should be about Barrett and his doings, not about legal analysis. Indeed, it has already been split off to a separate article, which is good.
  2. Rosenthal should not be allowed to use this court decision to press her medical or personal opinions into either Barrett's Wikipedia biography or the article about the lawsuit. The court did not say Rosenthal's views had any factual legitimacy at all, but only that they're her opinions and she's entitled to publish them regardless of their merit.
  3. The Wikipedia biography should follow the principle of neutral point of view to document all significant sides of the dispute. However, the different viewpoints don't get equal coverage: the article should use reliable sources to document what the mainstream view is and what the minority view is, and it should give less weight to the minority view. See WP:NPOV#Undue weight.
I think she is entitled to state that the lower courts did not find most of her statements defamatory, and the one statement that might have been defamtory was dismissed because she had immunity under the Act. I do not think this is too much to say. I would minimize the long diatribe and quotes. Suffice to say that Barrett was filing frivolous lawsuits, and may be sanctioned for that. And I bet he yells the loudest about "frivolous lawsuits" so it is interesting that he seems to file many of them. And he can't apparently find a lawyer who will take his case that can comptently define the cause of action.Jance 08:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

My snap impression of how the articles should be written (of course reaching a real consensus would take more careful research) is:

  • Rosenthal's medical opinions are somewhat fringe and shouldn't get much weight in the part of Barrett's biographical article concerning medical questions. A lot of the other criticism in the article is also fringe and should be compressed (but not totally eliminated). The Journal of Scientific Exploration article is given way too much weight given the pseudoscience orientation of that journal. The same goes for other fringe medical critics in that section (the ayurvedic guy, and the lengthy section from the nutrition guy sourced from the nutrition guy's personal website). See WP:RS. The article in its present state is somewhat unbalanced (undue weight).
  • Rosenthal's legal defense that people can publish whatever opinions they want is legitimate and can be described in the legal case article. That defense is especially decisive for criticism of public figures (NYT v. Sullivan).
That is misleading. Ilena surely can publish her opinions, but if she publishes (originates) defamatory statements then she may be subject to liability. The court only addressed republication.Jance 08:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The majority view in the legal case article is basically that of the court (supported by the EFF): Rosenthal is entitled to publish her opinions, but from a legal standpoint, the actual content of those opinions is irrelevant to pretty much anything. The article should therefore not give any space to the opinions beyond a short summary.
  • Her CDA defense is still somewhat uncomfortable from the court's point of view (they more or less suggested that Congress rewrite the CDA to prevent this from happening again) and the legal article should document that. Some analysis of this decision should also go into Wikipedia's article about the CDA.
Your interpretation is incorrect here. The court was very clear that Ilena had immunity for repulication. The Court did NOT suggest that Congress should rewrite statute to prevent this from happening again. On the contrary, the court wrote that any further expansion of the CDA (EG for originators or primary publishers of defamatory material) would require Congressional action.
  • This was a California state court decision and some editor should check whether there might Plaintiff Barrett would have appeals only if the florida supreme court failed to decide the case

on independent state grounds, as well as federal grounds. I am not sure this was the case (I Would have to reread it, and I am up at 2 AM with a 8 AM court date tomorrow. I don't want to try to read it again tonight.

Very short somewhat POV summary of the Barrett/EFF side (not saying I actually believe this, it's just an interpretation of the limited stuff I've seen): Barrett is a mainstream medical guy who tries to expose the activities of fringe medical people he calls "quacks", so is constantly getting criticized by those quacks. He is a little too fast on the legal trigger in litigating against people like Rosenthal for publishing criticism, but that doesn't mean the criticism has any validity. So Wikipedia should not treat the criticism as valid unless documented by reliable sources (what is currently there is pretty weak), and generally should not give too much weight to this dispute.

"Too fast on the trigger" is an understatement. He is abusing the court system, and should be sanctioned for it. (Especially since he is so hypocritical in his dislike of our legal system.) If he has such disdain for lawyers and the legal system, he should not file dozens of frivolous complaints.`Jance 08:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC) I don't think I'm going to stick around for this though, I hate edit wars. Sorry about the drive-by post.

your understanding of the FL S Ct case is very perceptive. The article needs a lot of work, but I do find it useful to comment generally on his penchant for filing frivolous defamation claims to silence critics. He is, after all, a public figure. I don't think much of the detail is useful here. As an objective observer, I read it and my eyes glaze over.Jance 08:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Just passing through,
-- 67.117.130.181 07:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<><><><><><><><<> The supreme court of california did not rule it to be defamatory. Nobody has been established to have lied here, especially not Ms Rosenthal.

That is accuratel The supreme court of CA did not reach the merits of the case, but instead invoked statutory immunitylJance 08:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

<Excised> I should like to make aware that this fellow here is maligning something as junk science but giving no evidence to back that up other than that you should just trust him and it's just his own opinion...deleted, please read WP:AGF...in the anti-alternative medicine movement and we should not just take his word on what is or is not real science or so called pseudoscience. No matter if the CDA was already rewritten to Mr Anonymous's satisfaction here, there was nothing in this case that anybody -- either Rosenthal or Bolen -- said about Barrett that could be construed as libelous. As a matter of fact I do not believe that anything anybody has said in this case can be considered libelous as those that made the statements in question believe them to be true and were not a malicious lie that they knew to be false which would need to be the case in order to warrant true libel. As I've said above Barrett has no true scientific medical credentials to my knowledge and what he is actually trying to do is to shut down those people and practices he disagrees with despite there being lots of evidence(and people) that strongly shows these treatments to be very very efficacious. It is very much contended on the internet that he is being funded by the big pharmaceutical corporations as there are no other explanations for his ability to pay these legal fees from his constant litigations over the years. To my knowledge he has lost over 40 such cases over the years! ...Deleted new anon editor's inappropriate challenge to another Wiki editor, please read WP:NPA, WP:AGF-10:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.66.40.89 (talk • contribs).

  1. As I understand it, the trial court (not the CA Supreme court) ruled that Bolen's statement about Polevoy was defamatory (which means, among other things, that it was false), and that Rosenthal was liable since she reposted it. Rosenthal then appealed, ultimately to the CA Supreme Court. ("Appealing" is something you do after losing in court, not after winning. That Rosenthal appealed means that she initially lost). The CASC didn't care whether the statement itself was defamatory, it just said the statement was written by Bolen and not Rosenthal, so according to the CDA, while Bolen might be liable, Rosenthal was not. (I'm going by summaries I've seen and I haven't read the court docs.)
  2. The "evidence" showing those treatments to be "efficacious" is pretty weak if the stuff cited in the article is at all representative. It doesn't come anywhere near reasonable standards of scientific research. There is a huge amount of self-interest and wishful thinking involved in stuff of this type, so you really need carefully controlled experiments and protocols to reach any positive conclusions. Anecdotes are worthless.
  3. The notion that pharma companies are funding Barrett is interesting but Wikipedia is not here to publish internet speculation. That would be a reasonable subject for some investigative journalist to look into. If some reliable source subsequently publishes the findings, they can be cited in the article.
  4. The other stuff in your rant is just axe-grinding. Wikipedia is not a soapbox--you're better off taking it somewhere else.
67.117.130.181 14:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Let's slow down, edit or expurgate 1 line at a time with edit summary/discussion please. "Don't byte the newbie"? The Wiki NPA issue actually concerns Fyslee & 67.117... here, not Sbinfo, which I have edited to explain/point out our rules. Editor 24.66 makes what seems to be an honest but unfavorable discussion of the subject(SB), not the Wiki editor(sbinfo). WP:BLP is for the article, not talk (within some bounds).--I'clast 13:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary, editor 24.66 makes a probably libelous comment on the subject, and certainly one that can not remain, even on a talk page, without citations. Furthermore, although Barrett may have lost "40 such cases", the two he has known to have received a favorable settlemeent on have been excised from the article. Furthermore, all 3 courts agreed that a libelous statement (not just potentially libelous) was made against Polevoy, who was not considered a "public figure"; and the statement may have been "libel per se", so the court would only have had to found that the statement was false and that no plausible evidence was known to Bolen suggesting it was true. (Anon has misread the rules for libel as applied to public figures, the standard is that the statement must (1) be made with malice, (2) actually be false, and (3) either believed by the person stating it to be false, or made with "malicious disregard for the truth".) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate everyone's views here - conflicting as they are. I would like to point out one reason why so much contraversy surrounds Barrett, the subject of this article. The man criticizes other people's jobs and other people for a living. His criticisms can be found all over Wikipedia on various articles. Links to his critical websites can be found all over other Wikipedia articles. Thus, if the article about Stephen Barrett is fill with criticisms, perhaps it is to give not just this article balance, but all of Wikipedia. From my POV, frankly I feel other articles give too much weight to Barrett's opinions. Links to his opinion websites can literally be found on dozens - if not hundreds - Wikipedia articles. All of the opinions given about Stephen Barrett on the Stephen Barrett article are well-sourced and notable. And just because a critic is part of a group which Stephen Barrett has labelled as "fringe", does not make it so. Regardless, a critic's affiliation with "outside the norm" thinkers in the scientific field does not render their personal opinions of Barrett fringe. This is not an article about any science discipline. This is an article about a person... a person with many critics with a wide array of criticisms. Barrett really wouldn't be Barrett without the contraversy he brings on to himself. Thus an article about Barrett wouldn't truly be an article about Barrett without enumerating the contraversy.
Overall, I would say that this article is in really good shape. That being said, I have no problem limiting space about trials and cases which already have their own article, so long as the broadstrokes are covered here honestly and without any opinions other than the verifiable and the documentable. There has been mention above that two cases in which Barrett was successful have been excised from this article. I have been editing here for a long time, and I don't remember that to be the case. Certainly, if those two cases can be introduced here following the rules of WP:RS, WP:V, NPOV, etc., then why not (re)introduce them now?
The bottomline about the Rosenthal case is that the courts ruled that nothing she said or posted can be deemed "libel" with regards to Stephen Barrett - the subject of this article. This is not the article to discuss the other people invloved in this case (Polevoy, etc.). The only mention of the "public figure" exception was made as a hypothetical. In summary, the courts record states that for arguments sake, if something Rosenthal had posted had been determined to be libelous against Barrett (which nothing had been determined to be so) then Barrett would have had to face the extra challenge of being a public figure. This is a minor theoretical point which had no bearing on the outcome of the case and thus shouldn't be given any mention in the Barrett article and perhaps the slightest mention in the article about this case. Levine2112 18:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barrett v. Koren

I'm very concerned that a portion of the Barrett v. Koren section was copyvio. When I removed it, a reworded version was reinserted by another editor. I've removed the section until we're certain what sources are actually being used and that those sources are verifiable per WP:V. --Ronz 16:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I reworded it to get around the copyvio issue. What's the issue now? Levine2112 20:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
WP:V - What sources are being used and are they verifiable? --Ronz 21:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
There is a court document referenced following the paragraph. What's the issue? I will look for more citations, but the court document is truly enough. Levine2112 21:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
If we keep out the copyvio information in all forms, I think we'll be ok as long as we keep the entry on the court case to a minimum. I'd be much more comfortable with a verifiable source (a online scan of the court document mentioned, for instance). --Ronz 21:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
What part do you think violates copyright? And why? Levine2112 21:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
The part that I removed with the copyvio comment, which you then reworded and reinserted. Is there some doubt about what we're talking about there, since you did the editing in question? --Ronz 22:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Why do you think it is a copy vio? That is my question. Why? There is no plaagiarism now that I have rewritten it. So why do you still consider this to be a copyvio? Levine2112 00:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
My apologies. I should have been clearer from the start. There was a copyvio. I removed it. You added it back in a reworded form. While that certainly clears up the copyvio problem it brings up the WP:V concern: what sources are we actually using? The referenced one? The source of the copyrighted text? Both? Are there others also being used but not referenced? Are there other, similar copyvio's? --Ronz 05:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
And after I clear up the WP:V, what will you find wrong with this next? Can you just tell me know so I can save time? If you see any more copyvio's, feel free to add "quotation marks". Levine2112 06:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I sympathize with what I'm interpreting as frustration. If we had verifiable, secondary sources it would all be so much easier, but then I've said this before. Meanwhile we continue with what we have. --Ronz 06:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
But this information passes WP:V with flying colors. It is completely verifiable. WE are dealing with court records and secondary sources. What's the issue? Levine2112 06:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pro-Barrett bias?

It is shocking the blatant and obvious Barrett bias here. Where is the evidence of the Judge claiming what is written here? Why does Wikipedia allow this supposively encyclopedia to be just another Barrett front group for disinformation? There was a directed verdict in this case and to delete this and add something with no evidence to it's accuracy destroys the credibility of Wikipedia. Ilena 03:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"Pro" Barrett, please, anybody reading the article would be shocked to see how much (over 50%) of this "biography" is devoted to criticisms. Shot info 04:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Anyone reading this article would be appropriately informed with the most notable and verifiable information about the subject. Levine2112 07:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
The attacks, personal and otherwise, are not appreciated. You may want to read WP:NPA. --Ronz 05:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BLP Reminder

From WP:BLP

Biased or malicious content.

Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content in biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material.

Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one.

If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article.

This strongly suggests that you haven't read WP:BLP if you are making this claim. Shot info 08:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Beware of positive or negative claims that rely on association. Levine2112 18:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
No, WP:BLP is assymmetric. Sourcing standards for positive claims in a given BLP article are somewhat up to editorial discretion and consensus, but negative claims must be either rigorously sourced or removed. 67.117.130.181 07:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
The anonymous "jance" posted false facts. The Supreme Court did INDEED address the FACT that nothing written about Barrett was defamatory.
I am not anonymous - was only reading the case. I don't even like Barrett and think he should be sanctioned for bringing frivolous lawsuits. The FLorida Supreme Court on Rosernthal v,. Barrett addressed only the issue of whether or not an active computer "user" who republished alleged defamation were proivided immunity from liability. It is possible I missed something, but I went through that carefully. THe case looks like a very important first amendment free speech case. The intent of the Act was to not chill free discourse....Jance 07:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you show me where in the CA Supreme Court decision this is quoted? I may have missed it, but I couldn't find it. Thanks.Jance 07:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

From the Supreme Court ruling he is attempting to change: "As the lower courts correctly concluded, however, none of the hostile comments against Dr. Barrett alleged in the complaint are defamatory." [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ilena (talk • contribs).
I'm confused. What precisely were you appealing then? The lower court must have decided something you didn't like, or else you wouldn't have appealed. What was it? Is the lower court decision online? Maybe you could add a link in the lawsuit article. I do see the order granting motion to strike--is that all there is? At minimum, the article needs clarification.
There is a weird contrast between section 230 and the DMCA's takedown provision, as if Congress thinks copyright infringement is a bigger deal than defamation. 67.117.130.181 01:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
From my reading of these cases, the lower court found that Ilena's statement against (Polevoy?) was actionable, and that the Act did not grant her immunity from liability - there were some pretty nitty arguments by P's lawyer trying to distinguish between "active" computer user who should be held liable and a passive user who shouldn'/t be,. The court said that was nonsense, and a user was a user. And under the Act, a user is provided immunity from liabilility for republication on the internet. The supreme court held that Ilena is immune from liability under the Act, for republication. I don'tt hink the court even addressed whether or not it was defamatory - they didn't have to go there.

Based on all of this, if I were Ilena I would file for the CA equivalent of Rule 11 (sanctioning those who bring frivolous lawsuits), and ask for attorneys fees. Jance 07:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If I read the cases correctly, the trial court found Ilena's statement against P defamatory, but protected under the CDA. The applealate court agreed it was defamatory, but not protected. The CA Supreme Court ruled it was protected.
That's about it, Arthur. Good (and concise) summary. "Lower court" in this instance could be a bit confusing, since there were 2 'lower court' decisions.Jance
And "rule 11" sanctions are unlikely, although the trial court apparently ordered attorney's fees under the anti-SLAPP provisions. However, the lawsuit would not qualify as "frivolous", as (IMHO) it was plausible, although apparently not "reasonable" to assert that being called a "quack" is actionable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, since attorney's fees were granted under the anti-SLAPP provisions. I don't know if a suit like this would not qualify as "frivolous" - calling someone a "quack" is pretty clearly not actionable. However, as I read on (see the article in whole), I would say that the King Bio lawsuit was a much better example of "frivolous". Jance 00:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Rubin wrote: "the trial court found Ilena's statement against P defamatory, but protected under the CDA."

No, Rubin, you are absolutely and positively NOT reading correctly. YOU, who claim to know more than the seven justices of the Supreme Court of California are misrepresenting the case here. Quote Rubin: "And I may very well know more about section 230 than the California Supreme Court."

The Superior Court found that the ONE comment regarding the stalking of Ms McPhee by Terry Polevoy was "potentially" or "allegedly" defamatory AND protected ...

The Appeals Court ruled that this comment was "potentially" defamatory and NOT protected. (Had we not gone to the Supreme Court, we would have gone back to Superior Court and litigated whether or not the stalking comment was or was not defamatory, Ms McPhee giving testimony on why she felt stalked, why she called police, Polevoy's disguises, etc.)

The Supreme Court ruled that the statement was potentially or allegedly defamatory AND protected.

Also, to Jance: "Can you show me where in the CA Supreme Court decision this is quoted?"

Sure, on page 39 of the ruling, before Judge Moreno's signature: [4]

"As the lower courts correctly concluded, however, none of the hostile comments against Dr. Barrett alleged in the complaint are defamatory. I therefore conclude the majority is correct in reversing the judgment of the Court of Appeal. MORENO, J.

Ilena 14:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


Ilena, that is not the supreme court's opinion. That is a concurrence, and should not be cited as a statement by the court. In fact, the court's oinion specifically stated in more than one place that it was not deciding the issue of whether or not your statement was defamatory. The court did not need to, because it held that users of "intereactive computer services" are immune from defamation liability under the Act. What you can say is that a concurring opinion stated (the quote you cited). Frankly, I think the lower court opinion is so obvious and clear regarding the actual issue of defamation as against Barrett, that a California Supreme Court ruling on it isn't necessary. And absent a supreme court ruling on the issue of defamation, the appellate court is controlling for its jurisdiction. The appellate court made Barrett's attorneys look utterly ridiculous. The attorneys did not seem to know that the legal term "acting with malice" was not the same as the colloqual meaning (malicious). The court set them straight, and in fact the court pointed out that the "tone" of the alleged defamatory statement was irrelevant to the elements of the cause of action. The court then properly defined malice (the legal term), and pointed out the more hyperbole a defendant used, the less likely it was to be defamation, and in this case, it was clearly not. Jance 16:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
What you have now under Barrett v. Rosenthal does not even address the supreme court's decision. You cited Barrett v. Rosenthal, A096451 (Cal. App. Crt., 1st App. Dist., 2003)(opinion superceded). I do not have a link to that case. Now, you cited a concurring statement in the Supreme Court case, but not the holding of the case (the decision), or what it stands for.

This is confusing, and the statement for which you cited the supreme court case is not even an accurate reflection of the concurrence - one can presume that Judge Moreno meant that the statements were not defamatory because of the absence of malice (sounds like a movie). But all you can accurately state is that the concurrence agreed with the lower court that the statements were not defamatory. No, it is not a huge issue, but one should try to accurately reflect a court holding, and not read into any statement made in the opinion, the concurrence or dissent. Here, one can presume that is what Justice Moreno meant but we are not mind readers. He may have decided that while the lower court was correct in holding you did not defame Barrett, he may be thinking of a different, or additional reason than the lower court stated. Finally, if a statement is made that cites to the case, it should be stated that it is a concurring opinion - and the actual holding of the case stated.

An objective reader would be interested in what the California Supreme Court holding was, especially since it will be undoubtedly be cited by courts all over the country for its interpretation of the Act, as regards to liability of internet users and first amendment speech. It probably is the most legally important holding of any of these cases cited. And it related to Barrett, since Barrett's lawsuits created binding precedent (at least in California) and persuasive case law in federal court, on a constitutional issue . To cite the lower court opinion, and then only a concurring statement in the highest state court makes no sense. Jance 16:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Jance 16:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barrett v. Clark

An editor removed what I wrote, stating it was inaccurate. Please look at this section. The trial court decision on the motion to strike found that "Rosenthal's statements were, 'for the most part' not actionable because they provided no provably false assertions of fact. " (This is a direct quote from the CA Supreme Court decision). I looked also at the trial judge's Ruling on the Motion to Strike, and the state supreme court decision and conclude that what I wrote was not inaccurate, but instead correctly summarized important holdings and statements by the various courts. Still, I deleted "most of" , since the motion to strike was granted. And so this is now completely correct, with the appropriate holdings. The concurring judge's statement about Barrett is nice, but that issue was not challenged, nor was it decided by the supreme court.

This case was originally called "Barrett v. Clark." In July 2001, a Alameda County (California) judge dismissed Barrett's libel suit against defendant Ilena Rosenthal and awarded her attorney's fees against Barrett, Christopher Grell, and Terry Polevoy. The court held that defendant Rosenthal's statements were not actionable, because they were opinion, and not false statements of fact. [41] Moreover, the plaintiffs did not show that the defendants acted with "malice" (knowledge of falsity, or with reckless disregard for the truth.) Id.;See also New York Times v. Sullivan). However, the appeals court ruled that one statement Rosenthal reposted about Terry Polevoy was actionable, and that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act did not grant her immunity from liability for republication of defamatory statements. See Barrett v. Rosenthal, A096451 (Cal. App. Crt., 1st App. Dist., 2003). The California Supreme Court did not address the issue of whether or not any statement Rosenthal made was defamatory. Instead, it addressed only the issue of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Relying on federal court interpretation and legislative history, the court concluded that Rosenthal, and all internet users, are immune from liability for republication of third party content. In its conclusion, the court stated that any expansion of immunity to primary publishers (originators of defamatory content) would require Congressional action.[42]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jance (talk • contribs) 18:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

I think your summary is accurate. I just think we should limit the summary on this article to only the things that are relevant to Stephen Barrett. If Barrett v. Clark needs its own article to discuss the full parameters of the case, certainly feel free to start that article. But in the interest of keeping the Barrett article concise and on topic, let's keep the summaries here relevant to Barrett. Levine2112 19:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the last part of the summary is inaccurate. Above it is stated:

  • "In its conclusion, the court stated that any expansion of immunity to primary publishers (originators of defamatory content) would require Congressional action."

I wonder if this is the correct interpretation? Here's the original conclusion:

D. Conclusion
We share the concerns of those who have expressed reservations about the Zeran court's broad interpretation of section 230 immunity. The prospect of blanket immunity for those who intentionally redistribute defamatory statements on the Internet has disturbing implications. Nevertheless, by its terms section 230 exempts Internet intermediaries from defamation liability for republication. The statutory immunity serves to protect online freedom of expression and to encourage self-regulation, as Congress intended. Section 230 has been interpreted literally. It does not permit Internet service providers or users to be sued as "distributors," nor does it expose "active users" to liability.
Plaintiffs are free under section 230 to pursue the originator of a defamatory Internet publication. Any further expansion of liability must await Congressional action. [5]

Nothing is said about "expansion of immunity to primary publishers (originators of defamatory content)." It is about "expansion of liability" to republishers. Currently "the originator of a defamatory Internet publication" is still potentially liable, and "plaintiffs are free.....to pursue" them. But republishers are not liable, and only Congress can "expan[d] ... liability" to them. The wording of the conclusion sounds like the judges are begging Congress to do so, because of the "disturbing implications" of the current situation. Does that sound like a correct parsing of the conclusion? -- Fyslee 19:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That does sound more accurate. Which quote makes it sound like the judges are begging Congress to act though? To me, it seems the court was going by the letter of the law which protects Internet user's free speech rights. The term "user" was really at play here and they seemed to decide that a secondary publisher of information is still a user and thus not liable. I agree with Jance that the Supreme Court ruling was not about determining whether or not libel had been committed. in terms of Barrett, the lower courts ruled that libel had not been committed. And that is really all that is pertinent to this article about Barrett. Everything else belongs in the article about the legal case. Levine2112 19:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The very first part of the conclusion, and the very last sentence:
  • "We share the concerns of those who have expressed reservations about the Zeran court's broad interpretation of section 230 immunity. The prospect of blanket immunity for those who intentionally redistribute defamatory statements on the Internet has disturbing implications." .... "Any further expansion of liability must await Congressional action."
That's how I understand it. I'm not a lawyer, so I could be wrong. As to whether this belongs here, it belongs in the other article and not here. -- Fyslee 19:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I am a lawyer and I was hurrying to get out the door, and rushing through this. You both are correct, and I was mistaken. Good catch.Jance 21:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
No problemo, amigo. I'm sure that when you are preparing for a case you take more time and don't make such mistakes. Rushing things is when I usually goof up. When reading the conclusion one can sense that the judges are uneasy about the implications of their decision. They know that it will encourage a flood of injustice, deception, propaganda, and serious problems for a lot of people, but to make any change stronger, they pass the buck on to Congress to do the job for them. Until that happens, people with no conscience, compassion, or ethics will be allowed to air the worst sides of their characters and publish their fantasies, conspiracy theories, and their "euphemisms" (Bolen's word for his lies) as if they are fact. People now have fewer rights to protect their reputations and good names. I hope that when the verdicts against the actual originators are passed, that the judgments will be very harsh and thus pass on a strong warning message. -- Fyslee 22:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
And I am glad y'all agree that the state supreme court did not address whether or not defamation occurred - the supreme court only addressed the issue of whether or not a "interactive computer service" user (as contrasted with a provider) fit within the definition of "distributer" under the Act, and whether or not a legal distinction exists between "active" and "passive" users (it does not). I do not think this level of detail is needed in the article. However, I do think you need to at least mention the general holding of the supreme court decision even if it did not address Barrett per se, because it was the final litigation in the case that was brought before the trial court. The decision - that Barrett's claim led to - is precedent setting on an important Constitiutional issue. Had it not been for Barrett, would the case have been filed, to lead to this ruling? Don't know. But it is worth mentioning.
I have mixed feelings about any internet user being immune from all defamation liability. I have no problem with total immunity when it comes to public figures and matters of public interest. The principle undergirding the very essence of free speech is the ability to freely debate political issues. Barrett is a perfect example of this. He is far beyond a private individual practicing medicine! His entire career in "exposing" health fraud (whether you agree or disagree with him) is political. There is no way around it. I have read his articles, and agree with him on a number of points. I am very skeptical of drugs/herbs/products that are not regulated in any way- I am not thrilled with the regulatory environment we have, especially now, but it still is better than nothing. I won't even begin to mention the areas of alternative 'healthcare' that make me cringe. But I also disagree vehemently with Barrett on some other points, and find the politics of that group very disturbing. Whew. I do not know how affiliated he is with right wing groups, but he is on the tip of every partisan website's tongue. Were doctors only to police their own as well as they wish to police lawyers, there would be far fewer lawsuits! See what a political issue this all becomes? And for this reason, there should be no restraints on freedom of speech when it comes to matters of public interest discussed by highly public figures. Oh, and I personally believe that public figures who sue for defamation should be required to pay all attorneys fees and costs, and be subject to malicious prosecution charges. It is amazing how those who complain the loudest about the number of lawsuits don't have a problem with litigation when it comes to their own interests. Ditto with those moaning about "frivolous lawsuits". Jance 21:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

What kinds of politics and political issues are you referring to? -- Fyslee 05:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Lobbies and various groups on "tort reform", for example. And the very issue of healthcare is political - it would be wonderful if it were not, and everyone (even all scientists) agreed on all issues. "Political" is not bad - free and open debate about policy issues is necessary in a democratic society. Jance 15:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what that has to do with Barrett. If there's something written between the lines here, I'm too tired to see it right now. Please elaborate. -- Fyslee 16:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
My point is that the topics discussed by Barrett directly and indirectly relate to political discussion. Therefore, they are of public interest - and indeed, that is Barrett's point. That is all.

He is a public figure because he holds himself out very publicly as an expert on these issues. Jance 00:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

I have a suggestion - perhaps the section entitled "Credentials" would better be described as "Criticism"? Jance 03:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a subheading in the criticisms section, but that may not be apparent to readers. It sure does concentrate on criticisms. -- Fyslee 16:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I see that now. It appears that some of the criticism is warranted. I read the case re King Bio and was appalled. I can't imagine anyone going into court with such lame arguments, and such a dearth of evidence. It is mind-boggling. I am not talking about sophisticated nuances or obscure points of law, but the very most basic principles of civil (including tort) law. If you sue someone you don't argue that he (the defendant) must prove your case. You do not generally put the Plaintiffs on as expert witnesses. I was simply dumbfounded. Talk about frivolous lawsuits. Jance 00:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/t/e/Talk%7EStephen_Barrett_8e9f.html"