Talk:Stephen Barrett

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.
This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page.

See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Stephen Barrett, has edited Wikipedia as
Sbinfo (talk · contribs)
Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, and are not for engaging in discussion of off-topic matters not related to the main article. User talk pages are more appropriate for non-article-related discussion topics. Please do not use this page as a discussion forum for off-topic matters. See talk page guidelines.
Discussions here have repeatedly involved the same arguments and views.

Please review the recent comments below, or in the archives. New views and ideas on the subject are welcome; however, if your beliefs reflect already existing contributions, please consider withholding them.
The Wikipedia Community has placed homeopathy and pages subject to related disruption on probation (see relevant discussion).
Editors making disruptive edits may be placed on revert limitation or topic-banned by any uninvolved administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages. Editors must be individually notified of article probation before being banned. All resulting blocks and bans shall be logged at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation#Log of sanctions, and may be appealed to the Administrators' noticeboard.
An arbitration case, reviewing the results of the probation and various editors of homeopathic articles is currently ongoing. If you would like to participate, please go to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy.
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
  5. Nov. – Dec. 2006
  6. Jan 2007
  7. Dec 2006 – February 2007
  8. March 2007 – April 2007
  9. April 2007
  10. April 2007 – June 2007
  11. June 2007 – Aug 2007
  12. Aug 2007 –


Contents

[edit] JSE

Here are some examples that show JSE does not pass the rigors of BLP policy. Editing is based on Wikipedia policy. Agreed?

  1. JSE is a fringe science journal because they attempt to rationalize UFOs while a true skeptic journal publication is critical and/skpetical of UFOs. The journal attempts to rationalize the evidence for the existance of UFOs. Moreover, JSE describes itself as a fringle journal because they assert on their website it is a "critical forum of rationality and observational evidence for the often strange claims at the fringes of science." Saying JSE is a skeptic's journal would entirely be original research. So what is the point? The journal is a "forum" for "rationality" of "the often strange claims at the fringes of science" which would make it a 'fringe science' journal. If any Wikipedian thinks the journal is not a fringe science journal, what kind of journal is it then? Keep in mind that current consensus for the JSE article is for it to remain in the fringe science category. Robert Todd Carroll of the Skeptic's Dictionary[1] stated in part: "In fact, the so-called Association for Skeptical Investigation is a group of pseudo-skeptical paranormal investigators and supporters who do not appreciate criticism of paranormal studies by truly genuine skeptics and critical thinkers. The only skepticism this group promotes is skepticism of critics and criticisms of paranormal studies." He also stated in part: "However, Gary Schwartz, in a published paper, refers to several of the deceased—including William James!—as “departed hypothesized co-investigators,” so perhaps the group considers the spirits of Keen and Truzzi as active investigators.[2] The Society for Scientific Exploration was founded by Marcello Truzzi. The only conclusion demonstrated by the examples is a fringe science journal.
  2. If you believe the journal is not a fringe science journal, then what type of journal do you believe it is. Moreover, if you believe the journal is not a fringe journal then what is a fringe science journal (A definition of a fringe journal is requested). Please provide specific examples and descriptions of the differences of a fringe science journal versus JSE.
  3. If you believe JSE is a skeptic organization then please provide examples of JSE being the same as other skeptic organizations.
  4. Kauffman is a person and therefore not formally peer-reviewed. We cannot use his asseration on it own face value. Moreover, his notability (or more precisely, lack of notability) is a straw-man argument. Is there even an article on Wikipedia on Kauffman? Per BLP policy, we insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability. Kauffman is not a third-party published source. If you disagree, please explain. When you cannot explain how Kauffman satisfies BLP policy, you (yes, I mean you) have conceded Kauffman is not a reliable third-party published source. This isn't my rule, this is Wikipedia's rule as required by BLP policy. Again, how in the world is Kauffman independant of a third-party published source satsifying to BLP policy. The answer is obvious. He does not satisfy BLP policy. BLP policy drives editing on Wikipedia articles on notable individuals. A couple of editors are asserting but are actually refusing to explain how Kauffman meets BLP policy. You must properly show and not assert based on Wikipedia policy. Again, how does Kauffman specifically meet BLP policy. Please explain by citing BLP policy. Do you agree to abide by BLP policy anyhow.
  5. The journal describes itself as a fringe journal on their website as well others do.[3] They describe themselves as a fringe journal because they assert the rationalizing of "strange claims at the fringes of science." For example, Michael D. Lemonick wrote an article about the Society for Scientific Exploration called Science on the Fringe for Time Magazine.[10] My recent edit was not reverted because of any misleading statement. The other editor felt it was not necessary to say what the journal is and to, nevertheless, keep the description of what the journal is only after you went to the editor's talk page.
  6. Barrett studies quacks which would make him a skeptic. See at the bottom right hand corner of this article: American Skeptics. Barrett is in the category of American skeptics. The journal studies fringes which would make it a "fringe science" journal. For example, the journal studies for the rational evidence of UFOs, reincarnation, and crop circles.[1][2][3][4]
  7. Moreover, the journal describes themselves as rationalizing "strange claims at the fringes of science." The point is that they "rationalize" the "fringes of science." Thats exactly what a fringe journal does. Please contact them directly. In fact, the journal is proud of being a fringe science journal. See what they will tell you about themselves. What is scientific about crop circles? Hmmm. The journal studies the so-called science of crop circles made by UFOs. Everything the journal does is obviously on the "fringes of science." Therefore, it is clearly a fringe science journal when they are a forum to "rationalize" the "fringes of science." For example, it is a group inclined toward belief in paranormal phenomena.[5] The fringe journal clearly fails the rigors of BLP policy becuase it is not a third-party source. While Barrett criticizes various forms of alternative medicine topics, JSE attempts to rationalize alternative medical practices.[6]
  8. This is an example of how the term peer-reviewed can easily be misused or misunderstood. The JSE is reviewed by a minority group of fringe supporters. This minority group who share the same fringe ideology, without any review from dissent, falls into the category of reviewed by true believers of the so-called rationale fringe of true believers and their self-serving bias. They are fringe supporters because they attempt to rationalize such things as UFOs. For further information about how JSE portrays themselves, please visit the website.
  9. See: Journal of Scientific Exploration. JSE is subject to review "at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief." If the paper is accepted "but there remain points of disagreement between authors and referee(s), the reviewer(s) may be given the option of having their opinion(s) published..." The journal clearly is subject to the discretion of a single person which is the Editor-in-Chief. Therefore, the journal clearly publishes opinions without always having editorial review. Furthmore, the journal is reviewed by a small group of fringe supporters who attempt to rationalize such things as UFOs at "the fringes of science." Hmmm.
  10. The journal represents unconventional views. For example: In established disciplines, concordance with accepted disciplinary paradigms is the chief guide in evaluating material for scholarly publication. On the matters of interest to the Society for Scientific Exploration, however, consensus does not prevail. Therefore the Journal of Scientific Exploration necessarily publishes claimed observations and proffered explanations that will seem more speculative or less plausible than in some mainstream disciplinary journals. See Refereeing at the JSE article.
  11. Please take a look at the Journal of Scientific Exploration at the bottom right hand corner. What do you see. Is it >> Fringe science journals? Specifically what category is the fringe science journal in? Also, what do you see is the first listing in the see also section?
  12. Per WEIGHT: We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well. If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. Views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all.
  13. Per BLP policy: The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary 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. 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. Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. 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.
  14. Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material: Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). If the material is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply to its removal. Content may be re-inserted when it conforms to this policy. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel.
  15. Blocking: Editors who repeatedly add or restore unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons may be blocked for disruption. See the blocking policy. This is an official notice to all editors involved. This is a very serious matter.
  16. Multiple Wikipedians have deleted the Kauffman attack piece from the article. Avb, + ConfuciusOrnis, + Crohnie, + Fyslee, Orangemarlin, + QuackGuru, + Ronz, + Shot info + THF. As the discussion continued, Arthur Rubin, an administrator in good standing in the community, stated that JSE is clearly a fringe journal. According to policy, While the consensus process does not require posting to the discussion page, it can be useful. That means we do not have to continue to work on discussing this matter. Their points are based on valid reasons to exclude the POV material which is to be respected. Clearly there is no consensus to re-add the Kauffman/JSE bit to the article. It was removed for various reasons including, but not limited to, BLP policy, WEIGHT policy, and POV. It is considered highly disruptive to re-add BLP violations against consensus. Re-inserting BLP violations is against Wikipedia policy and by extention against Wikipedia. Any editor who continues to try the patience of the community by engaging in disruptive editing may be blocked for disruption in accordance with blocking policy or community banned.

Please provide specific responses to each and every point made above or we will consider that the editors have conceded that JSE fails to meet the inclusion criteria because the journal is not a reliable third-party source. (a) Per WEIGHT policy, the Kauffman criticism represents the view of a tiny minority, therefore it has no place in the article. (b) We have clearly shown based on Wikipedia's BLP policy that Kauffman as well as JSE are not third-party published sources. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  17:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Your answers as requested:
  1. A true skeptic might doubt the existence of UFOs based on current science; however they would be entirely open to the possibility the existence of UFOs; just prove it to them. Basically, a true skeptic is open-minded. The other folks who claim they are "skeptics" give the term a bad name; so much so that some people hear that one is a skeptic and assume that they are "close minded". Not true. A skeptic - a true skeptic - is open minded.
  2. JSE is a journal which publishes studies analyzing fringe science (among other things) from a rational and scientific perspective. Therefore, it is a scientific journal.
  3. Most obviously, SSE was founded by Marcello Truzzi aka "the skeptic's skeptic". That it provides scientific studies either supporting or not fringe science makes it the ideal research tool for a true skeptic.
  4. You have not shown Kauffman to be anything but reliable. He has impeccable and superior credentials where Barrett's credential pale in comparison. So yes Kauffman is a reliable source. And that his analysis of Quackwatch appears in JSE fullfills the "third-party published" portion of BLP. SO, yes, we have reliable published third party source.
  5. The journal does not describe itself as a fringe journal. I have asked you for proof of this assertion for a week now and you have not provided it. All I have gotten was your conjecture and opinion.
  6. Studying quacks is not what makes a skeptic. A skeptic (in this case more specifically "a scientific skeptic) is someone who waits to form an opinion until enough data has been gathered, analyzed and researched. A skeptic is open to all possibility; you just have to prove it them. A pseudoskeptic is someone who claims they are a skeptic but in actuality is not open to believe anything which doesn't fit in their belief system and at times even refuses to accept legitimate science if it goes against said belief system. Given that Barrett has been shown to rely heavily of negative research (whilst ignoring the positive), I think many would consider Barrett to be in fact a pseudoskeptic. I have not read every issue of JSE, but it is to my understanding that they are open to the possibility of anything and are thus willing to provide any legitimate scientific research studying most any subject matter. I would say that in this regard, JSE is the true skeptic publication. At least it is a much more valuable tool for a true skeptic in that it provides scientific analysis and allows the skeptical reader to decide if the science is good enough to affect their beliefs, rather than just pumping out the same biased, unbending drivel which pseudoskeptics like to read because it doesn't shatter their perfectly constructed world.
  7. "Rationalize" does not mean what you are asserting here. JSE should be held in high regard for providing a means to publish scientific research of the fringe. Writing off things without even looking at the data is very closeminded - and being that way and calling yourself a skeptics is exactly what would make you a pseudoskeptic. Besides, we are not trying to introduce a study of UFOs or Crop Circles here. We are talking about a pretty cut-and-dry well-researched analysis of a website written by a highly regarded professor.
  8. Who are you calling "fringe supporters"? And what does that mean to you? Where do you get your infomration from? I looked at the peer review board and they all seem like qualified professors, doctors, scientists, etc. Why are you calling these people "fringe supporters"? Please explain.
  9. Your conjecture. We can't accept that as fact. You have no idea what the editorial process is there beyond what they speak of on their site. Don't all journals have an Editor-In-Chief? I know that Catherine DeAngelis is the Editor-in-Chief at JAMA. Are you faulting JSE for having an Editor-in-Chief?
  10. Here's what I see there: Nevertheless, those observations and explanations must conform to rigorous standards of observational techniques and logical argument. Again, JSE scientifically studies the fringe, but this does not make the journal fringe.
  11. Again, just because the journal scientifically explores the frontiers of fringe science does not make it in itself a fringe journal. (No more than would studying quacks qualify someone as a quack.) So what's your point? Someone at Wikipedia categorized it as a "fringe journal"? Again, this doesn't take away from the reliability of the journal especially in its presentation and publication of the Kauffman analysis of Quackwatch.
  12. It is your conjecture that this represents a minority view. Despite your POV, Barrett doesn't represent all of medicine. His view is pretty minority too in the grand scheme of things. Kauffman's take on Barrett deserves mention. Too much weight might be making the whole criticism section about Kauffman. The right amount would be putting in Kauffman's major points of criticism.
  13. The criticsm of Kauffman is directly relevant to Barrett's notability. And by not adding commentary (good or bad) to his criticism, we would in fact be representing Kauffman's criticism from a neutral point of view. We certainly aren't dealing with biased nor malicious content - at least no one has shown it to be so. We are dealing with one guy's (a well-regarded professor with suitable credentials) opinion. That's all. It passed BLP with flying colors.
  14. Grasping for straws there. This material is source... nay, well sourced. This policy does not apply.
  15. See previous response.
  16. All of their points have been addressed and refuted. There has been discussion; not disruption. We are working toward acheiving a consensus. That's all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levine2112 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, you are absolutely wrong. Your "refutations" have been refuted. JSE is clearly a fringe journal and SSE a fringe organization. The only question is whether Kaufmann is a WP:RS without further peer review. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree with you and I resent your use of "absolute" terms. This is not only very unbecoming of a Wikipedian, but very also unbecoming of a skeptic (of course I don't ever remember you identifying yourself as a skeptic, so no bother really). I believe myself and I'clast (among others) have shown clearly why the Kauffman analysis is clearly a WP:RS. Kauffman is regarded as a n expert in his field which is directly related to his analysis of Barrett's writings. Thus the discussion about whether JSE is a "fringe journal" or rather a "journal which studies the fringe from scientific perspective" seems wholly irrelevant, but I am happy to continue the discussion with QuackGuru for as long as he wishes to continue, though perhaps it would be better suited of at the JSE article rather than here. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
re BLP:Reliable sources on Kauffman's article in JSE in response to Arthur - Arthur's peer review demands appear to (mis)categorize Kauffman's article as a scientific paper on some scientific/medical protocol, it is not. Kauffman's article is a review to analyze & verify Quackwatch and its sources as current (science, references) and objective analysis. Even as an edited article that is fine for a bio.
Material about living persons available solely on partisan websites should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. JSE is not a partisan site with respect to Quackwatch, this is the only QW article I saw in JSE. I saw no mention (attack) on JSE at QW[7]. So very little prior interaction.
Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below). Kauffman's article doesn't fit self-pub.
Editors should avoid repeating gossip. Nope, not gossip on prof Kauffman's article.
Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; At least as reliable as a number of sources already used in the Stephen Barrett article. The thrust of Kauffman's article is not about proving particular scientific theories for use in medical protocols, but rather to show numerous, severe kinds of lapses in 8 inspected Quackwatch's opinion pages. Hufford, a long serving professor at mainstream, medical center universities, very familiar with the alternative medical evaluation area, cites Kauffman's article as an outstanding example. That is far more than enough. Insisting on scientifically peer reviewed material/sources on a non-scientifically notable party's biography is unusually stringent, exceeding WP policies.
whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. A fair amount of Kauffman's initial technical material in the article was much earlier shown to be WP:V as well as more technically current. Kauffman's material directly addresses the reliability of 8 QW articles (5 for SB).
When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we? Is anyone serious that Kauffman's article was weaselly? I thought the complaint is that he is too direct.
Editors should also be careful of a feedback loop in which an unsourced and speculative contention in a Wikipedia article gets picked up, with or without attribution, in an otherwise-reliable newspaper or other media story, and that story is then cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original speculative contention. An article written 2001-2002, this article is independent of Wikipedia, first discussed 2006.--I'clast 15:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

(break, as comments were interpolated between the next section and whatever it was in reply to.)

Finally, what part of BLP policy are your referring to when you say that this Kauffman analysis doesn't qualify. You point to WP:BLP#Criticism, but the only relevant thing there which you are discussing would be WP:RS. Are you saying that the Kauffman article is not a reliable source of criticism? Is the analysis flawed in some way? Has this been shown by some source or is this just your assertion. If we bring it to WP:RS/N for a 3PO, would you agree to abide to whatever consensus they arrive at there per WP:DR? Again, all of this discussion here would be unneccessary if you would just agree to abide to whatever the 3PO results in. Why you are reluctant to follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution process is beyond me. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Hufford's paper, V RS peer-reviewed, mentions Quackwatch as a strongly anti-CAM site with systematic bias and Kauffman's paper as an excellent source covering this. Kauffman assiduously demonstrates serious scientific and logical subreptions in 8 QW articles. A major point of Kauffman's article seems to be systematic anti-scientific biases (the real "fringe") being covered in those 8 QW articles, passing themselves off as modern scientific scholarship in the mainstream, and hence a reasonable placement in JSE, per founder Marcello Truzzi.
If the (QW) mainstream is supposed to be so easily demonstrable, there still no effective reply *by anyone* after those 8 QW articles being gutted by prof Kauffman 5 years. There *is* Hufford's invited, V RS peer reviewed, mainstream paper citing Kauffman's paper very favorably, expanding Kauffman's position.--I'clast 22:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
This is just going in circles. Clearly, QuackGuru is going in circles. If he/she would just agree to abide to whatever outcome WP:RS/N gives us about the Kauffman study per WP:DR this debate could cease. Source reliability is the only issue QuackGuru has with Kauffman. Let's take it to WP:RS/N and see what they say. I just don't want to waste their time again though by getting a consensus opinion and then having it ignored. So QuackGuru, I need you to agreee to abide by the third-party opinion we get at RS/N. Will you? If not, why not? What do you fear? -- Levine2112 discuss 23:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I'clast, you have it backwards I'm afraid. With the exception of the single cite in Hufford's article (in a none-too-medical journal), Kauffman's article has been utterly ignored both in the medical literature and by Quackwatch itself (no rebuttals, no web page updates). For a scientific article that's very telling indeed; where citation indexes are everything, only one cite (and not a single cite in the medical lit) after all these years means it has had no impact whatsoever where it counts. Not that mainstream is about having it right all the time. We're all aware of examples where the mainstream had it wrong. No, mainstream is about views being shared by a large majority of scientists. Let's call it scientific consensus. It can be wrong. Perhaps we as editors can even show it is wrong in a number of cases. Perhaps Kauffman can show that there are problems with QW content. But as long as the work done by these people is ignored and marginalized, and they cannot get such articles published in, say, the NEJM or the Lancet, their truth will not change mainstream thought, and certainly not overnight. It often takes a generation or more. That's not good. It should change.
Levine, once again, the noticeboards are not a good venue for resolving longstanding disputes involving many editors. You can't get a consensus opinion on the boards; only the editors involved in the article can reach a consensus about edits to the article. You still seem to believe content disputes can be resolved by a higher authority. They can't. We have various options to inform editors. But we have no options to force editors as long as their behavior is not disputed (for that we have user conduct RfC, admin intervention, ArbCom). To break a deadlock in a content dispute, all we have is (1) involved editors and (2) a random sampling of uninvolved editors via RfC, or perhaps village pump etc. Avb 00:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Then I would say RFC is the way to go. And no, I am not trying to force anyone. I am just trying to see some glimmer of hope of cooperation and willingness to back down when told by a consensus of editors that your application of a policy is incorrect. Otherwise what's the point of an RfC or DR in general if even when told you are wrong, you are unwilling to concede.
As for your comments on mainstream vs. minority opinions, I am going to have to disagree with you. I don't think Kauffman represents a minority opinion, no more than do I believe that Barrett represents a majority. Let's not forget that Barrett too has never been published in. say, NEJM or the Lancet. Of the two times he has been published, one was for piggy-backing off an 4th grade girls science fair project. So if Barrett is in the minority and we are limited to determining weight by the scope of Barrett's world (followers and critics), I would venture to say that Kauffman's opinion is indeed not marginal but rather significant. -- Levine2112 discuss 07:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Avb, you have it all wrong here. Kauffman analyzes the QW-Barrett articles from the context of modern science results, its perspective & methods. Kauffman is *not* being just some "altie" or seer of medical science 20 years hence, that would be 25+ years ago. Kauffman's major technical points concern seriously obsolescent SB versions on diet, fat, carbs and simple LDL according to *current* medical science. Kauffman shows that Barrett's articles omit important information that is current medical science. Then Kauffman analyzes SB's articles for completeness and objectivity, addressing Homeopathy's anomalous results that appear too frequent, reviewing SB's Homeopathy article, a popular whipping boy for any chemist, including Kauffman. Kauffman points out a substantial number of Homeopathy trials show effects beyond placebo claims and its claims are reasonably not totally foreclosed, for whatever reason (the high school chemist in all, throws up). Kauffman says Barrett just piles on one side, without any real discussion or notice of the substantial evidence conflicts without adequately considering the problem of decent, conflicting empirical data.
In the lead Quackwatch article by Barrett that Kauffman analyzes, Kauffman points out some limitations and implications of SB's old use of simple LDL, the biomarker and concept, vs the more modern concerns about *oxidized* LDL. Some mainsteam journal articles[8][9] that show this is current medical science. Also J Lipid Res: Oxidation of lipoproteins is currently considered a key event in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis. We have demonstrated that oxidized cholesterol in the diet clearly contributes to the levels of oxidized lipoproteins in the circulation including atherogenic chylomicron remnants and LDL.
Kauffman also integrates this with the old Diet Heart (fat) hypothesis and Low Carb hypothesis material on what really builds the beer belly for most of the population. The July 2007 Cochrane Collection (an authority) favorably addresses the Low Carb diet too[10].
Kauffman looks (WP:V) fairly current mainstream science to me, and a heck of a lot closer than the 50s QW "Unpleasantville" version. Perhaps it is time for many here to quit reading QW articles as reliable sources and start reading *current* literature before repeating QW-SB assertions as the "mainstream".--I'clast 11:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict, response to Levine:)
Support of Barrett/QW's aims (and, indeed, accolades) from mainstream science, as well as the unwillingness of mainstream journals to give CAM a platform, translate into majority support on Wikipedia. I have questioned that approach myself in the past (because I am aware of several situations where this leads to disproportionate weight being given to outdated and disproved views). I soon found myself forced to accept and work within that constraint. When I decided to focus my editing on building a free encyclopedia for the world, I found the rule quite useful: it generally prevents the type of dispute we're having here. "Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore significant, but it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view (...)" Disregard for (or ignorance of) this aspect of NPOV, an aspect that is almost, but not quite, the SPOV, is an important factor leading to the waste of time these discussions often are. In case you have not realized it, I agree with many of Hufford's observations in this article, although his expectations about the effectiveness of some of CAM seem a lot more optimistic than mine. It's just that my agreement means zilch in the light of WP policy; after all, policy cannot discern who is right or wrong. Instead, it requires that we consider the sources and assign WP:WEIGHT accordingly. Avb 12:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Response to I'clast's straw men. Examples: I don't call Kauffman an "altie" nor have I ever called anyone else that; I am not using QW as my window to the world and am aware of lots more science than I'clast insinuates; I have used and advocated low-carb dieting for 22 years and counting -- although I did not quite agree with how Atkins' explained its effectiveness, I simply found it effective for me; according to my doctor I acquired hyperlipidemia last year - much to her anguish, I'm not using the recommended meds, based on really up-to-date findings - no, it wasn't Kauffman or anyone else who alerted me to them - I simply researched this myself. Why do you keep insinuating I just love everything about QuackWatch?). Wikipedia is about sources and consensus. Your opinion of Kauffman means nothing. How has this article been received in the world of science? It has been ignored. Who gets mainstream accolades? Barrett/QW, not Kauffman. I'clast and especially Levine have finally got me really angry. I am walking away in disgust from articles co-edited by them. But before I leave, one word about Levine: his sole mission here seems to be to anger and thwart Fyslee. His sheer vindictiveness shines through everywhere. Avb 12:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I am reading my response to your comment above and trying to understand how you were lead to leave such nastiness here. I can't see it. I have no idea why you are getting really angry. Frustrated, maybe. But angry - nay, really angry'? I assure you, if it is frustration, know that I am frustrated too. But I know we can work through this together. You mentioned that an RfC would be a good solution to break this deadlock and above I agree with you (especially if QuackGuru will agree to concede if there is a consensus which goes against his/her current stance - understand how frustrated I was when we tried for mediation and QuackGuru refused to procede). As for my sole mission here, I assure you it is not as you say, but rather to make an encyclopedia which is an excellent resource, rich with well-source information about each and every subject. If you want to leave this article, I understand, but don't blame me (or I'clast even). The frustration is caused by two-opposing opinions on what makes a reliable source for criticism. For me it is nothing more. As I have stated many times before, I have no vested interest in Stephen Barrett. I am not a doctor, alternative medicine practitioner or health-related salesman, in fact my work has nothing to do with the healthcare industry whatsover. I am not a consumer advocate for the state of New Hampshire, California or for any state or organization for that matter. I don't work for JSE or any scientific journal for that matter. I don't maintain or contribute to a blog about any of these topics. I don't belong to any health-related newsgroups that I am aware of whatsoever. I never discuss Barrett or Quackwatch anywhere else on the entire world wide web. I am not involved in a lawsuit either directly or indirectly with Barrett or any of his subsidiaries. And the only contact I have ever had with people regarding Barrett is through Wikipedia. That's it. I am just a lover of Wikipedia who came across an article with some severe POV issues, which unfortunately I cannot fix while Barrett adherents maintain a protective grip over this article and block/delete anything remote negative about a man most notable for criticism. There's my frustration. It's nothing personal against any particular editors, so I don't understand why you are saying it is. It is nothing vindictive. I am not angry. I really do enjoy our discussions here. With you, and Fyslee and all of the others. I really do wish you would stay. Your contributions to these discussions shall be missed if you do choose to really go. Take care, friend. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the description of Levine is inaccurate, unfair, and unnecessary.
Dr Barrett's "acolades" are pale flowers to insignificant in the scientific world, awarded largely by friends (e.g. CSICOP) and heavily industry sponsored/ ad dependent media for popular consumer consumption, *not* recognized scientific bodies (also pls distinguish broad science from "allopathic" medical interests since its other economic competitors are at issue). Further, not merely absent on significant scientific awards, scientific degrees (e.g. PhD) or offices, I don't even see any scientific papers or patents listed for Dr Barrett (two medical yes, not scientific body papers in the usual sense). Given prof Kauffman's examples and some other articles whose credibility apparently rests upon their readers' ignorance and/or scientific illiteracy about real authorities' publications and notable scientists, I would suggest that serious mainstream academics, unaffliated with the "skeptic sites", are going to continue their usual practice of ~40 years silence on QW et al, lest they discredit themselves or their institutions on articles similar to the eight that Kauffman analyses.
How has this article been received in the world of science? The non peer reviewed articles from QW by Kauffman do not really pertain to the world of science, or, for the QW articles referenced here, even about a scientist. Rather they are claimed for consumers' general medical information - "...Investigating questionable claims, Distributing reliable publications, Improving the quality of health information on the web, Attacking misleading advertising on the Internet" Kauffman concludes "All 8 pages from www.Quackwatch.com that were examined closely... were found to be "contaminated with incomplete data, obsolete data, technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo", "...repetition of groundless dogma from mainstream medicine", "...divergent conclusions", "...have been shown to be flawed as actually executed" "Medical practitioners...not quacks, were attacked" Kauffman's article is about claimants with harsh, militant views of skepticism, who in other places explicitly disavow scientific balance in their subject treatments, perhaps reminescent of the CSICOP and Truzzi split. A real scientist analyzes and discusses areas within his familiarity about the quality, scientific objectivity, currency, flaws, and mission execution of some QW authors' 8 articles on the QW website, published in the journal founded by Truzzi. Dr Barrett, claims himself as a retired psychiatrist, consumer activist and investigative reporter, has no recognizable scienfitic papers on his CV, much less recognized scientific distinctions. With the Hufford reference, I am not in any way depending on opinion (mine or yours) here, Kauffman's specific article significantly achieves notability in Hufford's J Law Med & Ethics, cited as an outstanding example about identifying systematic bias.
no web page updates (after Summer 2002 publication) - sounds like questionable or not very accurate OR. There are updates(e.g. September 25, 2002, Nov 2004, June 2006Apr 2006, Oct 2006) to the SB articles, even minor title changes, since Kauffman's 2002 article, and some of the changes might be considered responsive to Kauffman's points( or simply catching up), but there is still plenty of divergence too.
...Pseudoscience Kauffman's views in no way can be considered pseudoscientific. When you go on about "pseudoscience" in a conversation pertaining to Kauffman, you are insinuating something like "altie".
...more science than I'clast insinuates You may over personalize my comment Perhaps it is time for many here to quit reading QW articles as reliable sources and start reading *current* literature before repeating QW-SB assertions as the "mainstream , I spoke broadly because there *has*, in fact, been a *lot* of confusion about QW as a reliable source at WP. I long ago, when I first got to WP, I recognized QW as *sometimes* RS for a certain sentiment, notable in *some* cases, as have the WP arbs. I have even cited or restored QW links myself (shhhh, don't tell anybody ;> ), but not as reliable science. Many editors *have* confused non-peer reviewed, partisan opinion pages of the QW personalities as current, reliable science (there are laughable counterexamples, Kauffman clinically analyzed 8 QW articles in terms of broad, *current* science results, or in terms of *non-conclusory* scientific approach or presentation) or even current medicine (there is a pyramid of information between the actual medical scientist and highly specialized researchers and the practioners often recieving substantial cueing from commercial sources of POV), including some editors contributing to or affecting this very article, because they have left links & refernces doing so all over WP. I apologize if the broad statement offended you, it addresses various concrete examples from various editors over many, many months at WP concerning QW.--I'clast 13:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I really think that says it all, I'clast. Based on what you have written here, I really don't see any reason not to consider Kauffman's article a reliable source of criticism. What's left to discuss? -- Levine2112 discuss 18:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I really think that does not say much of anything. I'clast and Levine2112 are merely giving broad opinions and have not answered all of the critical questions at the start of this thread above. At the moment, we consider it has been conceded due to the lack of response and failure to answer all the simple questions. So that makes both of their arguments irrelevant. As previously stated, JSE is a fringe journal and therefore a BLP violation.  Mr.Guru  talk  19:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Read it again. It shows that Kauffman's notability is self-evident. Even others (ArthurRubin, etc.) have noted this. With or without JSE, Kauffman is reliable source. JSE and law review journal just shows that Kauffman's opinion is notable as it has been published in not one, but two journals. When you say "we consider it has been conceded...", who do you mean by "we"? Are you speaking for others? Or do you me the royal "we", the editorial "we", where "we" really represents only "you" the individual? I say this because right now, you are the only one here arguing against inclusion of the Kauffman criticism. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
QuackGuru's continued dismissals of Kauffman cite policy improperly and his deletion is made against previous consensuses by a more technical and medical group of WP editors, as well as fully represented and accepted by the leading Quackwatch exponent at Wikipedia.
The possible dismissal reasons in WP:BLP#Criticism policy: 1. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article No, Kauffman actually addresses from mainstream science, data and scientific approach. 2. Kauffman's article is a reliable source, published independently of him, controlled by a journal editor, and perhaps more contended on literal vs degree of, peer review (this is not a medical paper about accepted practice either rather demonstrably errant consumer advice). 3. You have been attempting to dismiss Kauffman by attacking JSE with some of the other subjects that the journal handles per Marcello Truzzi's design for rational skepticism. This is guilt by association that your reference to BLP policy for criticism specifcally warns against. We did not concede at all.--I'clast 11:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello all. I read the general objections to JSE here and I've been weighing up the various factors for inclusion or exclusion. On reflection, the JSE is a fringe journal, that deals with subjects that have been excluded by mainstream science, and the journal itself is excluded because it deals with unorthodox theories as if they are workable. The general science attitude is, why bother examining pseudoscience from a pro perspective at all, when you know its pseudoscience. More enlightened journals, such as the SRMHP will deal with subjects they know to be pseudoscience, and explain why people still believe the pseudoscience works, and will only make changes to subjects that have consequently had strong evidence that indicates their validity. So the obvious conclusion is that JSE is totally fringe by normal science standards and holds no weight. Spoctacle 09:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Everything this journal does is on the "fringes of science" and therefore it is a fringe science journal.  Mr.Guru  talk  17:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "None of us are thin-skinned or care when people attack our ideas..."

With regards to the quote in the litigation section which begins: None of us are thin-skinned or care when people attack our ideas..., I think per BLP:SelfPub it should be removed as we are dealing with ongoing litigation and Barrett's quote could be seen as bending the facts (to say the least). Here is the list of qualification for WP:SELFPUB and I feel this quote violates several of these:

  • it is relevant to the subject's notability;
  • it is not contentious; (it is entirely contentious ... he already lost Supreme Court case about this very topic and we are dealing with ongoing litigation still)
  • it is not unduly self-serving; (he is giving his POV on these ongoing cases)
  • it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject; and (Tim Bolen is a third party ... Barrett is making conclusions as to these cases still be tried)
  • there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.

On this basis, this quote should be removed. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:SELFPUB, it is relevant to the subject notability because Barrett has been in litigation and this is a quote that explains his reasons to begin the litigation. Its a very easy to understand quote that it is centrally relevant to understanding how the litigation began. There seems to be only one case remaining and there is no doubt where the quote originated from. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  22:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Per WP:SELFPUB the material much pass all of the requirements above. I agree with you that it is relevant to the subjects notability, but that doesn't discount that the quote is contentious, it unduly self-serving, and does involve claims about third parties. Per BLP, this material needs to be removed right away. I shall make an administrative request to do such. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Per the discussion above the following material should be immediately excised from the article until agreement about a possible BLP violation can be reached:

Barrett explained his lawsuits this way:
"None of us are thin-skinned or care when people attack our ideas. But unjustified attacks on our character or professional competence are another matter. As Bolen's campaign unfolded, my colleagues and I have notified him and many of the people spreading his messages that libel is a serious matter and that they had better stop. Some did, but it soon became clear that others would not. To defend ourselves, several of us have filed suit for libel."

Thank you. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:SELFPUB, this is the exact quotes from the person of this article. And it is central to understanding how the litigation began. The readers deserve to know how the litigation got started. This is an essential quote for the litigation section. The quote is simple and easy to understand. Therefore, it satisfies WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Please deny this request.  Mr.Guru  talk  01:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Levine is right, this is embroiling WP in active lawsuits with extremely contentious players. It should be deleted posthaste.--I'clast 10:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Are you two saying that this should be removed because it says something negative about Bolen? Avb 16:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and the "others" (but this is only one of the three violations of WP:SELFPUB this quote creates). In effect, Barrett is calling their opinions "unjustified attacks" and "libel". Neither of these has been established in court and as the case against Bolen is still ongoing, we cannot include self-serving opinion from either Barrett (or Bolen for that matter) which makes a claim not yet determined by the court. It is contentious. It is unduly self-serving. It makes claims about third-parties. These are three provisions of SELFPUB which are violated by including this quote. Per BLP, the quote should be removed immediately. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
At first sight I would say this is not a BLP problem, but I am ok with its (probably temporary) removal as a possible BLP violation. Avb 17:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
PS It should be noted that, ironically, the Wikipedia editor(s) who have inserted this quote, are apparently immune from liability for distribution of any defamatory parts of this statement under CDA Section 230 as applied in BvR. Avb 17:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
As well it should be! :-) Very ironic, but it goes to show the landmark notability of Barrett v. Rosenthal. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Note for administrator. Read the above threads and talk archives. There has been many content disputes that has been going on for years. This is just another drop in the bucket. Please deny this request. Frankly, the quote is very plain and easy to understand and is needed to understand how the litigation started from the very beginning. This is a central part of the litigation text.  Mr.Guru  talk  17:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
If the goal of this quote is just to explain how the litigation started, then I believe we can summarize the events without using a quote which violates WP:SELFPUB and hence WP:BLP. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Per WP:SELFPUB, a quote from the subject of this article is perfectly acceptable; hence, it passes the rigors of WP:BLP with flying colors.  Mr.Guru  talk  17:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
No, I have shown how the quote may/does violated 3 of the 7 qualification of WP:SELFPUB. If you would like to discuss the merits of each of those three possible violations, I am certainly open to it. That's where the heart of this discussion lies. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
The quote is an essential part of the litigation section. I am suprised this request has even been made.  Mr.Guru  talk  18:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Why is it essential? Why can't a summary be used to describe the nature of the case rather than using a quote which violates 3 of the 7 qualifications of WP:SELFPUB? -- Levine2112 discuss 18:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I've already explained the reasons. The quote is fine the way it is anyhow.  Mr.Guru  talk  19:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

There does not seem to be consensus for an admin to make this change. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not a matter of reaching a consensus. Per WP:BLP Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material must be removed immediately. We are dealing with poorly sourced material which is extremely contentious. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is all about consensus. Even WP:BLP compliance is decided by consensus. Avb 20:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
The editprotected tag is only intended for clear, uncontroversial edits. This one fails that. You can request the edit at WP:RFPP in the requested edits section. Please give a clear, concise explanation of why the reference provided is not enough to source this quote. I have no position on this, myself. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Will do. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Per WP:SELFPUB, this is a basic and normal quote. The quote clearly passes the rigors of WP:BLP as well as WP:NPOV. The quote is fully sourced anyhow.  Mr.Guru  talk  20:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A problem we're facing

Hufford's article is quite germane to the problems editors are facing here. It is written from the SPOV, although slightly biased in favor of the possibility that some of the CAM treatments currently spurned by mainstream medicine may turn out effective after all under scientific scrutiny. Since Hufford's article is seen as authoritative by a number of editors here, I hope I can use it to explain a couple of things that clearly missed their target on earlier occasions.

Hufford's article describes the status quo, which is that mainstream science has a clear anti-CAM bias and is hardly likely to accept articles on CAM research, especially with positive results, or e.g. criticism on mainstream medicine's assessment of CAM. According to Hufford, this bias is, in many cases, nothing more than a belief system unsupported by scientific evidence. "The problem is not limited to a few critics or sources. The problems that one finds in the most adamant critics are simply more obvious. Similar bias is frequently visible in most mainstream publications." In Wikipedia terms, CAM is the (tiny) minority, mainstream science the majority, and anti-CAM skeptics seem untouchable -- criticism rarely comes from mainstream science. Hufford says this should change. He wants CAM skeptics to take in criticism instead of denying a priori the possibility that specific CAM treatments/etc. can be effective. He clearly does not say this has already happened. In fact, mainstream scientists applaud skeptics such as Schneiderman and Barrett/Quackwatch.

We are not here to take part in that development. We must describe it. No matter how deeply some would like to believe the fight has already been won, no matter how strongly mainstream science and especially CAM skeptics believe that certain treatments cannot work. We need to wait until things have really changed, as documented in acceptable third-party sources, before we can report the new situation in the encyclopedia. The development can be described in the applicable articles; but the Barrett article should not be contaminated with the idea that such a paradigm shift has already taken place (in science). Obviously, Hufford also documents that the general public is much more tolerant (and often quite positive) regarding CAM. But that's nothing new; it is exactly the reason why Quackwatch exists and self-describes as consumer advocacy. Hufford leaves the impression that he thinks Quackwatch etc. would be *more* effective if it would start to rely more on research and less on personal opinion/beliefs. Avb 13:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hufford DJ. David J Hufford, "Symposium article: Evaluating Complementary and Alternative Medicine: The Limits of Science and Scientists." J Law, Medicine & Ethics, 31 (2003): 198-212. Hufford's symposium presentation was the counterpoint for another doctor's presentation, which argued that "alternative medicine" is not medicine at all. See Lawrence J. Schneiderman, "Symposium article: The (Alternative) Medicalization of Life." J Law, Medicine & Ethics, 31 (2003): 191-198. I think this is the ref you are talking about. Perhaps a compromise can be reached (if neutrally written) using this slightly bias ref instead of the attack pieces. I will at least consider it. Please write up your proposal. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  16:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Update: I have added the Hufford bit. If nobody objects, I can do an edit protected request.  Mr.Guru  talk  20:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I have to point out that scientific and logical dissection by academics like professors Kauffman and Hufford do not constitute attack on a person, rather the quality of their ideas, logic and information (selectively) presented therein. The Kauffman Watching the Wathcdog at Quackwatch article is very favorably cited and quoted, by Hufford. Hufford also separately mentions Stephen Barrett, and 1-2 other QW related authors, perhaps in not too flattering examples. The problem here is that V RS "less than absolute praise" articles are deprecated as as an attack or biased where that is clearly not the problem here at WP. Dilution and obfuscation of clear, reasoned, secondarily sourced V RS, academic analysis is not an appropriate answer.--I'clast 01:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Full text temporarily available here. Avb 20:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Avb, your comment appears to substantially misdirect & recast the points and meaning that apply most to the issues at hand here. Hufford gives clear examples of "conventional" biases, ex cathedra editorializing, untraceable references, biased anti-CAM groups, deceitful practices, among others, past and present, with germane and specifc reference to Stephen Barrett's specific articles and contributions, including Kauffman's analysis - so they are all quite material to WP Stephen Barrett article's Criticism section. What the Hufford paper does say about Quackwatch and Stephen Barrett is contained in the subtitled segment (pp. 200-205), The "Objectivity" or Fairness Limit. He specfically refers to Quackwatch, in Example 3: The anti-CAM literature (p.204), discussing ...a systematic bias among the strongest critics of CAM, giving examples of said CAM skeptics. The other two sources [www.quackwatch.com and "publications like the Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine...] I primarily turn to in order to find further examples of systematic bias. (my bolding) Ahem. Hufford then cites Kauffman's specific paper, Watching the Watchdogs at Quackwatch, at length[11], directly including five of Dr Barrett's articles.
Hufford directly mentions Stephen Barrett in Example 2: The evidence does not account for CAM advocacy, the "mainstream critics'" contentions that CAM has no evidence or is refuted, (pp. 202-203), ending Strong negative prejudice...little motivation to be scrupulous. It seems clear that conventional scientific bias is as harmful to serious criticism as it is to support (p.204). Hufford cites Dr Barrett's involvement in an anomalous JAMA article, [4th grade Emily, her NCAHF parents]...and Stephen Barrett, the publisher of the website Quackwatch.39 This paper is a remarkable event in the history of JAMA..., that Hufford writes ...also presents serious ethical problems...This is not just failure of full disclosure; it is actual deceit.--I'clast 01:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
That is not the point I proposed to discuss in this section. I specifically used Hufford's article as an illustration of the situation so often denied by a number of editors here. To reiterate: Hufford complains (rendered in Wikispeak) that CAM proponents are seen as a (tiny) minority by mainstream science, which itself is seen as the majority. In my opinion his article would have been superfluous had the situation been different. Avb 17:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

{{edit protected}}

This request is for adding a bit of criticism, some ref formatting, and removal of extra spaces.

There is a Temp page being used which is ready to (cut and paste) add to the article. > Talk:Stephen Barrett/Temp; Last dated edit was 15:38 . . 27 August 2007 with the edit summary: updated version. Please check when the last edit with the edit summary "updated version" was made to ensure the correct version will be used to update the article. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  17:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I have not kept up with that page, but I've checked out your compromise proposal about the Hufford article -- I can live with it. Avb 17:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
There is not remotely any new consenus here, only QG's control of an unused Talk page[12], as well as getting his POV vandalism/deletion previously locked in, against the prior consenuses on Kauffman (actually the whole Criticism section is gutted on notable critics and replaced by more QW "ad" statements). There are laughable, material edit problems in this proposal. This edit request continues to deny the very existence of most QW-SB criticism, and egregiously refuses to even recognize highly science based material that is *current*, not not 1930s, 1950s, not 1980s, in its conventional medical science bases and general scientific approach, by continuing to break the previous consensuses on the Kauffman article. Also see QG's deprecation, an opinion piece in which he asserts - for Hufford's invited, peer-reviewed paper in a mainstream journal, by a Penn State/UPenn professor (and medical study center director) covering medical ethics, no less. Also prof Hufford's summary and extracted quotes[13] are largely in literal agreement with the previous WP consensus versions on prof Joel Kauffman's website review 7 Feb 2007,Oct 2006 with several real doctors. Perhaps there is a message there about the pro-QW biases currently operating on the WP article on Stephen Barrett being extreme factional opinion rather than larger, more representative majority and minority views, whether popular views or hard science.--I'clast 22:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the edit request: is there consensus to make this change? — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Based on I'clast's comment just above, I'd say that there is no consensus here yet. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Editprotected request N Not done - as Levine says, please arrive upon a consensus first. If a wide-reacinh change does not have consensus, consider working on each section in turn, honing each one til everyone is happy. Neil ム 13:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editorial Board of Medscape

More for the Biography section. Barrett has served on the Editorial Board of Medscape. From the abbreviated biography:

Stephen Barrett, MD, a retired psychiatrist, is a nationally renowned author, editor, and consumer advocate. An expert in medical communications, he operates three Web sites and is consulting editor of "Nutrition Forum," a newsletter emphasizing the exposure of fads, fallacies, and quackery. His 46 books include The Health Robbers: A Close Look at Quackery in America (Prometheus) and five editions of the college textbook Consumer Health: A Guide to Intelligent Decisions (McGraw-Hill). Dr. Barrett is board chairman of Quackwatch, a board member of the National Council Against Health Fraud, a scientific advisor to the American Council on Science and Health, and a Fellow of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP). In 1984, he received an FDA Commissioner's Special Citation Award for Public Service in fighting nutrition quackery.

-- Fyslee/talk 04:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The above can be included in the following manner, with reference:
  • Barrett has also served on the Editorial Board of Medscape.[4]
-- Fyslee/talk 05:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Barrett is the consulting editor for the Consumer Health Library at Prometheus Books[4], has been a peer-review panelist for at least[5] two[6][7] medical journals, and has served on the editorial board of Medscape.[4]--I'clast 10:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)update--I'clast 09:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
That combines it very concisely without any fluff. Here it is with the codes:
If this isn't controversial, let's request unlocking for its inclusion. -- Fyslee/talk 16:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Please include the above as it seems to be an uncontroversial addition. -- Fyslee/talk 04:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}
Fyslee, my oversight. I corrected my agreement on the Medscape sentence, please adjust your agreed text, too. Also just to be explicitly clear for the admins, I agreed to a modified sentence in a paragraph and not a bullet point format.--I'clast 09:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Correct on all points. I'll notify MZMcBride. -- Fyslee/talk 01:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

  • Please make the "de-capitalization" change noted above. -- Fyslee/talk 05:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 09:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
No controversy from me. I only wish it was as easy to add criticism as it is to add accolades. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Anybody would think this is a biography or something... Shot info 02:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 13:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scorecard

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)

Kauffman discusses 5 of Stephen Barrett's articles at great length, Hufford directly mentions Dr Barrett's involvement in the controversial (according to New York Times magazine) "little Emiliy" JAMA article, an article whose methods were deprecated as "deceptive", as well as listing the five SB articles analyzed by Kauffman. There has been *no consensus* at all about th edit war removal of Kauffman, we are mostly discussing the Kauffman & Hufford articles at Quackwatch for the time being.--I'clast 06:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The Criticism section is laughably barren. The primary critic Donna is still saying the critics are all bs.--I'clast 06:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

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)
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)
Per BLP? Please explaiin. -- Fyslee/talk 15:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Please read prior discussions. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  17:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
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)

[edit] Mercola lawsuit

Editors keep including this line:

Barrett claimed a suit was settled in April 2003 after osteopath Joseph Mercola retracted and paid $50,000

The source which is given doesn't support this. As this is a BLP (and Mercola is an LP as well), this needs to be removed without question.

Any discussion? -- Levine2112 discuss 18:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

So the argument is about whether or not the suits mentioned are against Mercola? --Ronz 18:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what the argument is. All I know is that the reference given doesn't mention Mercola. And unless we have a source which does expressly state that Mercola retracted and paid $50,000 to Barrett, we can't in good conscience include it in the article. If you check the Joseph Mercola article there is mention of this lawsuit and that it settled out of court, but no mention of retration or payment. Here is that source. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree that Mercola is not mentioned in the source so I reverted per WP:OR You guys need to keep it real if want it to be accurate. If it's true, then let's use an RS and V source. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 18:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Copy from Website: In October 2000, I filed suit in Pennsylvania against an osteopathic physician in Illinois who had republished one of Bolen's messages and added some thoughts of his own. Bolen's message had falsely claimed that I (a) was "de-licensed," (b) had committed extortion, and (c) had been disqualified as an expert in a malpractice suit. After the doctor contested the suit on jurisdictional grounds, I withdrew it and refiled in Illinois [10]. In March 2002, the Illinois judge ruled that these statements "imply the existence of objectively verifiable facts" and therefore provided grounds for a libel suit. In April 2003, the suit was settled with a retraction and payment of $50,000.

Reference # [10]: Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, No. 01 L 009026, filed July 30, 2001.

The source mentioned by Levine is not the source that was used in the article. We are using Barrett's view per WP:SELFPUB. Barrett claimed it was settled after the osteopathic physician paid $50,000. Reference number 10 from the Quackwatch confirms who Barrett is referring to anyhow. Cheers.  Mr.Guru  talk  21:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is exactly what constitutes an WP:OR violation. Part of the "nutshell" of WP:OR reads: Articles should only contain verifiable content from reliable sources without further analysis. If you are asking us to look at two sources and make the leap that these are the same two people being discussed then that would certainly be considered "further analysis". Perhaps it is true, but without one source that says it, we can only extrapolate and assume. Mabe Barrett doesn't mention Mercola by name per some agreement in the settlement. I don't know. Maybe he isn't referring to Mercola at all. We just don't know for sure. Plus, but source you mentioned are primary source. As this is a contentious matter in a BLP, we are going to have to insist on a third-party source. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
This is fully referenced and is Barrett's claims per WP:SELFPUB. This is very easy to understand in any matter.  Mr.Guru  talk  21:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


This fails WP:SELFPUB as it is contentious; unduly self-serving; and involves claims about third parties. We need one third-party source which supports the statement otherwise it cannot be included. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
This passes the rigors of WP:SELFPUB as it is very clear to understand the facts.  Mr.Guru  talk  22:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I really don't understand how you can say that it passes the rigors of WP:SELFPUB when it so clearly fails 3 out of the 7 guidelines:
Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:
  • it is relevant to their notability;
  • it is not contentious; FAILED
  • it is not unduly self-serving; FAILED
  • it does not involve claims about third parties; FAILED
  • it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  • there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
  • the article is not based primarily on such sources.
Beyond that, there is still the WP:OR violation which this material creates. You need a third-party source which expressly states that Mercola retracted and paid Barrett $50,000. Once you have that we can talk. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not a questionable source. It is not contentious or self-serving. Barrett provides a reference number 10 to show there was a settlement. This involves a claim about a party who was directly involved in a suit which was settled because of a settlement. We all know this is the facts. This also improves the article and thus should be included per WP:IAR.  Mr.Guru  talk  22:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but when it comes to living persons, Wikipedia has a steadfast rule: Do no harm. Making unsupported statements about the results of lawsuits can certainly do harm. We don't know the results for sure. This is contentious. This is unduly self-serving. And this does involve claims about a third party (Mercola). Without a third-party source, we will be in violation of a number of rules which we simply cannot ignore, as you suggest. If this is notable, then finding a third-party source shouldn't be too difficult. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry but Wikipedia does not have firm rules per WP:PILLARS. Cheers.  Mr.Guru  talk  22:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Is that really your best argument here? Ignore the rules? If so, then there's no reason to continue this discussion since you are just going to ignore whatever policies I tell you that you are violating with the inclusion of this material. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
(ec) This is a difficult one. Barrett claims that he won $50,000 in a settlement, after having originally said it was Mercola. Can we reference the archive where he said it was Mercola to avoid WP:SYN? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Where is that archive? Please provide the link. However, this still doesn't get around the WP:SELFPUB violations: contentious, makes claims about third-parties, unduly self-serving. So in short: no, we still can't use it. We have to ask ourselves why isn't Barrett naming Mercola? Remember, do no harm. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:IAR is a fundumental policy on Wikipedia. I am complying with that policy. This bit of info is cleary true and it should be included to improve this article. That is what it is about, the improvement. The reference is reliable and has other references to explain the matter at hand. The statement is part of claims that Barrett was an involved party to anyhow.  Mr.Guru  talk  22:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Barrett was an involved party and hence not a third-party reference for this contentious, self-serving information which makes claims about the other third-party. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Solution. We can use two references. The court document settlement ref and the Barrett claimed ref. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  23:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
No. That still relies only on two primary sources and violates WP:OR. Please provide a third-party source. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Here is a third-party source, but it only mentions that Barrett "dismissed his libel suit against Dr. Joseph Mercola, DO, just days before the trial date." -- Levine2112 discuss 23:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
That is an ear candling chiro ref. Not again. We've been over this before. Please provide the court documents and we can review it.  Mr.Guru  talk  23:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I am still not sure what "ear candling chiro" means. Anyhow, that's the only third-party ref I was able to find which discusses Barrett v. Mercola (and is a reliable source). It doesn't discuss any retraction or payment made to Barrett anyhow, so the statement you are trying to include is still without a third-party source and thus cannot be included. Let's keep looking. I am sure if the retraction and the payment did happen and are notable, there is bound to be a third-party ref out there discussing it. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
According to this new statement by Levine, all the primary refs in the litigation section should be deleted. You can't have it both ways. For me. I first objected to the primary sources. But we WP:IAR to improve this article. Its about the improvement of this article. To be of service, I wish all the court documents of mutual agreement were identified to strengthen the info. The combination of sources will fit well into the body of the article.  Mr.Guru  talk  23:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
The primary sources in the current litigation section are bolstered with third-parrty sources such as the Mintz article. Furthermore, nothing said in the current version relies on any WP:OR. What you are trying to include is not even mentioned in any primary source, let alone a third-party source. Furthermore, one of your two primary sources causes a WP:SELFPUB violation. There really isn't much more to discuss. If you wish to ignore the rules, ignore the rules. But remember, "Ignore all rules" does not mean that every action is justifiable. It is neither a trump card nor a carte blanche. A rule-ignorer must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged. You have been challenged. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Easy. This is part of the story of the litigation. The litigation would be incomplete without it. There has been many suits. This is an interesting case because this is the only one (at least that I know of) that there was a real settlement. I will let you have the honors to put it in the article. Thanks for your concern.  Mr.Guru  talk  00:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, without any sources to support the statement we cannot include it. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Your only argument now is sourcing. Oh. Don't worry. I will include the refs. Have a nice day.  Mr.Guru  talk  01:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Sourcing is of paramount importance. Without sources, the statement creates BLP, RS, V, and OR violations (and probably a whole lot more). Provide the sources which supports what you want to include; otherwise we can't include it. In the meantime, I've included as much as the sources will allow. Let me know what you think. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
It makes little or no sense what you added. It has no context.  Mr.Guru  talk  01:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
It's an attempt at a compromise, plus it is entirely supported by the ref (albeit a primary ref). What we do know for sure is that Barrett filed a libel suit against Mercola and that it was dismissed by mutual agreement. If there was an out-of-court settlement, we don't have any documentation to support such a claim. I am pretty sure what I wrote does make sense; then again, I am not a lawyer nor have I had a year-and-half of legal training at a correspondence which the FTC shut down. :-) -- Levine2112 discuss 01:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
You did not add any context at all. Its worthless.  Mr.Guru  talk  01:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
What more context can we add? Remember it has to be sourced and can't involve WP:OR or WP:SYN. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
You can add more context or I will add more context. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. We can include details that are interesting and that are part of the story. You forgot to include the other reference. There are two refs that we can use.  Mr.Guru  talk  01:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Please be specific about what kind of context you would like to see added. I am pretty sure much more will require a third-party ref. Thus far, I've only been able to find this one which doesn't give much more context. What have you come up with? -- Levine2112 discuss 02:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Per QuackGuru's request? No. I did not tell you to do that. A ref that was about filing is not about settling. You added a marginal ref and you did not add any context as I requested.  Mr.Guru  talk  02:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The current version is misleading at best, as the settlement was an actual win for Barrett, and Levine wants to keep THIS one out, or at least disguise that it was a win. There is no doubt about Mercola's identity or that Barrett clearly states what the settlement involved. Mercola is named here and a practically identical version of the article a couple years later (after the settlement) gives the settlement amount and all the identifying features that describe Mercola. This involves no OR or SYNT violations as we produce no facts that are not self-evident to any ordinary reader of the sources. The case was tried in Illinois, the judge found that Mercola had gone too far which gave grounds for a libel suit, Mercola read the writing on the wall and settled. This was before BvR, so he did not know that he could have used that as a defense to continue REpublishing libelous statements. He no doubt figured that by settling quickly he got off cheap. -- Fyslee/talk 03:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

First, you are assuming really bad faith on my part. I am not trying to keep it out. In fact, I was the one that included it today. What is not clear to me is how you think we can add material that is not found in any source. Show me a source which says that "the judge found that Mercola had gone too far which gave grounds for a libel suit". Show me a source that says that Mercola "read the writing on the wall and settled" for $50,000. At best you have WP:OR/WP:SYN from an archived obselete source which violates WP:SELFPUB. You can't call the statements "libelous" because this is a legal distinction and to date no judge has declared any of Bolen's statements to be "libel". Finally, ask yourself why Barrett is not outright stating that Mercola settled for 50k (or ask Barrett yourself). Maybe it is because it isn't true. Maybe it because it is true, but per the settlement Barrett can't outright say it. I don't know. You don't know. Thus, we can't add this unreliably sourced, speculative information to the site. -- Levine2112 discuss 05:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I want to re-emphasize that not only do I think that the contentious, non-V RS statements by another party clearly violates WP:BLP but that I think we are seeing inaccurate, incomplete and legally dangerous statements *fabricated*. I researched this last September / fall when Fyslee was pressing it the first time in various articles. I saw a bunch of fragments, some which conflicted with Dr Barrett's apparent legal committments (again see WP policies) but that comments by Dr Barrett were being "expanded" into potentially new fact(oid)s. One comment that Dr Barrett made was that identity and settlements components would not appear together. Another comment, I think in another, totally different Barrett blog, was that a similar sounding settlement involved payment or money by an *insurer*. Until we have direct V RS statements associating identities, rather than loose scattered, time blinked, descriptions, or perhaps a complete primary source of the agreement, I think any WP admin allowing blatant policy violations is unwise. I think some editors are heading for actually legally dangerous water.--I'clast 07:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Given that we are here in a BLP, I believe that poorly sourced material should be removed. Perhaps a mention of his settlements and lets leave it at that. Unless there is a source (preferably third party) that states this, we are on shakey ground, and we all know what BLP would like us to do. Shot info 07:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of whether his statement can be used specifically in referece to Mercola, I think Barrett's statement that he claims to have settled one of the lawsuits for $50,000 needs to appear in the lawsuit summary section. Also, "withdrawn by mutual consent" could be amended with, "possibly by settlement" (with a reference to a WP:RS stating that the "official" status settled lawsuits are frequently "withdrawn by mutual consent". Otherwise, it seems to be misleading to non-lawyers not familiar with Barrett. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Good suggestion, AR. I can't think of a better phrase than possibly by settlement, or by settling out of court, but if I do I'll post it up. Spoctacle 15:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I would say that would be a pretty weak addition. The only source we have which discusses a "possible" settlement is from Barrett and since it is contentious, unduly self-serving, and involves a claim about a third party, the source violated WP:SELFPUB. It's also extremely vague. Let's wait to see if some specifics come in from a reliable source. (Spoctacle, nice work on your edits today on "Criticism" - definitely more focussed now.) -- Levine2112 discuss 15:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Levine. I think its important to emphasize that a journalist is not really qualified to understand which is positive or negative research in a given clinical research stream. They often fall for illogical and pseudoscientific arguments and regularly publish popular mythology as if its science. Eg, somebody comes up with a single positive result from a bunch of negative results, and if the research is related to something close to the hearts of the readers, suddenly the single result gets pasted across the newspapers as if its the finding of the century. Context is everything here, and clearly science holds far more weight than pseudoscience. In terms of WP sourcing, a research stream is not something that WP should be listing as that would be OR. However, the opinion of a science trained professional will give a far more reliable research review than a non-science professional. And I'd say that in relation to legal matters, all relevant information should be attached, including concerning the willingness of a particular party to pay out of court. Spoctacle 16:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
With regards to your comments about journalists, I am unsure what specifically you are referring to. I think in general we shouldn't make sweeping generalizations such as "journalists never make good sources because they don't understand clinical research". I agree that science does hold more weight than pseudoscience, but the issue is determining what is science and what is pseudoscience. In this article in particualr, the subject holds the POV that all of alternative medicine is pseudoscience. This is a radical extremist point of view and shouldn't necessarily bear on us holding alternative medicine sources in lkess regard on this article than on another. Remember, this isn't a scientific article. In essence, it is about a subject who is notable for criticism. He may call it consumer protection or exposing frauds and quack, but that is subjective. Objectively, what Barrett does (and what makes him notable) is his criticism. In turn, it makes sense that there will be opposite and equal criticism heading his way. I agree that the opinion of a science trained professional will give a far more reliable research review than a non-science professional. But who is the science trained professional here? We offered the analytical criticism of Prof. Kauffman, but that was rejected here by many as being an unreliable source. Seems counterintuitive, right? Expecially when you look at Kauffman's credentials. With regards to this conversation - legal matters - I agree that all relevant information should be attached. . . provided that it can be reliably sourced. The willingness of a particular party to pay out of court - in this case Dr. Mercola - has not been adequately sourced. What we have now is an archived self-published webpage which mentions Mercola by name but doesn't mention any settlement, and another archived self-published webpage which mentions a settlement but not Mercola by name. Furthermore, if we truly are interested in adding all relevant information, regardless of the reliability of sources, know that this litigation section was once very much expanded and detailed many of the particulars of several of these failed libel suits. Recently however - after much debate - we agreed to narrow it down to just cover the most notable broad strokes of this whole libel litigation process which eventually lead up to Barrett v. Rosenthal, a case which garnered national interest. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Arthur Rubin that the information he states should be in the article. --CrohnieGalTalk 17:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: The temp page as been updated. There is currently three inline citations to support the sentence. Please review.  Mr.Guru  talk  18:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Arthur's suggestion would create a WP:OR/WP:SYN violation because it is combining multiple sources to make a point, a WP:RS violation because it uses archived sources which really are pretty vague as far as the information we would need to make this statement go, a WP:SELFPUB violation because the self-published source is contentious, unduly self-serving, and makes a claim about a third-party, and a WP:BLP violation because it is doing harm by either presenting information which the parties of a hypothetical settlement agreed not to make public or by presenting fictitious/incorrect information about a living person. Basically, the sources we have are too vague, suspicious (in that they are archived), and contentious to be considered good sources by which we can include Arthur's suggestion. QuackGuru, please remove the statement from your temp page as it creates a WP:BLP violation. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
My suggestion would create a better article. The three refs strengthen the tidbit. This is documented that there was an agreement to settle and there was an outcome. We are explaining the outcome. This is very interesting to read this. The litigation should be balanced by also explaining a relevant part of the story.  Mr.Guru  talk  18:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
If there is an archived version in which Barrett said he received a settlement from Mercola, then that statement alone (Barrett said...) is clearly allowable in this article. If not, then including that would be WP:SYN, but a statement that he claims to have received a $50,000 settlement (if he, indeed said that) must be included to counter the true, but misleading, assertion that has been included from time to time that Barrett has not "won" any of the lawsuits. BTW, being archived is not suspicious. If, indeed, the hypothetical settlement required that he not mention the terms, he could request archive.org to unarchive it, by various technical mechanisms. The fact that anyone reading his statement could determine he meant "Mercola" doesn't violate WP:SYN unless something we state could imply that it refers to Mercola.
Of course, there's the option of removing the entire lawsuit section. We should not make statements which we know to be misleading merely because we cannot prove that they're misleading.
— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
archive.org is blocked from work, so I can't verify it, but if the archived page says "Mercola", it's clearly allowable as a statement that Barrett claims there was was a settlement. If not, then putting the settlement information ([41], the first of the three inline citations) against Mercola would be WP:SYN, but including it as a reference to a separate statement that Barrett claims he has received a $50,000 settlement in one of his libel suits is almost mandatory to refute the implication that he his hasn't "won" any lawsuits. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The implication that Barrett hasn't won any of his libel suits isn't in the article. No need to counter it. Further, you still haven't addressed the BLP concern this creates even by stating that Barrett "claims" to have settled with Mercola for a retraction and 50k. I am honsestly astounded by how weak these sources are and how easily you are willing to accept them compared to how quick you were to reject the strength of the Kauffman source (it actually exists and says what we were saying) and (hate to bring this up again), but all of the sources behind Barrett not being board certified. Those sources were far superior than two archived self-published, contentious, unduly self-serving pieces which make an unsubstantiated claim about a third-party and need to be combined to synthesize the vague, unsupported statement which you want to make here. How much more of a WP:SELFPUB, WP:BLP, and WP:NOR violation can this be? -- Levine2112 discuss 19:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The implication that Barrett hasn't won any of his libel suits is clear, as we explain a number of reasons why he hasn't won specific suits, and state that (at least one) is pending. I would say that not including Barrett's claim to have won a libel suit violates WP:BLP. (I'm undecided on Kauffman; although it's clear JSE is not a WP:RS, it still seems possible that Kauffman is one.) Thinking about it, I can see a possible WP:BLP violation in stating that Barrett claims to have settled the suit with Mercola, but his claim to have settled a libel lawsuit for $50,000 is a clear example of an allowable WP:SELFPUB. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I am glad that you are coming around on this, AR. Now please consider taking one more step with me. Barrett's claim to have settled a libel lawsuit for $50,000 is still a WP:SELFPUB violation as it is unduly self-serving and is most certainly contentious. It is still making a claim about a third-party only now that third-party is unnamed. The qualifications of SELFPUB doesn't explicitly state whether or not these claims about a third-party need not be about a specific third-party or even an unnamed third-party. I don't think that Barrett can be considered a reliable source on a lawsuit he is/was directly involved with. If his is, then why can't the defendants or opposing counsel be considered a reliable source? Would you consider self-published sources by Rosenthal, Bolen, Clark, Negrete, or even Mercola to be reliable sources on contentious information here? -- Levine2112 discuss 20:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Nope. I cannot agree that including a list of dismissed lawsuits without including information about one we know to have been settled in Barrett's favor (whether or not we can prove it) violates WP:UNDUE. In this case, we can prove that Barrett claims that a lawsuit has been settled in his favor. That statement therefore must be included if the lawsuit section is to be included at all. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Whoa. I actually did a bit of work on the lawsuits section. No reliable source says the amount he settled for, and Barrett's self-published assertions should not be able to comment on Mercola. Just say that they settled; that part is public. Cool Hand Luke 20:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, the section looks fine as written. "...by mutual agreement of the parties." That's all we know from reliable sources. Cool Hand Luke 20:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
That's all we know from reliable sources, but Barrett's claim of winning a settlement meets WP:SELFPUB if there's no WP:BLP violation in what we say, so that statement is considered acceptable. Furthermore, the claim that he's never won a case keeps appearing, and the information we have supports that claim, even if we never say it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
We have shown above why Barrett's claim of winning a settlement does not meet WP:SELFPUB and how it causes a WP:BLP issue. The claim that he's never won a case is not part of the current article, so there is no reason to make a case against material that isn't in the article. To say that it keeps appearing is a fallacy. It was there for a minimal amount of time and was removed because like this information we are discussing, that claim was not backed by any reliable sources. So since we can't say either due to lack of reliable sources then there is no reason to argue that this one will counter the other one. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
You have not shown that Barrett's claim to have won a settlement violates WP:RS (WP:SELFPUB); you have merely asserted it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
You are right. I have only asserted it and given my rationale (it is contentious, unduly self-serving and makes a claim about a third-party). I have also asserted that it will cause a BLP issue. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Levine has asserted but not properly shown in any matter how this violates policy. It has been used to advance an agenda by Barrett's critics to assert that Barrett has not won any suit. This section should be balanced and include this relevant info.  Mr.Guru  talk  00:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Nowhere in the article does it say that Barrett has not won any suits. That is a strawman argument. I have both asserted and directly referenced precise points with the policies which I believe we would be in violation of if we were to include this material. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Nowhere in this article it says Barrett has won any suits. Moreover, it has been used by Barrett's critics on the interent to assert that Barrett has never won a suit. So that makes your argument a strawman. This bit of info improves this article and therefore should be included. We have 3 refs to verify the text too. Any reasonable person can understand the facts from the refs. Its time to bring balance to this section. There are a lot of dismissals but there is also a settlement that is documented. This is settled.  Mr.Guru  talk  00:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I assert that excluding the claim violates WP:BLP if there is a lawsuite section at all, as do a number of other editors. 01:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs)
How can we have a BLP issue by not mentioning something? That's a new one. Per BLP, we are insisting on a third-party reliable source which confirms the information you are trying to include. Barrett's own archived writings violate WP:SELFPUB and the information which you are asserting can only be derived by combining two different archived self published articles; hence WP:NOR. This is going in circles, so I'm done here until you provide the requested source. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Everything is fully referenced and this bit of info is needed to satisfy WP:NPOV or we cannot have a litigation section as it is. We can add the info or in meantime comment out the entire litigation. Fair enough?  Mr.Guru  talk  02:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Nope. There is nothing in NPOV which dictates what you are suggesting. We are here to present facts which can be reliably sourced. This one which you are pushing has no reliable sources yet. Please keep looking or drop it. Bye. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
All three refs are reliable references. 2 of the 3 refs are already in the article. One more ref to go. Thanks for your concern.  Mr.Guru  talk  02:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Arthur: his claim of winning would satisfy SELFPUB, except that it involves Mercola as well. Mercola is also a living person. WP:BLP "applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles." Cool Hand Luke 03:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Something might be required by WEIGHT (although I doubt it in this case), but BLP does not demand the addition of material; it places the burden "on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material." Mercola probably broke the law by repeating claims from an unverified source. Wikipedia should not imitate his carelessness. Cool Hand Luke 03:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
No, it's BLP by implication. We mention all the libel suits being dismissed, which indicates that they were meritless. (Some of them were, apparently....). The fact that he claims one was settled is required. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
It says one is settled. The amount, however, is not printed in reliable sources. I'll look again, but I originally assumed it was under a nondisclosure agreement because I could find no reference to the amount. Believe me, I'm no enemy of this man. I condensed the lawsuits precisely because of the problem you mention. This, however, is a problem of NPOV (providing all significant points of view) and not BLP, which weighs against you. If you break three reverts on this matter, the BLP exception will not protect you. That is my friendly warning. Cool Hand Luke 03:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the insertion is not required by BLP. What is required is the deletion of the list of dismissed lawsuits unless something is said about him "winning" (or obtaining a favorable settlement in) one of them. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
YOu should be ashamed of being an admin. I would revoke your status for this lack of respect for the policies of Wikipedia and your gaming the system. -- Levine2112 discuss 03:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Please try to comment on the contribution and not the contributer. I think this user is acting in good faith and out of genuine concern for our policies. Cool Hand Luke 04:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
It's in there. "By mutual agreement between the parties". Feel free to make it more prominent, or make it its own sentence, just don't include Barrett's alleged amount. I think the lawsuits are essential because critics almost always cite them. It would be undo weight not to include them. I also think it's important for readers to understand why he lost so many of them. It is not—as some critics say—because he was never libeled by Bolen, but it's largely because of an interpretation of the CDA which was widely criticized by scholars as being nonsensical, yet adopted by courts for providing immunity for repostings online. Deleting this section is irresponsible, I think. Cool Hand Luke 03:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Unbelievable! This has been used to advance an agenda on the world wide web to assert that Barrett has never won a suit. Just to include a bit of info about a settlement should be easy. Per WP:SELFPUB we can use Barrett's exact quotes.  Mr.Guru  talk  04:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I understand what you mean, and I share Arthur's concern about falsely creating that impression, but the dollar figure is not a verifiable record. Is this edit acceptable? This way one can't come to the conclusion that he's lost every case. And it is verifiable that he won a preliminary victory on earlier motions, as the footnotes currently discuss. I think no one could get the wrong impression with this language. Cool Hand Luke 04:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
That one's acceptable. I still think that, if there weren't sufficient information to link Mercola to the $50,000 quote, that it would be allowable, but I no longer see it as necessary. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I just went over the provided links and I think it should be added. The information provided said in part. "In October 2000, I filed suit in Pennsylvania against an osteopathic physician in Illinois who had republished one of Bolen's messages and added some thoughts of his own. Bolen's message had falsely claimed that I (a) was "de-licensed," (b) had committed extortion, and (c) had been disqualified as an expert in a malpractice suit. After the doctor contested the suit on jurisdictional grounds, I withdrew it and refiled in Illinois [10]. In March 2002, the Illinois judge ruled that these statements "imply the existence of objectively verifiable facts" and therefore provided grounds for a libel suit. In April 2003, the suit was settled with a retraction and payment of $50,000. I think linking both articles show this to be an accurate provider of the $50,000. Italics by me, but if you read this again it should be very obvious about all of this. --CrohnieGalTalk 11:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
It should obvious stay out per Levine's more than adequate points - selfpub... blp... nor... TheDoctorIsIn 18:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) While I don't find Levine's points adequate, I think we need to be careful here, which is exactly what we're doing by having this discussion that for the most part is discussing policy issues. Let's avoid straying. --Ronz 19:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[14] This court document, along with the others should show it is allowable. --CrohnieGalTalk 20:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, they settled, so one can reasonably conclude that the plaintiff (Barrett) got something, but the amount just isn't reliably sourced. I looked again in the Illinois verdict reporters and could not find it. A news archive search also comes up dry. I think stating that the defendants settled after an unfavorable ruling is the best solution we have. Cool Hand Luke 21:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misuse of WP:SYN and WP:SELFPUB to bypass the use of common sense

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[9] after the osteopath[10] 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.[11]

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)

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[15], 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)
Everything is fully referenced and passes the rigors of all Wikipedia policies.  Mr.Guru  talk  00:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
How is it currently POV? Cool Hand Luke 02:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Per WP:SELFPUB, this is worthy to be in the article.  Mr.Guru  talk  03:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

SELFPUB does not tell us when we should include content. It just tells us when it's allowed. You have not made an argument for why this particular bit of self-publication—unnoted by third parties—should be included. Besides, the material involves claims about third parties. Notice that SELFPUB doesn't stipulate whether the third parties are named or not, besides which, the third party is named in the footnotes.

You still have not explained what's POV about this sentence: "However, Barrett won a preliminary victory in at least one suit and the parties ultimately settled in April 2003." Cool Hand Luke 03:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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)
I think we can add this to the end of the sentence: restitution, including a payment to Barrett.[11] Please review.  Mr.Guru  talk  04:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
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)

I just corrected a URL and the dates. In all the back and forth we had somehow copied an old URL. It is now the proper one. -- Fyslee/talk 05:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Footnote 7

This footnote requires sign in [16] and payment for articles thus it should be deleted. Anyone have a problem with this? --CrohnieGalTalk 13:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the link because the page was moving too far to the right. Cheers.  Mr.Guru  talk  17:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] Selected publications

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)

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)
A quick search I found [17] 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)
A search of Google came up with these: [18] I hope this is helpful, I'm trying but not real good at this kind of searching. :) --CrohnieGalTalk 12:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Try this Amazon search instead. It brings up over 400 items, but of course many are not "our" Barrett. -- Fyslee/talk 17:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Also Stephen Barrett, M.D.: Books and Book Chapters -- Fyslee/talk 18:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
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)

[edit] Selected publications revisited

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)

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)
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)

[edit] Non-summarized, unreferenced QW material

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)

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)

[edit] Two requests

I have two request, would someone archive some of the older posts that have been in active for awhile? I have a robot that archives my page and all I know how to do is delete it. Thanks! When I first came to this article there was a picture of Dr. Barrett in the article. I don't know where to look for the eligible pictures so would someone please put his picture back into the article and also give me a link to where they are? Thanks,--CrohnieGalTalk 21:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have archived quite a bit. As far as your other comments, what do you mean by "all I know how to do is delete it"? Delete what?
As far as the picture goes, it was deleted for some reason. You can go back in the article history. Just hop back a long ways, and then hop forwards in smaller hops until you find it. Then back up in even smaller hops until you find the place it was deleted. You'll find the explanation there. By find a version with the picture, you can click on the picture and find where it is located, either at Wikipedia, or at Wikipedia Commons. -- Fyslee/talk 05:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Fyslee, what I mean is a bot archives for me. When I want something to be gone I either strike it out or delete it. I should learn to archive but I have tried and was unsuccessful. --CrohnieGalTalk 20:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please provide context and URL

Please provide context and URL so we can check this:

  • Hufford DJ. David J Hufford, "Symposium article: Evaluating Complementary and Alternative Medicine: The Limits of Science and Scientists." J Law, Medicine & Ethics, 31 (2003): 198-212. Hufford's symposium presentation was the counterpoint for another doctor's presentation, which argued that "alternative medicine" is not medicine at all. See Lawrence J. Schneiderman, "Symposium article: The (Alternative) Medicalization of Life." J Law, Medicine & Ethics, 31 (2003): 191-198.

This is quite critical as it is being used to imply that Barrett was deceitful, when it was actually the TT practitioners whose deceit was exposed by a simple and properly performed blinded test. -- Fyslee/talk 08:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No, Hufford(2003) means the JAMA authors: 4th grade Emily Rosa, parents, and Dr Barrett. Also AGF, pls.
Fyslee, as meticulous as you are about recording things surely you have Avb's "excerpt". I don't, so we are down to personal copies and dead trees. Hufford (p.203) says ...The study by Emily and her colleagues also presents serious ethical problems in that the authors (that includes Dr Barrett) state that their success in getting the cooperation of so many therapeutic touch proponents probably hinged on the presentation of the study as merely a fourth grade science fair project. This is not just failure of full disclosure, it is actual deceit. Finally, one cannot help but note the strong negative bias of the investigators conducting research in an unrefereed setting. Research by CAM proponents if often treated with skepticism because of the investigators commitments. How would we react to the positive study of therapeutic touch carried out as a science fair project by the granddaughter of Delores Krieger, the creator of the practice? Would JAMA publish it?
The previous New York Times Magazine article (1998) seems to look askance too, although most directly at JAMA and JAMA's then chief editor Lundberg (soon fired for other things), rather than the authors. Lundberg, now the honcho at Medscape, has Dr Barrett on his Editorial Board.--I'clast 09:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
FYI, I did not put up an "excerpt". I made the full text of the Hufford article available to interested editors for a couple of days, in order to allow them to assess the points I made here in context. Avb 21:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I have not been following along very carefully (especially about this Hufford business) for some time as I have been traveling, so I'm not sure what you are referring to. I don't record everything either....;-) So are you defending TT, or just trying to smear Barrett yet again? -- Fyslee/talk 18:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Fyslee, Loaded question, aka False dilemma - Eg. "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?", see also the end my answer to CHL--I'clast 22:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I have access to an electronic copy of the full text. I don't believe they are online, but I reproduced the most relevant text here: Talk:Stephen Barrett/Archive 11#Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. He was also mentioned in this section:
Therapeutic touch
The quotation above by Dr. Schneiderman dismissing therapeutic touch as groundless and unjustifiable in professional practice appeared in the 1998 JAMA paper written by Emily Rosa, a fourth grader who conducted the study as a science fair project, and her mother and stepfather, both members of a debunking organization (Questionable Nurse Practices Task Force, National Council Against Health Fraud), and Stephen Barrett, the publisher of the website Quackwatch. n39 This paper is a remarkable event in the history of JAMA. I will offer just a few comments.
The design used by young Emily tested the ability of self-identified therapeutic touch practitioners to detect the presence of Emily's hand above one of their own hands, with the therapeutic touch participant's view of the hands blocked. The participants apparently thought they could do this, although the ability does not properly represent any specific facet of actual therapeutic touch practice. The study did not address in any way the ability of the practitioners to reduce pain or anxiety, the main claims of therapeutic touch.
The extensive literature review in the paper includes studies with interesting positive results according to the reviewers themselves. For example, the University of Alabama study of therapeutic touch for burn patients, controlled with the use of sham therapeutic touch, yielded "statistically significant results" in patient reports although it did not result in the use of less pain medication. n40 The reviewers treat this as a negative finding but such a view seems unjustified given the severity of burn pain and the typical use of therapeutic touch as an adjunct to conventional treatment. n41
The study by Emily and colleagues also presents serious ethical problems in that the authors state that their success in getting the cooperation of so many therapeutic touch proponents probably hinged on the presentation of the study as merely a fourth grade science fair project. This is not just failure of full disclosure; it is actual deceit. Finally, one cannot help but note the strong negative bias of the investigators conducting research in an unrefereed setting. Research by CAM proponents is often treated with skepticism because of the investigators' commitments. How would we react to a positive study of therapeutic touch carried out as a science fair project by the granddaughter of Delores Krieger, the creator of the practice? Would JAMA publish it?
Barrett was not discussed in any other section of the article except these two (above and linked above). The article he was responding to cited Barrett favorably. I still think including either of these is undue weight. Cool Hand Luke 19:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Undue weight? The Hufford paper is an *invited* academic paper whose cogent examples involve a significant fraction of Barrett related material as well as Schneiderman, the primary correspondent. Hufford academically crystallizes the frequent complaints of a number of voices outside academia about supposedly scientific evaluations of alternative medicine, exposing some very human "clay feet", carefully citing clear examples of sources of systematic bias, including Quackwatch and its primary driver, Dr Barrett. The article that Hufford responds to is by Schneiderman (more active in the Scientific Rev of Alt Medicine, which Hufford identifies with Schneiderman), apparently a loose confederate or similar bird-of-a-feather advertised by Quackwatch[19], CSICOP[20][21] and NCAHF[22]. Barrett and Schneiderman co-serve(d) in a number of (partisan or trade) organizations e.g. editors of Sampson & Kurtz' non-PubMed indexable Scientific Review Alt Medicine (pretty weak when the mainstream vacuum cleaner Medline won't include your vociferously "mainstream" publication even after repeated applications, see SRAM's 4th time miss editorial); ACSH p.13 (criticized as a funded PR tool of chem industries); the economically competing trade publication, JAMA. I am unaware of much prior interaction or association (including negative) between Hufford and Barrett, other than Quackwatch's neutral to vaguely positive reference to Hufford's prior work for an OTA report(1988). The continued dismissal and effacement of legitimate, informed, reasoned, referenced QW-related criticism or even its very existence is an ongoing problem here at "QW WP", such bias needs to yield gracefully to WP policy.--I'clast 22:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm just going to volunteer my 2 cents. The quoted source from Hufford meets WP:RS, but I question its inclusion here. Hufford is criticizing a specific study and mentions Barrett in passing and in a generally minor context (6 degrees of Stephen Barrett notwithstanding). Focusing on this source, in this article, seems a bit like using this article as a WP:COATRACK for criticism of "skepticism" in general. This source might be more appropriate for our article on therapeutic touch, or even Emily Rosa (apparently we have an article on her?) - I haven't looked at them, but would assume that the Rosa study is cited there (or should be), so this "rebuttal" could be appropriately cited there too. Again, that's just my 2 cents. MastCell Talk 17:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point, since an oblique mention of Barrett is being elevated in an attempt to marginalize him, while ignoring the direct mention of "similar bias" "frequently visible in most mainstream publications." (emphasis Fyslee):
"The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine provides a similar opportunity to see the result of "hostility to all alternatives." It was this journal that Dr. Schneiderman cited concerning the waste of time involved in studying acupuncture. The article was a repudiation of the 1997 NIH consensus panel on acupuncture. [59] The Scientific Review is published by Prometheus Books, another good source of such examples. The problem is not limited to a few critics or sources. The problems that one finds in the most adamant critics are simply more obvious. Similar bias is frequently visible in most mainstream publications." emphasis Fyslee -- Local source: Talk:Stephen Barrett/Archive 11#Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics
BTW, I don't recall that Barrett was directly involved in the actual science fair performance of the Rosa study, hence any implication of him in any so-called wrongdoing (which it wouldn't be, since blinding is a form of "deception" that is expected in studies) is misplaced. I could well be wrong, but I think he was only involved in the preparation for publication. -- Fyslee/talk 21:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Dr Barrett and six of his articles are directly mentioned in an paper largely couched in general terms. These examples form a significant fraction of the limited number of specific examples that support the basic points, even though Hufford is responding to Schneiderman. Dr Barrett's Quackwatch aticles are cited as *outstanding* examples of systematic bias. *Any* academic mention of Dr Barrett is very interesting & impressive. Addition of SB's articles or nouns like "author" to the "Barrett" parts shows a significant portion of the article involved.
Longtime editors here realize that Dr Barret's legal presences would make a fairly good round of Where in the USA is Carmen San Diego and has been cited for concerns related to chilling effects (e.g. SLAPP) as well as other institutional issues, academic notability considerations (WP lists only two minor peer reviewed medical papers, one criticized for its statistical handling of two data groups by different methods as one - hence lots of deviation, and the other challenged for scientific format and ethics), and publication biases limiting his or similar coverage in journals. I actually have heard hard science professor with brand name pedigrees, at the mention of Dr Barrett on (bio)medical topics, the first words out of mouth include "see...lawyers". The Hufford - Kauffman material forms a valid academic expression of the altmed problems with SB-QW where there really is very little academic material on Dr Barrett, yea or nay, and are very notable in that light.
Fyslee's discussion seems to go beyond mere OR into outright speculation on Dr Barrett's involvement on the more recent JAMA paper with the Rosas. Also the comment ...blinding is a form of "deception" forgets the informed consent part.
Even if Fyslee were correct about Dr Barrett being "after the dance" on all the data portion(s), as senior medical author with respect to the JAMA paper, Dr Barrett carries the bulk of the responsiblity on scientific validity, ethical reporting and transmittal in the context of Hufford's criticism on the JAMA paper. And yes, if little QW's bias is more obvious and commented upon than ...most mainstream publications, that's pretty notable.--I'clast 01:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
There is too much WP:WEIGHT being given to the Hufford bit. Agreed?  Mr.Guru  talk  01:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

There is indeed no question about the notability of an "adamant critic" like Barrett, who shares the same systemic biases found in "most mainstream publications." (He isn't "different", just more "obvious" and thus noticeable.) That's why Wikipedia's WEIGHT policy is "Barrett-friendly" and "QW-friendly", as well as protecting against the need for using OR to establish notability enough for meeting inclusion criteria here. Barrett is not "cutting edge" (the term is often a red flag for a pusher of already disproven quackery such as H. Clark) or fringe, unlike many forms of alternative medicine or their proponents, who thus find themselves in unfriendly territory here. His critics are usually fringe (regardless of even multiple doctorates and professorships) or consider themselves to be cutting edge (they're "on the wrong side of the knife"...;-) They thus find themselves "on the wrong side of the (policy) knife" as far as being able to establish notability here, or being considered V & RS. They just don't make the grade. That's the way Wikipedia works. -- Fyslee/talk 04:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Then again there are times when the QW articles are loudly, flat out wrong, such as the points by a Nobelist that correctly pointed out serious, elementary problems in positions adopted by Quackwatch (statements other nonQW medical authors deliberate misrepresentation of tests termed by Nobelist as "fraud") and subsequently verified by NIH, 2005, but still uncorrected at QW.--I'clast 11:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Hufford

I'm don't see how we can possibly present any of the in light of BLP and NPOV:

David Hufford, as a Professor at Pennsylvania State College of Medicine, wrote a peer reviewed paper in Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics that specifically cited five of Barrett's Quackwatch articles, per Joel M Kaufman's Watching the Watchdogs at Quackwatch[12] paper, as exemplary sources of systematic bias by the strongest critics in the anti-CAM literature. Kauffman had evaluated eight Quackwatch articles and concluded that were they "contaminated with incomplete data, obsolete data, technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo..." Hufford also noted Barrett's co-authorship with a fourth grader in a controversial paper[13] published in JAMA,[14] a paper that Hufford, also a faculty member of the Master in Bioethics Program at the University of Pennsylvania, described as "...presents serious ethical problems in...actual deceit".[15]

--Ronz 20:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Such a denialist/pro QW partisan POV has long overwhelmed this article, your objection is not properly policy based.--I'clast 22:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I think Emily is libeled by the Hufford quote. There has been no evidence presented that she didn't get the idea of the study from her parents' work, and then go on to perform the study with the assistance of her parents and Barrett.
As an aside, as an occasional science fair judge, professional assistance is common. Our (the judges) "job" includes determining how the student got the idea for the project and what work the student actually did. Also, one of the fifth grade students proved a mathematical result which I had found difficult when I was at CalTech, and she understood what she did.
WP:BLP with respect to Emily may require removal of this section. Barrett can take care of himself, I'm sure. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Since this is a *peer reviewed* paper in the Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics by a professor of bioethics, that is pure original research and miscontrues the situation, Arthur. Hufford does not say Emily didn't conceive it, he criticizes the paper's publication in JAMA, *not* as a science fair project, and the professional / scientific ethics issues that apply to *all* JAMA authors, even Emily (also unmentioned in WP's Stephen Barrett article text). Also I am unaware of any challenge (Rosas, Schneiderman, Dr Barrett, NCAHF, QW) in the succeeding 4+ yrs, where surely Schneiderman was immediately aware of this paper.--I'clast 00:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I don't recall Mercola objecting either in the last four years to the publication of his identity or the restitution.....OR my a**! POT -- Fyslee/talk 01:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I first edited th Mercola article because he had criticized Wikipedia's reliability following WP's treatment of his bio, and new, ill-prepared editors were coming in from offsite. As for Arthur's statement and yours, "restitution" is your unsupported original research, word not present, where to my eyes Dr Barrett may have settled far too cheap on nuisance value alone, if Mercola is successful as many seem to think or considering the probable waste on legal fees already expended for SB's withdrawn Pennsylvania suit against him, much less the costs in time and money associated with BvR. Again, Dr Barrett mentioned insurers without adequate specivity between individual and others. Separately, "restituted" here would be as much OR as if some editors say "cadged" or "exhorted".--I'clast 03:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so "restitution" may be the wrong word to use. (My English is frequently "rusty" after 24 years away from the USA.) What word would better fit the situation? -- Fyslee/talk 21:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I think "payment" or "settlement" rather than "restitution". (Calling it a "settlement" may be OR, but it's clear that Barrett's suit was withdrawn and that he claims to have received a $50,000 settlement.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
"Payment" is too nonspecific and only refers to an exchange of money for services or anything else. "Settlement" implies payment for resolution of a disagreement (which is certainly the case here!), and it's not OR since it isn't our term but Barrett's. We can include it by NPOVing it, which is usually done by simply naming him as the source of the term and supplying the source, which is allowed under SELFPUB. -- Fyslee 22:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Arthur Rubin for following WP:TALK, and discussing the issue. First, the descriptions of the sources should be unnecessary: the authors, the publications, and type of publication. --Ronz 16:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

There is too much WP:WEIGHT being given to the Hufford piece bit. I will NPOV it along with the section.  Mr.Guru  talk  23:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Wholesale deletion is not NPOVing see discussion[23].--I'clast 01:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Wholesale deletion is NPOVing. See: WP:WEIGHT.  Mr.Guru  talk  01:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not asking for wholesale deletion. I'm trying to discuss problems. Please discuss per WP:TALK or find something else to do somewhere else. Thanks. --Ronz 01:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I will replace it with better and more neutral language. Per NPOV.  Mr.Guru  talk  06:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm out of here

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)

What???? I assume something has happened offsite in USENET and I have zero presence there.--I'clast 23:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
...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)
Something to remember [24] Shot info 01:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I would like to thank all the editors who convienced me not to leave. Thank you. --CrohnieGalTalk 16:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
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)

[edit] Donna Ladd

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)

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)

[edit] Eng

Eng's SciPICH "endorsement" (Dr. Who? Diagnosing Medical Fraud May Require a Second Opinion., 1999) was very short lived. First he flip flops, ...Eng later backed away from' his Quackwatch endorsement, saying consumers should question Barrett's site as well as those it targets.... Now there is no trace, not a mention that I can find of Dr Barrett or Quackwatch on the final record and publications of the SciPICH site ( Updated: 07/11/02) or, especially, at its Resource Center (Updated: 05/18/01). Both facts carry the implication of reversal if not repudiation. The information is obsolete at best from a long defunct organization (site inactive > five years), self impeached by the original speaker/director, and absent in the site's remaining records and referral related resource links. Spoctacle's edit is not lede quality material or NPOV coverage of Eng's SciPICH-QW discussion.--I'clast 01:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Me thinks the lead should be balanced. Agreed?  Mr.Guru  talk  01:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Not with Eck's reversal / repudiation in lede, too complex. A momentary "endorsement" reversed / repudiated is a complex, false light, best left out. If you want a paragraph somewhere below, well sounds like less useful filler that requires Ladd's quote on reversal for balance, space consuming considering what is already left out.--I'clast 01:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Me thinks there is plenty of space in the lead to "balance" the lead. Barrett has critics as well as supporters. Agreed?  Mr.Guru  talk  01:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The panel recommended quackwatch, and of course quackwatch is all over the database of reliable info provided by the govt [25]Spoctacle 02:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

While the Eng endorsement was verbally withdrawn in a pressed situation (he decided to be politically correct), it was an endorsement, but it's ancient history and not worth using. There are myriad other sources that are current and very viable possibilities. The list of sources above is just a shadow of the enormous number of times where official organizations, libraries, universities, professors, etc. recommend Quackwatch as a very noteworthy source of useful information. Our problem would be how to avoid making a linkfarm of all these sources. All this recognized noteworthiness of a positive nature in spite of its foibles, inaccuracies, and the personal legal problems of the main author. Fortunately these organizations and individuals can see that its weaknesses do not negate its great worth. Maybe that's because they - being representative of and believers in mainstream science - aren't protecting some vested interest in a questionable therapy or theory that has been criticized by Quackwatch. I wish that some editors here could also understand that fact. Instead we see constant attacks that focus on small details and ignore the big picture. We even see critical editors who claim to be skeptics who protest every time the word "quackery" appears anywhere at Wikipedia. That is very telling. 04:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyslee (talk • contribs)

Well, reference number 37 verifies the text and we can also add more info from other sources to the body of the article.  Mr.Guru  talk  04:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
At the moment, this is what we have available for the lead.  Mr.Guru  talk  04:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Credibility as a source

We can start a new section or add to the article information about Barrett's Quackwatch as a credible source. We can also decide what we will use in the lead from which references say Barrett's Quackwatch is credible. There is always two sides to the coin. There are critics as well as supporters.  Mr.Guru  talk  04:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

There is quite a lot of information on various authorities endorsing Barrett's contributions to Quackwatch and anti-fraud, including sources from the Lancet, BMJ (British medical journal) and others. And Barrett has associations and cooperation with the American consumer groups, and endorsement by the Health On the Net Foundation (HonCode) organization. I'll sort out the sources and present them here. Spoctacle 05:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks in advance. I tried to google for the source, but, despite seeing enough clues to get convinced that it is probably sourcable, didn't yet find any that could withstand the certain-to-continue attacks. Digwuren 05:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The currently asserted SciPICH "credibility endorsement"[26] is a clear POV & WP:V violation, misrepresenting Eng's retraction and its absent, without a trace, status now. I am going to update SciPICH status, add references and move to Quackwatch notability section where statement pertains to section title.--I'clast 10:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The SciPICH Quackwatch = Credible source fact is supported by the established source. Its not POV. What is POV is the statement by Ladd, that Eng later backed away from his Quackwatch endorsement. Thats POV. It is a fact that Eng made the sort of qualifier that any skeptic, authority, or reasonable person would make, that: consumers should question Barrett's site as well as those it targets. "The government doesn't endorse Web sites," Eng says. Still, he says, "Quackwatch is the only site I know of right now looking at issues of fraud and health on the Internet."
Rest easy I'clast, I will make absolutely certain that the SciPICH statement in the lead section is devoid of the word "endorse/d". Instead we can stick totally to the main and pertinent fact that SciPICH "named it as a credible source for exposing fraudulent online health information". Spoctacle 12:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

More sources pertaining to the credibility/usefulness of Barrett's Quackwatch

  • In Ethical, Scientific, and Educational Concerns With Unproven Medications W Steven Pray. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education. Alexandria: 2006. Vol. 70, Iss. 6; pg. O1, 14 pgs, Quackwatch is named as a reliable source together with Skeptical Enquirer, specifically for Pharmacy Course on Unproven Medications and Therapies.
  • In: Medical quackery squashers on the web, Marilynn Larkin. The Lancet. London: May 16, 1998. Vol. 351, Iss. 9114; pg. 1520, 1 Names Quackwatch as the premier site for exposing purveyors of health frauds, myths, and fads.
  • In: If It Walks like a Duck . . . : Concerns about Quackery in Marketing Education, Lawrence B Chonko. Journal of Marketing Education. Boulder: Apr 2004. Vol. 26, Iss. 1; pg. 4, 13 pgs Chonko states “Many of the thoughts on which this article is based are adapted from materials found on this site”. (referring to Quackwatch)
  • In: Propagation of the Absurd: demarcation of the Absurd revisited Wallace Sampson, Kimball Atwood IV. Medical Journal of Australia. Pyrmont: Dec 5-Dec 19, 2005. Vol. 183, Iss. 11/12; pg. 580, 2 pgs Sampson states that “CAM source information tends to exclude well known critical and objective web pages such as those found on Quackwatch (www.quackwatch.org).”
  • In: Internet hoaxes: How to spot them and how to debunk them Eleese Cunningham, Wendy Marcason. American Dietetic Association. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. Chicago: Apr 2001. Vol. 101, Iss. 4; pg. 460, 1 pgs. Cunningham and Marcason state that “Two Web sites that can be useful in determining hoaxes are www.quackwatch.com and www.urbanlegends.com”.

Regards Spoctacle 13:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I will move some of the text to its own section and shorten the lead and restore some deleted text to the lead.  Mr.Guru  talk  06:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I will also add the info you provided to the article. Please review.  Mr.Guru  talk  06:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

In keeping with previous decisions regarding material that has the website as the primary focus, I think most of this section should be moved to the Quackwatch article. -- Fyslee / talk 05:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Done.  Mr.Guru  talk  17:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chilling effects (e.g. SLAPP)

Above, mention is made that "Dr Barret's legal presences ... has been cited for concerns related to chilling effects (e.g. SLAPP)." Yes, his critics often use this complaint without providing any evidence at all of its truthfulness. They correctly assume that gullible souls who love to see Barrett criticized will just believe it. In fact, none of his libel suits could ever have any effect on the abilities of his critics to continue to publish their nonsensical theories or sell the products which Barrett criticizes! They are just using this as a misplaced criticism. His libel suits are specifically directed at libel about his person and professional status, not against all the other nonsense these people are publishing. In this case it certainly isn't. The sequence of events is also rather interesting, and it shows these critics are themselves to blame for becoming the subjects of the libel suits:

  1. Some promoter of a method or theory usually gets in trouble with the police, FDA, or FCA;
  2. Barrett then reports it and writes some criticism of their method and their theories (occasionally he starts writing before they get in trouble, but not often);
  3. Those criticized do not respond to his criticisms (which would be the proper thing to do), but instead go directly after Barrett and attack his person, motives, professional status, etc.. They use ad hominem and straw men attacks, false innuendos, outright lies, conspiracy theories, etc. NOTE: they do not debunk his criticsms!;
  4. He has then, in certain aggravated cases, sued them for libel, which has no effect on their ability to continue their activities, promotions, and sales. It is only directed at stopping them from libeling him.

In certain notable cases, such as with Hulda Clark, Barrett had nothing to do with her getting busted in a well-planned sting operation, her immediate flight, her status as a fugitive from justice for many years, or her subsequent arrest in California many years later. He first became aware of her and commented on her after all these events, yet he became the immediate target of the biggest smear campaign yet effected against him. He hadn't had anything to do with her problems! He then sued for libel (and all the other libel suits are related to that one case) and then sued the one source of that libel, and that case was so aggravated that the judge remanded it to further trial, which is upcoming.

So just because a critic makes a complaint does not mean it's true, and a repetition of such invalid and misplaced criticisms has no place here. Such repetitions do not increase the credibility of editors who do so. -- Fyslee/talk 06:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

  1. Dr Barrett has been associated with a number of kinds of suits, hearings and trials, of varying degrees of responsibility and initiative.
  2. Since there are narrowly defined and then related version of suits classed as SLAPP, I realize there are "pro" Barrett and less pro Barrett positions whether he has lost suits on a SLAPP basis. Would you say "no" on a narrow version, "yes" on a wide version of SLAPP rulings against SB is accurate enough (since some of the prevailing parties class themselves as SLAPP victors)?
  3. Hulda is a distractor, from some of the MD or PhD conflicts concerning Dr Barrett, that do have a biological basis and better observed clinical claims, sometimes much better than the mainstream critics who may have done nothing physically relevant before negatively pontificating.
It is not that Dr Barrett has not criticized quacks, I am sure he has. The problem here is that many are trying to present Dr Barrett as a reliable source with close enough to 100% to ignore the difference, as "picture perfect", a false proposition already recognized by the WP arbs. More proper questions are perhaps what are the frequency and severity of flaws in his papers. What percentage of the papers are fatally flawed. How likely is one to identify and compensate for bias and errors. I realize that we will not agree on quantitative answers. What disturbs several editors here is that in essence the "QW defenders" refuse to admit and allow significant V RS criticism or examples thereof, distort wording, claim undue weight when truly the weight of QW fluff is still a problem, and ignore WP:V when it suits them (e.g. SciPICH retracted, but its original "endorsement" is still alive here dispite mention of the retraction in the original source and source text research (per Jimbo) that shows its absence; SciPICH's current "endorsement is NOT VERIFIED), yielding an article that is greatly inaccurate, POV advertising.--I'clast 10:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Regarding point 1 above, what other cases than the libel cases have brought forth complaints of a "chilling" effect? I recall the loudest complaints of that type were from Bolen, Hulda Clark, and Ilena Rosenthal, all cases where Barrett had not written about them before they were already in trouble in one way or another with others, IOW he had not been involved at all in their cases. In the case of IR, he had not even written about breast implants or ever mentioned or attacked her before she attacked him. She has since been reaping what she has sown by her unprovoked attacks. -- Fyslee/talk 03:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Moved SciPICH to QW Notability[27]--I'clast 11:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger Proposal

See the talk page at Talk:Quackwatch. Shot info 00:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that bird has been shot down several times and there is no new or different reason to allow it to even take off again. -- Fyslee/talk 05:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to be bold and remove it. This bird has not only been shot down, it has been roasted, eaten, digested, and now is some effluent polluting our oceans. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 12:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you and also got bold and removed it from the QW article. This was already discussed in the past. --CrohnieGalTalk 14:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Credibility as a source

This section is better suited for Quackwatch article (where it is already essentially repeated). -- Levine2112 discuss 19:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Grumble. I should read the whole talk page before I comment. I quite agree, except I don't think it's repeated as well there. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC alert

I figure a number of editors here might be interested in this:

-- Fyslee / talk 19:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Credibility as a source (revisited)

The section seems fine, especially in light of the criticisms still in the article. --Ronz 22:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Having a section which described Barrett's credibility is fine. Having a section which describesd Quackwatch's credibility is misplaced. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Not when the criticisms don't make the same distinction. --Ronz 22:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
All of the criticsm currently in the article is specifically about Barrett and Barrett's writing. There is no general criticsm about Quackwatch. However, the "Credibility as a Source" only provides credibility claims about Quackwatch in general and not about Barrett specifically. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
As long as we have a criticism section we will have a credibility section too. It is what WP:NPOV is all about. Agreed?  Mr.Guru  talk  23:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
No, that is not what NPOV is about at all. I suggest you reread the policy. What is relevent here is that the criticism is about Barrett's credibility. It there are sources specifically supporting Barrett's credibility, by all means include them here. However, what we have now are sources supporting the credibility of Quackwatch in general - which is more appropriate for the Quackwatch article. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
This meets the inclusion criteria though and Barrett is very notable for Quackwatch which include his writings. Critics are quick to criticize Barrett writings. Barrett has critics as well as supporters. This brings balance and thus NPOV. Understand?  Mr.Guru  talk  23:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
That is not what NPOV is about at all (but it is a common misunderstanding about the policy which many editors make). Please reread the policy. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

"All of the criticsm currently in the article is specifically about Barrett and Barrett's writing." If that's what we're trying to accomplish in the criticism section, then we've failed. Perhaps we should remove all sources that don't differentiate between Barrett and Quackwatch? If you look at the sources, that means all the sources for the criticism section, which means removing the criticism section. --Ronz 23:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

No. The critical sources make the disctinction between Barrett and Quackwatch. Specifically, the criticisms which are included in this article are specifically about Barrett and HIS writing on Quackwatch. Conversely, the Credibility as a Source section does not discuss Barrett's credibility as a source, but rather Quackwatch's credibility. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Barrett's main platform is Quackwatch. That is what he is known for. Read the lead. This does meet the inclusion criteria.  Mr.Guru  talk  23:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Let's boil this down to the basic question. Is support of Quackwatch as source the same as support for Barrett as a source? Follow up question: Is criticism of Quackwatch as a source the same as criticism of Barrett as a source? -- Levine2112 discuss 23:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
These two questions are perfectly reasonable and should be answered. -- Fyslee / talk 01:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
The original comments have been refactored and then Levine2112 decided to delete a portion of the discussion again.  Mr.Guru  talk  01:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Which leaves us with the two questions which should be answered without delay. -- Fyslee / talk 01:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

QW info should be at QW. Barrett info here. Has this info been added to QW yet? Shot info 01:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should identify which sources clearly distinguish Barrett from QW? I've taken a look with this in mind and am having a hard time finding any. Given Barrett's association, there always will be and should be overlap between the articles. --Ronz 01:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
The Village Voice article does not.
The Hufford piece does not. --Ronz 03:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
That means either the Credibility section goes back in, or the criticism section (without a third-party source) is removed. Perhaps the sources in the Credibility section should be examined more carefully? --Ronz 03:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
<edit conflict> I know that I have been argueing this point (ie/ criticism against Barratt belongs here, criticism against QW belongs there...) but other more active editors have declined to see it this way. Nevertheless, I concure with your statement. Shot info 03:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
The Village Voice clearly distinguishes when it is referring to Quackwatch and when it is referring to Barrett. The info that we pulled from the piece is clearly about Barrett. Here are some direct quotes (you let me know how this is ambiguous at all): "Barrett depends heavily on negative research and case studies in which alternative therapies do not work, but he says that most case studies that show positive results of alternative therapies are unreliable." and "Barrett believes most alternative therapies simply should be disregarded without further research.
Okay, with that settled, I will look into the Hufford piece next. -- Levine2112 discuss 03:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
"He seems to be putting down trying to be objective," says Peter Barry Chowka, a former adviser to the National Institutes of Health's Office of Alternative Medicine. "Quackwatch.com is consistently provocative and entertaining and occasionally informative," Chowka added. "But I personally think he's running against the tide of history. But that's his problem, not ours." I'm sorry, where is the differentiation made? --Ronz 03:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
"Stephen Barrett's Quackwatch would be more effective if he relied more on research and less on personal beliefs" Again, I don't see any differentiation here either. --Ronz 03:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
"He seems to be putting down trying to be objective." He seems, not it seems. "...if he relied more on research and less on personal beliefs". If he relied, not if it relied. Far be it from me to say that a website can have a "personal" belief. Clearly, Chowka is criticizing Barrett specifically. -- Levine2112 discuss 04:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Interesting personal opinion, but nothing clear about it. Chowka doesn't mention anything written by Barrett other than Quackwatch, so by your logic it belongs in the Quackwatch article. The Village Voice article is specifically about Quackwatch.com, mentioning nothing else by Barrett. --Ronz 04:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
No personal opinion. This is a grammatical fact. In the quotes that are in the criticism section, Ladd and Chowka are criticizing Barrett and his work on Quackwatch. Not Quackwatch in general, but specifically Barrett and Barrett's work. See the difference? -- Levine2112 discuss 05:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Nope. I see no difference. I see no distinction made between what is in Quackwatch and what's written by Barrett. I see no mention of anything written by Barrett not in Quackwatch. I see no mention of anything written in Quackwatch not written by Barrett. I see sources that assume that Barrett is Quackwatch, and that Quackwatch is Barrett. --Ronz 16:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
"I see no distinction made between what is in Quackwatch and what's written by Barrett." Does Barrett write everything in Quackwatch? No. There's the distinction. "I see no mention of anything written by Barrett not in Quackwatch." So? Barrett is still being criticized directly for what and how he contribues to Quackwatch. (IOW, the crits being used are criticizing Barrett directly and Quackwatch indirectly.) "I see sources that assume that Barrett is Quackwatch, and that Quackwatch is Barrett." Really? Which sources? Please provide quotes which seem to make this assumption. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
"Really?" Learn to follow WP:TALK if you expect any response. --Ronz 17:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I wish I knew what you mean here, Ronz. Is there something wrong with using "Really?" Anyhow, you said that you see sources that assume that Barrett is Quackwatch, and that Quackwatch is Barrett. I am merely asking you to provide us with those sources and quotes from those sources which make that assumption. That's all. I just want you to back up what you are saying. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I have been trying to figure out why there is a disagreement above and I think it hinges on two different ways of reading the same sources. Ronz is looking at what is meant, while Levine2112 is looking at what is written in a very literalistic manner which ignores the real meaning. With other sources Levine2112 could use this method perfectly properly, but precisely these two (or maybe just one of them?) need to be understood, rather than parsed in a mechanical manner.

One cannot in the same breath criticize a person (for having written something) without also criticizing what they have written, and one cannot commend a person (for having written something) without also commending what they have written. The criticism and commendation covers both the author and the material produced by that author. One cannot separate an author from his productions, and since Barrett is a key figure in the production of much of the material hosted at Quackwatch, any criticism or commendation of Quackwatch will usually be a criticism or commendation of Barrett personally, unless a particular article at Quackwatch is being discussed, in which case the author of the article would be the subject, and there are hundreds or even thousands of articles and sources hosted at Quackwatch which are not authored by Barrett.

Some of the other sources discussed above may well only belong on the Quackwatch article, but these two seem to belong in both articles. Does my explanation make sense to anyone else?

I interpret it as if both of the writers (Ladd and Chowka) are simultaneously criticizing and commending Barrett and his work in one breath, so to speak. This is also evident in a number of other places where Quackwatch is commended, but where small criticisms are also included. IOW it isn't perfect, and neither is Barrett. Fortunately (IMHO) most mainstream writers and journalists (in contrast to non-mainstream critics) still see the big picture and are very definitely far more commending of the work and mission of Quackwatch and Barrett, and don't allow the small imperfections to get in the way. Non-mainstream critics, OTOH, allow (and seek to find and exaggerate) imperfections to dominate to such a degree that they even dispute the very existence and definition of quackery, obviously because allowing the word to exist automatically condemns and exposes what they are doing. Barring such total denial, they at least in principle allow for the existence of quackery, but will always deny that their practices fit the bill. Basically one is either a quack-buster or a quack-booster, there is no middle ground once one is informed. Those who are against quackery will openly support Quackwatch and Barrett, even while they constructively attempt to improve on Quackwatch and attempt to get Barrett to correct the imperfections they find in his writings and methods. That's why there is such a big watershed of difference between who supports (mainstream sources) and who criticizes (alternative medicine sources). They choose sides and thus expose their leanings. Basically quack-boosters condemn themselves by their practical use of the double negative - one who is anti anti-quackery efforts is pro-quackery. -- Fyslee / talk 16:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Barrett can well be criticzed for what he writes in Quackwatch. And if the source is criticizing Barrett or Barrett's writing (on Quackwatch or anywhere), it can be included in this article. If the source is only criticizing Quackwatch in general, then it should be included at Quackwatch. Likewise, if a source is lauding Barrett or Barrett's writing (on Quackwatch or anywhere) it can be included in this article. If a source is only lauding Quackwatch in general, then it should be included at Quackwatch. Otherwise, why else would we have the two separate articles?
Now then, the criticism section currently only includes criticism of Barrett and his writing. IOW, it's fine. However, this Credibility as a Source section currently only gives sources which support Quackwatch in general as a credible source (not Stephen Barrett or his writing specifically). IOW, it is out of place in this article and should be moved to Quackwatch. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Irrespective of Levine's assertions, this easily meets the inclusion criteria determined by the lead.  Mr.Guru  talk  23:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
You are going to have to show that, rather than just assert it. I believe I have shown why this material is better suited for Quackwatch (where it current is). However, if you think it should be here, might I recommend concurrently forming a consensus at Quackwatch that is should be removed from that article. Currently, there is no consensus to add/move this material here. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Levine claimed: You are going to have to show that, rather than just assert it. Please read the lead. This is easy to understand. We are discusssing matters at the Stephen Barrett article and not Quackwatch. The content of the Quackwatch article is not for using as a bargaining chip here. As I stated before, this does meet the inclusion criteria. Again, please read the lead.  Mr.Guru  talk  23:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
What should I be reading in the lead? Please explain. My position remains that general praise or criticism of Quackwatch belongs at Quackwatch, not at Stephen Barrett. However criticism or praise of Barrett specifically belongs here. If we are going to start to have general praise/criticsm of Quackwatch here, then what's the point of having two distinct articles? -- Levine2112 discuss 00:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I should not have to point out every little detail to you. It is obvious is should be included because it meets the criteria for inclusion. The point to having a Quackwatch article is per WP:WEB. I have answered your questions. Now then, I suggest you self-revert.  Mr.Guru  talk  00:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I think I saw what you menat about the lead. That sentence doesn't belong in this article either. I have deleted it. It would be one thing if we had sources supporting Barrett specifically as a credible source. (If you do, please feel free to add them.) But what I removed here would be equivilent to there being criticism in this article strictly about the unreliability of Quackwatch without any mention of Barrett. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
It does meet the inclusion criteria but Levine did not like that so he deleted it. Uh?  Mr.Guru  talk  01:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it meets inclusion criteria... for the Quackwatch article. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection time again?

The edit-warring (including the personal attacks in the edit summaries) has to stop. I'm happy to request page protection again. Please remember that WP:3RR states, "Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronz (talk • contribs) 01:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Levine2112 felt that he needed to revert it against consensus until a new consensus is agreed to. Anyone else getting a feeling of deja vu? --Ronz 04:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I've requested page protection again. --Ronz 17:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Levine states there is no consensus

There is no consensus to add this material. It will stay out until there is. Remember, this was exactly how you handled policy when we were discussing Barrett's lack of board certification. And the Kauffman criticism. And Pfizer sponsorship. You said that until there was a consensus, the material stays out. Please don't change your position on policy just because this time it suits your position on content. -- Levine2112 discuss 16:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Definitely deja vu. What did we do last time, quote WP:CON? Remind editors not to make demands? --Ronz 16:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Board certification! Is this going to be another epic attempt to force consensus on others? --Ronz 16:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Board certification was revisionism and a gross BLP violation. The Kaufmann criticism was another BLP violation from an unreliable fringe reference. The Pfizer sponsorship was a synthesized controversy and unrelated content. Levine, please read the past discussions and try to understand policy and what was said and determined by policy.  Mr.Guru  talk  23:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Those are your stances on Board Certification, Kauffman and Pfizer. I and others disagreed. We were/are at a stalemate and no consensus could/can be formed. Just like this situation. Until consensus is reached, we should not add this contentious material. See WP:CON and WP:BLP for related infomation. Let's keep discussing this though and stay away from the personal attacks and pointless bickering. I am hopeful that a consensus can be reached this time and perhaps lay the backwards groundwork to include information from past disputes. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Past disputes? It was more like disruption. Any editor who attempts to add back in BLP violations or nonsense to the article again will be greeted with warnings on their talk page. That's a promise.  Mr.Guru  talk  23:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
"Disruption" is your take on it. Regardless, please know that BLP violations can apply to all contentious material - not just negative, but positive and neutral content as well. Therefore, the warnings, blocks and bans policies apply just as much for this contentious "praise" materialas it does for the "criticism" material. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I believe BLP applies primarily to unsourced "negative" material. Other policies deal with unsourced positive material. BLP is concerned with protecting the subject from harm. Unwarranted or undocumented praise does not harm, but may still violate policies here. (Otherwise Levine2112 is basically correct regarding where most of this section should go. That also means the sentence in the lead only belongs in the Quackwatch article.)-- Fyslee / talk 03:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
It seems you are changing your tune. Anyhow, when we have "criticism" we will also have "praise" or its a NPOV violation.  Mr.Guru  talk  00:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean. Please explain. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I am not interested in explaining every little thing.  Mr.Guru  talk  00:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
If you refuse to discuss your rationale with me, then I guess we can't have a meaningful conversation here and we will never be able to reach a consensus. Remember when we were going through the proper dispute resolution channels for the Board Certification material? When it came time to have an official mediation you refused to participate and left us at an impasse. Your refusal to participate in this converstation has put us at the same point. Stuck. Without consensus. So, like the Board Certification material (and the Kauffman material) (and the Pfizer material), this Quackwatch Credibility material hangs in limbo, with nowhere to go. When you are ready to discuss, please let me know and I will gladly participate with you and answer any topcial question which you may pose. I sincerely do look forward to that. Until then... -- Levine2112 discuss 01:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the best articles are produced through the collaborative efforts of editors who hold opposing POV and who truly understand the NPOV policy. Some editors are refusing to discuss. Please do not refuse to discuss. That is very unwikipedian. Regardless of who is right or wrong in the discussion, the one who refuses to discuss is violating the spirit of Wikipedia, and is in the wrong on that fundamental issue. All this bickering is a rather pitiful situation. I wish I could have all of you join me and my wife and I would open another good bottle of wine and we could have a nice time. There are better things to do in life.....at times....;-) -- Fyslee / talk 03:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to take this opportunity to agree with the position that the information regarding Quackwatch being a considered a credible source does not belong in this article. It is most certainly more appropriate for the Quackwatch article. I am in favour of discussion, but I am uncertain if there is anything else to discuss. I suppose that those who are in favour of including this information should layout their position and points clearly and concisely. Does this sound like a reasonable way to move forward? TheDoctorIsIn 04:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
They already have. Please read the past discussions. Please learn this basic practice of participating in Wikipedia. Thanks! --Ronz 15:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I don't know if this is of interest or even usable but....

I came across this and thought I would share it to see what others have to say about it; --CrohnieGalTalk 21:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you find of interest here. A few points: It's an extremely unreliable source, ranking pretty close to Bolen. There is no question that Barrett sides with the mainstream position on fluoridation - he supports it. He also investigates the activities of anti-fluoridationists, just as he investigates the activities of anti-vaccinationists, as well as the activities of other purveyors of nonsense, dangerous ideas, quackery, etc.. That's what he does, so we shouldn't be surprised. -- Fyslee / talk 23:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree. It's nothing that I see could being used. It would never pass RS, and even if it did we'd need other, better sources to determine proper weight. --Ronz 01:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This does get me thinking about something. We have a short listing (which shouldn't grow larger) of some of the many fringe things promoted by alternative medicine advocates that Barrett is against (unethical, unscientific, and quackery-related matters), but we don't have any mention of mainstream things opposed by alternative medicine advocates that he is known to be for (fluoridation, vaccination, etc.). -- Fyslee / talk 03:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

What are you saying above? I have struck out my comment and deleted the link since it sounded like it is useless here. Your statement above though now has me confused on how you feel about it.--CrohnieGalTalk 11:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, I agree that there is nothing said in the article about mainstream items that Barrett is against which was my purpose with the link. --CrohnieGalTalk 12:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I would venture to say that this ([28]) is a reliable source. It comes to us from a book written by Dr. John Yiamouyiannis, a PhD biochemist and the former editor of biochemical editor at Chemical Abstracts Service, the world's largest chemical information center. The former Dr. Yiamouyiannis' expertise in this matter is clear and applicable. According to Barrett, they were close adversaries, so Dr. Yiamouyiannis' take on Barrett and Barrett's work is completely relevent to this article. Furthermore, "FLUORIDE ... The Aging Factor" is a published work. Let's explore possible ways for inclusion. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"It would never pass RS, and even if it did we'd need other, better sources to determine proper weight." I'm glad we have the page protected this time round, so we don't even have to mention the BLP issues. --Ronz 18:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Who are you quoting above? I really do think that this meets WP:RS. It is written by an authority relevant to the subject at hand and it is a published work. Why don't you think it meets WP:RS? Specifically, I think that Dr. Y's comparison of Orwell's "Newspeak" to Barrett's writing would make a nice addition to the criticism section. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
My objections to it are related to BLP issues with many people and organizations, and that it's a conspiracy theory of such base and distorted proportions as to make it good company with Lisa's garbage in a bonfire. It's about as reliable as the National Enquirer. It's unreliable, poorly documented, rumor mongering, and extremely fringe propaganda from a paid spin doctor for the NHF, which is even more unreliable than Big Pharma is claimed to be. They are supporters of the industry which produces scam products. They are the official "Big Pharma" of the alternative medicine scam industry. -- Fyslee / talk 21:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
We have the article protected, so no need to discuss further. It's all been said many, many times. --Ronz 23:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Fyslee, this is your POV of this organization and shouldn't reflect on whether it is a reliable source or not. I personally have no opinion on Dr. Y or the site it is listed on. Is it well-documented by some neutral source that Dr. Y is a poor source or unreliable? The only criticism of Dr. Y which I was able to find was by Barrett himself. I think the Fluoride issue is a big one in Barrett's history and needs mentioning.
Ronz, we are in "article protected" mode so we CAN discuss without the edit warring; not so that we avoid discussion (as you seem to insinuate above). If you don't wish to discuss the content issues, fine. But please then refrain from adding your unhelpful comments. Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is my opinion of the NHF and especially of that piece written by Dr. Y. From what I know of those issues, his writings on the matter have about as little documentation as the writings of Lisa, Bolen, and IR (who is banned here). Their conspiracy theories amount to taking a smidgin of fact, put it on fire, notice that it makes smoke, then claim that because it smokes it is somehow related to some other matter that also makes smoke when it burns, and because the two unrelated matters are in the same hemisphere on Earth they are both in direct collusion as part of a vast conspiracy and are even being paid by the same paymasters. Of course to those who are prone to believe in such conspiracy theories, it's all absolutely solidly proven, without any doubt at all. Whatever. That's my considered opinion based on what I know of those matters and the sources I have seen quoted by them. If you can make more out of it without resorting to WP:SYNTH, and using other independent sources that actually are reliable (not NHF or Dr. Y.), then you can make a case for the fact that Barrett believes in fluoridation (just like the rest of the mainstream medical and governmental institutions, so it wouldn't be notable enough for inclusion in any depth), and that's about it. Anything else would just be a matter for the fluoridation article and NHF article and would not concern Barrett, but might implicate the NHF in their unsavory activism against fluoridation. Barrett also happens to believe in exercise, sensible eating, adequate sleep, that the world is round, that vaccinations are generally a good thing, that the oceans are composed of salt water, and many other non-notable facts most people believe in.
Now if you want to mention that Barrett is for fluoridation and has written on it, fine. That's easy to document and link to what he says on it. We can do that in one sentence. But if you're going to turn this article into a platform for his opponents to get their anti-fluoridation views aired, I would question the wisdom of such a move. I really have no idea what you have in mind, so please let us know. -- Fyslee / talk 02:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
My thought wasn't to offer this article up as a platform to aire the anti-fluordation views of Dr. Y. That would be inappropriate for this article; perhaps better suited for the fluordation article. My thought is that Dr. Y seems to have been a lifelong professional adversary of Barrett's. According to Barrett's write-up on Dr. Y after his death, they were kind of a friendly arch-nemesis for each other. Given that much of Barrett's notability comes from his pro-fluoridation work, I would think that Dr. Y's criticism is entirely germane (and important) to this article. I don't know much about Dr. Y, but I doubt that we can equate him with a Bolen. Dr. Y had a cause which was opposed to Barrett's cause. Bolen's cause is to oppose Barrett. See the difference?
Anyhow, Dr. Y's comparison of Barrett's writing to Orwellian "Newspeak" is quite astute and analytical and certainly a different from the usual name-calling criticisms this article has seen. I think it would make a fine addition to this article. -- Levine2112 discuss 03:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Bingo on the difference between Dr. Y and TB. The similarity comes when Dr. Y. uses or repeats a number of conspiracy theory allegations and either directly or indirectly attempts to smear Barrett with guilt by association. But yes, there is a difference between the two. Dr. Y. also had an education, in contrast to TB. I would question whether "much of Barrett's notability comes from his pro-fluoridation work,...." That would only be true in certain limited circles, and only because of the activism of Darlene Sherrell, not because of Barrett's pro-fluoridation activities, AFAIK. IOW his notability on the matter would be because of other's activism and attacks on him, not his own activism. Mind you, I could be wrong.
Are you intending to do this with every matter of controversy involving Barrett's opinions - writing a section giving his opposition opportunity to air their views? Or is it limited to this one matter? -- Fyslee / talk 04:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
If we have good source such as Dr. Y which presents novel and relevent information, I would like to see it included - criticism, praise, neutral information - they should all be treated the same. P.S. Just because a source cites conspiracies, doesn't make that site unreliable. Sometimes "they" really are after you... Remember Wilk v. AMA? -- Levine2112 discuss 04:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
True enough. Conspiracies do exist, but we can't report on them until they are proven to exist, IOW after the fact using RS. Until then they can usually be chalked up to paranoia, wishful thinking, or direct libel, which is often the case. But back to Dr. Y.....so you just see him as another possible critic that can be cited? Is that correct? -- Fyslee / talk 04:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
As a skeptic, I don't chalk up conspiracy theories (or any theories for that matter) to paranoia, wishful thinking or direct libel unless there is evidence to support such a claim. Otherwise, I would be no better than the person who creates conspiracy theories just to libel another. Essentially, I keep a fair and open mind. I never assume that a conspiracy theory is bunk, I assume it may be plausibele, just prove it to me. My pet-peeve are people who claim to be skeptics but are too quick to write off a theory as bunk or quackery or phoney-boloney before they even look at all of the evidence. As for Dr. Y, I see him as someone who had close professional experience with Barrett and as such has provided an interesting and personal and well-qualified critique of Barrett's writing. That's really all I know of him. -- Levine2112 discuss 05:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not trying to start another feud. We all know that Barrett is pro-floride. Now shouldn't something be in this article about this? If not my link, which is fine, but other information?--CrohnieGalTalk 13:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

While I think the source you provided does lend reliable source support to Barrett's pro-fluoride work, it also provides us with an interesting criticism which I believe should be included in this article. Perhaps - and this would be a radical change to the article - it would be better to discuss Barrett more notable views in a section coupled with the criticism he gets for holding those views. This could - in effect - be a way to remove/limit the actual criticisms section by incorporating the information throughout the article. And it will provide a chance for discussion of Barrett's more significant viewpoints. This wouldn't mean that the article becomes a soapbox for Barrett's views, but rather just provide a summary of the ones he is more notable for. In the same way, the article wouldn't be a soapbox for his detractors but merely provide summaries of criticisms as they relate to Barrett's more notable views. I think this is the way an article should be written; rather than breaking the criticism section out into its own section. Anyhow, this would be a lot of work and would require a lot of collaboration. Despite past fireworks here, I am confident that we would all be up for the challenge and I really believe it could help us work through some of our issues as editors. Just my two-cents for today. Let me know if this is a ludicrous idea or not. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
It sounds interesting and could bring this article up a notch. It goes along with what Fyslee was thinking about above, but can you guys do it without getting each other banned for life? ---- Dēmatt (chat) 03:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I am optimistic to a fault, I guess. But I would love to hear everyone else's two-cents on this. -- Levine2112 discuss 03:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Above I asked you: "Are you intending to do this with every matter of controversy involving Barrett's opinions - writing a section giving his opposition opportunity to air their views? Or is it limited to this one matter?"
It appears that you are intending to expand this article to make it a reenactment of every war Barrett has been in, even when it was not at his own initiation. Is this a proper use of Wikipedia? Can you find other examples of this manner of writing a biographical article? Have you really considered the Pandora's box you will be opening, especially for chiropractic (since that is his most active and best documented area of controversy)? It would be a Pyrrhic victory for the profession, but without the "victory". On the contrary. -- Fyslee / talk 04:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Fyslee, for me, I thought this would be a good addition since there is a lot of information about his and other thoughts of Floridation. I don't agree with breaking it down to everything that Barrett has been involved in with the anti-floride people. If we do it the way you suggested above and what Dematt agreed with you about then I too think it could be a good asset to this article, that is if warring and and so forth doesn't start. I reallly thought this could be put in as a generic type of comment. With the Floridation, correct me if I am wrong, there was a lawsuit about it against Barrett, and in time I think he lost the case. Basically all I am saying is that this would add something new to the article that shouldn't, hopefully, cause disputes. But if this suggestion of mine is going to get out of control, then I say lets just drop it and archive this thread.--CrohnieGalTalk 14:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I am all for bringing this article up to snuff. And if that menas addressing what Barrett is best known for, then so should it be. I am not sure what Fyslee means by "Pyrrhic victory without the victory"; I think he could find a better phrase to mean what he means, but it does sound like a veiled threat. I think he thinks that by discussing that Barrett is pro-fluordation (or more specifically anti- anti-fluordation), that will mean we can discuss his whole platform on fluoridation (likewise with chiropractic, etc.) This is not the case as it would violate WP:SOAPBOX. However, I agree with Chronie and Dematt here that Barrett's notable views should be discussed in brief and notable criticism of Barrett's views on those particular subjects should be noted as well; all organized together rather than putting Barrett's views here and all of the criticism there. That's all. Again, I am confident that we can make this a reality if we all behaved civilized and drop the veiled threats and personal attacks. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
No "veiled threat" at all. Just a statement of fact. If you open Pandora's box, we don't know what can happen, but the door will have been opened. I am naturally cautious ("once burned...") about your intentions. I'm just not sure. It seems to me that you intend to make this article, which should be about Barrett, into a soapbox for his detractors. Is that a proper use for a biographical article? Since many of his critics can't get notable entry here in other ways, it seems you are proposing to improperly use Barrett's article as a coatrack for their usually fringe views. If there is mention at all, then it should be short without detailed elaboration, and let readers go to the sources themselves if they are curious, but we are thus opening the door for access to sources that are not RS, since many of his detractors' sources are quite unreliable and not allowed as references or external links. They are often very partisan and the subjects of lawsuits, thus possibly violating COI/BLP. The reference to "Pyrrhic victory" simply refers to the cost-benefit ratio, IOW it isn't worth it and is forever regretted. Pandora is a vicious mistress....;-) -- Fyslee / talk 17:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
This article shouldn't be a means by which to list Barrett's position on everything; nor should it be about Barrett's detractors positions on everything. No boxes are being opened because this is an article about Barrett and his work. Let's continue to have it discuss Barrett and his work, and in the same mention of describing the notable pieces of his work, we have his critic's position on Barrett and his work. This article is not about Homeopathy or Fluoridation or Acupuncture or Osteopathy or whatever. This is about Barrett and his work. That means that the criticism is also about Barrett and his work. Reliable sources of criticism we have a-plenty. However, certain sources are better than others; especially third-party published sources, sources with qualifications to make such assessments, etc. Remember, just because Barrett sued someone for saying something does not mean that it is off-limits for this article. Most everything which Barrett has sued for has never proven to be libel by several levels of US courts all the way up to the state supreme court level. We all know that we have a lot of Barrett criticism from a whole host of sources - including Dr. Y. Our challenge is to choose the best of the best and to find a way to incorporate them directly into the article rather than having a separate criticism section. That is all that I am describing above, so I am unclear where you are getting your position to lodge such threats/warnings that by incorporating the criticisms into the article, we are somehow going to be opening a pandora's box of problems. Please explain what you mean or sit back and reserve the right to say "I told you so" at a later date. ;-) -- Levine2112 discuss 17:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Summary: You are indeed proposing to improperly use Barrett's article as a coatrack and soapbox for his detractors and their fringe views. -- Fyslee / talk 07:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree, and think "proposing" is being used here to kindly overlook past behavior. --Ronz 16:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


Incorrect. By adding and rearranging information that only pertains to Barrett and his work, it would be impossible to turn this into a coatrack article. We have to stay focused here and on target. Barrett's detractors will only be heard here for their criticism of Barrett and his work. If they have a fringe view about science or medicine, that won't be heard here. As I said, this article is about Barrett and his notable work. That's all. Let's make it even more focussed on that and I guarantee we won't have a soapbox/coatrack article. It would be impossible. (Ronz, I am deleting your unhelpful attack on me. Let's move past the incivility please.) -- Levine2112 discuss 17:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked/banned editors

Arbitration Committee banned Ilena has posted to this article/talk page. Arbitration Committee banned Ilena and SSP indefinitely blocked Scrotel both have used the 75.83.171.237 IP address. See User Talk. NielsMayer and Nielsp have been blocked indefinitely as sockpuppets of Scrotel. See SSP report. If you are aware of any attempts to circumvent these bans/blocks, please consider making a report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. -- Jreferee t/c 18:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious, but what brought on your reasons to make this post? If it's something that can't be discussed here I understand, just curious if there is something the editor's here should be aware of. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 21:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Old Pseudoskepticism discussion link

The discussion is a bit hard to find, but is here: Talk:Stephen_Barrett/Archive_7#Pseudoskepticism. Sorry about that. --Ronz (talk) 18:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not detect any consensus against the inclusion of the "see also" link. . . Do you?TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I reverted the edit for exactly the reason I stated, "blp violation - see discussions on talk page".
Arthur Rubin, said something similar when he reverted your edit that undid mine, "Per BLP, a RS actually has to say "Pseudoskeptism" before we can use it." --Ronz (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudoskepticism Link

I see the link to pseudoskepticism has been removed. I fail to see why this entry should not feature this link. Scientific peer review always features a final assessment of the reviewer with regard to bias, conflicts of interest, etc. However, Barrett is essentially free to write whatever he pleases, from an essentially preordained viewpoint. Tell me why this would not qualify as pseudoskepticism? Unless I see some sign that his writings are externally refereed or obey some of the basics of being-evidence based, such as Cohen's kappa, I can only advance the question that if the Barrett entry doesn't qualify as a portal for the discussion of pseudoskeptism, what does?

67.86.33.246 (talk) 17:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moved to talk for discussion: dismissal of claims

Given all the past discussion we've had, I moved this new addition to the article by a new editor. Seems pretty trivial and getting off-topic:

The Court did affirm both the dismissal of plaintiff Barrett's claims, finding the statements in question to be non-actionable statements of opinion, as well as so much of the lower court's decision that awarded defendant attorney's fees for prevailing on her Anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss. The court did, however, direct that those fees be reduced to reflect its ruling permitting Polevoy to proceed with his claim as outlined at http://www.internetlibrary.com/cases/lib_case331.cfm. Stephen J. Barrett, et al. v. Ilena Rosenthal 9 Cal.Rpt.3d 142, A096451 (Cal. App. Crt., 1st App. Dist., October 15, 2003) reversed 40 Cal.4th 33, S 122953 (Cal. Sup. Ct., November 20, 2006)[11][16]

--Ronz (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree Ronz, plus isn't it close to a WP:BLP problem? Plus, previous conversations have stated to leave Bolin out of the articles esp. it shouldn't be put in this way with only one side stated and Bolin's site is banned so I feel it should be left out. I think it goes off on a tangent that is not needed for the article like you say. Just my opinion of course. --CrohnieGalTalk 21:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] writings of Barrett

In reply to "Sorry but I don't see what this has to do with Dr. Barrett. Please explain on the talk page before reinserting". As it states, the three chapters were written by Barrett. That is what it has to do with Barrett. Should it be under "selected publications" instead? Bubba73 (talk), 22:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If it belongs anywhere, that would be the location, though the individual chapters should probably be identified. --Ronz (talk) 23:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
That said, it might be best to have a reliable source to meet WP:UNDUE, showing that it is notable in Barrett's career. --Ronz (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how these writings of his would be any less significant than the ones already listed. In fact, since they were selected for the book, they might be more significant. Bubba73 (talk), 00:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The book was reviewed in the Sept/Oct 2007 Skeptical Inquirer. I thought I'd seen the review online, but I'm searching for it again. Bubba73 (talk), 00:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Here is a review of the book. " a collection of classic articles written by the pioneers of the critical-thinking and debunking communities. ... but this anthology easily stands upon its own merits with contributions from scholars including Susan Blackmore, Michael Shermer, Stephen Barrett ... " Bubba73 (talk), 00:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, I don't mind information that is produced by Barrett being included as "He has written XXXXX" in his bio. What Bubba has produced above does suggest to me that the info is notable to Barrett's audience. However, isn't encyclopedia.com just a mirror for Wikipedia (so it probably isn't a RS). Shot info (talk) 04:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The encyclopedia.com link I gave is an online version of the Skeptical Inquirer review of the book, and that page isn't a mirror of WP. SI doesn't have that article online, and I couldn't get it through FindArticles.com either, but I found it there. I present it for the notability of the book and Barrett's chapters in it. Another quote from the review: "Paranormal Claims comes with endorsements from Ken Frazier, James Randi, and Ann Druyan, which speaks volumes (excuse the pun), for the importance of this book". Bubba73 (talk), 04:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
You can buy a copy of the review for only $9.95: here. Bubba73 (talk), 05:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The link you provided review of the book on the bottom says it's copywritten. So wouldn't that make this all unusable unless another source is found that isn't protected by copywrite? --CrohnieGalTalk 12:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
That means that we can't use the text of the review (or a major portion of it) in our articles. But that was not my intention. I posted a link to that review just to show the notability of the book and the articles/chapters in it, some of which were written by Barrett. Bubba73 (talk), 15:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blatant WP:BLP violation

Anything further from either of these editors remotely along these lines should result in a block: [29] and [30]. --Ronz (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I kind of remember a lawsuit involving King bio where the judge described Dr. Barrett as such. . . Why are you suggesting a block?TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I remember that also. However, it's only reasonable in context, and the context is not provided here and is not relevant to this article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

So if I give the context of the trial then say (refactored) something along these lines (end refactoring), then that would ok?TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Quick answer: Given the previous discussions on this matter, not very likely.
Complicated answer: Tell us exactly what you are proposing to add, what sources you propose to use, and how WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:LEAD, and especially WP:BLP will not being violated. --Ronz (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Just as soon as you tell us how this line "Numerous sources have cited Stephen Barrett's Quackwatch as a credible or reliable source for online consumer information." does not violate WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:LEAD. 71.191.42.242 (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
We used to have a list of such sources, including Consumer Reports, NIH, and a few state Attorneys General — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
American Cancer Society could be added to that list. Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 07:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
No doubt when one actually look at what the sources say, it won't be quite the same as how it's worded here. But probably best not to dig up the sources and cause a stink, even if it's not true as worded, we all know it's accurate, which is good enough for me! 71.191.42.242 (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Consumer Reports, NIH, and a few state Attorneys General? Please provide the references or links. Perhaps we can improve this article. Quack Guru 22:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Accurate? I certainly don't KNOW that, and I'm not about to BELIEVE it without WP:RS.DigitalC (talk) 09:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Townsend Letters are a RS

The Townsend Letters have been published for about 25 years. It is primarily published by people with MDs and PhDs.. I don't see how this could not be a WP:RS. You'll have to demonstrate it. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 23:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

That ref is not RS. No evidence has been presented. QuackGuru 23:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Added to BLP/N here. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 23:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
In the meantime, the best thing to do is to leave it at the last consensual version until you hear back opinions from BLPN. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BLP violation

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_Barrett&curid=782849&diff=215393929&oldid=215386169 QuackGuru 00:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] no consensus according to the editor who added the material

ImperfectlyInformed has acknowledged there's no consensus. Read the comment as well as the edit summary. This controversial change was made without consensus according to ImperfectlyInformed. QuackGuru 06:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Guess what? A double-negative makes a positive. "There was no consensus ... that Townsend Letters was not a RS". Anyway, see here for the discussion. ImpIn | (t - c) 06:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
There is the issue that there is no consensus to use this ref. And the views of a tiny mirority is a WP:WEIGHT violation. QuackGuru 06:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References

(Please leave this list at the bottom of the page. Thanks!) --Ronz 22:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ Skepdic article on positive pseudo-skeptics
  2. ^ Robert Todd Carroll "Internet Bunk: Skeptical Investigations." Skeptic's Dictionary
  3. ^ Cross A (2004). The Flexibility of Scientific Rhetoric: A Case Study of UFO Researchers. Qualitative Sociology. Volume 27, Number 1 / March, 2004
  4. ^ a b c Editorial Board of Medscape.
  5. ^ Prometheus Books Spring-Summer 2007 Trade Catalog (PDF) p. 63. Retrieved on 2007-03-29.
  6. ^ Barrett, Stephen. "Stephen Barrett, M.D., Biographical Sketch", Quackwatch, June 4, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-08-12. 
  7. ^ Williams, Elaine S. "The JAMA 1998 Editorial Peer Review Audit", Journal of the American Medical Association, April 21, 1999. Retrieved on 2007-08-12. 
  8. ^ "Thanks to Reviewers-2001", Annals of Internal Medicine, December 18, 2001. Retrieved on 2007-08-12. 
  9. ^ "Dismiss by Stipulation or Agreement", Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, April 17, 2003. Retrieved on 2007-09-06. 
  10. ^ Osteopath sued in Illinois.
  11. ^ a b c Barrett SJ. A Response to Tim Bolen. Quackwatch. Retrieved on 2007-02-12.
  12. ^ Kauffmann JM (2002). Website Review: Alternative Medicine: Watching the Watchdogs at Quackwatch, Journal of Scientific Exploration, 16, 2
  13. ^ Shell ER. The Hippocratic Wars, New York Times Magazine, June 28, 1998.
  14. ^ Rosa L, Rosa E, Sarner L, Barrett SJ. (April 1, 1998) A Close Look at Therapeutic Touch. JAMA, Vol. 279, No. 13, pp 1005-1010.
  15. ^ Hufford DJ. David J Hufford, "Symposium article: Evaluating Complementary and Alternative Medicine: The Limits of Science and Scientists." J Law, Medicine & Ethics, 31 (2003): 198-212. Hufford's symposium presentation was the counterpoint for another doctor's presentation, which argued that "alternative medicine" is not medicine at all. See Lawrence J. Schneiderman, "Symposium article: The (Alternative) Medicalization of Life." J Law, Medicine & Ethics, 31 (2003): 191-198.
  16. ^ Barrett, S. "Bogus "Anti-Quackbuster" Suit Withdrawn: Why I am Suing the Lawyer Who Filed It"