Talk:Stephen Barrett/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 →


Contents

Board Certification

This source which was written by Stephen Barrett's lawyers says:

Dr. Barrett is a retired psychiatrist, having completed three years of accredited residency training in psychiatry. It is not necessary to be board-certified to practice psychiatry.

Therefore, according to his lawyers, he is NOT board certified. However, this doesn't say that he failed his exams. Thus, I supply this article from ChiroWeb which quotes opposing counsel:

At trial, while on the stand, Barrett had to admit that he not only gave up his license in 1994, but that he was, in fact, not a board-certified psychiatrist, because he had flunked the examination that was required to receive certification.

Now we have established that not only is Barrett not board certified, but that he failed the exam.

As for the date and the portion of the exam, I don't know where that came from, but I am sure it wasn't pulled out of thin-air. We can research back in this article's history and see from whence it sprang. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, apparently the date and the portion of the exam came straight from the horse's mouth... just a figure of speech, no deprecation intended. ;-) See here that user Sbinfo states:
Dr. Barrett responds: I took the certifying exam in 1964 when about 1/3 of psychiatrists were board-certified. The exam had two halves, psychiatry and neurology. I passed the psychiatric part but failed neurology because it included topics unrelated to either my training or my interests. Unlike most residencies, my psychiatric training program had no neurologic component. Since there was no reason to believe that certifcation was necessary, I decided not to re-take the exam. Sbinfo diff
I think that should confirm everything which was deleted. Any comments or shall we re-instate it? -- Levine2112 discuss 17:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The first source is original research since it draws on a court document and you have not provided a secondary source showing that this aspect of Barrett's career is in any way important. Please see Jimbo's intervention at Christopher Michael Langan for an illustration. The second source is a partisan website, not a reliable source to help us gage the importance or meaning of this detail in Barrett's life. He has never claimed to be a board-certified psychiatrist. The article, after my edit, no longer said anything about this point. This completes the WP:NOR/WP:WEIGHT aspect, the point here not being whether or not it is true, but how it is reported in reliable secondary sources.
The WP:BLP aspect is also illustrated by Jimbo's intervention at Christopher Michael Langan. It is apparent from Barrett's own comments that he does not at all agree with this description of his career. After my edit, it did (since it now agrees with his own description). AvB ÷ talk 18:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't follow your logic here. Barrett says himself that he failed his board certication exam. Do you agree that this is true? That should be all of the source we would need... the other sources only help but aren't neccessary because Barrett himself is stating this fact. Of course this is important. This is as important as any of his degrees or accolades. We are not misrepresenting this fact... in fact we are stating exactly what Barrett himself said. If anything, this satisfies BLP - specifically WP:SELFPUB and BLP (using a subject as a source) - and Barrett himself by clearly stating this fact and citing himself as a source and showing everyone that he is not hiding or misrepresenting this fact. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
It's a pity you do not follow my logic. I have explained it to the best of my ability and would say that Jimbo's explanation also counts. Once again, the point is not whether something has happened but whether it should be included the way it was, and that we should use reliable secondary sources to guide that assessment. If you and I were the only editors discussing the inclusion of this sentence, this would be the time to turn to WP:DR. But perhaps we're not, so I hope others will want to chime in. Anyone? AvB ÷ talk 18:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
PS 1 You would be right to quote Barrett on this, but only if he had said it in this specific context, i.e. where he is describing his own resume. It's common sense, really. Not many people include failed exams on their resume. AvB ÷ talk 18:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
PS 2 You say "of course it is important" - that's exactly the point. You think it's important. But what editors think does not count. The question is, what are reliable secondary sources saying about this? AvB ÷ talk 18:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
It's the old issue of what material derived solely from primary sources is appropriate. Note that WP:RS#Types_of_source_material, WP:SOURCE#Reliable_sources and WP:N#Notability_guidelines_do_not_directly_limit_article-content have been updated since the last time I recall discussing this issue. --Ronz 18:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
See also WP:NOR#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources AvB ÷ talk 13:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Please spell out clearly why this sentence should be deleted, which policies specifically, and the relevance of the Langan article here. I am not understanding your point and am requesting further explanation. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
As the editor trying to include the material, the burden of evidence is on you. --Ronz 18:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
While I think the material fulfills the "descriptive claims" criteria of a primary source, I agree with Avb that the "undo weight" issue, especially in light of WP:BLP, is more important here in making this a quality encyclopedia article. --Ronz 19:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I am not trying to include it, but rather keep it. AvB deleted it and I would like a clear explanation of his rationale. That's all.
Anyhow, BLP states with regards to using a subject as a source the following:
In some cases the subject may become involved in editing an article. They may edit it themselves or have a representative of theirs edit it. They may contact Wikipedians either through the article's talk page or via email. Or, they may provide information through press releases, a personal website or blog, or an autobiography. When information supplied by the subject conflicts with unsourced statements in the article, the unsourced statements should be removed.
Information supplied by the subject may be added to the article if:
  • It meets verifiability, NPOV, and no original research policies.
  • It is relevant to the person's notability;
  • It is not contentious;
  • It is not unduly self-serving;
  • There is no reasonable doubt that it was provided by the subject.
  • A blog or personal website written by the subject may be listed in the external links/further reading section, even if the subject is not used as a source.
Barrett is clearly concerned that he is being misrepresented by people who state that he is concealing the fact that he failed his board certification exams. He has sued people for saying that. He wants to let the world know that he is not hiding this fact. By including this information here and sourcing Barrett as the primary source, we are in fact satisfying Barrett's wishes. We wouldn't be violating BLP, clearly he is a reliable source on himself, it is relavent to his notablity, it isn't contentious (it is a fact) and it certainly isn't unduly self-serving. If the burden of evidence is truly on me, then I believe I have satisfied this burden.
How does Undo Weight figure into this? That he failed his board certification exams isn't a minority viewpoint. It is a fact. It would be one thing if we were stating that he was hiding this information. We are not stating that. We are only spelling out a clear fact of his qualifications. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I cannot help it if you do not follow my logic. I have already explained in great detail so for me it's now a matter of consensus building or you and me going to WP:DR. That only leaves your statement that Barrett wants this in the encyclopedia himself. Well, Levine2112, I would certainly not object to the inclusion of this information in the part of the article's criticism section (is there such a part? I haven't even read it in full recently) where his detractors get to voice "that he is concealing the fact that he failed his board certification exams". Adding it to his resume surely is not his intention here. That would be contextomy and is exactly what we're talking about. Without the right context, this piece of information needs to stay out of Barrett's resume in the encyclopedia. AvB ÷ talk 19:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Not only is there a criticism section, but the criticism section includes a subheading entitled "Qualifications and Objectivity." I can think of no better place for this information to be included. --Warrior-Poet 19:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
In the meantime, then, I will include this information in the crtitisms section. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I would advise you not to do that, Levine2112. As I have told you, this would be OK with me if the criticism section contained the information Barrett wants to offset. It doesn't, and adding at this point would be nothing more than WP:POINT. If you do this, I fear your behavior on this talk page is on its way to become disruptive. You know how important BLP is to the encyclopedia. And you probably know that I practise 1RR so I have already used up double my self-limited number of reverts in the interest of NPOV, NOR and BLP. AvB ÷ talk 20:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Levine2112, I see you have added this information to another part of the article. I am giving you the opportunity to revert yourself. You have not provided sources showing the reader why the information would belong in the place where I deleted it, and you have not provided sources showing the reader why the information would belong in the place where you have now inserted it. I am disputing your insertion and you should immediately remove it per WP:BLP and other policies until we have reached consensus on the talk page. AvB ÷ talk 20:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Right now, I don't see anything disruptive in my action. I didn't add it to the criticism section to make a point. I added it there per the suggestion given above. While I don't think that this is being used as a criticism of Barrett, but rather a verifiable biographical point, I do see some logic in adding it to this section. Barrett has sued many people and organizations for misrepresenting this fact. Clearly, it is a notable fact for Barrett, for his opponents, and for the general public. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
No, you did not add it per my suggestion which was conditional and the condition has clearly not been fulfilled. This is just another example of disruptive editing: your ignoring information given three times already. You do not seem to understand the situation. I am once again giving you an opportunity to self-revert. You have ignored all reasons to delete and given not a single reason to include. And I resent the "disengage" advice below. It is baseless. I am not personally attached to Barrett and have no feelings about this one way or another except for the resentment just noted. I am defending the encyclopedia. I do not want Jimbo to get a phone call complaining about this article. AvB ÷ talk 20:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I think I can help you understand the undue weight aspect though. Quoting from the policy: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." The viewpoint we're talking about is not whether or not something happened, but how important it is. To assess that importance we need reliable, secondary sources. I expect, if you find such sources, that they will show that this may be important in the POV of Barrett's detractors, but it is not important to most people. AvB ÷ talk 19:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Right now we are in the first step of WP:DR... discussion. There is no section here called resume. A resume is a self-serving document and would fail many Wikipedia policies. We are dealing with a section entitled "Biography". In 1964, Stephen Barrett took the board certification exam for his chosen field, Psychiatry. He failed the neurological portion of the exam. He has never retaken the exam. This is biographical. This is on topic with a subject who is a notable doctor. This isn't a criticism. This is a fact. This is relevant. It is not as if we are stating something off topic with the subject, i.e. his kitchen walls are painted green. I still haven't seen a clear explanation for deleting the passage. I am open to change my mind. Otherwise, we should reinstate it. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Please reread what I wrote. We have no reached a consensus. You say you do not understand my logic. I do not know what else I can tell you. I said we're now ready for consensus discussion with the other editors active here, and otherwise it's time for WP:DR. As for reasons to delete, I've given you plenty but I don't need any. The burden to sufficiently source it source for inclusion is on you. AvB ÷ talk 20:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I have given you just that. Please either comment on my reasons to justify inclusion or move to the second step of WP:DR... Disengage for a while. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I just read through the article. I have to admit I don't think it is necessary to put in the board certification information, it just doesn't seem to fit in with the rest of the article. Also, was another consensus taken about the use of Quackpot.com? I see it's back in the article. I thought that the use of a self made site like this one is, it is called an opinion piece by Tim Bolin, was not allowed. I am getting confused by these rules I think but I thought I would ask. I hope everyone can talk calmly about these things. --Crohnie 20:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Levine2112, you have not even started to refute my arguments against inclusion. The only real argument for inclusion you gave was the thing about "Barret wants this himself". The rest all boils down to "it is true so I can include it anywhere in the article," which does NOT trump policy. You are wrong in thinking you as a single editor get to decide whether such BLP-related information can be included. You are simply edit-warring instead of reaching a consensus here, and that is WP:POINT and disruptive. You are also endangering the encyclopedia by including material. Try to build a consensus before doing anything. And remember that I am not not the only editor here. In fact I'm going to bed after reporting this. AvB ÷ talk 21:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand your arguments against inclusion and have repeatedly asked you to clarify. You have refused to do so. I have quoted specific policy which in fact supports inclusion so please don't write this off as e trying to make a point. That shows a lack of good faith on your part. Please follow my lead and quote precise policy which justifies your deletion of this material. I am open to change my mind if you would just explain to me a valid point about policy. There is no endangerment of the encyclopedia by including a cold-hard relevant fact. Please don't blow this out of proportion. I am not edit warring, so please don't accuse me of that. I am not being disruptive, so please don't accuse me of that. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually in favor of mentioning the boards issue briefly, as Levine did; my concern is that it needs a reliable source. Citing User:Sbinfo's comments on Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Provided it can be sourced, I think it's relevant enough to include it. Oh, and Quackpotwatch needs to go. MastCell Talk 21:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable about the boards if there is a reliable source. Then it would fit in where it was originally. As for Quackpot.com, it is also footnote #27. --Crohnie 21:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for picking that up. Levine, can you provide us with an useable source for the boards thing? If so, maybe we can come up with a way to briefly include the information that will be acceptable to everyone. MastCell Talk 22:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Sure. The two sources I cite at the top of this discussion thread are good. One is a legal filing by Barrett's lawyers which state that he is not board certified (but still could practice as a psychiatrist regardless) and the other is an article published ion ChiroWeb which quotes Barrett's opposing legal counsel. Further, as I noted before, BLP (using a subject as a source) states that Sbinfo's discussion of this matter is a usable source. I think all three of these sources together make it pretty rock-solid. Other sources which may not be as reliable include: Chiro.org, Medscape, Alternative Cancer, World Chiropractic Alliance, and Health Freddom Law-- Levine2112 discuss 22:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
What is not being disputed:
You keep acting as if it is disputed that this is a rock-solid fact and as if I have not explained that's not the point under discussion. You keep acting as if you are being asked to provide sources that prove this really happened. Please try to understand that it is not disputed that Barrett is not board certified and has failed the neurology part of the exam. The legal filing alone is sufficient evidence of that. What also cannot be disputed is my removal of the material. I'll summarize my main point for you once again:
What is being disputed:
The editor who adds text is responsible for correct sourcing. In biographies of living persons this is a sine qua non. What is disputed is: your edit that includes this information without citing reliable secondary sources.
Explanation:
In all cases where Wikipedia editors need to determine how important the primary source information is in relation to the remainder of the article, they need information on the relative importance of the material. Deriving such information from the primary source itself is an "evaluative claim" which is explicitly prohibited by WP:NOR. If such secondary sources do not exist, it is Original Research pure and simple. We need to allow Wikipedia readers to see why the information was important enough to be included. This point stands alone and does not need Jimbo. I only quoted Jimbo's Langan intervention as an example for you to peruse if my explanation would not suffice for you. Is there anything in this explanation that you do not understand? AvB ÷ talk 11:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

I just reverted a deletion of this discussion by ArthurRubin. I assume that the deletion was accidental as this discussion is ongoing. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It must have been an edit conflict or database crash. I was going to refer to Jimbo's intervention in Christopher Michael Langan as a reason for exclusion of his board status, but User:AvB already did, and I don't need to repeat his well-founded (granting Jimbo's questionable interpretation of WP:BLP, but he is Jimbo, after all) argument. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Can you point me specifically to Jimbo Wales interpretation? -- Levine2112 discuss 22:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Christopher_Michael_Langan#WP:NOR_-_removing_original_research.2C_do_not_re-insert_unless_you_have_a_source_other_than_original_research, Talk:Christopher_Michael_Langan#Original_research.
The point is that it's OR to put together information from primary sources without having any sources that indicate the information is at all important. Basically, he's saying without secondary sources, we're at risk of introducing bias by our selection of information. It's an extension of WP:NOT#IINFO. --Ronz 23:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't know that we should apply that precedent here. A number of Barrett's critics (rightly or wrongly) harp on the fact that he's not board-certified. I'm not saying we need to start citing those particular critics in the article, but the issue of board certification has been brought up outside of Wikipedia, so I don't think it's OR to briefly mention it, even under the above definition. But I don't feel too strongly one way or the other. MastCell Talk 23:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

From my perspective, the issue isn't as much OR, as it is NPOV and NOT. It helps resolve the very common POV disputes we've had in Barrett-related articles while guiding editors toward better sources. Of course, I've been making similar arguments for a long time, reminding editors of the problems that occur when secondary sources are not available, or are not up to standard. --Ronz 00:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
We certainly seem to agree that such problems exist. When they are being ignored, this often goes against the spirit of the rules, all the more so when even experienced editors in the best of standing can't agree which rule it violates, or violates the most. How do we know a piece of information is important, relevant or notable? From critics? Perhaps - if their POV is published in reliable sources to the extent that it appears notable enough. AvB ÷ talk 12:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
What are your issues with NPOV and NOT specifically? Do you feel that what MastCell and I are suggesting - a brief mention (similar to what I authored today in the criticism section) - violated NPOV or NOT in some way? Here is what I wrote today:
Stephen Barrett is not board certified. In 1964, Stephen Barrett failed one-half (the neurological portion) of his board certication exams and never re-took the exams.
If we look at what Sbinfo wrote here, I believe this is factually accurate and rather neutral. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
You asked for help understanding others' perspectives. I gave them. Do you understand any better now? --Ronz 00:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Honestly no. I mean I understand the Langan point, but like MastCell, I don't think it is applicable here as there is no OR or interpretation or extrapolation of what Barrett has said. We literally have Stephen Barrett himself saying that he is not board certified because he failed one of the two parts of his exams in 1964 and opted never to re-take them. Above you say that this isn't an OR thing for you either, but rather NPOV and NOT. Can you please explain your position? I am sorry if I am being dense here; I just don't see the issue with retaining this factual information in the article. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I do not believe MastCell has said exactly that. As to "interpretation or extrapolation of what Barrett has said", that is not the issue. This is about an "evaluative claim based on primary sources". The secondary sources provided by you cannot be used to evaluate how important this information is - they are not reliable per WP policies, and the Medscape ref are attack letters posted there by individuals not under editorial control of Medscape. Thus you stand empty-handed. It would be more helpful if you tried to find reliable secondary sources. AvB ÷ talk 11:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
As for policy, I have only looked at WP:ATT cursorily, so I am mostly functioning on the old WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOT. To my eyes a WP:OR/NOT contention might be satisfied by the status of ChiroWeb as a notable critic. WP:RS, V would be satisfied separately by the court records and Dr. Barrett himself. "...did not pass" may be a less grating phraseology. Also Dr Barrett does involve himself in issues where the neurology component is near or present.--I'clast 14:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Mainly in response to Arthur Rubin: I think the salient point here is that Jimbo has shown (or at least seems convinced) that good, experienced editors have not fully understood WP:NOR as it relates to such situations. Other editors would perhaps want to use notability guidelines instead of WP:NOR to judge the use of a primary source without any secondary sources, but I think Jimbo is correct. His recent intervention was no novelty or precedent; it simply reascertained something that had been flying under the radar of many editors for a while. Here is my interpretation (but note that I'm waiting for Jimbo to respond to my question regarding this line of thinking): Jimbo's intervention follows both the spirit of our rules and the longstanding WP:NOR policy language, which specifically indicates that "making evaluative claims" based on a primary source is Original Research. Evaluative claims include attempts to determine, from a primary source, how important or relevant the information is in relation to the subject and the remainder of the article. As such, it was OR in the Langan article to include a description of a court case without citing any secondary sources that could be used to determine the relative importance of the information. Information that was completely supported by the primary source, but has not been published in any reliable secondary sources. (Jimbo also explained how WP:BLP was another reason to delete such information but his OR verdict stands alone.)

The Langan situation is clearly linked with the current problems regarding the adoption of WP:ATT and relegation of WP:NOR to a place in Wikipedia history. I don't believe anyone else has flagged the following up (but I might be missing something here, since I have missed the entire WP:ATT discussion and implementation even though all original policies were (and are) on my watchlist): the WP:NOR language regarding "evaluative claims" seems to have been deleted in WP:ATT). Imagine Jimbo, having just heard the complaint from Langan, removing the section, checking the current text of the policy for minor changes, only to discover WP:ATT for the first time, with its Bible interpretation example that seems to miss the entire point of his Langan deletion per WP:NOR. Just guessing here of course, but it would explain a thing or two. AvB ÷ talk 11:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't read through WP:NOR in a while. WP:SYN is the relevant policy, though the case here is a rather subtle case. --Ronz 16:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll have to think about that one a bit. I certainly didn't intuitively recognize it at such. I've seen several other ideas that also might apply. Considerable overlap I guess. AvB ÷ talk
I am not aware of any synthesis going on here, especially since we have a first hand account of the biographical information from Stephen Barrett himself. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts here.
--> This is about the Langan fiasco, now becoming somewhat off topic I guess. AvB ÷ talk 16:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
As for the evaluative claim based on primary sources which AvB refers to, the varying accounts of Barrett's history with the board certification exam (Did he claim to be board certified? Did he pass the exam? Was he forced to admit this only under oath? What happended here exactly?) has been a main issue in several libel suits which Barrett has filed. Barrett has sued several individuals and organization for committing what he believes to be libel by misrepresenting this issue. Clearly this is a notable bit of evidence (and I would think that Barrett himself would love to have the record set straight here). Now then, we have several sources - including legal documents and attorney interviews - which document both sides of this legal case. These are each strong secondary sources which serve to bolster the evaluative notability of this fact's entry into this article. Any other thoughts? -- Levine2112 discuss 16:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Just to reiterate, I do not accept these sources as reliable. AvB ÷ talk 16:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Just so the rest of us understand, you don't consider a legal document written by Barrett's attorneys reliable? Further, Chiro.org, ChiroWeb and the WCA all are notable publications. So now we have four notable sources attesting to the notability of this factual information provided fromthe most primary source of all relevant to this article, Stephen Barrett. -- Levine2112 discuss 16:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
That is not what I wrote. I would call the "legal document written by Barrett's attorneys" reliable, especially since this is the article about Barrett and you're citing a site under his editorial control. But it is a primary source with the associated problems. Chiro.org, ChiroWeb and the WCA are all secondary sources but I do not consider them reliable. If it's so notable, all you have to do is cite a a couple of books, newspaper articles, etc. The policy quoted may vary, but the violation remains the same: using a primary source without notability information from reliable sources. And even if I were to accept these sources, all they show is that Barrett's detractors like to mention the point in the most negative terms they can devise; the absence of reliable sources shows that mainstream thought is not interested in this partially flunked exam. AvB ÷ talk 17:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
...or that mainstream thought is not aware of this fact. Chiro.org, ChiroWeb and the WCA are all reliable sources per WP, however, that is not the issue here. What is at issue here is that they are notable sources, because all we are trying to do is to qualify Barrett's primary source statement as notable. Here we have three outside sources - all notable within their field - discussing Barrett's failure to pass his board certification exams. So let's recap. We have a the primary source saying that he didn't pass the board cert. exams. We have three notable publications disussing Barrett's failure to pass the board cert. exam. And we have a document drafted by Barrett's lawyers discussing the libel lawsuit that he was filing because this fact has been misrepresented. In essence, we have it all. I move for immediate reinstatement. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Bonus notability... The Free Market News Network also published this story. The Association for Network Care covered the same story in their official newsletter, as does the National Health Federation. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

"...or that mainstream thought is not aware of this fact." Exactly my point. It is only notable in the context of material posted on the Internet by his detractors. If we had an article on e.g. Bolen, I guess it might be mentioned there, in the form "x says y, Barret responds z". It's just one of the problems with primary sources and the use of unreliable partisan websites to get a story from. It remains undue weight, it remains OR, it remains out-of-context/selective quoting (referring to the two edits I reverted and your addition to the Criticism section), it remains WP:SYN. On top of that it remains something also unacceptable under WP:BLP since everyone can see that the edits so far reverted would not be acceptable to Barrett, therefor controversial, and therefor inadmissible anyway. AvB ÷ talk 17:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Just clicked on your bonus links. Completely unacceptable as reliable sources. Also, one of them kinda links to another of your sources, only the link does not work for me. AvB ÷ talk 17:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
We do not need to establish reliability in this case, because we have Barrett himself stating all of the facts: in 1964 he failed the neurology portion of his board examination and never re-took the exam. There is no OR. To claim that there is OR if flat-out wrong. What you asked me to do before was to show that this statement is notable by giving you secondary sources. I have given plenty of them at this point, some more notable than others, yes, but certainly a few of them pass WP notability... especially the WCA, Chiro.org, and ChiroWeb. Remember, we are not using these to establish information... Barrett himself established that. We are, per your request, using these three sources to establish the notability of mentioning that Barrett did not pass his board cert. exam. Clearly this is notable, as we have several notable publications discussing Barrett's history with his board cert. exam. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
What is being synthesized here? We have a direct quote from Stephen Barrett recounting this information. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
This is about using reliable secondary sources as a way to establish the relative importance of the primary source information you want to include, so that we do not have to rely on evaluative claims which is OR, and quite a few other violations, and to prevent selective quoting. I am not talking about notable sources but about reliable, secondary sources per WP:RS and WP:V. You're now going around in circles, and I find myself explaining the same points over and over again. Can we agree to not agree and let others have their say if they want to? I'm logging off for the weekend. Surprise me when I'm back. But please do not act as if I'm retracting anything. You might want to formulate a compromise. bear in mind that selective quoting and WP:SYN should be avoided. Taking a fact out of a lawsuit and inserting it into a biography is out of context, WP:SYN and more. Ask Ronz if you do not understand WP:SYN. AvB ÷ talk 18:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
The lawsuits surrounding this isse establishes the notability. In fact, as for extremely reliable secondary source, you can find discussion of Barrett's board cert. exams in the Fonorow suit and in the Mercola suit. These establish that Barrett was willing to sue people who claimed that he misrepresented himself as having passed the Board Cert. exam but then had to admit under oath that he hadn't. Basically, this information is so notable, that us leaving it out would be entirely negligent. Okay, so let's recap. We have Barrett himself stating the information which we want to include... that he took the board exams in 1964, failed the neurology portion, and never retook the exams; we have at least three notable publications discussing Barrett and the history of his board cert. exams; we have a filing drafted by Barrett's lawyers for a lawsuit against people and organizations who may be commiting libel for printing a misrepresentation of Barrett's history with board certification; and now we have mention of Barrett's history with board certification in two official court documents. What more do you require? After all, we say that Barrett's "media appearances include Dateline, the Today Show, Good Morning America, Primetime, Donahue, CNN, National Public Radio, and more than 200 other radio and television talk show interviews" and the only reference we have for that is his own website. I would love to hear from others on this. MastCell? Ronz? I'clast? ArthurRubin? Anyone else? Please chime in. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

How about this, he graduated in the late 50's and did his residencies in the early 60's. He is not board certified but was board certification as important back then as it is these days? If I remember correctly, board certification was not that important back then. How about someone checking into this? Just a thought, --Crohnie 18:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Crohnie, I appreciate your response. Do you first agree that we have at least established notability surrounding this issue and have good reason to include it in the article? -- Levine2112 discuss 18:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I don't, I think first that we need to know whether cerification was necessary or done with great frequency back then. [1] Here is one I found which in my opinion shows that it was not done back then. What do you think? --Crohnie 18:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I've already chipped in my 2 cents. I think it's notable to mention briefly. We should use the lawsuit deposition as a source, rather than User:Sbinfo's comments on Wikipedia. You are correct that board certification was not widespread until fairly recently - certainly at the time Barrett took the exam, probably a minority of psychiatrists were board-certified. Board certification is not necessary to practice any kind of medicine, but licensing is (Barrett's online detractors often conflate the two, which is one problem I had with Quackpotwatch). But hell, it's come up in court, it comes up from Barrett's detractors online - it's notable enough for a brief mention. MastCell Talk 19:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
My idea of a bried mention is as such:
Stephen Barrett is not board certified. In 1964, Stephen Barrett failed one-half (the neurological portion) of his board certication exams and never re-took the exams.
Provided that those points are covered, it can even be worded more succinctly. I believe it should go under the Biography section as this is biographical information. While this can be used as a criticism, I wouldn't say that it is being used in that way. It's just simply stated information which is notable. Sound good? Thoughts? -- Levine2112 discuss 19:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been keeping up with this talk page and have read the pros and cons about this. I still think that if it was not common to be board certified back in his days that it is not notable nor needed.--Crohnie 19:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Bear in mind that one may take their Board Certification exams at any point in their career. Barrett was practicing up until the early 90's, giving him ample time to retake the exam. Citing a statistic about the relative importance of being board certified in 1964 would constitute a WP:OR violation. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I understand that he could have if he wanted to. Also I am not suggesting at all adding information about board certifications back then. I just think that if was common practice by most in his field then it could be notable with the info you have provided. --Crohnie 19:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I didn't know all these court stuff, detractors or the rest of it until my brief time here, and it is brief. My understanding is this was mentioned in one court appearance, but do we know why? As for the detractors, why does this make it notable? A lot of people and companies have detractors that are known by most everyone who watches the news or reads a paper but I don't see this senario in the same arena. --Crohnie 19:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me fill you in. From my understanding, Barrett under oath stated that he was not a board certified physician becasue he failed his exams. Whether Barrett was "forced to admit" this or stated it freely is the matter of contention which factored into several lawsuit filed by Barrett. Barrett claims that it was libelous to state that he was forced to admit this under oath. He maintains that he never misrepresented his status of not being board certified. Some of these lawsuits are still ongoing, some have been dismissed and one has been settled out of court. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Where does he maintain it was libelous and what does this have to do with anything? You say, if I am understanding you correctly, that this "forced to admit" was in one court and that he has been in many, so did the cases get thrown up because he was not board certified? --Crohnie 19:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
In this filing Barrett maintains that he had been misrepresented. There was a press release sent out by opposing counsel that Barrett was "forced to admit under oath" that he had flunked his exams. While Barrett doesn't argue that he didn't pass his exams, he maintains that he wasn't forced to admit this... that he stated it freely and has been open with this previously. Because Barrett feels that he had been misrepresented here (and in other instances), he filed libel lawsuits against a variety of people and organizations (some of whom wrote the alleged libelous statements and some of who simply republished these statements). Most of the cases have been dismissed for various reasons (lack of motive, lack of damages, etc.), however at least one is still on-going. I hope that this helps clear up the history. Also, we cover the lawsuits quite nicely in the Barrett article proper. Imagine that! Our encyclopdia article is a good resource! We must be doing something right. ;-) -- Levine2112 discuss 19:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I read your link and it says a lot more than just about certification. Basically what it shows is what Barrett was accused of by his detractors and his rebuttal. I don't see how this legal document makes the case to add about Dr. Barrett not being certified. Sorry, I still don't think this is notable unless board certification back in his time was really going on with most of his peers. Yes, the article is quite informative. --Crohnie 20:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure it says more. But the fact remains that Barrett's board certification was part of the contentious issues. Hence the lawsuits, the accusations by his detractors and his subsequent rebuttal. So much has been written about Barrett's history with board certification that to not give it at least a mere mention in this article would be negligent. According to Barrett, at the time he took the exam, 1/3 of psychiatrists were board certified. Of the two-thirds who weren't, we can only guess how many took the exam and failed. Anyhow, if Barrett's figures are correct, then 1/3 is significant. Regardless, Barrett could have retaken the exam at any point during his 30 year carreer when more and more of his peers were becoming certified. He elected not to. I really don't think any of this is needed for the article. I agree with MastCell that we only need a short mention. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
First let me say I am a new editor still learning the rules here, and there is a lot to learn. But what you are saying is the detractors which from what I see is personal online sites are making a big deal out of this. The legal papers posted so far that I have seen don't say too much to make this important to add to the article. Saying he's not board certified make it sound like he was practicing without a license to me. But I'll defer to some others, including your imput, about all this. --Crohnie 20:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Board Certification is optional for a doctor. A doctor can practice with out it. This is well-known and pretty basic, however this should be made clear to those not aware of this by following the Wikilink to board certification.
Don't forget that it was Barrett himself who thought that clarifying this issue was so important that he was willing to sue for libel over it. He also so it fit to clarify his history with the board cert. here at Wikipedia. Clearly, this is an important issue to him. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

All the writing on this page alone is proof positive that this is notable enough for inclusion. Yes... it is pretty much common knowledge that having board certification and a medical license are two distinct things... that should not hold us back from including this here. I do not see what issue is but for the record I am in favor of including this factoid. TheDoctorIsIn 23:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. I think this issue is being totally overanalyzed - the sentence that Levine proposed to include seems to be a perfectly reasonable and fair addition. --Warrior-Poet 05:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Conformation bias anybody? Shot info 23:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I was being sardonic with my "proof positive" comment. Maybe nest time I will use a emoticon. <-; TheDoctorIsIn 17:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

If Barrett, psychiatrist, now retired, felt it was an important issue, then it certainly should be included here. My concern is that if Barrett had ever testified in the legal arena as a so-called "expert" in psychiatry when he was a practicing psychiatrist but failed his boards and didn't disclose this tidbit to the parties involved, isn't this a form of fraud or deception? It is especially concerning if he was paid as an expert witness to do this. Afterall, people's fates were decided based on his so-called "expertise". If he failed his boards, doesn't that call into question his "expertise"? This certainly seems notable enough to be included.

I am also certain, given Barrett's history of thoroughness when reporting on others, that he would want information such as this to be included in an article.

BTW, what was the result of recent discussion as to whether or not Shot Info is Stephen Barrett's son? Was there ever any closure on that? Steth 17:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be deceptive if he said he was board-certified and wasn't. Or if you produced a reliable source calling it deceptive. As far as User:Shot info, I think the closure was along the lines of "stop harassing him". MastCell Talk 17:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
You can always ask, and look at my talk page, and review the pertinant data over at the ArbCom. But as for "closure", there was never any "openure". Feel free to request a COI or Checkuser through the formal channels though :-) Shot info 22:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Shot_info isn't Dr Barrett's son. .--I'clast 00:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
Steth, it isn't a matter of editors being "offended" it's this little policy called WP:BLP. Shot info 23:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion discussion continued

I think that saying Barrett is a retired psychiatrist suffices, and that it is neither necessary nor appropriate to discuss Barrett's board-certification status here. The issue is irrelevant with respect to what he calls his anti-quackery activities. See WP:WEIGHT, esp. 2nd paragraph. The entire section Wp:blp#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy applies. Of course, if the relevance of Barrett's board-certification status is attributable to a reliable, secondary source, then that would override these objections. However, WP:BLP is clear that primary sources don't suffice here. Find a secondary source for this issue or let it go, imo. thx, Jim Butler(talk) 00:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I have provided a plethora of secondary sources (including court records, legal documents, and bews articles from a variety of sources). I have cited sources that show that Barrett has sued people and organizations for misrepresenting this fact. Barrett himself logged on and clarified this issue so it wouldn't be misrepresented here on Wikipedia. Barrett is bothered when people say that he has tried to cover up the fact that he isn't board certified. He is quite open about it and liberally stated that it is because he failed one-half of his exams and decided not to re-take them. So, we have the primary source, we have a variety of secondary sources, and we have Barrett himself wishing for clarity on this issue. Let's mention this briefly in his biography. Or we could state that there has been lawsuits over this issue, state who said what and who sued for what and finally state Barrett's response on Wikipedia. Personally, I'd opt for the former brief mention. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Just because a guy uses a WP talk page to deny a false accusation made about him doesn't make that denial notable enough to be in the article. (And even if Barrett's own rhetoric has been similarly "gotcha" in some instances, two wrongs don't make a right, and additionally they make for a lousy encyclopedia.) But that point is moot since (if I understand you correctly) you say you've got secondary sources establishing the notability of this issue. Sorry if I missed those sources above; would you mind pasting in the link(s) again? thanks much, Jim Butler(talk) 06:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for keeping an open mind, Jim. Here is the Mercola suit complaint filing. You will note that Barrett has highlighted in "blue":
"In fact, last year Barrett was disqualified as an 'expert witness' in a case in New York, when it was discovered that although he claims to have 'been a Psychiatrist for 35 years' he NEVER passed the requirements to be admitted to the Board of Psychiatry, and hence was never 'Board Certified.' Hmmm?. .
...and then they state:
Dr. Barrett has not been disqualified as an expert witness in a case in New York, or in any case involving expertise in psychiatry. Dr. Barrett is a psychiatrist, having completed three years of accredited residency training in psychiatry. It is not necessary to be board-certified to practice psychiatry or to qualify as an expert witness in that field. Dr. Barrett has not misrepresented his credentials;
In the Fonorow Suit filing Barrett's lawyers cite:
"Stephen Barrett (www.quackwatch.com), who claims to be a retired Psychiatrist, but never actually completed the basic qualifications to be 'Board Certified' as such, today announced the end of his lawsuit against U.S. Health leader Joe Mercola, DO.";
...and...
Dr. Barrett is a retired psychiatrist, having completed three years of accredited residency training in psychiatry. It is not necessary to be board-certified to practice psychiatry. Dr. Barrett has not misrepresented his credentials;
...and...
"A Florida State Attorney, in the original Probable Cause Hearing (which Phillips was not invited to) had downloaded Barrett's writings on Autonomic Response Testing, and submitted them as evidence. Barrett has no professional qualifications that would make him an expert on this subject. In fact, Barrett, who claims to be a retired Psychiatrist, in a recent a [sic] court case, was forced to admit under oath, that he had never completed the requirements to become Board Certified as a Psychiatrist.";
...and...
Dr. Barrett is a retired psychiatrist, and he does not misrepresent his credentials. Dr. Barrett never was "forced to admit" under oath that he had never completed the requirements to become Board Certified as a psychiatrist, let alone in a recent court case.
...and...
"Barrett's credibility has suffered a major downturn when certain facts were brought to light about his alleged qualifications. It turns out that Barrett has been de-licensed, and has not had a license to practice medicine in any State since 1993. Also, Barrett made claims to being 'a retired Psychiatrist,' without benefit of ever having been board certified as a Psychiatrist in the first place.";
...and...
"For instance, Barrett, it has been revealed, claims to be aretired Psychiatrist without ever having been qualified to claim board certification in that specialty. He has not had a license to practice medicine, in any State, since 1993.";
...and...
"But the biggest blow to Barrett's professional status as a leader in the 'quackbuster' movement is an unconfirmed rumor circulating about Barrett's status as an 'expert witness.' It is already known that Barrett was officially disqualified as an 'expert witness' in a case in New York when he was forced to admit, under oath, that he was never board certified as a Psychiatrist.";
...and...
Dr. Barrett is not "de-licensed" and has not had his medical license revoked. Dr. Barrett also has not misrepresented his credentials by claiming to be a retired psychiatrist. Psychiatrists do not need to be board certified to practice psychiatry;
...and...
Dr. Barrett never was officially disqualified as an expert witness in any case in New York, let alone for having been forced to admit, under oath, that he was never board certified as a psychiatrist. Dr. Barrett has served as an expert witness in legal cases, testifying at various times on both psychiatric and non-psychiatric issues. He never has been disqualified as an expert witness in any case involving psychiatry;
Okay. So a lot has been written about this in the legal realm. Now how about the press? Here are a few examples:
At trial, under a heated cross-examination by Negrete, Barrett conceded that he was not a Medical Board Certified psychiatrist because he had failed the certification exam. This was a major revelation since Barrett had provided supposed "expert testimony" as a psychiatrist and had testified in numerous court cases. Barrett also had said that he was a "legal expert" even though he had no formal legal training. - Chiro.org
...in the case of Stephen Barrett, MD vs. Tedd Koren, DC and Koren Publications, Inc. During that trial, Negrete’s cross examination of the self-proclaimed Quackbuster revealed that Barrett was not a Medical Board Certified psychiatrist because he had failed the certification exam and had ties to the American Medical Association. - World Chiropractic Association
At trial, while on the stand, Barrett had to admit that he not only gave up his license in 1994, but that he was, in fact, not a board-certified psychiatrist, because he had flunked the examination that was required to receive certification. More significantly, under intense cross-examination, Barrett admitted that he did not pass the neurological portion of the exam. - ChiroWeb
Barrett hasn’t held a medical license since 1993 and was never board certified in his field of psychiatry. In one court document, he stated that it is not necessary to be board certified to practice psychiatry. ... On Barrett’s Quackwatch website he writes: “Medical specialty boards require high standards of training and performance and ensure them by rigid examinations. Successful applicants receive diplomas and are considered ‘board certified.’” Barrett foregoes mentioning that he has never achieved board certification in his field, although he styles himself as an “expert” qualified to testify against natural health practitioners. Yet the psychiatric website of Barrett’s home state, the Pennsylvania Psychiatry Expert Witnesses and Consultants (http://expertpages.com/experts.php/psychiatrypennsylvania.htm), shows a directory of 16 individuals or firms and all but one specifically list board certification as an integral part of their credentials. Examining the Truth By Terry S. Friedmann, MD, ABHM and Sabina DeVita, EdD, DNM, RNCP with Karen Boren
Similar statements can be found in Watching the Quacker also by Terry S. Friedmann, MD, ABHM and Karen Boren - "There is also the fact that self-appointed health critic Barrett hasn't held a medical license since 1993 and was never board certified in his field of psychiatry."
At trial, under a heated cross-examination by Negrete, Barrett conceded that he was not a Medical Board Certified psychiatrist because he had failed the certification exam. This was a major revelation since Barrett had provided supposed expert testimony as a psychiatrist and had testified in numerous court cases. Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients
So that is just some of the links which I have cited above. (And some are completely new here. This discussion has improved our research base.) And still there are other articles, but I feel that these are sufficient for our purposes here. Remember, the primary source of this information is Barrett himself on Wikipedia (User:Sbinfo) when he stated:
I took the certifying exam in 1964 when about 1/3 of psychiatrists were board-certified. The exam had two halves, psychiatry and neurology. I passed the psychiatric part but failed neurology because it included topics unrelated to either my training or my interests. 00:50, 23 July 2006
All of this together shows absolute notability and justifies the inclusion of this information. Clearly, based on Barrett's lawsuits and statement here, he is extremely interested in setting the record straight about his board certification. Thus, there is no WP:BLP violation. There is no WP:NOR violation either, as there is no original research or synthesis of information. We would just be stating the facts as stated by Barrett himself. We are not emphasizing this issue nor are we blowing it out of purportion, thus no WP:WEIGHTviolation. Clearly this is accurate as it is coming from Barrett, so there is no WP:V or WP:RS violation.
I hope you will take all of this into consideration. Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 06:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Levine2112 -- I do have an open mind. And unless I'm being dense, none of what you just quoted (Quackwatch, court records, Chiropractic trade publications) is from a reliable, secondary source. Am I wrong? regards, Jim Butler(talk) 07:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Please define what constitutes a "reliable secondary source" because I am having a hard time believing that none of what I cited above is a reliable secondary source. Far too much has been written about Barrett's not passing the board certification exams to write it off as non-notable. -- Levine2112 discuss 08:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Attribution#Reliable_sources, of course. As long as the sources you're quoting from above don't pass that threshold, it doesn't matter how much material you list. IMO, your approach on this talk page mirrors that of User:KrishnaVindaloo at Talk:Pseudoscience a few months ago. He was aksed repeatedly to provide adequate sources for his claims, and didn't, but kept going on and on about how right he was. Might be time for you to give this a rest, assuming you don't want to give the impression of disrupting talk pages. thx, Jim Butler(talk) 17:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Oy! Please don't compare me to KrishnaVindaloo. That guy was name-calling and edit warring; pointing fingers and being disruptive. Not me. I am carrying on a civil discussion. Now let's look at the definition of secondary sources:
Secondary sources are documents or people that summarize, analyze and/or interpret other material, usually primary source material. These are academics, journalists, and other researchers, and the papers and books they produce. A journalist's description of a traffic accident he did not witness, or the analysis and commentary of a president's speech, are secondary sources. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves
Are you telling me that the article in the two Dr. Friedmann pieces don't do just that? Friedmann et. al wasn't part of the trial, but instead wrote two piece about Barrett and cited the source material of the trial and summarized the points. Friedmann is essentially the journalist providing the description of the accident she didn't witness. What about the WCA piece? That was from an article that isn't even about Barrett or the trial persay. Yet it summarizes the information. So yes, the sources I am providing do pass that threshold. What now?-- Levine2112 discuss 17:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree that the Friedman articles are from reliable secondary sources. Please see this section of the ATT FAQ, which in other forms has been a longstanding guideline. The sources here are no more acceptable as secondary sources than Quackwatch itself is, especially for contentious material like this. sincerely, Jim Butler(talk) 19:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Jim, thank you so much for pointing me to that section of policy. It supports that Friedmann et al. is a reliable source. Friedmann does have a Declaration of sources and there is Corroboration between multiple authors. These reports are not anonymous, unpublished, self-published, obsolete, confidential, or questionable. Also, as a point of clarification, we are not needing secondary sources to ensure that the issue is factual. Barrett, as the primary source, has states on Wikipedia and through the legal documents that he is not board certified because in 1964 he did not pass the neurological half of his exam. We are simply needing secondary sources to show that this information is indeed notable for inclusion. Given the legal battles, the Townsend Letters, the articles in several trade publications, the Friedmann analysis, and several other sources which I have provided, clearly this information is notable. Would you not agree? -- Levine2112 discuss 19:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree that notability, not factuality, is the issue. However, I don't agree that the matter of Barrett's board-cert status is notable without a reliable secondary source saying it is, and it doesn't appear to me that either Friedmann source qualifies any more than Quackwatch itself (self-published, with evidence of bias) does. Please link to the publication info for whichever source you believe does qualify. Thanks for your patience! regards, Jim Butler(talk) 20:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't the mere fact that this issue has been part of multiple libel suits count for notability? The court filings show that. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
No, court filings are a primary source, and please see Wp:blp#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy. thx, Jim Butler(talk) 21:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

More deletion discussion

Levine2112, you have provided several primary sources (court records, legal documents, Barrett) and two "attack type" opinion pieces (by Tim Bolen and Carlos Negrete, and propagated in a plethora of unreliable sources). You have, however, not addressed overriding issues variously expressed as violations of WP:NOR (as currently used by Jimbo and exhaustively explained by me above), WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP as explained by Jim above, WP:Notability, etc. Others have made good points too, such as Crohnie e.g. regarding the importance/notability of board certification at the time. You have not explained why the article (let alone its mainstay, the biography) should contain information written by the extremely biased Bolen and Negrete, and only deemed worthy of publication by partisan web sites (but, clearly, not subjected to balanced journalism but simply reposting or quoting from the material) -- you may want to try and get the story published in a reliable source so that Wikipedia can report it. I could go on and on, repeating relevant objections given above and more (and I will, if necessary).

If a brief mention in the biography is your compromise, I remind you of the fact that this all began when I removed such a brief mention from the biography. Mention in the biography is not acceptable to me without reliable sources that clearly show including it there is not Undue Weight etc. Also, "Stephen Barrett is not board certified. In 1964, Stephen Barrett failed one-half (the neurological portion) of his board certification exams and never re-took the exams." is (1) not brief and (2) a slur at best, a direct confirmation of criticism elsewhere at worst. Not acceptable. And even if I were to accept some mention elsewhere in the article as a compromise, it is certainly out of context here: where is this reported in other biographies of Barrett in reliable sources? Books, newspaper articles, broadcast media, any sources with at least a modicum of fact checking?

This information, without context (i.e. mentioning his not being board certified and, perhaps, failing part of an exam) sort of hangs in the air and comes across as a put-down without a discernible reason to the uninformed reader, while the informed reader will see a confirmation of the attack pieces by Bolen et al. available on the Internet.

We might reach a compromise as follows:

  • We discuss the content and notability of this particular criticism (I will contend it is not notable due to lack of reliable secondary published sources and do not want it in the biography but might compromise to put it elsewhere)
  • We decide whether or not to include it in the Criticism section (it is my opinion that it does not belong there but in the article of the detractors, if they have one)
  • If we reach a consensus to put the criticism in (and for me the following would be a condition for that), only then do we have a situation where we have to add Barrett's view as worded in his rebuttal. AvB ÷ talk 03:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
What was written before was not a slur; unless Barrett was slurring himself. This isn't meant to be a put down but rather a factual encyclopedic statement. It was a simple statement of the facts. If Barrett's own admission to this fact on Wikipedia is a primary source, then why aren't the court documents secondary sources to support this? Further, why aren't the WCA, Chiro.org and ChiroWeb reliable secondary sources? These articles and the court records show the notability of this statement. Barrett has sued people for misrepresenting this information. Let's be sure that we include it and we include it right. No innuendo, no slur, no spin. Just a brief factual statement. So far MastCell, DoctorIsIn, I'clast, Steth, Warrior-Poet and myself are in favor of adding it but keeping it brief. -- Levine2112 discuss 03:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
This is not a vote (WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY, WP:!VOTE). Simple statement of facts (when we're not able to determine their notability and appropriate context with good, secondary sources) don't belong. Most importantly, I agree with Avb that it not a simple statment of facts, but "a slur at best, a direct confirmation of criticism elsewhere at worst." Your own inclusion of it in the criticisms section shows that you yourself don't believe it is a simple statement of fact. --Ronz 04:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Just trying to get a sense of consensus as suggested by AvB and in WP:DR. I satill don't understand how stating what Barrett has said about himself constitutes a slur (unless Barrett was being self-deprecating? I don't think so). I olny included it in criticism as a compromise suggestion. But if you look at my edit summary, I really didn't think it belonged there. -- Levine2112 discuss 06:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You (Levine2112) wrote: What was written before was not a slur; unless Barrett was slurring himself. This isn't meant to be a put down but rather a factual encyclopedic statement.

What you want to add is basically the same lopsided out-of-context WP:BLP/WP:WEIGHT/WP:OR/WP:SYN/etc. violation I removed from the article. You have not formulated a compromise proposal, although I invited you to do so four days ago. Now that I have proposed a compromise (although I do not have to do that, since you are the one that wants to include something in the encyclopedia) you do not appear receptive to it. Instead, you're already tallying votes cast by the usual crowd.

The first point I need to address: The language you want to include rolls a dialog between two parties into a single statement of fact, thus badly violating WP:OR and WP:ATT. If we want to use Barrett's response at all (after reaching a consensus that we have sufficient reliable sources to make the dialog sufficiently notable per WP:WEIGHT) we will still need to report on the whole dialog and possibly even more context. The dialog belongs to a specific debate in the protracted battle between Tim Bolen and Stephen Barrett. Only one side of that battle is given a platform in the secondary sources provided here, which does not create any confidence in their reliability per WP:RS. Therefor you can't add: "Stephen Barrett is not board certified. In 1964, Stephen Barrett failed one-half (the neurological portion) of his board certification exams and never re-took the exams." It's part of a story.

Please also note that a consensus to add that and only that anywhere in the article would signal to me that the consensus process is broken here. If so, we will be needing an article RfC to "enlarge the pool" before long. RfCs can be very informative.

Now the second point. You have not added any reliable sources, just partisan sites propagating Bolen's and Negrete's opinion pieces. I have consistently called the secondary sources quoted by you "unreliable, partisan websites". This is the first time you seem to contest that point. Unfortunately, you simply state that they are reliable, without any evidence. Can you please demonstrate that these sources are not partisan websites? How do they fulfill WP:RS? For example, do they have a good reputation for fact-checking? Please peruse WP:RS and related pages to convince other editors, especially in the light of WP:BLP. AvB ÷ talk 10:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Doesn’t this paragraph that states “Barrett's involvement in the legal system has also spawned controversy about his objectivity and qualifications to pass judgment on those he deems "quacks". He or NCAHF has initiated a number of lawsuits against those engaged in what he considers unscientific medical practices. He has also offered testimony on psychiatry, FDA regulatory issues, and homeopathy and other areas of "alternative medicine." Address the conversations on going now? --Crohnie 11:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it does. It certainly addresses many accusations leveled at Barrett in sources that we can't even link to because they're unreliable, or attack sites, or both. By the way, is it just me, or is this paragraph not supported by any reliable sources? AvB ÷ talk 12:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I quoted the paragraph as it is written in the article. All I can suggest is to read it and see if the sources above or below support it. --Crohnie 12:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't unsourced. This isn't a disputed fact. This is accurate and factual. I could understand not including this if this was disputed, but Barrett himself admits that it is true. It is well-sourced, coming from Barrett himself. Yes, there is is controversy surrounding this issue. I have provided ample sources concerning this. These all go to show the notability of this fact. I have requested two solutions: 1) A simple sentence (as what was deleted originally. 2) More detail to describe the controversy surrounding this issue. Again, I side with MastCell here and am leaning toward option #1.

This is an encyclopedia and it should represent all of the notable information about this subject, provided that we have a good source. Barrett himself is a good source on this subject. Barrett lawyers are as well in multiple court documents. You asked me for secondary sources to show the notability of this information. I have provided many sources that discuss this topic. I feel that they are reliable for the most part; regardless, they don't have to be in order to confirm the fact that Barrett is not Board Certified because he didn't pass his exam (Barrett has confirmed this to be true). All these secondary sources need to show is that there is notability with this information (since we know it is true). I would think that multiple lawsuits, several articles, the Townsend Letter and the several pieces of research which I have now provided is ample resource to show the notability of this issue.

There is no BLP issue because Barrett himself has offered this information to Wikipedia. There is no WEIGHT issue, provided that we don't go on and on about this in the article. There is no V or RS issue as this fact has been verified by the most reliable source on the topic of Stephen Barrett - namely Stephen Barrett. There is no OR or SYN violation as this information has been provided by reliable sources and we won't be using it to say anything novel. Just the facts.

Now then, you have asked for a compromise, AvB. Though I feel I have offered up several now, I serve this to you with the greatest hopes for collaboration: You write it. Write this sentence(s) with the phrasing which you would like to see. If it is terse and just states the fact according to Barrett, that is fine. If it is detailed and tells why this fact is notable (lawsuits and controversy), that is fine too. I am putting it in your hands, AvB. Please help me get this notable piece of information included back into the article. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Question: Isn't there on going litigation going on with Barrett and Bolin? If so, shouldn't all of this be deleted? --Crohnie 19:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
How about asking Jimbo to pop in here and read all of this? Everyone is repeating themselves and not getting any where. Maybe he would have an opinion on all of this. I do know that a lot of what I am reading is coming from Bolin, I just looked them up with links provided here. --Crohnie 20:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I think we've all made our opinions on this issue clear and consensus does not appear forthcoming. It might be worthwhile, as a next step, to open a request for comments on the issue of whether the boards issue should be mentioned. Soliciting outside opinions may help break the deadlock. For what it's worth, I do agree with Levine regarding its notability and I think his offer is reasonable, but if there's a significant contention that it's just not worthy of inclusion, then a request for comment would be the next step in resolving this dispute. MastCell Talk 20:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. An RfC might not be a bad idea. I am quite busy in the next few days, but if you or anyone else would like to facilitate getting a third-party opinion here, that may be best. To answer Crohnie, yes, I believe there is on-going litigation between Bolen and Barrett (partially in regards to libel Bolen allegedly committed when he alluded that Barrett was hiding/lying about his not being board certified. I don't think that should stop us from discussing the issue. We know factually that Barrett is not board certified because he didn't pass his exam. This information has been provided by Barrett candidly. Showing that Barrett is open about his credentials (or lack thereof, as the case may be) if anything satisfies BLP by keeping with Barrett's desire to show that he is open in presenting this information. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
To repeat my comment above: "Just because a guy uses a WP talk page to deny a false accusation made about him doesn't make that denial notable enough to be in the article." If this issue is notable, a reliable sec source will have mentioned it. If in doubt, leave it out. thx, Jim Butler(talk) 21:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Jim. AvB ÷ talk

(edit conflict)

I have a longish response ready for Levine, but will not post it for now and concentrate on this idea. Breaking a deadlock would definitely be worth an RfC (just in case anyone's wondering, it's not such a big deal, unlike editor behavior RfCs or arbitrations. See WP:DR and WP:RfC). I would also like input regarding the question whether the sources provided here can be considered reliable per WP:RS. This is interesting for several reasons, one of them being that the ArbCom has decided that Quackwatch is not a reliable source, whereas many editors until now have used it as such. This may mean that other sources may need to be re-assessed, as a whole or on a case-per-case basis. Another question might be what others think about my contention that this factoid needs reliable sources to determine if it is worthy of inclusion (per Jimbo's deletion of disputed material only sourced in a primary source in the Langan article as referenced above). Please note that I'm not arguing that it isn't worthy of inclusion; I am arguing that we need reliable secondary sources to determine if the primary source material is worthy of inclusion. I am also arguing that if Levine2112's secondary sources are reliable, they are still giving us only the minority view of Barrett's detractors which then needs to be balanced, per WP:WEIGHT, with Barrett's responses to this view and the related accusations but without violating WP:SYN. On the other hand, an RfC only works if uninvolved editors do not have to spend too long on the talk page to get the picture, so maybe I'm asking too much and we should focus on (1) the question whether specific proposals or compromises (per Levine and/or to be formulated by others) are acceptable and (2) whether or not his secondary sources are reliable per WP:RS. AvB ÷ talk 21:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay. So it sounds like we are all in agreement that the facts are true:
  1. Barrett is not a Board Certified psychiatrist.
  2. In 1964, Barrett did not pass the neurology section of the Board Certification exam
  3. Barrett never re-took the exam
These facts can be verified by the court filing which I have provided. Barrett's own statement on Wikipedia also verifies this. So what we need are secondary sources that show that this information is notable. I have provided many sources discussion this information. Some are from strictly partisan sources (Bolen, Negrete), some are from articles appearing in trade publications (ChiroWeb, Chiro.org, WCA), some are from the Friedmann analyses, and some are from the Townsend Letters for Doctors and Patients. Our discrepancy is whether any of these sources qualify as a reliable secondary source for determining this information's notability and whether even having a secondary source to determine notability is warranted. Certainly and RfC will help to answer these questions. In the meantime, I will continue to search for more sources that discuss this information. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
--> Please find my response here. AvB ÷ talk 10:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that it is notable (per WP:N), only as he was not required to be board certified (IIRC), at the time he was practising. When he became an expert witness is largely immaterial to his requiring board certification to be a practising physician. The Court determines itself who is and who isn't an expert witness, not board certification. Obviously by the time of the various cases where Barrett was cross examined and found to not be board certified, it damaged his credibility on the stand as an expert witness. But it certainly doesn't make it notable enough to appear in a BLP without significant OR by ourselves to make it encyclopaedic (as you can see by the looooooooogn list of arguements above). Since it is really irrelevant without the case history, it is better to leave it in the detail of the various cases (which Mr. C. Reader can see by clinking on the various links). BTW, Board Certified isn't even notable enough for the WP community, so it's relevance here smacks of a WP:SPA warring against the requirements of BLP and the consensus that has formed to leave it out. Shot info 22:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If we opt to go into all of the litigation surrounding the alleged misrepresentation of this fact, then we can also get into the expert witness and credibility issues brought up by Barrett's critics by following the case history. Perhaps, the litigation section might also be a good place to bring this discussion up. So far, I am still in favor of keeping this as a concise mention in the biography section. I am not sure what Shot Info means by "Board certified isn't even notable enough for the WP community". Please explain. Also, who are you accusing of WP:SPA warring? Please explain. Further, there is no consensus that has formed to leave this out. Again, please explain. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
While I disagree that there is consensus to leave this out, there is obviously no consensus to include it. Agree an article RfC is a good idea. Also, I'd appreciate a direct answer to the question I posed above about the reliability of Friedmann, or any proposed secondary source. thx, Jim Butler(talk) 04:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
What question? -- Levine2112 discuss 05:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, wrong diff; I meant this request, re Friedmann, near the end of the above section: "Please link to the publication info for whichever source you believe does qualify" as a sec source. Thanks! Jim Butler(talk) 06:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I think they all qualify for these purposes. We are just verifying notability, not facts. The more mention and discussion, the more notable. The Friedmann pair is most interesting to me though. They are certainly providing a secondary analysis and use of this information. -- Levine2112 discuss 07:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Nothing too substantional, but just another mention of Barrett's lack of board certification from the deposition of Tedd Koren, DC:
Q. Do you know if Dr. Barrett is, in fact, board certified?
A. From my understanding, he's not board-certified, that he failed board certification on numerous times.
-- Levine2112 discuss 00:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
That's not even in the ballpark of a reliable source. Jim Butler(talk) 04:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The notability of the topic of Dr Barrett's competencies, which include his credentials, has also been noted in the Time magazine article [2], "...lightning rod for [those]...who regularly vilify him as... incompetent...". The description of his educational and professional credentials, including attempts or limits thereto, are objective presentations on this topic. Notability is previously not to the exact word or phrase but rather (sub)topic.
Also coy questioning of Levine as SPA, which he is not, seems counterproductive nor is there consensus to delete by a long shot.--I'clast 00:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The Time article[3] doesn't mean that any primary source questioning Barrett's "competence" is, for our purposes, notable. That's particularly so for court filings and transcripts, which may contain all sorts of "have you stopped beating your wife"-type leading questions. By that logic, if someone alleged that Barrett was "hearing voices", and he denied it, his denial would be "notable". Ridiculous, and in the ballpark of WP:LIBEL. thx, Jim Butler(talk) 04:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
But Barrett did in fact take the Board Certification exam and did in fact fail the neurological portion of it. I am not trying to include the idea that Barrett hid this information or misrepresented it. If we did include that, it would only be conjecture or opinion from his detractors and then Barrett's response would set the record straight. -- Levine2112 discuss 05:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
But Time did, in fact, not write about this factoid even though Bolen was already including it in his regular ant-Barrett e-mail. Time must have been aware of it. I find it interesting that Time did not find it noteworthy at the time. Or, to once again quote Jimbo:
Has there been a book about this? A magazine article? A newspaper article? Or are we simply picking up on some web fight and lawsuit of very dubious importance and trying to do original historical analysis on what it was all about and how important it is? If some contributors to this article think that they have stumbled upon something interesting, historical, and noteworthy, then I encourage them to try to get those aspects of the article published somewhere. I think they might well be right that this could be an interesting story.
And he does not mean unreliable sources when he writes "published somewhere". AvB ÷ talk 10:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
"...who regularly vilify him...[characterizations]"[4], is a reasonable summary of some QW/"mainstream" editors view of what Bolen says. You misconstrue my edit, I quoted Time not as a source on the particular credential (or lack of) but rather a source about the notability of the competencies (sub)topic since that seems to be your earlier residual OR claim and point of contention. Now you are shifting back to contend the various sources as Bolen parrots. This bit about other publications simply parroting Bolen is highly speculative since the court records are publicly available and Bolen's highly partisan position (and legal involvements) should lead any US based publication to consider legal self-preservation issues first. I'clast 11:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry I did not make myself clear: I was not commenting on your argument; I only used the source you introduced in this discussion. No shifting back, just a brief interlude to show that the one reliable source introduced so far rather strongly supports my original (already rather strong) argument that reliable sources are aware of this particular factoid but ignoring it for their own good reasons.
You wrote: This bit about other publications simply parroting Bolen is highly speculative since the court records are publicly available and Bolen's highly partisan position (and legal involvements) should lead any US based publication to consider legal self-preservation issues first. - I'm not sure I understand this. Are you arguing that no reliable source will touch these details in order to prevent legal action against themselves by Barrett? AvB ÷ talk 12:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I am not a fast or frequent writer. My point has only been to fully establish Dr Barrett's professional background and credentials, not any particular negative statement. Perhaps *you* could try to develop the best, least sensitive language. "original (already rather strong) argument that reliable sources are aware of this particular factoid" now *that* sounds like OR, and if a fact is provably true (former WP:V) and noted elsewhere before (like court), it is not a "factoid". There are multiple sources on different aspects of this that collectively fulfill notability, verifiability and reliable sources of the information. I said that *any* US publisher (with visible assets) is going to be careful about what they say over merely parroting a target like Bolen, including the publications that *do* address the issue. That a final WP version is not a single highly quotable form from a favorite publication is perhaps inconvenient, not fatal.
Thanks for explaining I'clast. AvB ÷ talk 15:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Bolen, Negrete

Levine2112 wrote:Some are from strictly partisan sources (Bolen, Negrete), some are from articles appearing in trade publications (ChiroWeb, Chiro.org, WCA), some are from the Friedmann analyses, and some are from the Townsend Letters for Doctors and Patients.

I don't agree with this description. What we have here is:

  1. Self-published personal negative opinion by Bolen
  2. Self-published personal opinion on court cases by Negrete
  3. A number of sources that replicate or (in the case of Friedman and the webmaster of one of the sources) quote from the partisan material by Bolen and Negrete. Some are self-published. ChiroWeb, Chiro.org, WCA are Chiropractic trade publication web sites that simply repost this material. The self-published Friedmann articles quote from Bolen and Negrete and are posted on alt-med web sites. The Townsend Letters for Doctors and Patients is a chiropractic related an alt-med web site that also has reposted the above material.

Basically we're talking about material from a single source: Bolen. Although legally it does not defame Barrett, his hostile remarks are deemed opinion/rhetoric/polemic/whatever: it's no problem if untrue. All sources are partisan, unreliable sources. I have asked Levine2112 to explain why they should be accepted as non-partisan, reliable web sites with a good reputation for fact checking and other WP:RS requirements. His response was unconvincing, and, for example, failed to even mention these sources' reputation for fact checking. AvB ÷ talk 09:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Pushing Bolen's attacks into this article grossly fail WP:BLP. Let's have an end to this. --Ronz 15:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, let's. I'm tired of explaining the obvious. AvB ÷ talk 15:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

For clarification, "The Townsend Letters for Doctors and Patients" is not a chiropractic related website. To my knowledge, they don't even have a chiropractor on staff. For ChiroWeb, Chiro.org, and WCA, is there an issue with trade publications not making good secondary sources? I haven't been able to find this in Wikipedia policy. For the Friedmann articles, how do we know they are self-published? Just because they are posted on alt-med web sites, why does that make them poor secondary sources? Further, why is fact checking an issue here. Stephen Barrett himself has confirmed the facts. All that these secondary sources are doing are demonstrating this fact's notability. Do they need to do anything more than that? Please explain. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I've corrected my description of the Townsend Letters above, thanks for alerting me to this.
None of the secondary sources provided by you are reliable per WP:RS. Please refer to the relevant policies and guidelines and the discussion above for a full explanation. Nothing new here, just basic policy. Self-published, for example, means totally unacceptable in terms of WP:RS; the question is not how we know that they are self-published but how we know that they are not self-published. Fact-checking is an important issue because one of the properties of a reliable source is a good reputation for fact checking. Wikipedia derives its information from reliable sources, all the more so in biographies of living persons (WP:BLP). The multitude of unreliable tiny minority reposts and quotes of negative opinion by Bolen does not change anything: it is and remains unsourced negative information. So far you have not provided a single reliable source that is not a primary source, and we are not allowed to selectively quote from the latter, derive evaluative claims from them, etc. per WP:NOR. AvB ÷ talk 00:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I guess this is where we differ. I believe them to be reliable sources for our purposes here; that is to establish notability of this information. Fact checking (which only you assume is lacking) would only be necessary if were using these articles to establish fact. We are not. Barrett and his lawyers established the fact which I have proposed for inclusion. The other articles, analyses, trade publications, lawsuits, et cetera establish notability. It is based on this difference in opinions that we have here that I support the RfC on this matter. I am curious to know what a thrid-party thinks here. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
It's true that I do not believe that many unreliable sources together can make something notable enough to be included in a BLP. But my main point goes further than that: I think we can't use information from primary sources at all (especially in a BLP) if it has not also been reported in reliable, secondary sources. And I believe that, should we at some point decide to accept the notability argument (which to me is pure Original Research), we still cannot use your sources to quote from as long as they are deemed unreliable. I agree that input from the wider community would be helpful. No takers so far I'm afraid. AvB ÷ talk 02:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
For clarification, I am not looking to quote the sources which you are deeming unreliable. I would summarize (as was done before) the information which Barrett and his lawyers have provided. The secondary sources are only to establish notability and that is per your request. I deem them reliable enough to establish notability. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Barrett VS Clark

This sentence, "On July 25, 2001, the judge ruled against all three plaintiffs regarding Rosenthal only." makes no sense in the context of where it is. The sentence before it has more than three named and the sentence also seems incomplete. Does anyone else see the confusion with the way this sentence is written? --Crohnie 14:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree it's not very clear. AvB ÷ talk 17:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Would someone make the correction please? I don't know the background of this section to understand what is trying to be said.--Crohnie 12:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the sentence, please if this sentence has meaning by all means correct it.--Crohnie 11:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok everyone, how about everyone taking a deep breath and calming down!

I think this subject has been going around and around. So how about this, take a consensus and see how everyone feels. Though I have to admit, looking at the external links posted here all seem to revert back to Bolin's opinion piece. Now, my understanding is that this is not exceptable here, also, personal websites, and blogs are not acceptable except under special conditions.

  • I vote to keep it out. It's not necessary and doesn't fit into the article, plus there is already a comment about this.--Crohnie 16:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep out; 'nuf said. AvB ÷ talk 17:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please note that this is a short story with two parts (see court documents): (1) accusation by Bolen (2) response by Barrett. A brief mention per MastCell should not be too brief and only touch on the response. Context is everything. Preferred location: Criticism section. Preferred format: According to detractors, xxx. Barret responds yyy. Although I am against including this, making it too brief would worse than not including it at all. AvB ÷ talk 21:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Include. I'm on record as being strongly opposed to including Bolen and his ilk in Wikipedia, and my feelings about Quackwatch-related subjects are a matter of record. However, objectively speaking, the fact of board certification is notable enough for a brief, one-sentence mention which closely follows reliable sources. I don't think we need to reference Bolen to do this. MastCell Talk 18:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Exclude unless a reliable secondary source is used. (That is, no court documents, no comment by Barrett, no comment by Bolen (whether or not illegally copied to another web site). Levine2112 has listed a number of clearly unreliable secondary sources. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Include. Per MastCell. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Exclude. Per WP:N, not notable, and WP:BLP usage by hate-sites. Shot info 22:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Include as a brief NPOV stmt of author's precise professional background and qualifications, without the association of a well known polemicist, the topic notable by diverse sources.--I'clast 01:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Exclude per Arthur. --Jim Butler(talk) 07:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment: Board certification

This is a dispute about whether Stephen Barrett's board certification status is notable enough to warrant mention in his article. MastCell Talk 18:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute:

  • See the discussion above. There is primary-source documentation that Stephen Barrett is not board-certified in psychiatry. However, there is dispute as to the relevance of this item, as well as to whether adequate secondary sources exist documenting the notability of his board-certification status. I support a brief, one-sentence mention which would closely mirror the available primary source; I think that its notability is well established enough to support that much, but no more. MastCell Talk 18:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I second this request. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I still don't see secondary sources which are themselves, reliable as indication that there is a dispute. I'd accept a simple statement that he's not board-certified, except that might require a quote from Barrett (or a reliable source) that board certification was not required or common at the time. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Barrett did discuss this in his quote here at Wikipedia. I took the certifying exam in 1964 when about 1/3 of psychiatrists were board-certified. 1/3 does show that it was common to be board certified at the time. And of the 2/3 that weren't, I wonder how many of them also took the cert. exams but did not pass. ABMS Board Certifiaction, to my knowledge, has never been a requirement to practice medicine. It is more of a way to implement and evaluate professional standards. I think this is common knowledge. You can learn more here. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment. There's no guideline allowing "common knowledge" in Wikipedia articles. As for Barrett's quote, I don't think MastCell wants in in the article, but I believe it necessary if the "brief mention" is to appear. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Let's use this space to briefly state our opinions, and hopefully that will encourage outside editors to comment below. MastCell Talk 20:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, not necessary, read the links below, maybe they will help. --Crohnie 20:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I did a small search and found these. I thought maybe it could be useful to all of this. [5] [6] (more information).--Crohnie 20:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Recommended reading. A scientific study in a reliable source. Helpful background info to inform editors. Example: even after Barrett had retired as a psychiatrist, only 69% got through the part 1 exam on first attempt. But note that we are not allowed to use this study in the Barrett article per WP:SYN. AvB ÷ talk 00:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose: We have primary sources, mainly court documents, that establish the facts but should be followed closely per WP:NOR/WP:ATT. We do not have reliable secondary sources so it is impossible to determine how (un)important this information is. It is true that some oppose Barrett so strongly that they have reposted or quoted Bolen's negative opinion pieces. All we know is that they are a tiny, partisan minority (see here) in comparison with mainstream supporters of Barrett and Quackwatch, as evidenced in Stephen Barrett. I am against including this information in a biography of a living person (see also WP:BLP) unless sufficiently sourced in reliable secondary sources.
Regarding a possible compromise: Please note that the facts here are a dialog (see court documents): (1) accusation by Bolen (2) response by Barrett. A brief mention per MastCell or per Arthur Rubin should not be too brief and only touch on the response. Context is everything, especially with primary sources and even more so in a BLP. Preferred location: Criticism section. Preferred format: According to detractors, xxx. Barret responds yyy. I am against including this, but making it too brief would be even worse. AvB ÷ talk 22:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. This is just a statement of facts which have been contentious for the subject and thus have acheived notability. During trial, Barrett stated that he was not board certified because he didn't pass the exam. His opposition in this trial wrote a press release stating that Barrett was forced to admit this and that not being board certified is evidence that Barrett is not a good expert witness. Barrett contends that he wasn't forced to admit this under oath, but that he offered the information freely, never tried to present himself as being board certified and that being an expert witness or a practicing psychiatrist is not dependent on board certification. Barrett has sued for libel those who wrote and re-printed this press release.[7][8] Though the majority of these lawsuits have been dropped, the suit against Tim Bolen is on-going. Barrett has come to Wikipedia to set the record straight: he has nothing to hide, he isn't board certified, he didn't pass the board certification exam in 1964, and he never retook the exam. Being the primary source, we can safely assume that what Barrett is saying is factual. Thus, there is no WP:V or WP:RS issue. The remaining issue is: Do we need to show that this information is notable to include it in the article? I and others have submitted as evidence of notability several sources above, including reprints of the press release[9] [10], wholly new articles not written by Bolen or opposing lawyer Negrete [11], various court filings, and original analyses of Barrett which include the information about Barrett not being board certified [12]. All of these sources have been dismissed as unreliable by opposing viewpoint editors. While I contend that these are for the most part reliable sources, I question if reliability should even be called into issue here. This is about establishing notability; not reliability. Barrett's own discussion on Wikipedia as well as his lawyers' statements in the court filings estabilish the veracity of the facts at hand: Barrett is not board certified because in 1964 he failed one-half - the neurological portion - of the exam and opted never to retake the exam. This information has been discussed in court rooms, legal filings, trade publications, analyses and news articles as shown above. I firmly believe that these all go to establish notability and thus this factual information about Barrett should be included in the article. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. What makes it notable for this article is that Barrett's website makes critical claims about the credentialing of other professionals. As his lack of certification gives the image of a double standard, it acts to take some of the credibility out of his stand. It is only fair to put it in, and he is perfectly allowed to provide his totally valid reasons as to why. The chips will fall where they may. If the tide were turned, my response would be the same. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 23:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support as a brief NPOV stmt of author's precise professional background and qualifications, without the association of a well known polemicist, the topic notable by diverse sources. Relevance: The author's expertise (~85% 7/8 of psychiatric residents (doctors) are now board certified) may be errantly presumed by younger or less familiar readers, where author's professionally qualified certification has not been established on neurologically related topics. Neurologically related topics (among others) where he stridently castigates more formally qualified investigators doing actual research. (Unsourced negative assertions about Barrett removed by AvB per WP:BLP) Although the doctor is certainly entitled to his opinion, his qualifications should be crystal clear here so readers can weigh them, individually, more appropriately. This note is about relevance not the formal notability part already discussed.--I'clast 01:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment 7/8 of doctors is WP:SYN or simply WP:OR. Has this ever been said about Barrett in reliable sources? Just one problem we might be missing is how this relates to age. It's quite possible that say 50% of psychiatrists his age have never been board certified. That's also OR, of course, but it illustrates why we have a rule that forbids OR. AvB ÷ talk 01:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: I would like to graciously thank User:Crohnie for the reference[13] earlier today that you apparently had not yet read, "Approximately 8 years after their first attempt at the part I examination, 85% of the cohort were certified,...", where other similar figures have been previously mentioned here at the QW related articles' Talk pages. So no original SYN. For additional precision, I will modify my edit from the convenient fraction (i.e. halves, quarters, etc), 7/8 (87.5%), to the exact quote, 85%. *One* of my several points actually includes helping readers avoid common OR type assumptions about credentials by the additional clarification between now and then, this is not derogatory, it is aiding accuracy where reader overestimation seems to be a frequent problem, among others.
As for the problems with Dr Barrett's statements, I of course, start with Dr Joel Kauffman's article[14] (and book, Malignant Medical Myths[15], where most of the specific science and medical references are) that pretty handily dissect the accuracy of 5 of Dr Barrett's articles as "contaminated with incomplete data, obsolete data, technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo." Furthermore, there are direct, mainstream papers (e.g.[16][17]) and critical reviews2006[18] that pertain to some of Dr Barrett's favorite references[19] (e.g. Creagan & Moertel) that support previous criticisms by Dr Pauling, among others, some of whose severe scientific criticisms *have* been borne out in the last 5-10 years by mainstream papers of national note, as one example (I have a second similar but longer series example). These papers don't say "vitamin C is the answer", rather they show that "conventional" tests were badly misconceived, misrun, misinterpreted and overstated. Dr Barrett has had *years* to correct the more erroneous or opinionated parts where other WP editors, apparently honoring some old saw, similar to daily news/press rules "well it seemed mainstream ("accurate") when it was written", just doesn't cut it here on WP:V fact checking.--I'clast 06:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Very good examples of WP:SYN. According to Barrett, only 1/3 of psychiatrists were board-certified at the time. According to the sources, less than 1/3 passed the board exams at the first attempt. You quote a paper saying that now (to be fair, it should be as of 8 years before the data-gathering of that paper) 7/8 pass the exam within the first 8 years after attempting it (noting that there are very few statistics about the effectivness of board certification; didn't the summary state that only 13 of 32 studies found a significant benefit of board certification in terms of outcome?
Your remaining paragraphs are probably equally faulty, but I don't have time to complete the description of your errors now. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Uh, Arthur, you missed my point. AvB said "7/8 of doctors is WP:SYN or simply WP:OR." where I noted, referenced and quoted the "now" part in Talk to emphasize the need for unambiguous clarity where a number of less familiar readers might create a SYN or OR presumption given Dr Barrett'e previous status as an psychiatric expert (who, if board certified, would have included the neurology section, an issue which would surface in my longer, second example series).
As for the "probably equally faulty" last paragraph, I nailed two spelling errors, but I haven't seen anyone make good headway on refuting the more recent vitamin C papers as pertain to Drs. Moertel's and Barrett's papers during this past year at WP.--I'clast 12:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
It's WP:SYN in an article about Barrett, as it's clear the rate is the current rate. The requirement of being board-certified in order to practice has clearly become more pervasive over the years. It might be relevant (if his failure to pass the example were relevant) if you could quote the pass rate in the year he took the exam, but the followup rate is clearly irrelevant in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs)
I am not advocating either the old or the new board certification rates be put in, simply exactly what his educational achievement and professional expertise was, as smoothly as any of us can figure how to put it. As for secondary source requirements, primary sources are allowed to *augment* other secondary sources in the topic(s) of his biography and/or qualifications.--I'clast 00:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't this statement in the article “Barrett's involvement in the legal system has also spawned controversy about his objectivity and qualifications to pass judgment on those he deems "quacks". He or NCAHF has initiated a number of lawsuits against those engaged in what he considers unscientific medical practices. He has also offered testimony on psychiatry, FDA regulatory issues, and homeopathy and other areas of "alternative medicine." address your concerns about his qualifications? Or is it that he failed the neurology section that you feel needs to be mentioned? Did you read my links that I found about certifications back then? --Crohnie 13:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That statement tells a reader nothing about recognized or objective gradations & limits to his expertise. Given Dr Barrett's ubiquity of opinions on so many subjects, in so many venues, it is very important & encyclopedic to profile his specific levels of maximum education related achievement. Of course his education doesn't stop there but it is an important, relatively objective marker of his specific expertise and progress through medicine. Also there is a large fraction of the embryonic, biologically based altmed topics that have a significant neurological aspect to them, often un(der)recognized and previously considered (or dismissed) as psychological or psychiatric problems. Dr. Barrett's views as a psychiatrist and MD ca 1961-1990s are a particular set of qualifications that should be differentiated from his views that concern or involve neurology since there was apparently a great overlap with neurology in some other psychiatric residency programs, expected and separately tested on the board certification exams of his era.
I only read your link earlier yesterday[20].--I'clast 00:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Important policy points Editors have frequently used "notable" in more of a colloquial sense covered by other policies rather than WP:N; e.g. (from NPOV) Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete where "determining whether some claim is true or useful" for content as well as other policies. WP:N asks that the subject, Stephen Barrett, and the topic, Qualifications and objectivity be objectively notable, noted by multiple sources, but not content Dealing_with_non-notable_things (needs to be WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV). The content here would be the sentence about board certification.
WP:OR is frequently (mis)quoted on source based research here, WP:OR#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources. Read it:
Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. --I'clast 12:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
And we've already discussed all this in the context of the policies of WP:NOR and WP:BLP. Bolen's attacks are inappropriate in this article, and they are inappropriate rationale for inclusion of portions of those attacks in this article. --Ronz 16:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
And we've already said that we wouldn't include Bolen's attacks. We are citing information provided by Barrett himself and Barrett's lawyers. No attack. No slur. No spin. Just the facts. -- Levine2112 discuss 16:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
And here's the relevant section of WP:BLP
“ Material from primary sources should be used with care. For example, public records that include personal details such as home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations and home or business addresses should not generally be used. Where a fact has first been presented by a verifiable secondary source, it is acceptable to turn to open records as primary sources to augment the secondary source. Material that is related to their notability, such as court filings of someone notable in part for being involved in legal disputes, are allowable, as are public records such as graduation dates, dates of marriage licenses and the like, where they are publicly available and where that information has first been reported by a verifiable secondary source. ”
I see no verifiable secondary sources here. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
This is good. Thanks. So now, it isn't about whether all of the secondary sources which I provided pass WP:RS, but rather WP:V. Then again, a source can't pass WP:V without first passing WP:RS. So we are right back where we started: one side claims that at least some of the secondary sources pass WP:RS, and the other side says they do not. This is why an outside, third-party opinion would be helpful. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
If it helps in anyway, Dynamic Chiropractic (ChiroWeb) has article submision requirements and both an in-house and external review panel. See here for more info on DC. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
This does not establish a reputation for fact-checking. But assuming it has such a reputation, the expected journalistic level is not achieved in this article proposed by you. It is totally one-sided. Its actual editorial content is 233 words out of 1291, or 18%, and heavily slanted against Barrett. The rest consists of direct quotes of Koren (defendant), two of his lawyers, and a list of feats in Negrete's pursuit of Barrett. The information under discussion in this RfC is mentioned by Negrete in a victory speech mirrored in this report. Not a word from Barrett or his lawyer. This is not balanced, professional, fact-checking journalism, but uncritical mirroring of opinion from one of Barrett's two main detractors. AvB ÷ talk 08:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
What newspaper or magazine isn't without bias? Yet many are considered reliable sources beacuse they are published and conform to some level of fact checking. You may note that Barrett sued Negrete and Bolen for writing their press release about the trial; he also sued those who republished this press release; but Barrett didn't sue DC (ChiroWeb) or the WCA for their respective articles which essential tell a somewhat similar story about a trial which Barrett in fact lost. Bolen and Negrete's press release is certainly skirting the edges of libel (perhaps devisively and scurliously), but as every judge has ruled thus far, nothing in that press release truly constitutes libel because it never claims to make a statement of fact that isn't true nor damaging to Barrett's reputation in any meaningful way. So what does this mean? Whoever drafted that press release sure was crafty; they certainly knew just how far they could push the language without it being out-and-out libel.
The DC article on the other hand was never touched by Barrett. Why not? It essentially says the same thing as the Press Release, right? Barrett lost the trial and under oath said that he wasn't board certified. The WCA and DC would be significantly larger targets for Barrett than Bolen, Negrete, or Rosenthal. You might expect someone in the postion of Barrett to jump at the opportunity to sue two extremely notable organizations which represent and defend the exact form of chiropractic which Barrett has spent a lifetime trying to discredit. So why not sue the WCA and DC for writing the same facts? Why? Because any lawyer would tell you he wouldn't have had a case. He may have been able to lawyer his way into court with the authors of the press release and even the republishers of the press release because of the borderline fact/fiction language (What does de-liscensed mena any way? Or what about "forced to admint under oath"? Crafty). The DC and WCA articles do not use this crafty language - if they do, it is via a quote. I'm sure that the respective Editors in Chief of these publications know that they have a lot more at stake as an organization than an individual such as Bolen or Rosenthal. These publications must administer a level of editorial responsibility to stay credible as well as strive to publish articlesover which they won't be sued. A lot more at stake when you are a huge trade publication. That's why I am sure they have in-house and exteral review panels for their articles. Therefore, WCA and DC are reliable secondary sources. Especially if we are just using them to establish the notability for this factual information which Barrett himself has offer to us directly through Wikipedia. Remember, the WCA site and DC represent two largely read publications in chiropractic; which is in itself one of the largest and most accepted alternative/complementary medicines going. -- Levine2112 discuss 09:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Per Dematt... not sure what all this bickering about statistics is about. Barrett is not board certified... he once took the exam and failed at it... what else is there to say? This WP article should tell the whole story of his qualifications... not just the good stuff. Where is the neutral point of view without this fact or factoid? Which ever word you choose, it is a true statement that Barrett failed his board certification exam. Otherwise this is a total whitewash. TheDoctorIsIn 06:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose inclusion per AvB and Arthur Rubin. If this issue is notable, a reliable sec source will have mentioned it. If in doubt, leave it out. --Jim Butler(talk) 07:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose inclusion per WP:BLP and "when in doubt, leave it out". Only by suspending (bending and twisting) policy is it notable enough to overcome WP:BLP. The OR and SYN acrobratics are outstanding, if only there was a barnstar for this :-) Shot info 10:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Agree. The idea seems to be that by blowing enough smoke, the impression of fire will be created. None of the sec sources put forward so far is reliable. --Jim Butler(talk) 22:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Further comment If one accepts this version of secondary sources/requirements, this is actually an argument to move from the Criticism and Qualifications section to Biography as an augmentation of agreed secondary sources, albeit,. probably in the even more muted form of 1-2 phrases.--I'clast 00:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment If a secondary source says that Barrett's credibility has been criticized, that does not mean that every primary-sourced criticism is notable (per my earlier comments, final highlighted section here). thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 00:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • However when the primary source's points agree with other secondary sources' criticisms that are reliable at least for the notability and probably/substantially/arguably for the specific content/criticism, that is of more clear merit. I've already discussed the encyclopedic nature of this subject, too.--I'clast 08:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Then please list the secondary source(s) that say this Barrett's board-cert status is notable. All that's been given so far is the Time magazine article[21] which says that Quackwatch "has also made Barrett a lightning rod for herbalists, homeopaths and assorted true believers, who regularly vilify him as dishonest, incompetent, a bully and a Nazi." So, I suppose any primary source making such criticisms (incompetent, bully etc.) of Barrett is now fair game? Please explain to us clearly and concisely how your logic doesn't lead to an absurd result. So far, no sec source has been given that establishes this issue as notable, and the clear presumption of WP:BLP is to omit unless that threshold, among others, is met. Thanks! Jim Butler(talk) 19:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok. Here's an article[22] from The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Monica Dias, Court ruling gives free-speech protections to reposting messages on Internet boards, Fall 2001 (Vol. 25, No. 4), page 21 that expands upon the early Rosenthal coverage and the opinions that mention the qualifications and professional competencies issue again, a case that later went to the CA Supreme Court. That in itself is pretty "notable" on interest in qualifications. The two previous chiropractic trade pubs, DC (ChiroWeb) and WCA, are WP:RS for reflecting and reporting some chiropractic groups' thinking about notablility on the qualifications subtopic (doesn't have to be a be a general interest publication) as well as the actual note (and quotes) of the neurology test.
As for an "absurd result", what - a brief, more precise presentation of his educational & professional attainments & qualifications, as few as the words in two phrases or clauses? That the professional qualifications of someone who chases around board certified MD(-PhDs), Noblelists in their own fields of research, with material sometimes a half century obsolete, knowably & seriously deficient on two, three, or more parameters, is slightly documented on relevant qualifications for readers' consideration? Or filing dozens of suits over a three year period as well as threatening suits, related to the angry controversies well outside his own area of (non-certified) specialty that have been factually questioned, referred to, and criticized? Some detail about his varied levels of educational preparation and background would seem very encyclopedic.--I'clast 12:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support So the guy failed his boards. What's the big deal in including it in an article that is ABOUT the guy who failed his boards? Apparently, SB is OK with everyone knowing that he failed his boards by his appearance here to 'set the record straight'. I mean, board failure is not something you want to tell your patients about necessarily. But it is a part of life, not to mention that he testified under oath that he failed his boards. Many people fail their boards. Of course, most retake them and pass them, so he didn't, but maybe he should have, but board failure is not the end of the world...of course, it's not the ideal situation either. But still if SB is OK with it, then so am I! And we should be OK with including it in the article. It's no big deal. Of course, it's not ideal, but hey! It happens. My personal view is that if you go to any psychiatrist you should have your head examined! But that's for another RfC. Steth 18:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
He did not receive Board Certification. That is an established fact. Therefore, it is relevant...as relevant as if it were a fact that Dr. B had received Board Certification. The fact of his not being Board certified should be included as a statement of fact. RalphLendertalk 13:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment/question which version of his CV is it on? I couldn't find it here. thx, Jim Butler(talk) 00:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment/answer? I couldn't find it either, and I researched this before proposing it at the beginning of the above dispute discussion as an argument to keep it out.(diff) I think those editing on the other side of this debate have done their homework too and couldn't find it either. For one thing, the absence of such a CV refutes the "he wants it in the article" argument. And so does common sense. AvB ÷ talk 11:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
As does WP:N, WP:OR and WP:BLP. But lets not let policy get in the way of POV now... Shot info 00:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Policy won't get in the way. That an individual did not get board certified and did not pass the neurology portion has been shown to be notable to publications of legitimate groups that may include criticism; WP:N is satisfied. These are facts established in accord with WP:BLP (see Levine's prior discussions), definitely not WP:OR since even the subject agrees about content. Ditto the notability is not OR which was one of the leading arguments earlier since several publications refer to it and are reliable sources as to those groups' outlook. Otherwise, shades of Wilkes, this reminds me of someone's concerned arrival because of some of the historical revisionism going on around here.--I'clast 08:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Clarification Let me clarify my basic point, if I may. I realize that this is a very contentious issue. My point is that it is a fact that Dr. B is not Board Certified. This fact needs to be stated simply NPOV. Our policies and practice do require that we not include facts out of context and/or that are not properly sourced. It seems to me that there is clear and sufficient evidence that Dr.B is not Board Cerfitied, and that this can be attirbutable to a reliable source. So, the only remaining question is how to state this fact within an appropropriate context. Something like "Dr. B, a physican trained in XXX, but not Board Certified in XXX..." should suffice. Such a statement is factual and within the context of Dr. B's training and credentials. RalphLendertalk 17:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment Please see and comment on my request above to I'clast beginning with "Then please list...". Also, would you mind addressing my question about Barrett's CV? thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 19:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think the reliable sources should be listed and cited. My mention of CV was merely a reference to a previous comment regarding Dr. B's CV (I think that he does not list Board Cert...or maybe that he ack that he is not Board cert...but that is not important. If there is a reliable source to support the statment that he is not Board certified, then the fact and source should be cited as this is consistent with Wikipedia policy and practice. RalphLendertalk 20:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sorry i'm late, i've only had half an eye on this article. As i discussed previously, maybe twelve months ago, I do not think this is notable enough be included. There were too many from his era that did not bother retaking the boards. Inclusion of this in the article seems to give undue weight to this being an abnormal thing and all the weasel words that go into defending his era, vs present era, then the inevitable counter points detract from the article. David D. (Talk) 20:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Miscellaneous comments

  • Comments:
Appears not to be listed under article RfC's. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I listed it here, under Biography RfC's. Is that correct? MastCell Talk 19:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, my bad. I looked here. Perhaps it should be cross-listed? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Done. Fyslee/talk 19:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

First, thanks for cleaning up my posts. I really appreciate the help since I am a slow learner and still trying to learn things here. Also, you forgot to sign, you don't want the bot to get you! :) Did you read the links I attached? If so what do you think? --Crohnie 22:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Crohnie. Signed. I'll move this comment down to provide editors who respond to the RfC with an uncluttered overview. And I'm checking out your links now. AvB ÷ talk 22:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Would a change in the first sentence like this satisfy the conversations above?

I was also looking for internal links for board certifications and came across these two that might also be used to reference back the addition of not board certified. Please see- American Board of Medical Specialties and American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. How does everyone feel about this being a fair and balanced way of adding the information and with staying within the guidelines here? --Crohnie 11:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a step in the right direction, I like short and sweet. From the qualifications - criticisms part, I wonder if a short, separate, perhaps somewhat obilique reference to the neurology part in Criticism wouldn't take a lot of the sensitivity problems down by adding two short, well separated phrases inline rather than as a whole issue.
Biography: "...not ABPN board certified."
Criticism, somewhere: "...didn't pass the ABPN neurology portion..."--I'clast 12:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you think that just adding the internal links and stating that he is not board certified is enough? I don't think we need to elaborate on it. As you said it is, "short and sweet" about his lack of board certifications. --Crohnie 12:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
In the Criticism section, the current version one sidedly presents Dr Barrett unchallenged as the voice of science without substansively addressing his qualifications, when there are clearly others that question his expertise generally and specifically, his perception or presentation of science too. I am not talking or defending homeopathy in any way either.--I'clast 08:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Aside from having the information (that Barrett did not pass his board certification exam) given us by Barrett himself, I have also provided many other sources, most notably court documents and article from the WCA and Dynamic Chiropractic. All of these are notable and reliable sources. Since we have Barrett himself giving us this information about himself, we have to trust it to be accurate. The court documents and the two articles add to the notabilitiy of this information.
Now then, after a couple of weeks of dicussion, it seems that the majority of us here are in favor of including this information in the article somehow. Some of those originally opposed to its inclusion, are now willing to concede that a mention - albeit brief - should find its place in the article. I think that a brief mention in the biography section is a good idea. I believe that using this information as criticism may constitute OR as we may not have a reliable source using this information in that way. Now then, I propose a short mention of the facts. These fact are as follows but certainly can be stated more eloquently: Barrett is not a board certified physician. In 1964 Barrett did not pass one half (neurology) of his board certification exams and never retook the tests.
Let's get some suggestion on the wording and then insert it. -- Levine2112 discuss 04:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
This is not a vote. I added the "Round in Circles" notice at the top of the article to try to prevent these repetitious arguments from happening. I find it insulting to the editors here and to Wikipedia as a whole that issues are repeatedly ignored. "New views or ideas on the subject are welcome, however if you find that your beliefs on the subject are parallel to those already discussed, you might want to reconsider the potential value of such an edit." --Ronz 04:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
We have addressed the policy issues and guidelines. (removed) --I'clast 12:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
While I don't entitrely agree that what Ronz excised from I'clast's comment above was abusive, I wish Ronz would practice the same level of editorial with his own comments just above. No one is ignoring anything. We are not insulting anyone. It was agreed that we move throught the steps of WP:DR and the step we were on was gathering a consensus... which is in fact a vote of sorts. Please don;t tell us to find something else to do, Ronz. Please don't tell us that we are wasting your time. Please don't accuse of POV-pushing.
Anyhow, I agree with I'clast. We have addressed the policies and guidelines. Now then, we have reached a consensus to add the statement - albeit a breif mention. But hey, that's how compromise works. Do we have any suggested wording or shall I take a crack at it and we will refine it in the article? -- Levine2112 discuss 17:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry that you don't currently agree with the "Round in Circles" tag now that I've pointed out that your editing here ignores it. --Ronz 17:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
As for WP:POVPUSH: Since you wrote, "Please don't accuse of POV-pushing," perhaps it's time we discuss such issues. After all, you're the one bringing up the issue here to this venue. --Ronz 17:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I am not "accusing" you of anything. You have commented that this is aPOVpush here. So it is your suggestion. Please let me know how and if I can help you with your investigation. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I see no agreement that WP:BLP allows mention of his failing the exam in the article absent a notable secondary source, nor that there is a notable secondary source. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
The rationale for WP:BLP is that Wikipedia articles contain information about living people can affect a subject's life. The information which we are deciding whether or not to present is factual and given to Wikipedia by the subject himself. Barrett's position is that he is open about not being board certified and about not passing the board certification exam. Thus, I don't see any rationale how inclduing this information here can adversely affect Barrett's life. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Barrett is giving us this factual information. His lawyers confirm its accuracy in legal documents. Reliable sources such as Dynamic Chiropractic and the WCA establish this fact's notability. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Mediation is probably the best next step toward resolving this dispute. RalphLendertalk 18:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, RalphLender. I have just put in the request. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the straw poll which was conducted above resulted in 7-support to 5-oppose. However, with Crohnie stating above that he wouldn't be opposed to mentioning that Barrett is not Board Certified, the result is closer to 8-to-4. Either way, the straw poll (part of WP:DR)resulted in favor of keeping mention of Barrett's lack of board certification. This consensus is not cause for action, but just to shed light on where we all stand as a community on this subject thus far. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

i just added my oppose above, for what it's worth, since it does not really change the substance of your points. David D. (Talk) 20:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks David D. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I just want to make sure that my thoughts on this is understood. I have no problem with mentioning that Dr. Barrett is not board certified, like I said above. The sentence in the article could simply be change to, "Barrett is a 1957 graduate of the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and completed his psychiatry residency in 1961, he was not board certified." allowing the knowledge of him not being certified. I do not agree though with adding the failing of the test. I don't think that the research I did to look into board certification during the years that Dr. Barrett went to school and practiced had certification high on the list back then. (Board certification can also be wikilinked to this addition.) --Crohnie 10:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I think you have an excellent point, Crohnie. I would add to the research what Barrett himself said... only about 1/3 of doctors were board certified at the time. Certainly, one-third is a significant portion. Also what would be interesting would be finding out the pass/fail rate for the exam at that time. All of this would be WP:OR and couldn't go into the article, but it may be interesting just to know. Anyhow, I think the sentence which you are proposing is very good. Since board certification is an ongoing title persay, it may be more accurate to say: "...he is not board certified" rather than "was". Thoughts? -- Levine2112 discuss 17:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't think it's important enough for this article to mention the 1/3 since we don't have anything to back this statement. We are supposed to be writing about Dr. Barrett and not anyone elses accomplishment or lack of accomplishment. But just adding he was not board certified says enough. Also, he is now retired so I believe the past tense would be the proper way of saying is. --Crohnie 18:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I see. Sure, that makes sense as far as the tense goes. Good suggestion. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Curious. How does the "opposition" to this general measure feel about Crohnie's suggested introduction of this topic to the article? (Ronz, David D. AvB, Arthur Rubin, etc.) -- Levine2112 discuss 17:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I feel we're still going round in circles. --Ronz 18:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
So, you are not interested in any compromise then? How about other people? -- Levine2112 discuss 19:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I still think that for technical background & qualifications, his precise academic/professional history is very relevant to a lot of readers in various WP & QW articles. Furthermore the article is still unbalanced in hagiographic, sometimes self-congratulatory and poorly sourced ways, as well as incidentally poisoning the critics.--I'clast 23:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, just noticed this. I can live with Crohnies suggestion. The main point is not to make a big deal of it. David D. (Talk) 07:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)