Talk:Eric R. Braverman

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Eric R. Braverman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120131042058/http://davidovit.com:80/articles/Braverman.pdf to http://davidovit.com/articles/Braverman.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120619004209/http://www.faafm.com:80/staff-and-faculty.html to http://www.faafm.com/staff-and-faculty.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140104203835/http://www.internalmedicinenews.com/single-view/p300-evoked-potential-may-identify-early-brain-deterioration/ec6d54b408.html to http://www.internalmedicinenews.com/single-view/p300-evoked-potential-may-identify-early-brain-deterioration/ec6d54b408.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120610104000/http://dailynightly.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/03/11007637-the-surprising-new-face-of-obesity?lite to http://dailynightly.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/03/11007637-the-surprising-new-face-of-obesity?lite
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://pathmed.com/pdf/NT%20Mag-Inner%20Peace.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://pathmed.com/pdf/vogue.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://pathmed.com/pdf/Elle-2-07.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:57, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Eric R. Braverman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://davidovit.com/articles/Braverman.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.faafm.com/staff-and-faculty.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20121214183540/http://web.cs.gc.cuny.edu/~rllc/colloquium/talks/Fall2010/2010-11-18.htm to http://web.cs.gc.cuny.edu/~rllc/colloquium/talks/Fall2010/2010-11-18.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

media

some of the refs here might be use-able to generate encyclopedic content. Otherwise this is just promotional trash

Media appearances

Braverman has been a radio personality since 1986 and currently hosts Total Health on WABC-770 Sundays at noon, and has also made guest appearances on other radio shows. In the past, he hosted a weekly show on WOR 710 Radio, until his contract was canceled in June 1996 following board action in the state of NJ and PA. He has appeared on television networks and primetime shows including NBC Nightly News, Larry King Live, The Today Show, The Tyra Banks Show, MSNBC, Benny Hinn's This Is Your Day and The O’Reilly Factor. In addition, Braverman's work has been featured in magazines and non-academic publications, including as Elle, Vogue and New York Magazine.

References

- Jytdog (talk) 06:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Negative information

{{BLP noticeboard}} I just reverted a revert of material that puts the page subject in a negative light. It seems to me that the information was reliably sourced, but I'm opening that up for discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

It is pure whitewashing and vandalism [1]. The article is well-sourced. If he does it again, he should be reported. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the claims again. More than two-thirds of the sources are to court records (which aren't reliable sources for BLPs) and tabloid papers The New York Post and The New York Daily News. Surely there have to be better sources than these. If not, then these claims shouldn't be here. Woodroar (talk) 14:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

This is clearly a reliable source [2] Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

[3], casewatch.net is a reliable source and is cited on at least six other Wikipedia articles. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

From WP:RSP: "Articles written by Stephen Barrett on Quackwatch are considered generally reliable (as Barrett is a subject-matter expert) and self-published (as there is disagreement on the comprehensiveness of Quackwatch's editorial process); Barrett's articles should not be used as a source of information on other living persons." (Emphasis mine.) Casewatch is run by Stephen Barrett so it is also self-published and should not be used for these claims, either. Woodroar (talk) 14:53, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: there is currently a RFC on the reliability of Quackwatch. Opinions seem to be mixed. Blueboar (talk) 15:16, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Woodroar, this has already been discussed many times. Quackwatch articles written by Barrett are sometimes used on biographies of living persons where no other source exists. Gary Null for example, Barrett's article on Quackwatch is used on the article. Barrett is an expert on the subject. If you eliminate that source, there is no detailed alternative in this case. I believe it should be restored. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

First off RSN has said that material published by Barrat is SPS, SPS are not allowed to be used for BLP information. Having said that at least some of this removed material was not sources to QW (or Barrat) and thus is not covered by the RSN findings. Indeed some of it appears to have been sources to (for example) newspapers and thus is not covered by SPS anyway.Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Barrett's articles on Quackwatch are used on many biographies on Wikipedia (for example, Gary Null), he is an expert on the topic and this is not disputed, they are left as reliable sources. There seems to be some sort of cherry-picking going on. Braverman has been selected and all critical material including Quackwatch has been removed but other living biographies that use Quackwatch are all fine. Does not make sense. We should restore the material here if Quackwatch is being used on other living biographies. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Irrelevant policy says "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." Barrats material on QW is SPS (according to RSN) thus cannot be used for information about a living person. Your argument is not an argument to restore the information, but to remove it form those other articles, two wrong do not make a roght.Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

As for non-SPS sources, I did mention The New York Post and The New York Daily News above, but they tend towards gossipy tabloid journalism, so not great for a BLP. There's also Patch, which is probably fine. It's never been discussed at RSN but it's independent, written by a reporter, they have an editorial team, it's ultimately run by AOL, etc. And of course there's The New York Times, which is considered reliable for BLP claims. I'm definitely not opposed to restoring some of this content, just not claims sourced to SPS, court documents, and tabloids. I've often found that, if Quackwatch covers something, reliable sources will follow. It would be great if those sources were available. Woodroar (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven, all talk and no action! Are you going to remove Barrett's articles on Quackwatch then from all the other living biographies, including Gary Null? I didn't think so. It seems only this article has been targeted. Yawn. You have 0 chance of removing Quackwatch from Null's article without being reverted... and you know it. LOL. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

You were the one who drew my attention to this by posting about it on a noticeboard I watch, and no I am not required to do anything.Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Then it should be restored. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Barrett's articles on Quackwatch are used on more than ten living biographies on Wikipedia. So the rules only apply to Braverman and nobody else? Interesting. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I did not say that.Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

We both know that Quackwatch will still be used as a source on Null's article in a year, and many of the other biographies on Wikipedia. I will check in a year and it will still be there, heck maybe it will be there for ten years. This article has been singled out because it has much less traffic then some of the others. Quackwatch is a decent source and the most detailed that documents Braverman's career on the web. I am not interested in editing this article again, it has been whitewashed, sad. But I have high-lighted a major contradiction and inconsistency here. It really is terrible. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone who came here from the post I made at BLPN. I'm going to say the same thing here that I'm about to say there. I would be fine with shortening the page so as to reduce the reliance on tabloid sources, although my review of the article led me to think that a lot of what they are cited for is factual rather than sensational. I'd also much prefer to revise the page than to continue the edit warring that has been going on. But what originally led me to restore the material in the one edit that I made was that the page also cites this source, which is from The New York Times, and that is unquestionably a reliable source. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The user who started the whitewashing Oxford2008 has been blocked indefinitely for sock-puppetry. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. The edit history of the page sure looked to me like it could be a sock farm, perhaps also WP:PAID. But I also think it's reasonable to look carefully at the sourcing and BLP issues, independently of that. I suspect that this is a case of a page subject who should be presented somewhat negatively, but that the page needs better sourcing. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I've just removed negative/controversial claims sourced to tabloids, court documents, and self-published sources per BLP. Where possible, I kept or updated some claims that could be sourced to the NYT or Patch instead. I also updated the bot/autogenerated ref names so it's easier to see which sources are being used for which claims. If anyone knows of reliable sources that support content I've removed, please feel free to re-add it. Or let me know and I'll gladly add it back myself. (I'm not sure "gladly" is the best word here, given the subject, but it is what it is.) For what it's worth, I do think it's important that we include negative information, but it needs to be reliably sourced and compliant with our BLP policies. Woodroar (talk) 14:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Can those who wish to include this please find better sources?Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

But the sources we have are fine! -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 17:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

The SPS ones are not, as you are now fully aware. So reinstate the rest and find non SPS sources for the rest.Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Woodroar I am going to undo you last (overly large) deletion and ask you to only remove sources that violate SPS . We should discuss the rest.Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

See WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, as I just mentioned at BLPN. We can certainly discuss sources, but that content should be removed until a consensus develops.

As I see it, the non-SPS issues are with court documents (sourced from various sites) and tabloid sources (The New York Post/Page Six and The New York Daily News). Per WP:BLPPRIMARY, court documents should not be used to support claims about living persons. As for the tabloid sources, why should we use them? Do they pass WP:BLPSOURCES? Woodroar (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I do not have roll back access and thus am unable to undo my revert as I removed some material afterwards. But you are correct, it should not have been restored until consensus had been reached.Slatersteven (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you (and I mean that). I went ahead and reverted back.

If anyone thinks that any of these sources are reliable enough for BLP, or has alternative sources, please discuss it here. On a personal level, the more I read these sources, the more I feel like we need to mention something. But I also recognize that we need to do it correctly and make sure that everything is reliably sourced. Woodroar (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

There's been too much edit warring, in my opinion, so I've requested full protection for the page. I think it's reasonable to hold the page in the more BLP-cautious condition it is now, pending more discussion here in talk.

I think it's good that there is growing agreement that something should be included, but that we should do so correctly and carefully. First of all, I really do think that the New York Times source is a fully reliable one. As for the Post and the Daily News, I would break down the evaluation of the sources into (1) reliability, and (2) due weight. I doubt that the information that has been sourced to those cites is really untrue. This isn't like the "little green man" stuff that appears in some tabloids. Rather, I think the key issue for us is due weight for material that has been reported in tabloids, but has not also been reported to the same extent in higher-quality sources. Given the sheer extent of this stuff, I think at least a goodly amount of it is due weight for inclusion, but we should be careful to not go beyond what is clearly verifiable, and be careful not to omit any rebuttals that Braverman has expressed. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't sure the edit warring was that bad but in view of BLP concerns and the current holiday season, I full-protected for two days and do not need consultation if another admin wants to remove the protection. Johnuniq (talk) 09:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

The NYT is fine, and to the "tabloids" this has a rather different meaning here. For (what is in effect) local news they would be fine. I am not sure that undue applies purely because it is a local issue. But none the less is still relevant to his professional standing. Moreover much of it seems to be just being used to flesh out details.Slatersteven (talk) 10:35, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

My issue with The New York Post isn't that they'd invent a story wholesale, like the National Enquirer often does with aliens. (Or did? I can't say I'm current on the type of content they run.) It's that they have a reputation for sensationalism, covering gossip stories that reliable sources tend to consider unimportant. They also have a reputation for running articles that are misleading or deceptive, or that further the interests of Rupert Murdoch and his friends/associates. Our own article on the paper mentions criticism from the Columbia Journalism Review, how the Post is (or was) considered the "least-credible" major local paper, plus a number of specific examples of shoddy journalism. Now the Post might be fine for basic news coverage, but for negative or controversial claims in a BLP I think we need to look for higher quality sources with an actual reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Like The New York Times, for example.

I had also removed a handful of claims sourced to New York Daily News because they're also described as a questionable source at WP:RSP. It looks like they've won 11 Pulitzer Prizes, so that might be a better place to start?

If the consensus is to include articles from the Post, however, we should probably attribute their statements if there aren't multiple sources. (Though if there are multiple sources, why use the Post at all?) I'd also argue that we should not use articles from the Post's gossip section/site, Page Six. Woodroar (talk) 15:45, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Except that Neither the NYP or NYDL are deprecated in a way that says we should never use them. I would argue *as I did above) that as this was really of only local interest only local papers would have covered it. I see no issue overall with using them, especially if there are primary sources that back up the claims.Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could made a sort of list here in talk, of the specific bits of content that were cited to the contested sources, and then we could go through each of them, one-by-one, and evaluate whether they are borne out by, for example, the Times, whether they seem to be adequately factual and due as they are, and whether they need to be balanced by Braverman's perspective. It might be more useful to look at specifics instead of discussing the concerns in general. Also, I agree that we should not cite anything from pages of a newspaper that are self-labeled as gossip pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it would be nice to have each piece objected to individually. At the moment we have some SPS (not the rules applies to people, not their views), RS considerations (or is it undue weight?).Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Claims and sources

These are the claims I removed in this edit, along with policy justifications. I won't list claims that I left in the article because I found (or they already had) better sourcing, though I may add some notes about that.

1. b) sexual abuse and forcible touching sourced to nysb17-13478-27.pdf (court records hosted at bankrupt.com). Removed per WP:BLPPRIMARY (court records).
2. b) indicted; ordered to undergo a psychiatric fitness exam sourced to nysb17-13478-27.pdf (court records hosted at bankrupt.com) and Psych exam ordered for alternative medicine doc accused of sexually abusing patient by Shayna Jacobs (New York Daily News). Removed per WP:BLPPRIMARY (court records) and WP:BLPSOURCES (tabloid).
3. Braverman is listed by Quackwatch as a promoter of questionable health products, and critics accuse him of promoting quackery. sourced to A Critical Look at Dr. Eric Braverman and his PATH Medical Clinic by Stephen Barrett, M.D. (Quackwatch). Removed per WP:BLPSPS (clarified in WP:RSN#RfC: Quackwatch).
4. On July 1, 1996, Braverman, who had a PATH office near Princeton, was served by the New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners with a 12 count 'verified complaint.' Later that month, the board temporarily suspended Braverman's license to practice medicine in New Jersey, finding that if he continued to practice it may constitute a clear and imminent danger to the public. sourced to License Suspension of Eric R. Braverman, M.D. (1996-97) by Stephen Barrett, M.D. and Disciplinary Action against Eric Braverman, M.D. (1997) by Stephen Barrett, M.D. (both Casewatch, also run by Stephen Barrett). The sources and some of these claims were removed per WP:BLPSPS, but I was able to update the basic statement to In July 1996, Braverman's license to practice medicine in New Jersey was suspended by the New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners after finding that he repeatedly misdiagnosed his patients and prescribed them inappropriate treatments. and sourced that to this New York Times article. In addition, I added The New York Times also noted that Braverman has a radio show on which he advocated for alternative medicine. sourced to the same article. On a side note, I couldn't verify "who had a PATH office near Princeton" in the Casewatch sources, plus the mention of 12 counts and "constitute a clear and imminent danger to the public" are taken from the court records and not Barrett's analysis, which is an issue of WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:NPOV.
5. Regarding the first 11 counts of the complaint, the New Jersey attorney general charged that Braverman's diagnosis and treatment of 11 different patients was "so inappropriate or unsafe, evidencing gross misdiagnosis and/or mismanagement of a wide variety of patient complaints, that the health or lives of his patients are endangered." The Attorney General claimed that Braverman represented "a clear and imminent danger to the public." In the 12th count, New Jersey said that the writings of Braverman "contained in his Updated Holy Bible, including the statement, 'the Lord said . . . I am YHWH from Yahweh...' taken in aggregate with other circumstances, such as Braverman's license plate which reads 'YHWH MD', indicate that Braverman may suffer from a mental disorder." Due to this, besides suspension of license, the State sought an order requiring Braverman "to submit to psychiatric and psychological evaluations." sourced to License Suspension of Eric R. Braverman, M.D. (1996-97) by Stephen Barrett, M.D. (Casewatch). Removed per WP:BLPSPS and WP:UNDUE as it's a long paragraph with a single source. There's also an issue of WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:NPOV because many of the specific details/quotes are original analysis of the court records and not what Barrett highlighted.
6. Starting in September 2013, PATH Medical was investigated by the Office of the Attorney General of New York General Health Care Bureau for deceptive and misleading business practices due to 20 complaints to the OAG of unnecessary testing and excessive billing. sourced to Sarah Ferguson linked to controversial doctor by Richard Johnson (Page Six, a gossip section/site published by The New York Post). Removed per WP:BLPSOURCES/WP:BLPGOSSIP (gossip site published by a tabloid) and WP:UNDUE (single tabloid source).
7. The OAG also found that patients were not provided documentation about what testing had been conducted at the time of treatment, and that many patients complained that they were being charged extra to discuss the results of those tests. Finally, the OAG found that PATH Medical used insecure methods such as personal email accounts to communicate private health information, including patient records. PATH Medical reached a settlement with the OAG in December 2014, called Assurance 14-222, promising to reform its practices to ensure that all consent forms would clearly indicate that patients will likely not receive insurance coverage for their treatment, that patients would receive an itemized receipt with costs and Current Procedural Terminology codes before any treatment is conducted, and that protected health information would no longer be sent via email. sourced to PATH Medical Assurance of Discontinuance 11.24.14 (clean) (Casewatch). Removed per WP:BLPPRIMARY (court records) because there isn't even any analysis by Barrett here, it's simply a court record hosted by Casewatch.
8. Braverman and his divorce attorney Diana Moyhi were arrested for trying to steal two confidential custody-case psychiatric reports on him from his divorce case file from a Manhattan Supreme Court courtroom in January 2014. He was charged with attempted grand larceny, tampering with public records, and criminal contempt. sourced to Doctor embroiled in contentious divorce busted for sex abuse by Rebecca Rosenberg (The New York Post), Doctor accused of stealing court documents in custody fight by Julia Marsh and Kirstan Conley (The New York Post), and Anti-aging doc accused of sexually assaulting patient during massage in his private office by Thomas Tracy and Shayna Jacobs (New York Daily News). Removed per WP:BLPSOURCES (all tabloid sources). Even if we find that the New York Daily News is a better tabloid source, we still have issues with WP:UNDUE.
9. After trying to steal the reports and being caught by the court clerk, he allegedly tried to bribe her. sourced to Doctor tried to bribe court clerk after failing to steal documents by Rebecca Rosenberg (The New York Post). Removed per WP:BLPSOURCES (tabloid) and WP:UNDUE (single tabloid source).
10. The charges carried a maximum jail sentence of seven years. and His wife had claimed their children were not safe with Braverman because he had tried to improperly medicate them. sourced to Doctor accused of stealing court documents in custody fight by Julia Marsh and Kirstan Conley (The New York Post). Removed per WP:BLPSOURCES (tabloid) and WP:UNDUE (single tabloid source).
11. Braverman was found guilty of attempted petty larceny and sentenced to 15 days in jail, which he served. sourced to Psych exam ordered for alternative medicine doc accused of sexually abusing patient by Shayna Jacobs (New York Daily News). Removed per WP:BLPSOURCES (tabloid) and WP:UNDUE (single tabloid source).
12. On the basis of this case, the New York State Board of Professional Medical Conduct charged Braverman with professional misconduct, resulting in a "censure and reprimand". sourced to Park Avenue neurosurgeon arrested for sexually assaulting patient by Shawn Cohen and Linda Massarell (The New York Post) and ny_censure_2017.pdf. Removed per WP:BLPSOURCES (tabloid) and WP:BLPPRIMARY. Note that the Casewatch source is again only a court record with no analysis from Barrett.
13. In October 2017, Braverman was again arrested. He was charged in a criminal complaint with sexually assaulting a female patient at his office by forcible touching and sex abuse by inserting his fingers inside her "for no legitimate medical purpose" and against her will. sourced to Park Avenue neurosurgeon arrested for sexually assaulting patient by Shawn Cohen and Linda Massarell (The New York Post), Anti-aging doc accused of sexually assaulting patient during massage in his private office by Thomas Tracy and Shayna Jacobs (New York Daily News), and Psych exam ordered for alternative medicine doc accused of sexually abusing patient by Shayna Jacobs (New York Daily News). The sources and some of these claims were removed per WP:BLPSOURCES (all tabloid sources) but I was able to update the basic statement to In 2017, Braverman was again arrested. He was charged in a criminal complaint with sexually assaulting a female patient at his office by forcible touching and sex abuse. and sourced that to Patch.
14. He was arraigned in Manhattan Criminal Court on November 1, 2017. sourced to Park Avenue neurosurgeon arrested for sexually assaulting patient by Shawn Cohen and Linda Massarell (The New York Post). Removed WP:BLPSOURCES (tabloid) and WP:UNDUE (single tabloid source).
15. He was indicted by a grand jury on one count of Sexual Abuse in the Third Degree and one count of Forcible Touching. sourced to nysb17-13478-27.pdf (court records hosted at bankrupt.com). Removed per WP:BLPPRIMARY (court records).
16. In September 2018, at the request of the New York District Attorney’s Office the judge in the case ordered that Braverman undergo a psychiatric fitness exam. sourced to Psych exam ordered for alternative medicine doc accused of sexually abusing patient by Shayna Jacobs (New York Daily News). Removed WP:BLPSOURCES (tabloid) and WP:UNDUE (single tabloid source).
17. In June 2016, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division upheld an order of the New York Supreme Court that awarded Braverman's third ex-wife Darya primary custody of their children and granted him supervised therapeutic access time with the children. sourced to Braverman v Braverman (court records hosted at law.justia.com) and Neurosurgeon could lose underwear in divorce battle by Ian Mohr (Page Six). Removed per WP:BLPPRIMARY (court records) and WP:BLPSOURCES/WP:BLPGOSSIP (gossip site published by a tabloid).
18. The court based its opinion on the determinations of a court-appointed psychiatrist and abuse specialists that Braverman committed medical child abuse (Munchausen syndrome by proxy) by exaggerating the children's symptoms and repeatedly subjecting them to unnecessary and at times invasive medical treatment, and had a fixation with their health. and The court also noted Braverman's impaired mental health, his false accusations of abuse against his ex-wife, and his inferior parenting capabilities. sourced to Braverman v Braverman (court records hosted at law.justia.com). Removed per WP:BLPPRIMARY (court records).
19. In March 2017, Braverman filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. and He listed $10.6 million in assets, and $20 million in liabilities sourced to Eric R. Braverman, MD Peition for Voluntary Bankruptcy (2017) (court records hosted at Casewatch). Removed per WP:BLPPRIMARY (court records).
20. In his filing, he blamed his bankruptcy on divorce proceedings with his third ex-wife. and His ex-wife's attorney said: "Despite his claims of insolvency he has admitted to the court that he recently enjoyed a respite on St. Bart’s at a multi-million dollar estate." sourced to Scandal-ridden doctor blames bankruptcy on $5M divorce suit by Julia Marsh (The New York Post). Removed per WP:BLPSOURCES (tabloid) and WP:UNDUE (single tabloid source).
21. Braverman's bankruptcy filing has stayed his pending lawsuits. was unsourced. Removed per WP:NOR.
22. A Critical Look at Dr. Eric Braverman and his PATH Medical Clinic removed from External links section per WP:BLPEL.

I think that's it. If I've missed any, please let me know. I'm very short on time (especially after this) so I may not be able to get back to this right away. Woodroar (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much for compiling this. It's very helpful. I've reformatted it so that each item is numbered, so that we can refer to each one by its number. I've only done a quick examination so far, but here are a few thoughts from me for the time being. I think anything that is sourced only to a court record or the like, without also being reported in a news account, should be omitted, because the BLP policy is very clear about that. I took a quick look at the RfC at RSN about Quackwatch, and the consensus seems to be that it is reliable, but only when Barrett has written the piece. I think some of those cites do look like he wrote it, so those may be appropriate to include. I still need to look at the newspaper sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Would you mind reading the RfC again when you have a moment? The issue isn't only whether or not Quackwatch is reliable, but also whether or not it is self-published. The general close result was that [a]rticles written by Stephen Barrett should be considered reliable and self-published... and the nuanced result clarified: It seems like the consensus on the articles written on Quackwatch by Stephen Barrett is that they are considered to be self-published under our definition of self-published. The key consideration to most people is that Mr. Barrett is also the editor of the website and there is thus no second set of eyes that would make their articles non-self published as defined by Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources.... The link to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources is important because it says to [n]ever use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. That's the issue at hand, because all of the Quackwatch claims here are about living people. Woodroar (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you are right about the RfC and I was wrong, sorry. I stand corrected. My reading of the section of the verifiability policy is that it says not to use self-published sources for assertions of facts about living persons, but that there is nothing wrong with using them for attributed expressions of opinion. So, for example, I think it would be OK to write something like Critics such as Stephen Barrett writing in Quackwatch describe Braverman as promoting questionable health products, and as promoting quackery. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Except it does not say "for facts" that is because we are aware of the old trick of "Bert Terrible has said that Raymond Luxury Yacht is a pedo" as a means of getting round libelous statements (and yes adding the word "alleged" is the same kind of dodge. In modern parlance its called a dog whistle.Slatersteven (talk) 09:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I hope you are not implying that I would want us to write something like that. Wikipedia cites opinions, with attribution, all the time. A self-published source is a reliable source for the opinions of the person who wrote it. We can discuss whether Barrett's opinion is due, of course. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

No, I am saying what policy does not say. You might not want to write it, others might. As I have said before we should treat all subjects the same, not by differing standards.Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Can someone point me to a WP listing which indicates the New York Post and New York Daily News are for WP purposes both considered "tabloids" and thus barred for use as sources for use on a BLP? BTW, "tabloid" can refer to a paper size and does not necessarily equate to tabloid journalism. RobP (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:RSP says that there's "no censensus" about the reliability of either paper. The Daily News is mentioned as a "tabloid" in both meanings of the word (The New York Daily News is a tabloid newspaper that publishes tabloid journalism) and the same is implied about the Post (The New York Post is a tabloid newspaper with high circulation, and most editors prefer more reliable sources when available. The New York Post operates Page Six, its gossip section.). Off wiki, you'll find criticism of both papers' tabloid journalism, "sensationalism sells" approach—for example, from The Columbia Journalism Review and The New York Times—which points to their lack of a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Woodroar (talk) 04:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

RS yes (in that it has not been found to not be an RS), tabloid Yes.Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• I have seldom seen such outright whitewashing, under the garb of an absolutist interpretation of policies. RSP, at the very top states Consensus can change, and context matters tremendously when determining how to use this list, which has not been paid any heed to. Both the tabloids are pretty much reliable in mundane reporting of negative affairs unless we are dealing in highly controversial domains. And, if we are not using these sources, I propose that the article be deleted for it fails ANYBIO and GNG. ∯WBG^converse 13:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

No issue with deletion, if he is not notable then he is not notable.Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm also concerned that the removal of this material veers towards whitewashing information that is reliably sourced. But I'd rather have a careful discussion of those sources here. Now, the Quackwatch source that we were just discussing has been added as an external link: I'm not so sure that this is really progress. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I've gone through all of the sources now, and this is what I think:

1. I agree that it should remain removed, per primary source policy.
2. I agree that it should remain removed, for the reasons given above, and because it is WP:UNDUE.
3. We should continue to discuss revising it as an attributed opinion.
4. I agree with the changes as described.
5. I agree that it should remain removed.
6. I agree that it should remain removed. We should not cite gossip pages.
7. I agree that it should remain removed.
8. I don't really see a problem with the sources, but I agree that it fails WP:DUE, just sleazy stuff that does not belong here.
9. Ditto.
10. Something like this should be restored. There is nothing wrong with the source.
11. Ditto.
12. Ditto, but source only to the Post.
13. I think that the change that was made is reasonable.
14. I agree it should remain removed, WP:UNDUE.
15. I agree it should remain removed, primary source.
16. The source is OK, some version of it should be restored.
17. I agree it should remain removed, another gossip page.
18. I agree it should remain removed, primary.
19. Ditto.
20. The source is OK, we could make a less gossipy summary.
21. Agree with removal.
22. Agree with removal.

--Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I reinstated (3). I'll let someone else go through the rest of Tryptofish's list. jps (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry that it's taken so long to get back to this. My thoughts:

(3) was restored (as noted above) and edited, and now says Quackwatch has stated that PATH promotes and sells questionable health products, and critics accuse Braverman of promoting quackery. I think something like Quackwatch has stated that PATH promotes and sells questionable health products, and has also accused Braverman of promoting quackery would be more appropriate. It is a single critic, after all. (Of course, if anyone has additional sources, I'm absolutely fine with keeping it as-is.) In addition, if we're using it as a source, should it also appear as an external link?

If we do restore 10-12, 16, and 20, we should rewrite the (removed) text. While verifying those claims in the sources just now, I've noticed that the (removed) text was very closely paraphrased from the sources. Here are the sources again:

10. Doctor accused of stealing court documents in custody fight by Julia Marsh and Kirstan Conley (The New York Post)

11. Psych exam ordered for alternative medicine doc accused of sexually abusing patient by Shayna Jacobs (New York Daily News)

12. Park Avenue neurosurgeon arrested for sexually assaulting patient by Shawn Cohen and Linda Massarell (The New York Post)

16. Psych exam ordered for alternative medicine doc accused of sexually abusing patient by Shayna Jacobs (New York Daily News)

20. Scandal-ridden doctor blames bankruptcy on $5M divorce suit by Julia Marsh (The New York Post)

Ideas? Input from other editors? Woodroar (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I've updated the Quackwatch claim and also removed Quackwatch as an EL because it's already being used as a source. Woodroar (talk) 14:03, 15 February 2020 (UTC)