Talk:Stephen Barrett/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

fact checking

Following up my previous request for current references, {(cn}}, to support the text, "...is...", this is what I found: Ann Int Med reviewers, author absent 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006; JAMA reviewers, absent 2004, 2005, 2006. I have accordingly improved the text to update & reconcile for concrete current information from the cited sources.--I'clast 09:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify: The citation-needed tag is there because so far we only have two journals and the article says "several". Is the tag still necessary? --Ronz 16:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

We could change "several" to "two" and then remove the tag. Sound like a plan? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Not unless you can provide a source stating there are only two journals. Otherwise it sounds like original research. --Ronz 19:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't "several" constitute original research? The only research we have shows that in the past he has been on two peer review boards. Where does "several" come from? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see "several" on Barrett's own biography sketch on his site Quackwatch. This is a primary source though, no? Don't we nned reliable secondary sources to confirm this? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I just helped SB out on WP:V, 2/3. WP:NOT is still a problem here, without *any* WP:RS source showing notability, "peer...several top journals", is in far worse shape on vanity & OR on notability than "...neurology portion" has been. So maybe {(cn}}^3 or delete.--I'clast 20:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Harrison v. Quackwatch

Here is a link to new litigation perhaps on the horizon for Barrett et al. Harrison v. Quackwatch complaint. Something for us to keep an eye on and pre-plan how it may be incorporated once the case starts moving forward. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Where do you think it might fit? Perhaps, once it is reported on in a reliable source, it probably should be included in this article and/or Quackwatch. (Sorry, Ilena, but humanticsfoundation.com cannot be considered a reliable source, or even be cited in Wikipedia, as it still contains personal information about Wikipedians.) I fail to see how Quackwatch and Chirobase cannot be removed from the case under DMCA, though. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Ilena Rosenthal is just posting the legal document on her site. Is she still to be considered the source here?

I am not sure how it would fit in to this article yet. Currently, our litigation section deals with suits where Barrett sues for libel. This one is the other way around... someone suing Barrett for libel. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by this: "I fail to see how Quackwatch and Chirobase cannot be removed from the case under DMCA, though." Please explain. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

(I'm afraid this is WP:OR, but please bear with me.) In Barrett v. Rosenthal, it was found that Internet "publishers" cannot be found liable for republishing information, even if libelous. I admit that was a California case, but they were interpreting Federal law, and that interpretation is likely to be given some weight by the PA courts. Taking all the statements from the brief as factual, Botnick and Barrett (but only if he added additional material not written by Botnick) might be found liable, but QW, Chirobase, and Barrett to the extent he quoted Botnick would be excluded from liability under section 230 of the CDA. Of course, I'm not a lawyer, but that's the way I would bet. That an alleged quack is suing an alleged quackwatcher, rather than the other way around, makes no difference to the law. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I understand. You are making a prediction about the outcome of the case before it goes to trial. Very astute! I don't think that we should include any details from this case just yet as only the complaint has been filed (or at least that's only what I could find). However, a while back, there was a statement in the article that Barrett himself has never been sued. Not that the statement is still in the article, but this could have been used to negate that. Perhaps this would be better suited for the Quackwatch article, but one thing that can certainly be said from this is that Barrett has been sued for libel by a health practitioner for posting to Quackwatch allegedly false or misleading claims about the health practitioner's methodology. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you're referring to one of Ilena's povpushes. We don't want to be going down that road, do we, continuing her Barrett-hating point of view with total disregard for all policies, guidelines, and editors that don't agree with her position? --Ronz 21:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I am referring to a passage which was taken from a biography written about Barrett which was used to cite a now-removed phrase in this article to the effect of: Barrett has never been sued. It was removed because it couldn't be confirmed and it was claimed (I believe by Ilena) that Barrett in fact has been and is being sued. This complaint filed against Barrett supports the reasoning for removing the phrase. But that is old business.

I just wanted to bring this complaint to the attention of those interested in Barrett here and discuss how and if it can be used for our purposes here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was the pov that Ilena was pushing so very, very hard. Sorry you see it as something to bring up. --Ronz 01:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

That isn't a POV then. It is a fact. Barrett has been sued. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

That was Ilena's excuse for all her pov warring, her repeated statements that "it's a fact". Perhaps this is why you're having such a hard time understanding the policy discussions we've been having here. It certainly was a problem with Ilena. --Ronz 04:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

We have solid evidence that a lawsuit against Barrett is pending. I am not saying that we do anything about it here ont he article. But for the purposes of the discussion we've been having here, to state that Barrett has been sued is a fact, not a POV. I think I understand Ilena's "problem" now more than ever before. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Guys, let's not refight this here, especially since it doesn't seem to impact a content issue on the current version of the article at the moment. MastCell ^Talk 18:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

No fighting. Just trying to prevent povpushing. --Ronz 03:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

If this court case goes forward and is truly notable, it will be reported somewhere besides Ilena's website. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - let's wait for the secondary sources to accrue before we jump the gun on adding this stuff. It will make it in before the deadline. Using material from Ilena's website is a very bad idea and would verge on acting as a proxy for a banned user, which is itself a pretty serious matter. MastCell ^Talk 22:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. The only thing at this point which may suggest using this for is to establish that Barrett has in fact been sued. I think that much is clear enough. However, I don't think we need to put this in the article just yet and I agree that we should wait for a secondary source. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I think MastCell and Levine are more or less in agreement about WP:RS and WP:NOT for inclusion of a direct note on such a lawsuit. Where (obscure or emergent) real time news may make the first impression on an article may be WP:V, that a previous "fact" or statement is no longer true is Verifiable, some previous text needs to be deleted or altered, especially if the previous "fact" or statement is directly contradicted, even if a new fact is not yet notable for direct inclusion in the WP article. Maybe Levine is askng if there are other news & policy interactions that may apply here (I don't know much about Botnick or chiro stuff).--I'clast 03:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there even any evidence that this is anything more than a posting (copied by Ilena) from Harrison's website, IOW a charge that hasn't been officially raised (registered and accepted in the courts) yet? We need those kinds of sources before we can proceed with this. When can one accurately and truthfully state that a person has been sued? When someone bitches about them? When someone makes up a formal charge? When someone gets that charge registered at a court? When that charge is found unworthy of trial and is never accepted? When that charge is considered worthy of trial and accepted for a real hearing? When that trial results in a judgment against the person accused? When the trial results in a judgment against the one raising the trial (a SLAPP suit)? -- Fyslee/talk 08:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS tells us which sources to use, and which not to. Until we get a RS, we wait. Shot info 11:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Proceed with what? I don't think we should use this for anything but discussion here for the time being. I introduced it here to put it on all of ourradars. Nothing more. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Did anyone else notice that the document in conversation has zero signatures on it? --Crohnie 12:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I think we are all done with the "heads up" discussion for now.--I'clast 15:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

copied from Ronz' talk page

I apologize for that. Your writing to Crohnie indicates that you feel that the "push" to have the fact (that Barrett isn't board certified) is fueled by editors wanting more criticism in the article. I think you can see how I was tripped up. Again, I apologize. So, for the record then, you don't consider the insertion of the fact (Barrett not being board certified) to be a criticism? Right? BTW, let's move this back to Talk:Stephen Barrett. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

New discussion to continue here at Talk: Stephen Barrett

There has been a lot of off-talk-page discussion about this article and I am trying to reign it in and bring it back here to the proper place.

My question to Shot info (and anyone else here) remains. Do you consider it to be criticism, if we were in fact to mention that Barrett is not board certified? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I find it irrelevant. The topic is not notable. The off talk page discussions are more about WP policies and their application to make better articles, the usage of Stephen_Barrett is principally as an example (in my case). Shot info 01:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool. But do you think it is criticism to mention that Barrett is not Board Certified? Yes or no. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Who cares? There is no sec source saying it's notable. If and when there is, we can report what such a source says, including whether or not they said it was criticism. Now would you mind leaving this alone for awhile, please? Your repetition is disrupting the talk page. You've made your point. Yours in the most civil and AGF-ish way imaginable, Jim Butler^(talk) 02:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm new to this page, and I haven't read the whole talk page, but it seems to me that no matter how distasteful a character may be, their bio is not the place for more than one or two paragraphs of criticism which merely give the reader an understanding that there is controversy, and a lead on where to go to find out more. Why is there a huge section on criticism here, but very little at the quackwatch page itself? Does Barrett pretend to have more qualifications than he does? Suggest just moving this over to the Quackwatch page. It ought to be relevant, as he seems to run his own show. But maybe I haven't looked around enough. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 08:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Martinphi! I am going to attempt to give you a brief summary, so you don't neccessarily have to read this entire page of discussion. Our issue here is not about adding more criticism but rather a biographical fact. Barrett isn't board certified because he did not pass his exams. This information was offered to Wikipedia by Barrett himself. In trial, Barrett had offered this information under oath. His critics jumped all over this and sent out a press release that said Barrett was "forced to admit" it under oath. Because of this statement and others of its kind, Barrett started a number of libel lawsuits. This information (Barrett not being certified) can be found in legal documents and several widely read news publications covering Barrett's trials and tribulations. The current proposal on the table here is not to add this factual information to the Criticism section (which BTW only makes up about one-tenth of the article space), but to add it to Barrett's biographical data along side his other credentials. We don't have a reliable source using Barrett's lack of this credential as a criticism, but as I mentioned, we do have reliable sources (including Barrett himself) verifying this information as fact. So we WP:N and WP:V completely satisfied. Please note that a lot of the rest of Barrett's biographical information comes to us only from the Quackwatch website without a secondary source. Here at least, we have primary and secondary sources confirming this fact and establishing its notability. I hope this helps you get a general idea of the background of this discussion. Please feel free to read the details above. I apologize for being one of the contributors to its great length. :-) Anyhow, we would love your input here. I have noted the good work you and Jim Butler do over at Pseudoscientific topics and welcome your contributions and suggestions here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

We don't have any sources to give us context or weight for this information, other than unacceptable ones from critics. Without acceptable sources, we're violating WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:NOR, and WP:NOT#SOAP. --Ronz 17:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record and for Martinphi's and other's ease, here is a partial list of sources which may show context and weight:

• Examining the Truth By Terry S. Friedmann, MD, ABHM and Sabina DeVita, EdD, DNM, RNCP with Karen Boren
• Wathing the Quacker By Terry S. Friedmann, MD, and Karen Boren
• Anti-chiropractic groups spreading ‘stroke’ lies online World Chiropractic Alliance
• Stephen Barrett Loses Major Defamation Trial in Hometown Dynamic Chiropractic
• STEPHEN BARRETT, M.D., v. OWEN R. FONOROW, and INTELISOFT MULTIMEDIA, INC
• STEPHEN BARRETT, M.D., v JOSEPH MERCOLA, D.O.
• Quackwatch Founder Stephen Barrett Loses Major Defamation Case in his own Hometown Chiro.org
• Archives of Talk: Stephen Barrett post by User:Sbinfo (Stephen Barrett).
• Dr. Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch Exposed In Court Cases Canadian Lyme Disease Foundation

-- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

That's really nice of you Levine- I thought everyone over at the pseudoscientific List hated me- they're doing an RfC on me. Thanks for the summary! Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess it's now time to summarize these sources again and show why they're unacceptable. --Ronz 23:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Do these include the secondary and tertiary sources that Levine2112 mentions? --Ronz 22:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The Britannica Criterion

I think it is possible to resolve the question of whether Barrett's lack of board certification should be included in the article by making a simple intuitive judgement. All one has to do is to ask oneself the question: "Would I expect to find this in an article in the Encyclopaedia Britannica ?" I surprised myself when, walking across the park on Monday, I asked myself this question, because I came up with the answer "No". I have advocated inclusion before. But perhaps those keen on inclusion should look within themselves and ask whether they want it included because Barrett gets up their nose. He does more good than harm, but he gets up my nose. For someone to describe board certification in the terms in which he does here and not to have been board certified himself invites ridicule. As does including the "Journal of Naturopathic Medicine" on the list of nonrecommended publications and then citing it as authority here footnote 20.

Something which, unlike the foregoing will provoke no laughter, is that Quackwatch contains a statement about the Ornish heart treatment Fortunately, Ornish's program has been superseded by more effective forms of managing elevated blood cholesterol and the discovery of other treatable risk factors. Barrett is not the author of these words but he has editorial responsibility. The Ornish programme is a programme for causing atheroma to regress. I take it that the way to deal with these "other treatable risk factors" means taking folic acid which Barret advocates and which the NORVIT trial has shown to be dangerous. Surely no-one can now doubt that a vegetarian or near vegetarian diet <= 10% of whose calories come from fat offers all or most CHD patients their best hope.

So, we should not allow Barrett to irritate us to the point where we lose sight of the intuitive Britannica criterion. I am afraid I have allowed him to do so in the past. But then, nobody is perfect. robert2957 11:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's do talk about encyclopedic treatment and historical, negative phrases concerning the youthful years of towering, meritorious figures in science (or medicine). Dr Barrett's supporters here have latched onto a questionable description ("runner up"[1][2] - WP:V, RS - where?) and questionably WP:NOT and WP:RS listing (where he is a consultant, 7/80-, subcommittee co-chair, 7/80-, Member) with their subject 8 places[3] from the reknown Albert Einstein, (any association fallacy here??). Let's compare some negative words that encyclopedically describe Einstein before age 25: "early speech difficulties", "...took violin lessons, and...eventually quit", "...[college] entrance examination. He did not pass", "..could not find a teaching post;...", "...his brashness had irritated..." all seem much harsher, and less practically pressing, than those proposed for this article. Einstein's youthful details are certainly less relevant to current science and medicine debates in current health, life and death matters that concern Dr Barrett's often presumed or assumed expertise. Quackwatch articles sometimes harshly (and quite WP:V inaccurately and misleadingly) criticize Nobelists' work (and scientific reputation on still current matters) by siding with demonstrated medical partisans that were publicly cited as "frauds" on (pretty self evident) bare scientific grounds, the "fraud" citations further supported by recent (yr 2000+) papers in very high impact publications.--I'clast 13:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Excellent points, I'clast. Looking a bit deeper into Albert Einstein, we can learn even more. It appears there are numerous, quality secondary and tertiary sources to draw upon. --Ronz 15:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Robert2957 makes good points, but as for the Britanica comparison, remember that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Also, please know that I am not moving to add this fact about Barrett's credentials for reasons of spite or distaste for the man. (Before coming to Wikipedia, I never heard of Barrett. Outside of Wikipedia, I have no dealings with or about Barrett. I am not a healthcare practitioner - alternative or mainstream. In short, Barrett or Quackwatch has no direct impact on my life whatsoever.) My goal is to make Wikipedia the best resource it can be. Leaving out a glaring detail like this about Barrett weakens the article. To be fair, Albert Einstein is a Nobel Prize winning, world reknowned figure who will go down as one of the most influential people in history. So finding secondary and tertiary sources about his childhood (which happened over a hundred years ago) is and should be rather simple. With Barrett, on the other hand, we are dealing with a much less significant individual and with regards to news about his lack of board certification, this is something that has only been revealed publicly within the last three years. Considering that, it is amazing that we even have the sources we do have... primary, secondary and even a couple of tertiary. Given that the facts of Barrett's failed board certification exam is given to us directly by Barrett commenting on Wikipedia, all this whole page of discussion comes down to is whether the additional sources establish notability of this fact. That is all we should be discussing here. My position is that several libel lawsuits framed around comments concerning Barrett's lack of board credentials, several news reports that mention his lack of board credentials, and a couple of well-sourced papers discussing the significance of Barrett's lack of board credentials more than establishes this fact notability and justifies its (re)inclusion in this article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I do have to agree with Robert2957. Leaving out such an important fact diminishes the utility of Wikipedia and it's articles. However, the fact should be stated as a fact. I don't see why more than one line would be necessary...unless it was felt by a number of other editors that some statement about the prevelance of Board cert at the time he could have gotten it is relevant to put his not having it in some context. Regardless, this is a "glaring detail," and I agree with Rober. RalphLender^talk 18:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It is a statement of fact and it only needs one line in the article. To add another statement about the prevelance of Board Certification at the time would actually constitute a WP:OR violation (unless we have a source making the statment with regards to Barrett). Furthermore, Barrett could have re-taken the board certifiaction exam at any time up until he retired his license in 1993. What would be more relevant would be the pass-rate for the exam in 1964, but again, that would consititute at WP:OR violation (unless we have a source making the statement with regards to Barrett). -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

A simple statement that he (was) not board-certified might be appropriate, if notable. I'm not convinced it's notable, and I'm not convinced it's appropriate even if notable.

A statement that he failed the board exam is almost certainly not appropriate, even if notable, without context which we cannot supply without violating WP:OR. Perhaps his words would provide adequate context.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Define "appropriate" please. Notability has certainly been established. Appropriateness, I don't know. What do you mean? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

We do not routinely write articles about medical doctors (or doctors of other persuasions) in Wikipedia; Barrett is notable because of his activism around what he considers quackery. As a result of this activism, he has been involved in various court cases where he has been asked to establish his credentials. It is in this context that his board certification (or lack thereof) has come up, and if it's useful information for the court in question, it's obviously both notable and appropriate here. --Leifern 18:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent)

So every single fact brought up in every singe court case that Barrett has ever been in should be added to this article? Still sounds like WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:NOR, and WP:NOT#SOAP to me. (My apologies for repeating something that's a bit too close to past comments.) --Ronz 19:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Just the relevant ones. And as Leifern pointed out, Barrett is notable for his activism in quackery and serving as an expert witness in related cases. His credentials (or lack thereof) is entirely relevant, thus WP:NOT#IINFO is not applicable. WP:WEIGHT is not applicable because we are not representing a minority viewpoint. That Barrett is not board certified is a fact; not an opinion. WP:NOR? What original research? This fact has been outright stated in the legal documents, the articles, the analysis of Barrett and most reliably by Barrett himself here at Wikipedia. Finally, WP:NOT#SOAP? Who is soapboxing or trying to spread propaganda here? This is a relevant and notable fact which lends itself to making a Wikipedia article more informative. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, replying to everything but Levine's last comment). Notablility has not been established. We would need a secondary source, generally reliable, which is not related to either party in the lawsuit, to report that the matter is relevant to that lawsuit. No examples have yet been given. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The WCA, Dynamic Chiropractic and the Canadian Lyme Disease Foundation are not to my knowledge related to either party in the lawsuit. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

So now we just have to figure out how to agree upon "the relevant ones". That's of course what WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:NOR, and WP:NOT#SOAP are all about. But then again, we've been over all this before. Again, my apologies. --Ronz 19:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

And Barrett's credentials are certainly a "relevant one". Specifically, that Barrett is not a Board Certified physician. This is a well-established fact. That is why WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:NOR, and WP:NOT#SOAP are not applicable here. So the question is: Why would we want to leave a notable and relevant fact out of an encyclopedic article? No good answer comes to mind. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying any and all facts related to Barrett's credentials should be in the article? --Ronz 19:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not ready to make any generalizations. But in this case, we have shown notability, verifiability, and relevance. We have provided primary, secondary and even tertiary sources. Additionally, the majority of people participating in this discussion are in favor of including it. What else is there to say? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You can try to stick to your argument, rather than leaving it. You were making statements about relevance, about why the guidelines and policies we've mentioned don't apply, and now you've dropped that line of argument completely. --Ronz 19:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Because we have shown exactly why they don't apply here. Are there any other policies which you would like to point out now? Otherwise, we still haven't seen a good argumnet from leaving this factual, relevant and notable information out of this article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You've done no such thing. You started an argument, then abandoned it. How about instead, we just abandon the subject, as it should have been over a year ago when you first pushed for it? You've been arguing it for over a year now. If you are going to just abandon arguments altogether, rather than respecting other editors here, then what's the point of these discussions? --Ronz 22:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You are being rude now. I will disengage. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

How have I abandoned any arguments? By the way, I don't consider this an argument; but rather a discussion. How am I not respecting other editors here? Please be specific. Now then, I have addressed WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:NOR, and WP:NOT#SOAP above. But to reiterate and risk going in another circle, WP:WEIGHT is not an issue because we aren't dealing with a minority opinion (or any opinion at all). We are dealing with a verified fact. Barrett is not board certified because he didn't pass the exam and never retook the test. WP:NOT#IINFO refers to indiscriminate information. Leifern (and Dematt further above) has more eloquently stated why this isn't indiscriminate but rather poignant and relavent for a man who is famous for his expertise. His credentials (and lack thereof) are entirely relevant. WP:NOR is not a factor because we aren't dealing with any original research. We are including information that has been given to us by the primary source - Barrett. And by his lawyers. And confirmed in multiple secondary and tertiary sources (Dynamic Chiropracic, WCA, Friedman, et cetera). And as for WP:NOT#SOAP, who is soapboxing here? Are you accusing an editor of this? I am certainly not pushing any agenda or propaganda. I am merely trying to include a relevant, notable and verified fact which improves the article. Are there any other policies which you would like me to examine or can we follow what the majority of editors want to do here and re-include this fact to the article? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

By "argument" I mean line of reasoning. Dropping a line of reasoning without saying you're doing so and/or saying why is disrespectful. As for the rest, I think it better to go back to the line of reasoning you dropped for the time being in the section I've started below. --Ronz 02:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

What line of reasoning did I drop? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's just say then that I think I see some basic interpretations of policy where we might be disagreeing, and I'd like to discuss those first. --Ronz 02:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

How is it I just walk right out of one rathole into another? (-: I would have to study this a long long time before having an good opinion. It isn't my usual field.

How important is board certification to one's standing and qualifications? The part he failed seems to be neurology... and I doubt it is relevant to what Quackwatch does. In addition, it was in 1964, and would be irrelevant now even if it wasn't then. I mean, the man may or may not be awful, but we have to be fair and relevant. Neurology in 1964 is relevant to now?? Certainly it is verifiable, but is it really relevant?

However, this does have current relevance because of the lawsuits; on his site a document is from 2001. So while it is not a valid criticism (or at least we shouldn't say it is), it should be mentioned somewhere.

I really think the things like his not being board certified, the lawsuits and other criticisms etc. are very notable. It looks like you have a lot of notable negative stuff which doesn't belong in a bio. The bio already has way too much negative. Even if he's a nasty nasty man. This stuff belongs more in the Quackwatch page, or in an article "Quackwatch and controversy." That page would write itself with the sources you have, and would solve the dispute, I'm guessing anyway. That shouldn't be a bad fork, as it would present both sides of the controversy, NPOV. It would be linked from both pages, and everyone would get to put in the nasty and good stuff they want. Is a new page possible? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not whether he is a doctor, or a journalist, or even a nice person, he *is* a very, very currently controversial person, seeking national attention for his opinion pages that frequently denounce people and health proposals with some highly questioned aspects to both the correctness of his opinions AND his qualifications. His credentials *are* a factor in many ways. Some accurate, factual detail without the omission(s) *is* encyclopedic and should be a requirement here. We cannot settle the issue of whether he is 80% wrong or 80% right or any other %. We can try to *accurately* give his background that gives the record of his actual performance and attainments rather than just a hagiographic gloss over.--I'clast 15:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

One of my previous notes on neuorology's relevance in Barrett/QW issues:[4] - chronic degenerative diseases and other topics, huge areas in altmed coverages, have significant neurological components previously (often) considered or dismissed as psychological or psychiatric, where Dr Barrett indicated little training or interest in neurology yet he has very critical things to say in emergent area that do concern the area of neurology. The neurology note aids a reader with one of the few objective assessments of expertise, at one time, and is a possible cue for further investigation of qualifications on a specific factor in such (common) areas.--I'clast 15:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think I agree with you, I'clast. It is just that I don't think it all belongs in a bio, especially because it opens a can of worms- there are too many people with too much controversty on Wikipedia. That's why I suggested a seperate article. In such an article we could do the thing right, instead of sneaking a halfway version into other pages.

His 1964 failure of part of the board certification is relevant, but only understandable if one has a lot of background about the controversy. So, it should probably be mentioned as part of a single paragraph in his bio, which points the reader to a page which has all the context necessary. Your post above makes it clear that we need a lot more context than should be given in a bio. No one else got any comment on this? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure about creating a fork to "Quackwatch and contoversy". Certainly Barrett's lack of board certification has become an issue in his libel lawsuits. If there is any place to discuss the controversy surrounding this, we would have it in the Litigation section. However, for the general statement of the fact that he is not a board certified physician, I can think of no better place than within the biography paragraph which documents his credentials. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Which facts related to Barrett's credentials should be in the article and why?

Trying to get back to the line of reasoning above that was dropped...

Why is his lack of board certification important enough to include in the article? I see two problems that are preventing us from making headway at this point:

• First, we need to stick to verifiablility, and not treat certain information as "facts" that have special status.
• Second, just because we're avoiding presenting alternative points of view does not mean that WP:NPOV is dismissed.

Can we agree on these? --Ronz 01:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure provided that you can agree that this fact - Stephen Barrett is not Board Certified because in 1964 he did not pass on half of his board certification exam and never again re-took them - has been verified and that this is neutral factual information which doesn't represent any POV (meaning that taken by itself it doesn't represent criticism or praise). Further, can you agree that WP:NOR, WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOT#Soapbox aren't a factor here? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Further, I reject that I ever dropped a line of reasoning. From my POV, what is preventing us from making headway on this point is the acceptance of the references provided as good sources for the notability of this fact. If that issue can be resolved, this whole discussion will be resolved. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad I brought this up then, because you're missing the point entirely. WP:NOR, WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOT#Soapbox are all factors here in my opinion. I think you're excluding them because you don't agree with the two problems, even when you say you do.

I think it's improper to discuss "facts", because it tends to remove the information from the source. Per WP:V, we deal with verifiable information, not "facts" and not "truth".

When I say that we don't dismiss WP:NPOV, I mean just that. WP:WEIGHT applies:

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

It always applies. --Ronz 02:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It's one sentence of a verifiable fact. It's hardly undue weight. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

So single sentences about verifiable facts should always allowed in articles? Sorry, but WP:WEIGHT clearly says, "depth of detail, quantity of text." Considering the sources available, the quantity should be zero. --Ronz 15:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

exclusion criteria & asymmetries

The exclusion criteria don't match or are not met. We have addressed a number of substantial reasons and poicies for inclusion. Also we are encountering asymmetric applications of policies. We nominally catch it on NOT#OR but QW supporters don't even recognize the existing issues here. Levine gets lectured on NOT & SOAP, when the article has had substantial QW WP:SOAPBOX elements and NOT ref problems even to this day, just many editors can't see it. This article has had to be unwound very slowly so that shock doesn't set in.--I'clast 03:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Some fresh examples of those asymmetries, with a small dose of WP:AGF too. [5] - [6] and [7]- [8]--I'clast 03:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT anybody? Shot info 03:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what I'clast's comments have to do with the discussion above, so I'm making it a subsection. I don't think the label of "QW supporters" is necessary nor appropriate. I don't see any lectures about SOAP other than that from Levine2112. Are you referring to Levine2112's discussion here? And why not state your perspective of what's going on with the citations in a separate discussion? I was going to start one, but was waiting until it became clearer what you three are trying to do. --Ronz 03:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Who? Me, Shot_info and Jim Butler?--I'clast 03:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I think it would be helpful to expand upon the notes in the edit summaries. --Ronz 03:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Are these the mysterious "QW Supporters"? Shot info 03:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

My mysterious view :-) is: What Barrett says about quackery-related issues on Quackwatch is all fine (when cited as "Barrett said...") given WP:V#Sources. He's already notable, so his arguments on his site are citable. That argument is consistent with the arguments already given (Wp:blp#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy, lack of a reliable source establishing notability, etc.) for not citing his board-cert status. The latter issue—Barrett's board-cert status—should be pursued via mediation if some editors feel strongly that it needs to be included. I don't see what purpose is served by continuing to discuss it here (just to be clear, by "it", I'm referring to "Barrett's board-cert status", in case anyone missed that). Until the editorial pool expands or changes, discussion here won't further WP:DR, since the RfC was inconclusive and those opposed seem unlikely to change their minds about it (i.e., Barrett's board-cert status, in case anyone missed my point). thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 04:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Wp:blp#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy applies considering that Barrett himself offered us this information at Wikipedia. He is clearly public about this info. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Where is the verifiable secondary source required by that and other policies? Link to it, please. Or tell me why my request is inappropriate. Jim Butler^(talk) 07:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Below is a partial list of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources which discuss Barrett's lack of board certification. I am not sure which request of your is inappropriate. Please explain.

• Examining the Truth By Terry S. Friedmann, MD, ABHM and Sabina DeVita, EdD, DNM, RNCP with Karen Boren
• Wathing the Quacker By Terry S. Friedmann, MD, and Karen Boren
• Anti-chiropractic groups spreading ‘stroke’ lies online World Chiropractic Alliance
• Stephen Barrett Loses Major Defamation Trial in Hometown Dynamic Chiropractic
• STEPHEN BARRETT, M.D., v. OWEN R. FONOROW, and INTELISOFT MULTIMEDIA, INC
• STEPHEN BARRETT, M.D., v JOSEPH MERCOLA, D.O.
• Quackwatch Founder Stephen Barrett Loses Major Defamation Case in his own Hometown Chiro.org
• Archives of Talk: Stephen Barrett post by User:Sbinfo (Stephen Barrett).
• Dr. Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch Exposed In Court Cases Canadian Lyme Disease Foundation

Thanks and sorry if my question was unclear. What part of "verifiable secondary source" was I not clear on? None of those are even close, of course. thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 04:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose then that this is precisely the point where we disagree. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Really? Then that's good! If we can boil the disagreement down to something that straightforward, I think that will make it mucho easier on outside editors trying to figure out and comment on this. Virtual beer for you -- if that's your beverage of choice. regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 07:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Since there is no agreement about the notability of Barrett's board certification status I suggest that we put in a section headed "trivia" and list this fact under that. robert2957 05:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion, but please re-read Wp:blp#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy and see if you still feel that way. thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 06:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not trivia(l) and IMHO, it's not even close to a privacy issue for a persistently public, "I am the media" person that asserts his expertise everytime he attaches that MD to opinions and articles launched from his sites, aimed at strongly influencing a global public with his POV.--I'clast 15:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

From a purely stylistic perspective, "trivia" sections are explicitly discouraged by the Manual of Style (see Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles). MastCell ^Talk 23:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Inevitable Leeway ?

Is it either necessary or possible to uphold with absolute rigidity a Wikipedia policy such as the requirement that anything which is said in a biographical article should be of proven notability? As far as I know, the article about Leonid Brezhnev does not say that he was never able to give up smoking. But this fact would interest most people who read about him simply because it is a fact about Brezhnev. As perhaps would the fact that Mr. Andropov was a diabetic who (I think) liked jazz. The fact that a particular person whom I once knew gave up smoking the day he learned he had emphysema would interest nobody except his friends and acquaintances. But does not the mere prominence of an individual create an interest in the perhaps smaller details of his life? If Barrett had a keen interest in the xylophone or if he had been a junior chess champion would this not be interesting to know? Likewise with board certification. Perhaps the fact could be included simply because Barrett's prominence makes it interesting. It doesn't seem to meet my intuitive "Britannica criterion". But then the Britannica is a paper encyclopaedia which has no space for a "Trivia" section. robert2957 18:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a reasonable suggestion, Robert2957; however I would point you to WP:TRIV which states that these sorts of trivia sections should be avoided. Given that we are already discussing his credentials, I think Barrett's lack of board certification would fit naturally into that section (as it was before). Sound good? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Robert - agree with you on minor biographical details being potentially interesting, but still, the sort of stuff you mention does need to be first reported someplace in a reliable sec source such as a biography or periodical. (Also, WP:BLP doesn't apply to dead guys.) thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 03:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Even if we do not have a formal "Trivia" section it still seems to me that it could be argued that Barrett's mere prominence makes all kinds of facts about him interesting. For example, did he ever win a prize for Latin? I think the WP policy on trivia which you quote is a bit too strict. But I suppose we'd better abide by an established policy while it lasts. The idea of including his lack of board certification still seems to me to fail my "Britannica" criterion. And the fact that 2/3 of psychiatrists were not board certified in his day perhaps diminishes the interest of this point. robert2957 20:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, for the record, the 2/3 figure was as of 1964 (when Barrett took the exam) and this figure was given to us by Barrett. One out of three psychiatrists (not MDs in general) is still a significant figure, but I don't think that matters so much here for our discussion. Now then, Barrett was a licensed doctor until he retired in 1993. At any point in his ~30 year career, he could have retaken the exam. Again, I don't think that matters much in terms of our discussion here. A point that might matter, but would constitute an original research violation, would be to find out how many of those doctors who took the exam in 1964 passed? That might be a telling stat. Regardless, none of this should matter. Barrett is a notable figure based on his involvment in writing critical papers about the health care industry and serving as an expert witness for health care related legal procedings. His qualifications and credentials are entirely relevant -- more so than his Chess playing ability or penchant for jazz music; though things such as those may be nice to add to bring some additional flavor to the article. I appreciate your thoughts and suggestion on that and would be interested in finding out some of these more trivial details about the man. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Just so that I can understand the OR business, would you be guilty of OR if you found out how many passed in 1964? Surely this would be discovered from a publicly available record which you could cite as authority? The OR would come in in your saying that it was notable, I suppose. robert2957 20:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

To meet WP:OR the information must come from reliable sources and it should not be synthesized from sources to advance a position. --Ronz 20:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

So, Robert2957, we have a verifiable fact that Barrett did not pass the exam in 1964. Let's say we find a verifiable fact that there was a 10% pass rate that year. So we have fact A and fact B. The problem comes when we try to put fact A and B together to try to arrive at some original expression C - that not many people passed the test that year so we shouldn't hold it against Barrett (Or if there was a 90% pass rate -- that most everyone passed the test that year so we should hold it against Barrett). Just because A and B are true, we can't necessarily state C to be true. That is a violation of WP:OR. Make sense? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

For more details on this, check out WP:SYN specifically. Feel free to drop me any questions here or on my talk page. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to say, Levine, that it is nice to be in contact with you again. We have been here before. I can't see anything wrong with your unearthing and juxtaposing facts so long as you do not yourself state the conclusion C without authority. All articles contain juxtapositions of facts from which readers will draw -not always the same- inferences. I mention no names, but if you read most Wikipedia articles about self proclaimed psychics, the juxtaposition of facts contained therein will make you think of the words : "fraud" "liar" "con artist" "heartless" "unprincipled" and "swindler". So if SB failed and only 10% passed the reader will will either not hold it against him or will think: "Why didn't he resit?" SB true believers will think in terms of a conspiracy. No Wikipedia editor can be responsible for what readers think.robert2957 21:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Amen to that. That's why I'd just as soon leave point B out because of the inference to an unwritten point C. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Who are these "SB true believers"? Are they the same people as I'clasts "QW supporters"? Are they editors here, authors of articles we're using as sources, or people that we don't care about in the least? --Ronz 23:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

State of the discussion

Based on our informal poll above, changing opinions, and new editors who have come here to the discussion (Robert2957, Leifern, Martinphi) and expressed their position, the current tally for including the information about Barrett's lack of board certification is 11 in favor to 5 opposed. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

In favor, but only in the context of another article which gives the needed context. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the material should be included as a fact and stated simply with one or two of the best citations that show the statement is a fact and Wikipedia:Verifiability. A also keep wonder why, if this is such a contentious issue that the matter isn't simply brought to mediation or Arb? RalphLender^talk 22:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

A request has been put in several avenues to help us resolve this. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Maths,_science,_and_technology#Clinical_and_medical_topics, Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biographies and Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-04-05_Stephen_Barrett. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

With David D. graciously accepting Crohnie's compromise, the poll numbers are now looking like 12 in favor and 5 opposed. It should be noted that Crohnie's suggestion is a short mention of Barret's lack of BC and doesn't mention that SB didn't pass the test and opted not to retake it. I think it is a fine compromise and in good faith with the spirit of Wikipedia collaboration. I am wondering if AvB, Ronz, Jim Butler, Shot info and/or Arthur Rubin will be willing to agree to Crohnie's compromise as well. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

From your comments last night, my understanding [9] is that you were willing to stipulate our exact area of disagreement: whether any of the sources you listed (see end of this section) qualify as verifiable secondary sources (and that if they do, then the primary source material is fine to use). If we can boil it down to that, that's a simple question to take to the broader community. regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 17:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I truly believe that this is at the heart of our disagreement. I anxiously await mediation/arbitration to give us some resolve on the sourcing issue. I believe that consensus (even when it is 12 to 5) doesn't necessarily trump policy. And if at the end of the day, mediation/arbitration determines that not one source given meets WP:SOURCE to establish verifiability and notability of this information, then I am willing to accept that. As I have said throughout this discussion, I have an open mind and am willing to accept that this information doesn't belong in this article if someone can show me the policy which demonstrates that. Thus far, I am unconvinced. Hopefully, we will have some resolvew in the form of mediation/arbitration soon. Thanks for all of your input, Jim Butler, thus far. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Good news. Our mediation case Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-04-05_Stephen_Barrett has been accepted! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you too! Hope I summarized our discussion accurately. best regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 08:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I would have thought that an entry along the lines I suggested in January would be reasonable . I said : 'In view of the fact that defamatory information, which is unfair to Dr. Barrett, about the status of his licence to practice medicine is all over the internet should the Wikipedia article should state something like this: "Dr. Barrett voluntarily relinquished his licence to practise medicine and retired. [citation needed] This is not the same as being delicensed [citation needed]. He was never board certified as a psychiatrist because he failed an exam [citation needed]. 2/3 of the psychiatrists of his time were not board certified [citation needed]. " ' But applying my intuitive "Bitannica criterion" I think that notable criticisms of notable crtics are what counts. I can't now see how this impacts on Barett's current activities, whether we like them or not. But I am open to argument. I personally find it very frustrating that no notable critics have so far made my notable criticisms of Barrett. robert2957 21:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

"I personally find it very frustrating that no notable critics have so far made my notable criticisms of Barrett." Exactly! --Ronz 22:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Rontz, Thank you for your comment. Perhaps I should have stressed the words appropriately. We all know the following example: "None of woman born shall harm Macbeth"; "None of woman born shall harm Macbeth". Now consider this: "I find it very frustrating that no notable critics have so far made my notable criticisms of Barrett". robert2957 12:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Another excellent statement. You're doing a great job of showing how we need to consider the information in the context of the source, and only present information as appropriate for the source. You're not talking about "facts" or "truth". You're not trying to determine importance by asserting it without reference to sources. You're frustrated because the sources you want aren't yet available. --Ronz 15:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ronz, When you say:"You're not talking about "facts" or "truth"" I am not sure that I understand what you mean. Are you questioning my good faith or asserting it ? robert2957 20:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying you're describing the situation very well. I'm referring back to my earlier discussions about "facts" and "truth" [10], which is in reference to WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." I'm not questioning anyone's good faith, and not sure why you've brought it up. --Ronz 04:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ronz, Many thanks for your response. I am sorry that I misunderstood you. I hadn't read the discussion to which you refer and I think that I was a little bit tired when I responded to your comment. I don't question anyone's good faith either. Not that of other Wikipedia editors or Dr. Barrett. robert2957 06:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I have not been a fan of the "delicensed" campaign, either. Encyclopedic silence is the appropriate way to handle such scurrilous, nonfactual material. However, professional qualifications, sometimes including lack thereof, as well as maximal achievements are very pertinent to building a relevant biography.--I'clast 23:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Amen to that. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Trivia again

According to Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines: Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. So perhaps those who want SB's lack of BC included might be able to argue for a trivia entry for it. {I suggest we use SB and BC as abbreviations from now on. It will save a lot of skin on the keyboards in the course of the next fifty years}. I think trivia about prominent people is of inevitable interest and that there is a place for this in many biographical articles. Rigid prohibition of trivia about prominent people would spoil a lot of fun. For example, did you know that a man once broke into Brezhnev's dacha at 2.30 a.m.to ask for help in the case of his son who was unjustly imprisoned and that Brezhnev made a telephone call on his behalf to the relevant official? Trivial, perhaps, but interesting. With a sensible policy to include trivia about prominent people there could be a reasonable compromise here. After all, those who favour exclusion say that it isn't notable. So let's put it under "trivia". I now feel, however, that it doesn't meet my intuitive "Britannica criterion". I am open to persuasion, however. robert2957 14:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but in compromising this the Trivia guideline, we're also ignoring policies: WP:SOURCE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOT. We don't have sources that even begin to meet WP:SOURCE that give use any context for use to determine "depth of detail, quantity of text" (WP:WEIGHT). So we're left just information without context or a reliable source, which should not be in the article per WP:NOT. --Ronz 15:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe I have discussed why WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOT are not at issue here. This is the frist mention of WP:SOURCE in this discussion, though I believe this is at the heart of our disagreement. I have provided a number of sources (a direct quote from Barrett at Wikipedia, several legal documents, numerous published articles and well-sourced research). No policies are being ignored, so please refrain from saying that because at this point it is hostile. The policies have been considered, and it is the contention of the majority of editors here that all have been met and exceded while it is your contention that they haven't. Let's just agree to disagree for the time being and wait for arbitration or mediation. For Robert2957, the trivia route may be a compromise but know that many of us here feel that Barrett's lack of board credentials (SB's lack of BC) is not a trivial matter. As a healthcare critic who dispenses wellness advice to the masses, his qualifications are entirely relevant. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

We've discussed these policies. You just continue to drop the discussions. I'm trying to discuss these policies in the context of robert2957's comments. Please don't dismiss them when this specific discussion has only just begun. I think it's perfectably realistic to say these policies are being ignored in this specific case that robert2957 brings up. Sorry you don't like my saying so. My attempts at getting you to clarify why you dismiss these policies has made little progress, but that's no reason to interrupt the discussion around robert2957's comments by saying their not at issue because they've been discussed elsewhere in other contexts.

WP:SOURCE was brought up the very first day you restarted this discussion (March 22), and it's been brought up throughout the discussion. Further, it's been brought up in the many, many past discussions, going back over a year. Again, these policies, and the discussions about them, are being ignored.

I'm trying to help a new editor to this discussion quickly get up to speed on the issues. Please let me do so. --Ronz 17:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You are right, Ronz. I do see WP:SOURCE mentioned then. As I said above, I do believe that WP:SOURCE is at the heart of this disagreement. I think we should now wait for arbitration/mediation to help us resolve whether or not the sources given are reliable enough to establish notability. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

non-biographic material

Moved here. The articles cited are Quackwatch articles, QW is not identical with SB. The articles have not been demonstrated to be substantially commented, signed or directly endorsed by Dr Barrett much less hosted or posted (OR) by him (all of Santa's little elves remember "Scientific and Technical Advisors", "Mission Statement"?). Mere hosting is unverified and is much less importantly notable than authorship, such a laundry list of non-biographic material (unsigned, etc) smacks of advertising a partisan source.--I'clast 23:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd be OK with removing mention of things he didn't write from this article. MastCell ^Talk 23:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

QW is not SB, but it is one of his websites. We are allowed to use material from the subject's own website(s).This section of the article is called Online activism. I'clast removed (diff) five examples comprising just a tiny proportion of the many articles by others published by Barrett. (For the entire "laundry list," take a look at http://www.quackwatch.org). Publishing such material is an important aspect of what Barrett does. How is this non-biographic? AvB ÷ talk 02:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Not so much that it's non-biographic, but it is duplicated at Quackwatch (or belongs there). Since there are articles on both Barrett and Quackwatch, something like this should probably go in the Quackwatch article rather than Barrett's. The articles are closely linked and avoiding duplication would be preferable. MastCell ^Talk 04:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Avoiding duplication is usually a good thing; I wouldn't mind moving such information from SB to QW or vice versa. What I personally find interesting is that Barrett's most vocal detractors blame Barrett for ALL the material on his websites, not just the articles written by him. AvB ÷ talk 21:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

First I think one, especially in an encyclopedic biography, has to distinguish between a person and a public relations image. I was under the impression that editors more agreeable with QW and praising of Dr Barrett had originally[11][12][13][14][15][16][17] associated Dr Barrett's name very favorably to the QW article. The first part of the QW article remains favorably associated with Dr Barrett. In the QW Criticism section, Sahelian actually praises Dr Barrett while criticizing QW. Only the Chowka quote, rather than "ALL", uses a negative quotation directly naming Dr Barret to implicitly criticize QW.

I have focused on trying to develop NPOV-SPOV articles in the altmed hot zone using the appropriate WP policies with varying degrees of collaboration. Because detractors is something of a loaded term with common connotations of misrepresentation, defamation, or unfairness, that word would not be my choice of self descriptive terminology as I have taken pains over the last year to show via WP:V, RS that a number of QW positions are repeatedly and/or sometimes presistently, at variance with certain facts, fundamentals of science, and/or, more recently, authoritative voices in science and medicine.--I'clast 12:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

OK with me; I removed the line from my post above as I do not want to imply anything negative about disagreeing with Barrett on any or all issues. As you may know I disagree with some of the material on Quackwatch myself.

On a side note, it is very apparent in reliable sources that Quackwatch does a good job putting across what you'll also hear from most MDs, specialists, dentists, etc. when you ask them about, say, amalgam removal. In that way it isn't at all partisan. Some of it will doubtless prove wrong in time, some of it already has but the change hasn't yet reached or convinced mainstream practitioners. AvB ÷ talk 14:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch appears to promote certain positions & opinions to the public and medical profession, not reflect them. As a sentiment, outside their areas of expertise, research and/or training, I think many medical personnel might initially think they may agree but in fact have severe cognitive dissonances or professional caution when asked about the underlying science questions. I previously replied to Fyslee about this, never discussed...(little) training,... "oh".--I'clast 10:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

MedCab case

I've posted comments on the Mediation Cabal case at Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-04-05_Stephen_Barrett. Please have a look and see whether I've framed the issue properly. Thanks much, Jim Butler^(talk) 08:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed that the guy who accepted this case blanked my and Levine2112's comments because they weren't precisely in the format he liked. He expects participants to adhere to his own rigid and idiosyncratic format and to read his personal essays on neutrality and mediation. No thanks. I'm interested in substance, not process. Based on my two experiences with the MedCab, I'm not impressed with it. It seems to me to be a vehicle for hungry editors to "prove themselves" as potential admins. I agree with the basic principles of WP:DR, but see no reason to dignify the MedCab under these conditions. Levine2112, I'll chime in if you wish to take this to formal mediation. thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 16:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have put my two-cents in over at Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-04-05_Stephen_Barrett. I have to say that I kind of liked the format of it and anthony cfc's essay on neutrality was a quick, informative read. (I was unable to read his essay on mediation as the link wasn't working.) However, that being said, it seems that he has lightened the formality of the mediation format per your suggestion. This must have been in the middle of adding my position when he did so. Thus my position is in his suggested format. And although now he isn't requiring this format, I think we should all strive to keep our discussions and postions there as organized and succinct as possible. I look forward to the resolve which this mediation will bring. Cheers all! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks good; that editor was open to being more flexible. You framed the issue well, as far as I can see; will add comments later. thanks, Jim Butler^(talk) 18:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The Notability of Dynamic Chiropractic

After reading the Stephen Barrett Talk page I think the remaining contentiuos issue is whether the magazine Dynamic Chiropractic is notable and reliable enough to justify inclusion of the Board Certifaction in the article. Some facts that can establish notability for the magazine are collected below.

Dynamic Chiropractic has been published since 1983 (Library of Congress record) and is the number one trade publication for the Chiropractic profession. [18]. The magazine has a circulation of 60.000 [19] Dynamic Chiropractic is a professional trade magazine and not a scientific peer reviewed journal. However it is notable enough for the community of Life Science academics to sometimes be mentioned or used as a reference. A search for “Dynamic Chiropractic” in the database PubMed [20] returned 39 articles

In spite of it the rather narrow industry focus of the magazine, Dynamic Chiropractic is sometimes quoted and mentioned by main-stream media. A few examples are provided below (sources available in Factiva).

The Washington Post (20 Dec 1987) "Candidates Barraged With Questionnaires" About questions to political candidates from variuos stakeholders in society. The questions from Dynamic Chiropractic get a paragraph.

Los Angeles Times (27 Jun 1990) "Church Seeks Influence in Schools, Business, Science Series: THE SCIENTOLOGY STORY" About controversies around front organizations for the church of Scientology. Dynamic Chiropractic mentioned as a newspaper resisting this infiltration.

Journal of Nutrition (1 Nov 2006) "Glucosamine Supplementation Accelerates Early but Not Late Atherosclerosis in LDL Receptor-Deficient Mice" Dynamic Chiropractic used as a reference of a “lay” publication.

New York Law Journal (25 Jan 2005) "Litigation Review; Black Box Evidence; Civil Implications" A Dynamic Chiropractic article used as a reference.

Austin American-Statesman (15 Oct 1993) "WHAT THEY'RE READING Series: THE LATEST WORD" Five Austin chiropractors what they were reading. Dynamic Chiropractic mentioned.

The Sacramento Bee (8 Mar 2007) "Chaos on chiropractic board; The governor's appointees -- including ex-bodybuilding chums -- accused of 'coup.'" Article about controveries around gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. The “industry magazine Dynamic Chiropractic” mentioned three times in article.

The Sacramento Bee (9 Mar 2007) “Governor fuels board furor; He's criticized for saying chiropractic panel should represent the industry” More about controveries around gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. The “industry magazine Dynamic Chiropractic” mentioned.

Journal of the American Dietetic Association (1 Aug 2000) "Provision of nutrition counseling, referrals to registered dietitians, and sources of nutrition information among practicing chiropractors in the United States" A study conducted by Dynamic Chiropractic used as a reference.

The News & Observer (18 Feb 2007) "Law favoring chiropractors, Black's doing, might not last" Dynamic Chiropractic mentioned

Argus Leader (31 Oct 2004) "Wider acceptance fuels chiropractor boom" Section about how to chose a Chiropractor drawn from Dynamic Chiropractic

Roanoke Times & World News (8 Sep 2003) "HOST FOR CHENEY'S VISIT IS CALLED 'EFFECTIVE FUND-RAISER'" About a philatropist donating funds to Chiropractic, mentioned in Dynamic Chiropractic MaxPont 23:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

MaxPont, I think this information is topical and pertinent to the Mediation Cabal. Would you be opposed to posting the gist of it in the Mediation forum? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It is important to note that mainstream media sometimes cite this publication when reporting on chiropractic. This is similar to Wikipedia's rule that we can use e.g. someone's web site in the article on the person in question, which does not make it a reliable source in Wikipedia terms. I would be interested if say the NYT would be citing material on Barrett originally published in Dynamic Chiropractic. AvB ÷ talk 01:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

PS I don't think a PubMed search on Dynamic Chiropractic returns articles published in Dynamic Chiropractic. In fact most articles in this search (31 out of 39) are from: J Manipulative Physiol Ther. - I would be interested if that journal had anything to say about Barrett. AvB ÷ talk 01:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I reposted the text in the Cabal. MaxPont 14:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I did a PubMed search and Dynamic Chiropractic is not listed in their journal database nor are any references from the magazine cited in the article database. The 39 hits generated are merely articles that contain the words "dynamic" and "chiropractic" but none were published in the journal Dynamic Chiropractic. Rhode Island Red 14:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You have a point, I did a phrase search and missed that it said: "Quoted phrase not found". I don't have access to the full-text articles in PubMed. However, I did search in another of their databasee PMC [21] where you can read the full-text article. PMC returned 67 articles and also signalled that "Quoted phrase not found" but when I looked at the articles I found 3 articles explicitly mentioning or refering to Dynamic Chiropractic. Strange. MaxPont 15:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

50 books, 2000 articles , 300 speeches - true?

In December I checked the claim that Barrett had written 50 books by a simple cross-reference between the biography on his website and Amazon. I found that for most of his “books” he was the editor of volumes with several authors or that he was the author of a single chapter in multi-authored books. The correct number was somewhere around nine books. After identifying that the claim was untrue, I removed it from the Wikipedia article[22].

The conclusion from this little piece of trivial (and WP permitted) original research is that Barrett seems prone to gross embellishments, bending the facts in his own favor, and recklessness with the truth. The claim that he has written 2000 articles and delivered 300 speeches appears in the same biography. Taking that into account, it is reasonable and obvious to assume that the statements are false. Therefore they should be removed from the article. MaxPont 09:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually the real conclusion is that your OR doesn't belong in WP. Find a RS that V's your POV and then discuss. Otherwise, it's just your OR supporting your POV. Shot info 09:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Really? So you want to restore the claim that he has written 50 books. MaxPont 14:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

MaxPont, you've admitted to original research in order to back your edits. Find a new argument or accept the fact that original research is not a valid approach here. --Ronz 15:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

OR or not OR. Do you want to push for re-introducing the factual error that he wrote 50 books? MaxPont 18:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Max Pont is saying that he could not verify an assertion that appears self-congratulatory by a wide margin after a substantial effort to check. So WP:V where are the notable 50 books written by, perhaps even in substantial part ca half, vs written in, a chapter or merely one of multiple editors) vs "original research". I would err toward apparent accuracy in the ways people normally read the sentence rather than legalistic definitions and assertions like a recent, former president on personal foibles. In such as case, at most, "Barrett asserts that he is an author of or contributor to (over) 50 books" seems the outer limits. Max Pont's problem with the assertion is not just a mere OR, it is actually a problem with WP:V and WP:RS for an individual with some known and self admitted biases.--I'clast 06:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As for the 50 books, maybe we should count verify theese, and add the correct number [23]. I count 51 books, not counting the ones where he's just contributed a chapter. --Ronz 15:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Read the lines above: I count 51 books. Isn't that OR? MaxPont 18:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not OR. --Ronz 20:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

We have one source (the primary source) stating this information. There is no secondary source to show context or relevance or to verify this information. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we should discuss WP:WEIGHT. We don't need additional sources for verification though. --Ronz 18:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

So if we believe WP:Weight is an issue, should we remove the information until the policy has been satisfied? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

When I removed the contested claims I took it for granted that other editors would recognize the problem and rewrite the text in a more vague way. Obviously not. I’m astonished by the toxic editing environment on this article. I can understand that editors with a favorable view of QW/SB/NCAHF want to defend the articles but this is almost farcical. Defending factual errors! The rest of the WP community would laugh at this twisted way of applying WP:OR. (I rewrote the text to remove the numbers but keep the meaning.) MaxPont 20:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Where are these factual errors? All I see so far is you coming up with your private method of determining how many books Barrett has contributed to, which you've decided not to share with us. You then use your own count to discredit sources. Further, you appear to have no comment on my honest attempt to verify a source that lists such books, other than asking if verifying a source is the same as original research. And then you claim that our behavior borders on farcical? --Ronz 01:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If WP:Weight is an issue, Ronz, should we not remove the info until WEIGHT can be determined by a reliable secondary source? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

There don't appear to be any factors to justify removing it. It's not a minority viewpoint. Not controversial. Not something that would be deemed insignificant to the subject of the article. I don't see any BLP or OR issues with keeping it. --Ronz 03:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, then to bring this full circle, it would seem we have no justification for keeping the information regarding Barrett's lack of Board Certification removed. Hmmm. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 09:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Your sarcasm is not appreciated, nor is it appropriate. Read what I wrote, then read some of the discussions about the certification that I repeatedly warn you about ignoring (if you ever read them at all). Then stop wasting our time with your povpush. If you don't understand, ask questions that demonstrate that you've at least read what you're commenting on. Thanks. --Ronz 15:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That seems unnecessarily hostile. WP:AGF please. Your summation at the mediation was that you felt that WP:WEIGHT hadn't been satisfied. Now that you're faced with the same dilemma (but with even less sources), you're willing to look the other way and let the information stand? Why? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if you find it hostile. I've explained myself. You're falling back on your habit of asking for repeated explanations while ignoring past explanations. Stop wasting my time. Sorry that you find my expectations that you'll repeat your past behavior as not assuming good faith of you. We still have the round-in-circles tag on this page. As you know, I take it seriously. (And you're wrong in your summarizing my take on the mediation). --Ronz 18:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said, you're wrong in your summary of my perspective. More importantly, you're assuming bad faith on my part that I'm looking the other way when presented with an identical situation. I'm not. The situation isn't identical. I've explained why it's not the same. --Ronz 18:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL please. Stop your repeated accusations that I ignoring your explanations, wasting time or going in circles. The only circles I see here is your incivility and inability to have a mature discussion with me without resorting to hostility. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry that you don't like me pointing out that you're just ignoring explanations. If you don't understand the multiple explanations you've had about OR, WEIGHT, BLP, etc then you'll just have to accept others' judgements. As for incivility and not assuming good faith, how about you clean up your recent comments here to meet the standards that you're trying to hold others to, starting with your 09:26 comment and especially your 16:57 comment? --Ronz 19:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

There are absolutely no uncivil personal comments toward you or anyone else in either of those posts. If you are detecting that, please quote me exactly that which you find offensive. As for me, I take offense by your lack of good faith in repeatedly assumming that I am ignoring Wikipedia policy, being disruptive and wasting your time. These are hostile comments which you clearly launch at me. Hence, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Now then, let's stick to the point. The only difference between the information which you would like to keep included now and the information which you would like to keep removed are that the information regarding Barrett's authorship has only one primary source, may be inaccurate and is favorable to Barrett; whereas the information about Barrett's lack of board credentials has several primary and secondary sources, is wholly accurate and isn't favorable to Barrett. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, you won't take responsibility for your own behavior, and criticize others for what you perceive as similar behavior. I guess this conversation is ended. You don't understand OR, WEIGHT, BLP, and you refuse to pay attention when others try to explain, or at least others' explanations of them and how they relate. --Ronz 23:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

More hostility from you. Move on past this incivility please and just address the issues at hand. We have no secondary sources to establish the context or weight of Barrett's authorship; yet you elect to keep this information with a verify tag. But when we have primary and secondary sources that establish both weight and notability of Barrett's board certification history you are in favor of expunging it. I am just trying to understand your apparent inconsistency here. Please explain (and no more personal attacks on me or anyone else). -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Explanation given. Sorry you don't understand. --Ronz 23:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Please restate then. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, no. We've been through this before, including your hostility to having it pointed out that we've been through this before. --Ronz 00:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

So point me to the place where you've spelled this all out for me. Or restate it here. That way you can always point to right here anytime I claim that you've never answered the question: Why are you being inconsitent with the application of Wikipedia policy in terms of Barrett's authorship and Barrett's lack of board certification? (There is no hostility from me so once again, please WP:AGF.) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, no. By the way, since you're obviously not going to clean it up yourself, you're being incivil and assuming bad faith in your repeated claims that I'm being inconsistent in my application and interpretation of policy. Your lack of understanding is not justification for this type of incivility. --Ronz 00:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If you can't or won't answer the question, I can have no understanding of your edits. On the surface, they appear inconsistent policy-wise. I have asked you to explain yourself, and you have refused. There is no hostility coming from me; just curiosity. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

V & OR

Ronz, please. You are an intelligent person. Reread how I checked the book list on the bio page with Amazon. For most of the titles Barrett did not appear as “author”. Pretty transparent to me. Do you really want to push for an interpretation of “his 50 books” where books with one chapter written by Barrett are included in the definition? MaxPont 10:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but your original research is not an argument for anything. I've verified from a source I've provided that there are 51 books he's contributed to, not including books he's contributed a chapter to. --Ronz 15:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You know, this is a biography isn't it? Shot info 22:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

ie/ WP:BLP [[24]]. I'm letting Max's changes stand for the moment, however I fail to see why the article cannot say "According to Barrett..." which it did. Of course Levine is just using this as a wedge to include material which the community decided is not valid for this article, while failing to not that his arguements contradict the arguements of MaxPont to make the specific changes. Shot info 23:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually Shot info, the community hasn't decided anything. Based on the stroll poll on this page, the community was actually more in favor of including it. Mediation is pending to help us resolve this issue. In the interim, I just thought I could draw some parallels between this discussion and our differences on whether or not to include Barrett's lack of Board Certification. I thought that noting these parallels would bring some greater clarity to both issues. If we can get past the incivility and just talk policy and make our points clearly and cooperatively, I believe we can acheive this together. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually I believe the community has decided...except for a minority of editor(s) who for a variety of reasons refuse to accept the information as discussed (and discussed, and discussed, and discussed...). There is little parallel. One is information claimed in a self-published biography, the other is published by poor RS sources which require OR to give context otherwise it's just trivia. WP:BLP tells us what to do, especially since it has been used to defend the board rating before [[25]] but seems to be conveniently ignored when it's most glaring usage in a BLP is required. Ronz has answered your question. Your refusal to accept his answer is symptomatic of you not liking the answer you are given and only accepting of the answer you want. Shot info 04:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Show me the community's decision. Point me to it. Anyhow, with regard to the board certification, to refresh your memeory, we have a primary source from Barrett stating this (just as with the authorship issue - see the parallel?). The authorship sources stop there though, but with the certification, we have several other primary sources and many more secondary sources. But you are right; Ronz has answered my question. And so have you. Doesn't mean that either of you are correct in your understanding of policy. And with this authorship issue, I find it curious that you both seem to be contradicting your prior interpretation of policy. I welcome this, however. It shows that you are capable of seeing things from a different point of view (even if it is just to suit your own personal dispositions about the subject). Hopefully, you will recognize that the way you are interpreting policy now should also be the way you interpret it in regards to the Board Certification issue. I have faith - good faith - in both of you. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

See the RfC and see the lack of consensus. See the RfC for other editors finding it odd that you seem to have a problem with the lack of consensus. Round and Round remember... AFAIK, the primary source of Barrett is here at WP, is it not? Now back to the question/answer, you are absolutely right, other editors answer your continual questioning and then when they fail to give you the answer you want, you harangue them, repeatedly, then you get all offended when it's pointed out to you, like you are the victim in the haranguement. Now the fact is (with regard to the Board Certification), I have explained myself previously on the subject. If you find a contradiction, I suggest you (re)review the earlier discussions both here and the RfC. Curiously you will find that Ronz and I possibly have differing views on the matter. But this is not the answer you want, so you fail to regard other editors answers, which is probably why you yet again want to start to go round and around ... Again ... Shot info 06:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Please observe WP:AGF. The lack of consensus in the RfC was for one proposed way of adding the information. The way the mediation should have gone is a series of suggestions and compromises. I would have liked to see that happen rather than the free-for-all attack on me. Round-and-round is your claim, not mine. I have not found a contradiction in your interpretation of the policy toward Barrett's authorship information versusBarrett's lack of board certification because you haven't been commenting on policy here. For the most part, your role here has been to harass me. If you want to talk policy with regards to these edits, I am more than open to it. If you want to continue to harass me, then I am going to choose to simply ignore you or to continue to delete your uncivil comments. What's it going to be? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Round in circles seems to be a good description of your behavior with this article in the past 15 months. For instance, you still have not identified a single reliable secondary source to support your claims for mediation, yet you continue to claim you have done so. On close examination, you don't even appear to understand what a secondary source is. Yet here you are again today, claiming that you have such sources. At some point this behavior of yours has got to stop. You don't understand the issues, yet you fill this talk page with your accusations that editors are working in bad faith to prevent the edits that you've been fighting for the past 15 months. --Ronz 17:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I am willing to consider that maybe you're right. Are you willing to consider that I am? That the circles here have been form as the result of your repeated accusation that I am the one going in circles? Or that perhaps it is you who is mistaken about a the secondary sources? That the reason this has been going on so long is that you are the one who doesn't understand the issues? That you are the one working in bad faith? Are you open to this possibility? I sure am. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

from WP:V Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves - Material from self-published sources and sources of questionable reliability may be used in articles about themselves, so long as: ... * it is not contentious; * it is not unduly self-serving;... Especially after MaxPont's attempt to verify the "50" statement in any near quantity in forms that are of a clear, agreeable meaning to the readers rather than the beneficiary, the asserted unverified claim is contentious and potentially self serving.--I'clast 09:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Methinks "unduly" and "potentially" are rather different adverbs. The claim is from a V and RS. Shot info 09:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to be polite and allow for possible further sources. So far, no more have been presented.--I'clast 09:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

51 has been verified

So we're finding ways to ignore WP:V now? I've verified 51 books. No one has contended this. Do any of you even think for a second what it would mean if we removed or changed all content that was verified less rigourously? We wouldn't have an encyclopedia at all. Is that what the editors here want, to do away with Wikipedia completely?--Ronz 14:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Read my comment below ("Hilarious ...") MaxPont 21:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

So your response is a long-winded personal attack concluding with the need to go to ArbCom? Better you find someone you can respect and trust and go over WP:DR, WP:CON, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:POINT, WP:DE, etc. --Ronz 23:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The semantics of asserting "author" without further qualification are clearly an issue. See also[26].--I'clast 08:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of issues here. If we can't get the problems with WP:DR, WP:CON, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:POINT, WP:DE, etc. undercontrol, how are we going to make any progress actually improving the article? --Ronz 19:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Authorship vs Certification

Ronz, for the sake of curiousity, clarity and cooperation, can you please explain why you feel this authorship information and the board certification information are different policy-wise? I would appreciate it. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I can explain that one. It's a question of whether it's notable in context. Barrett's list of publications has been published by him on his web site; (in theory) independently verifiable by the publisher(s), who are not agents of Barrett; and is relevant to his notability. That he failed the exam is only available from court documents, statements made by those opposing him in court, and his edits in Wikipedia; and its relevance has not been established. I see two differences; verifiability from secondary sources, and relevance. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Except you left out a couple of other secondary sources which verify Barrett's board certification info; most notably news articles and research papers. But yes, the board certification issue does have verifiability from secondary sources, unlike the authorship information - which can only be verified by WP:OR. But with regards to relevance, I disagree. I think given Barrett's notability, his credentials are wholly relevant. Are there any other differences you see? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That's enough, as I don't agree it's notable. The question of board certification does have verifiability from secondary sources, and I see little reason why it shouldn't be in the article. It had been there for a while. That he failed one part of the exam does not have verifiability from secondary sources which are at all reliable, and we also need a secondary source for it being notable, as a number of editors don't believe it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I am glad that you agree that there is little reason why the board certification information shouldn't be in the article. Again, I am willing to compromise and include only that Barrett is not board certified and leave out the part about him failing the exam. This compromise was proposed by Crohnie and the majority of editors here (all but 2 or 3) accepted it. I am still willing to have this compromise implemented and finally put this dispute to rest. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I found another secondary source to add to the notability of Barrett's lack of board certification. "True Lies About Anti-Aging and Growth Hormone" by Fintan Dunne for MyLongLife.com. Read it here. The excerpt says: But in a 2005 legal case against chiropractor, Dr. Tedd Koren, DC, Barrett conceded that he was not a Medical Board Certified psychiatrist because he had failed the certification exam. I don't know if this is the strongest secondary source as it is self-published on one of the journalist's website (a similar situation to Barrett's articles self-published on Quackwatch), but the author is a respected journalist in his particular milieu - conspriracy theories, cover-ups, et cetera. Anyways, add it to the heaps of primary and secondary sources we have which discuss Barrett's lack of board certification and add relevance and notability to this infomation. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

So in other words, you are engaging in tedious editoring to push the point that your edits should be adopted, and if not then other edits, which have little similarity, should be made? I do not that we have moved away from discussing the edits proposed by MaxPont to edits now proposed by Levine, which I note are currently under independant review. Why should the article continue to suffer such attacks? Shot info 02:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all WP:TE is "tendentious editing" not "tedious editoring". Second, you are being uncivil. Please engage in the discussion and stop with your disruptive attacks on me and other editors. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Tedious, tendentious, and disruptive. For instance, you've disrupted the discussion I started here on the topic of verification to continue your harassment of me, and unending push to get your way. Definitely, tedious, tendentious, and disruptive. Take some responsibility for your behavior. --Ronz 15:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

And the disruptivve attacks on me continue... -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You disrupt a discussion, then complain when it's pointed out to you. I'm afraid I don't see your point. --Ronz 16:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Simple. Discussing policy on an article's talk page is not disruption; attacking another editor is. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see it that way. --Ronz 18:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You're entitled to see it however you would like, but please no more personal attacks and incivility. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

"Sorry, but I don't see it that way" --Ronz 19:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

"You're entitled to see it however you would like, but please no more personal attacks and incivility. Thanks." -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You mean like the personal attacks and incivility that you're supporting below? --Ronz 00:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not supporting any incivility nor personal attacks. Below I am merely agreeing that an ArbCom would be a good idea. If you have a grievance with the behavior of another editor, please discuss it with that editor. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) guys, it looks like we're getting nowhere here. My apologies for the delay in starting the email Mediation, but circumstances dictate my Wikipedia absence for a few weeks; in the meanwhile, can we just quit the discussion for now? Discussion has gotten us nowhere (without a Mediator, at least) and I don't see how it's going to get us anywhere more ~ Anthøny 20:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Anthony for taking time to check in here while you have some important real life situation you need to tend to. ----CrohnieGal^Talk/_Contribs 13:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Number of books

<Unsourced content about Barrett removed per WP:BLP>

I don’t think it is possible to do any constructive editing on the Quackwatch/Barrett/NCAHF articles and I am prepared to bring deadlock controversies directly to an ArbCom when the “fan club” refuses to accept legitimate edits. ArbComs draw attention from a wider group of editors than the usual crowd from the “skeptic’s project”. In an ArbCom what’s at stake is how WP should be interpreted in the future and there is little tolerance for the twisting of WP in the way it is usually done here. Over time the “fan club” will find themselves on the losing side in a number of ArbComs and their credibility will be seriously undermined. MaxPont 21:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I would welcome an ArbCom. As you may know, we have been trying to get one rolling for the board certification issue (similar in that we are leaving out a verified piece of relevant information about the subject), but no response on the ArbCom as of yet. If you think one would help with the authorship issue or with this article in general, I would applaud your effort to bring it to an ArbCom. Thanks, MaxPont. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Please remove this blatant, personal attack immediately.--Ronz 23:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC) (Thanks Avb for removing it!) --Ronz 03:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course, this is why we don't do original research [27]. --Ronz 23:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

WTF? Who's trying to get an "Arbcom" rolling on a content dispute currently in Cabal mediation? Without informing the other parties? AvB ÷ talk 23:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It's still listed in the holding pen for ArbCom. Remember? above, I am supporting MaxPont's suggestion to bring this new dispute to ArbCom. This whole article really needs to be addressed though. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you please give me a link? AvB ÷ talk 10:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

So MaxPont's demonstration of original research (and poor original research at that), combined with his blatant personal attack and incivility, is reason to go to ArbCom? --Ronz 03:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually the deadlock here is reason to go to ArbCom. The personal attacks and incivility (from you too) isn't helping either. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to believe this is just a temper tantrum and nothing more from MaxPont. I find Levine2112's encouragement much more troubling considering he was the one that requested the Cabal mediation. --Ronz 00:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, I am not encouraging anything other than the suggestion for an ArbCom to review this dispute. I find it troubling that you are still attacking me. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

And I find it extremely troubling that you're so willing to take the situation to ArbCom. --Ronz 01:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Given the hostile and uncivil environment which you have helped to foster here, I think an RfA is entirely warranted. Why do you think it is a bad idea? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

See our previous round-in-circles discussions. --Ronz 03:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, I think that was MaxPont's point. Round-and-round in circles we go. We are in a deadlock. Time for an RfA. What's the issue? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the controversies I think that all involved editors should have the opportunity to evaluate the claims about Barrett’s publication list themselves. When cross-referencing between the Barrett bio page [[28]] and Amazon I could verify these titles as written or edited by Barrett (new editions of the same title are not counted.) There might be errors in the compilation but I think it is transparent enough.

Books listed as coauthored:

The Health Robbers (Barrett is author)

Consumer Health: A Guide to Intelligent Decisions (4 authors, Barrett one of them)

The Tooth Robbers (1 of 2 authors)

Vitamins and "Health" Foods (1 of 2 authors)

Shopping for Health Care (1 of 2)

Health Schemes, Scams, and Frauds (Barrett single author)

Your Guide to Good Nutrition (1 of 3)

Reader's Guide to "Alternative" Health Methods (1 of 4)

The Health Robbers (1 of 2)

The Vitamin Pushers (1 of 2)

Chemical Sensitivity: The Truth about Environmental Illness (1 of 2)

Books listed as (co)edited:

Dear Dr. Stare, what should I eat? (Barrett not mentioned)

Your Guide to Urology (Barrett not mentioned)

Your Guide to Mental Help (Barrett not mentioned)

Your Guide to Physical Fitness (Barrett not mentioned)

Life After 50 (Not listed on Amazon)

Vitamins and Minerals: Help or Harm? (Barrett not mentioned)

Inside Psychotherapy-The Patient's Handbook (Barrett not mentioned)

Your Basic Guide to Nutrition (Barrett not mentioned)

Your Guide to Foot Care (Barrett not mentioned)

Women Under the Knife (Barrett not mentioned)

A Smoking Gun (Barrett not mentioned)

Your Guide to Heart Care (Barrett not mentioned)

Your Guide to Ear, Nose and Throat Problems (Barrett not mentioned)

The Smoke-Free Workplace (Barrett not mentioned)

Nutrition 90/91 (Barrett not mentioned)

Dubious Cancer Treatment (maybe, not listed on Amazon)

Nutrition 91/92 (not listed on Amazon)

Nutrition 92/93 (another person listed as editor)

A Consumer's Guide to "Alternative Medicine," (Barrett listed as editor)

Panic in the Pantry (Barrett listed as editor)

Mystical Diets (Barrett listed as editor)

Nutrition 94/95 (another person listed as editor)

"Alternative" Healthcare (Barrett listed as editor)

Nutrition 95/96 (another person listed as editor)

Chiropractic: The Victim's Perspective (Barrett listed as editor)

Nutrition 96/97 (Barrett not mentioned)

Nutrition 97/98 (another person listed as editor)

Nutrition 98/99 (Barrett not mentioned)

Nutrition 99/00 (Barrett listed as 1 of 2 editors)

Inside Chiropractic: A Patient's Guide (Barrett listed as editor)

Nutrition 00/01 (another person listed as editor)

Chiropractic: The Greatest Hoax of the Century? (Barrett listed as editor)

(Even if he is not listed, Barrett might be editor anyway. Barrett might have had the role of Series Editor at the publisher.)

The only reasonable definition of how many books an author has produced is “books written by the author”. If you write a book together with another author its inclusion is questionable. If you write one chapter in a book it does not count. If you are the editor of a book with chapters written by other authors it does not count. If you are one of two editors it counts even less. If your book is republished in a new edition it does not count. MaxPont 15:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

How about "Barrett has authored, edited, or partially written about 50 books." ? -- Fyslee/talk 16:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. BTW, the OR above has not influenced my opinion. I believe this is and always was the meaning of the text inserted by Ronz—"his 50 books"—which quoted the QW site. Your proposal is a compromise because it interprets the QW site. AvB ÷ talk 17:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

PS In the discussions above, some editors seem to miss the fact that the books themselves are the required reliable secondary sources. Talk about lies, undue weight, etc. may well be diagnostic of a POVpush. AvB ÷ talk 17:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I support Arthur's (current) edit [29] as less awkward, more accurate and encyclopedic. The original source, previously noted as a questionable source[30], blurs Dr Barrett's degree of various contributions to the publications in a way that is not V RS, seems promotional, and is likely to be misconstrued by readers, too. A self published source that seriously conflicts (or appears to conflict) with source based research on primary sources (the books) for verification should be challenged [31][32] for WP:RS, WP:V. The overstated (WP:V, RS) claim (authored...50) is at least premature, pls show either a WP:RS that states it or the 50 books that qualify.--I'clast 08:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

l'clast is right, read on WP:V. Claims from Unreliable Sources can be used about themselves if:

• it is not contentious
• it is not unduly self-serving MaxPont 14:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I can live with Arthur's rendering too. However, ArbCom's "questionable source" verdict is far outside ArbCom's remit. I defer to ArbCom's decisions regarding user conduct, but the decision what is and isn't a reliable source in an overarching sense is not for them to make. Having said that, even if the ArbCom intended to set such a standard (which I don't believe), and even if they were allowed to do so, this is still the article on Barrett, and Barrett still controls Quackwatch. Using material from Quackwatch is entirely appropriate per policy. Everything is clinched by the very fact that there is no apparent conflict with other sources. There are no reliable secondary sources that say Barrett's version of the facts regarding "his books" is incorrect. And reading MaxPont's OR as somehow changing the rule that absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence, is, with all due respect, the most convoluted amalgam of logic fallacies I've seen in a long time. AvB ÷ talk 12:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a note on the subject of the books being listed in full about who authored on Amazon doesn't mean anything really. They give summaries and I would think, esp. older books, that not all the information is totally correct or up to date. Plus the OR doesn't seem to check other locations about the said '50' or so books. Now I understand totally what others have been trying to explain to me and that I have read why OR is not acceptable here. It has many flaws from what I can see. Thanks for this talk, it did at least teach something to someone, me! :) --Crohnie 13:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

PS In short, I think at least some editors are bringing the conflict between Barrett and his detractors to Wikipedia articles, talk pages and possibly arbitration, instead of working to describe the conflict to the degree allowed under NPOV. I'm sure I'clast and I have opposite views on who's responsible for this. If there's anything that's nearing arbitration (but has, so far, still to traverse the spectrum of WP:DR options) it is this, closely followed by what I view as disruptive editing.

I'm not talking about the lawsuits by the way, which is, at least to me, a different kettle of fish altogether. My point is about the opinions or methods of detractors. In real life, they use personal attacks because they often work to convince people, and are accepted like gospel by the true believers. However, this is Wikipedia, and seen from the NPOV we can only document that: A tiny number of people whose work is being denounced by Barrett are leveling personal criticism; a larger but still very small number of people largely ignored by independent media are leveling criticism at e.g. the content and editorial standards of Quackwatch and Barrett's litigious efforts; mainstream science (Wikipedia's majority viewpoint) and mainstream popular media alike describe Barrett's work in positive terms. We are here to document responses (ranging from high praise to heavy criticism) inversely related to material published or propagated by Barrett (ranging from high praise to heavy criticism). But we are not here to somehow deem the material or the responses valid or invalid simply because of our own opinions or where we are on the spectrum of reliability as seen by Barrett. Wikipedia is about sources and context. WP:TIGER AvB ÷ talk 13:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Now when the list has been up for a day lets add it up: When adding I get: Barrett is the single author of 2 books, he is 1 of 2 authors (50% contribution) for 6 books, 1 of 3 authors (33%) for one book, and 1 of 4 authors (25%) for 2 books. Sum it up and get 11 “authored” books. He is the editor of 7 books, and 1 of 2 editors (50%) of one book. Sum it up and get 8 edited books. For 5 books another person is mentioned as editor, directly contradicting the claim on the QW web site. I have never claimed that my simple and transparent OR should be included in the article. Just that it shows that there is “reasonable doubt” about the validity of the claims of "his 50 books". Therefore, it should not be introduced in the article. MaxPont 15:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Considering your behavior here concerning this topic, I think you should drop this completely. Your intrepretation of how we should count the number of books is original research. --Ronz 15:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

To avoid WP:OR, perhaps we should just say he claims authorship of 50+ books? That's all we've been able to verify. Investigating the claims seems to be impossible without getting copies of the 50+ books and looking for where his name is mentioned as author or editor. That would not be WP:OR, as we would be looking at what the books, themselves, claim about their authors.

We cannot depend on the title page to provide full authorship information, which is what MaxPont seems to be doing. That would not be WP:OR, but it would be wrong. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine as the article is now, not mentioning the number. Anyone think we need the number? --Ronz 00:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I am fine with what both Arthur and Fyslee suggest. I don't thing it would matter if how many books were listed either. I really don't think the list of books that is there now is appropriate, since Dr. Barrett says he did more (which I thought QW was a fair site to use in his biography by the way.) because it could be inaccurate. Since learning more, I would like to ask why there is a criticism section since criticism is throughout the whole article. Again I thought this was to be about Dr. Barrett and not the people who have criticism about him. The article is just rife of criticism about him from the people who made comments to the legal section, it's almost all critical of Barrett. I don't understand why this biography is written like this when I have seen other biographies that talk about the person being written about and what he/she have contributed and done with things. It so off balance to me that I am amazed at the difference compared to other bios. ----CrohnieGal^Talk/_Contribs 14:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

"Also, isn't the list of books on the article from OR, and if so, should it be deleted immediately? ----CrohnieGal^Talk/_Contribs 14:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No, OR is allowed on Talk pages. MaxPont 15:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

OR is not allowed for the purposes of making a point, promoting a point of view, discrediting sources, etc. I'm extremely concerned that a number of editors here nonchalantly ignore these issues. This is textbook WP:TE and WP:DE behavior.

I think we can all agree that Barrett's publications are important, so it's only an issue of which we list. Another WEIGHT issue. --Ronz 16:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

But I thought that QW was acceptable since it is Barrett's site or am I wrong? ----CrohnieGal^Talk/_Contribs 17:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

QW is acceptable. Still the best way to solve the actual content issues here would be to use a non-partisan, secondary source. --Ronz 19:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I started to find secondary, non-partisan sites for this. So far I found these;

• [33]
• [34]
• [35]
• [36] bio on him

This isn't the end of it as there is more on Google, I am just out of time here. ----CrohnieGal^Talk/_Contribs 22:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to do here. Change the list of books we have? Why? (Also, MLM Watch is run by Barrett.) --Ronz 23:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to research secondary sources about how many books he has authored. I didn't know Barrett also ran MLM Watch, sorry. I tried, but I guess not too successfully. ----CrohnieGal^Talk/_Contribs 23:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's important to know how many books he's authored. --Ronz 00:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

<Nice sig, Crohnie!> It can be fun to prove such accusatory original research wrong by pulling up links. I too felt tempted to do so, or even look up the books themselves. But we already know MaxPont's method here was wrong from the outset, so his conclusion should be ignored. (1) Simple common sense shows that his method cannot prove what he says. (2) Policy dictates that we cannot use, let alone report, what he says. MaxPont et al. may want to try and get a reliable (independent) source to write an article where this is investigated and reported. Then we can add it to the Barrett article and/or use it to assess whether anything in it is unduly self-serving. For now, all this amounts to is insistent hindering of normal discussion and wasting talk space as well as everybody's time. I see it as a (backfiring) attempt to re-enact a conflict here instead of describing it to the degree it has weight in Barrett's bio. This type of debate disrupts normal discussion when allowed to go on too long or too often. AvB ÷ talk 09:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Status quo re ArbCom arbitration

Apparently an ArbCom arbitration is being sought by Levine2112 and MaxPont. My opinion on the status quo:

1. We have a content dispute where WP:DR has not been exhausted. Possible next step(s): finish Cabal mediation. If unresolved, e.g. WP:MEDCOM, or WP:3O variants like the ones suggested by Ronz, asking the people at WP:BLPP or WP:NPR. If unresolved -> no consensus -> if in doubt, leave it out. Content disputes are outside the remit of ArbCom.
2. We may have a situation here: Incivility where WP:DR has not been exhausted. Possible next steps: one or more editor behavior RfCs; if unresolved or ignoring consensus -> WP:3O, Medcom mediation, arbitration.
3. We may have a situation here: Disruptive editing where WP:DR has not been exhausted. Possible next step: RfC(s) regarding e.g. the debating methods in debates such as the "board certification" one. I for one can easily tell where debate ends and disruptive editing begins. Although I think the involved editors are editing in good faith, the results are often indistinguishable from protracted trolling. It's causing editors to leave certain articles alone. (I'm one of them.) I'm not pointing fingers, which I believe is not going to help here. My point is that the debating style becomes very disruptive after a week or so. This has to stop one way or another. I'd like to see some uninvolved input on how to accomplish that.
4. Annoying ArbCom with requests to assess content disputes or situations where WP:DR has not been exhausted is also somewhat disruptive. Low-level incivility requests are even less likely to be honored.

Just my opinion of course. Thoughts anyone? AvB ÷ talk 10:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

There are several issues that are not resolving that apply policies in contradictory ways or still seem to be hagiographic trivia. I am surprised that two are still in such sad shape: board certification and "8th runner up" below the *list* published by his own CSICOP society. I've commented on "50" elsewhere above[37][38][39]--I'clast 09:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I tried to enumerate situations editors believe to be close to needing intervention by the ArbCom. I drew the line at known content disputes that are at the very beginning of WP:DR, as well as latent and embryonic ones. In that context, your examples, in addition to being vague, do not seem to parse to me. But I may be wrong, so could you please point out specific user behavior disputes that in your opinion are nearing arbitration? Content disputes that are so exceptional that they warrant ArbCom intervention? Anything else where "ArbCom" is more than an empty threat? AvB ÷ talk 12:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Rather than get into behavior issues, I am merely pointing out that the remaining areas of contention are rather small, and should be obvious when compared to other similar encyclopedia articles for scope and relevance. i.e. (1) unsuccessful board certification as relates to maximum professional qualification of an author that continually criticizes other doctors and their fields of research, if not in legal dispute with many, seems generally pertinent in an encyclopedia, (2) the "8th runner up" from an associated site is (self) promotional and nonencyclopedic in nature, (3) unqualified, inconsistent or ambiguous assertions (or proposals) of contribution and authorship that read somewhat like the old Soviet statistics of achievement from official sources.--I'clast 18:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

And the fact that it is a BLP with undue WEIGHT with the amount of criticism compared to similar encyclopedia articles. Pointed out before Pointed out before but conventially forgotten in the rush to push pov. Shot info 23:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right – at least a few balancing facts in the biography would be useful. The hard core scientific criticism on Dr Barrett's writings (stuff like complete failure to experimentally address or even identify a hypothesis correctly, much less recognize other, similar sympathizers' rather blatant, adversarial subreptions favoring pharmaceutical competitors) does seem a little slighted. Perhaps his sometimes now publicly rebutted activities and statements haven't been as notable to the mainstream press since then.--I'clast 01:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

When I brought up a possible ArbCom, it was based on frustration about the board certification issue. I just felt that a Mediation Cabal would be pointless as long as a few editors refused to accept a strong case for inclusion based on several WPs. AvB problably has a point. Other DRs should be tried before an ArbCom. But debate serves no purpose if one editor claims a right to veto legitimate edits. Then it has to be pushed to the next level of DR. MaxPont 12:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Next steps re: Board Certification issue

(refactored by Ronz) Please read Case status. (end refactoring) Basically he feels that mediation will be fruitless for various reasons. Also, as he has been recently elected to Wikipedia's Mediation Committee, he can now longer work on his old Mediation Cabal cases.

So the question is: What do we do now? Our options include taking this to WP:MedCom, taking this to WP:ArbCom, or perhaps working this out ourselves (that still would be my preference - I know we can work past our differences and do this).

Arthur Rubin (an Admin and a frequent contributor here) suggests above that while there is good reason and support to include that Barrett is not Board Certified, the additional information about Barrett failing the board examination still lacks secondary support and sees little reason why it shouldn't be included in the article. [40]. MastCell (another Admin and frequent contributor here) also supports the inclusion of at least the lack of board certification information.[41] While my original efforts was to include in the biography section of this article both that a) Barrett is not Board Certified and b) because he failed the exam, I am certainly open to compromising and just including the former. I believe that this exact same compromise was offered up by Crohnie above and it garnered the most support of any idea to date. Can we all agree on this compromise and move past this deadlock? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The above compromise is a proposal to include a brief mention in the biography section that Barrett is not board certified but shall exclude the information that Barrett failed his board certification exam. Please cast a vote of Support or Don't support below. Thanks.

• Support -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Wait - Levine2112 has overlooked discussions above on this very topic and has selected specific editors' viewpoints to support his actions here. I suggest we at least consider the other options already mentioned, and get editors (even if it's only Levine2112's selection of editors) to give their perspective themselves. Other options include, "WP:MEDCOM, or WP:3O variants like the ones suggested by Ronz, asking the people at WP:BLPP or WP:NPR." --Ronz 01:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I am certainly open to any and all of those routes. I was just hoping that we could finally settle this amicably amongst ourselves by offering this compromise in good faith. What do you say? Can we have a compromise here? Feel free to suggest the wording and placement. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support--I'clast 11:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Please, can we wait a little before the voting starts again? I have a question and then I am also trying to put together my thoughts on this whole situation. First, can someone point me to another article or preferrable articles about doctors? If so, is board certification mentioned and how is it mentioned? Since this whole discussion started I was a real new editor. Since then I have slowly learned about the policies of Wikipedia. If you would be kind enough to hold off on the voting here and give me enough time to put my thoughts together in a coherent way I would realy appreciate it. Thanks, ----CrohnieGal^Talk/_Contribs 13:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Barrett doesn't have a WP article because he is a doctor but becuase he is an opinion leader and a Public Figure. The Barrett article should be compared to articles about other opinion leaders, (e.g. Michael Moore) MaxPont 14:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Moore is an interesting example. He has so much criticism that it warranted its own article! Crohnie, please take your time and put your thoughts together. I certainly recognize that your opinions here may have changed since you first proposed this compromise. Please understand though, that I am putting this out there trying to prevent this heated debate from continuing by offering a compromise which is satisfactory to all parties here. As far as wording and placement goes, I am definitely open to reading your suggestions. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Crohnie, I came across the article for Julian Whitaker today. Please take a look at the second sentence in the introduction which discusses his lack of board certification (with the AMA? That doens't make much sense? AMA doesn't certify physicians. I'll remedy that. Anyhow...) Dr. Whitaker's board certification is further discussed under the "Education and certification" section of that article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not all that big a fan of process, but if we can't continue the Cabal mediation due to the mediator's dislike of one editor's behavior, the next step is NOT to vote about the issue. The mediator should obviously recuse himself, and I take the conversation on his talk page, which I missed, as such. (Please note that I NEVER received any email from him.) So we can continue with another mediator or use other DR methods. We can't go to ArbCom over this since it's a content dispute. AvB ÷ talk 14:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not trying to establish a majority vote or consensus here. I was hoping that we could settle on compromise amongst ourselves and put all of that nastiness behind us. If you have another compromise which you would like to offer, please do. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support MaxPont 14:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: My opinion hasn't changed, really - I think we should mention that he's licensed but not board-certified, cite it, and move on. I think it's notable enough, given the fact that his opponents obsess over it, to warrant a brief mention. Note that I'm strongly against citing QuackpotWatch or Ilena's site as references on Wikipedia, but they do exist, and their sites and others like theirs make this a (minimally) notable issue. But for me the bottom line is that there are more important things to expend time and emotional energy on than this issue. The amount of bad blood this relatively minor point has caused is far out of proportion to its significance, even for the Quackwatch/Barrett hotzone. I doubt ArbCom will take it up, so it's probably up to us. I've stated my preference, but honestly my overriding desire is to see this issue settled and dead and everyone move on. MastCell ^Talk 19:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

notable enough, given the fact that his opponents obsess over it, to warrant a brief mention --> that is precisely a point I made at the beginning of this long discussion. Assuming we need to mention it: including this type of info (trivia) in someone's CV (or the article's lead) is unencyclopedic in most other subjects. So we need to make clear why it is included in this case, provide context, and give at least equal weight to the subject's own opinion on the matter. If sufficiently sourced, we could say (mutatis mutandis): "Barrett's opponents often criticize his lack of board certification. Barrett responds xxx". If we decide to include it, it belongs in the Criticism section. A section that's already far too long I should say. It has the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one.

Also, this only seems to be about including, excluding or compromising on specific information. For one thing, this is about how editors here view WP:BLP and its gray edges. If we decide that we can compromise here, instead of "when in doubt, don't include", it will have repercussions here and in other articles, certainly where the same group of editors is working, possibly elsewhere too if it is taken up by others. For example the license info in the article's intro. I think it's simply there in response to Barrett's critics (difference being that the mentioned info is positive rather than negative). For all the reasons given above, it belongs in the Criticism section - if it should be included at all. Note that in this case I could be seen as "writing for the enemy". It cuts both ways. We're writing a neutral encyclopedia. AvB ÷ talk 10:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with AvB. I don't think it should go in the intro either. The Julian Whitaker article does have it in the intro and then discusses it later in greater detail; however, I am suggesting that we discuss Barrett's lack of board certifcation where the rest of his credentials are discussed - the biography section. I think if we are going to say that his opponents use this as a criticism, then we should include that he failed the exam too (as that is no doubt part of their criticism and can be reliably sourced as criticism). Instead, it may be more satifactory for the most amount of editors here to just state the information neutrally in the biography section with the rest of his credentials and then - per this compromise - leave off the "failed the exam" portion. As far as the particular wording and placement in the biography section, that's up in the air at the moment. If you have specific wording or placement in mind there, please (AvB, Ronz, Crohnie, et cetera) feel free to craft it to read however you best see fit. But let's do the first step and agree on this compromise. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment First, whoever corrected my comments with the bold 'Comment' at the beginning of my sentence, thank you. Levine, I read the Julian Whitaker article and what is said is "He is Board Certified in Anti-Aging Medicine from The American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine (A4M); [3] however, A4M is not a medical certification board, and Anti-Aging is not a medical specialty granted by the American Board of Medical Specialties". I'll be honest I have never ever heard of A4M before reading the article. And in my opinion, this whole paragraph needs deleting because it sounds ridiculous. I went to this site and read it too (its early here, 5 AM) but this site is ridiculous too, of course this is just my opinion. I started to read the Moore article, but I was too tired at the time and wasn't absorbing what I was reading so I will try again today to read it. I do know of Michael Moore and have watched two of his films, the one about 911 and the one about the school. So I do know that he has a lot of bad luggage and some people don't like his work. I work with my son and as of right now there is nothing we have to do so I have hopes to put together my thought and post them today. My biggest concern that I am trying to work out right now is 'notability' and 'weight'. I have to admit though, rereading the link I posted about board certification early on has me leaning toward leaving it all out but I have some more I want to gather up and reread, I am not doing more research. I am just pulling comments from everyone that I feel made a point and cutting and pasting it to my Microsoft Office Word as if I was going to email it to someone. I find this way very helpful for spell checks or trying to organize.

Levine, I want to thank you for your patience and help in showing me places to go to find articles that might help me see things clearer. All of you are being very patient with me and I appreciate it. I think if you haven't gone to Avb's talk page and read about what he says Jimbo Wales had to say about another article that maybe you should take a look. Avb, I hope I am not out of line recommending this. I think the editors here reading what Wales had to say to your question about the article might be helpful to them and I probably couldn't write it with the same context unless I did a copy and paste type of thing and posted it here, which I still might do. ----CrohnieGal^Talk/_Contribs 09:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Certainly not out of line! I'm using this opportunity to point editors here to a related ongoing discussion on the WikiEN-L e-mail list (thread: BLP, and admin role in overriding community review). Interesting for those who want to know how others are looking at the application of this policy; started: [42]; cont'd: [43]. AvB ÷ talk 10:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Would you please tell me briefly what you are saying with the links you are showing above? I have a partial blockage and I am not feeling well enough to go through each and every one of them. You can email it to me if you like. Thanks, ----CrohnieGal^Talk/_Contribs 20:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I read the Michael Moore article and the critism article. Maybe we should do the same thing with the Barrett article.

During my research to gather information I feel that Dr. Barrett not being certified should not be in the article. The link I provide a long time ago, at least it seems a long time ago [44] states the obvious and that is board certification was not popular during the time that Barrett was practicing. Also Jimbo Wales makes this point; "Wikipedia should not be held hostage by people who are doing original research in support of an agenda. If it is reported in some reliable source, then we can report on that. But we do not engage in original research.--Jimbo Wales 12:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)" I feel that the original research along with the secondary searches do not meet the policies of Wikipedia. The secondary sources are from people who do not like Barrett, just written in different locations with different people. This is just a little of what I have gathered together. Barrett not being board certified is not notable. The reason I say this is even these days not being board certified is not a big deal, and trust me I know. This article is all negatives mostly and adding that he is not board certified, no matter how it is written is still going to sound negative to the common reader. I have to admit, I am tired of all of this already. All that has occurred is bad blood with editors and that I find very sad. I try my hardest to be nice and assume good faith. I wish some of you would do the same. I think that trying to add this is to make a point and give it too much weight. Original research is something I have learned quite well with what is going on here. If you think that Dr. Barrett wants this in his article, then ask him. As said, he is an editor here and so it wouldn't be hard to get a hold of him.

On a different note, I would really like Ronz and Levine to leave behind there controversaries and stop. I don't know what happened earlier though I did try to read up and catch up. I think something this minor is silly for editors to get so angry with each other. Of course this is just my opinion but if it all continues, I will leave this. I do not want to be part of any of this silliness. Ronz and Levine (and others) have been very helpful to me towards learning things. Please you guys, try to chill out. Thanks,----CrohnieGal^Talk/_Contribs 20:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Against-Not notable and as I said above, my link shows it is not something that was done.----CrohnieGal^Talk/_Contribs 21:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Notability applies to article topics but does not directly limit the content of articles. We are dealing with content here, so notability is irrelevant. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

trivial and not notable

There is good reason its a trivial note and as such not notable to say he is not board certified. It really did not matter to his career. It did not change or affect his career. If it did matter he would of retaken the exam. Therefore, it was trivial. This bit of information does not belong in an encyclopedia. This is yet another attempt at navel-grazing. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 17:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

But we aren't dealing with a minority viewpoint here, we are dealing with verifiable information. WP:Undue weight is about minority viewpoints. Even still, too much has been written about this in news artciles and research papers, and too much of this has been discussed in court and on legal documents for us just to write it off as trivia. For us to say that it did not affect or change his career is us applying our judgement where it doesn't belong. We let the sources decide if this information is trivial. Again, we have too many sources discussing this for us not to include it. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

That is a straw-man, I think. Some detractors are talking about it because it is an attempt at a smear campaign. Other sources mention it because they like to synthesis controversy. We can rise above the fray in an encyclopedia. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 17:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

(Responding to Levine2112)

I disagree. Others too, given past discussions. It's a minority viewpoint.

Your interpretation of WP:WEIGHT is contested by myself and others. It deals with all information

We can certainly write it off as trivia if it's not properly sources, or if it being presented out of the context presented in the sources we have.

For us to say it does affect or change his career is also a judgement, one that appears to violate WP:OR and WP:BLP.

We have no agreement on any sources, let alone "too many".

Sorry that I'm repeating what's been written here many times. --Ronz 18:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This trivial matter has been rejected because there is no consensus with discussion after discussion and ongoing discussion. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 18:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Notability is established by reliable secondary sources. We don't have to make that decision ourselves. MaxPont 20:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Is this really still being debated? Come on people... I vowed never to return to Wiki because of a certain Wikibully whose name need not be uttered... for we all know who it is... but this is too ridiculous not to weigh in on. I've never seen such a blatant whitewashing of facts before! By the by, I support the whole kit-and-kaboodle being inserted... but if compromise is the only way to settle it... so be it. I'm outta here. TheDoctorIsIn 23:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Making accusations about unnamed editors here then leaving is inappropriate. Accusations of "whitewashing" is also inappropriate. --Ronz 00:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support. It is one thing if most shrinks of the era didn't take their boards, so they were not board certified. No problem. But Barrett DID take his boards, but FAILED them. That's kind of obviously notable. So the fact that he is not board certified should be included, especially since he went parading around as some kind of expert in psychiatry, like as a paid witness determining people's future. (Shudder) Since the next obvious question for a reader would be, 'Hmmm, I wonder why the guy is NOT board certified', then the reason would have to be given. That he FAILED his boards. The fact that Barrett himself appeared to clarify this, must mean something. Perhaps he wanted to set the record straight. So he is OK with it. Why isn't everyone else? Steth 03:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It's also a fact that Barrett himself also stated that hasn't the slightest relevance to the activities for which he's notable, and that the information comes from misleading sources. Let's be careful how we choose our facts and how we present them. --Ronz 14:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's be careful how we summarize what someone wrote. Barrett said that not being board certified didn't make the slightest difference when he testified in many court proceedings. He then says that the discussion of his psychiatric career hasn't the slightest relevance to my writing activities. What you are sayting he said above seens to be a synthesis from Barrett's statements. Furthermore, note that when Barrett says that the dsource is misleading (a source which we are not using here), he meant that it was misleading because it makes it sound like he had to admit under oath (under pressure) that he wasn't board certified, when Barrett says that he has been pretty open with this information for 30 years. Additionally, remember we are not dealing with facts here necessarily. We are dealing with verifiable information from reliable sources. This much we have in terms of Barrett not beign board certified. The majority of editors here (many veteran editors including two admins) agree with at least that. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I stand by what I wrote. The sources are misleading. The information that you've been wanting to get added into this article for almost 16 months has absolutely no relevance to the activities for which he's notable. WP:SYN applies to content being added to the article itself. But this has been all said before, many times. --Ronz 17:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this just a case of reliability of secondary sources?

One very promising perspective that was lost to the formality of the Cabal mediation was Jim Butler's original perspective [45]. Have we already ruled out or exhausted this approach? --Ronz 19:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

If I've understood this issue correctly, the disagreement I have with Levine2112 hinges on reliability of sources, and is therefore relatively straightforward and readily amenable to editorial review. According to WP:BLP, it is necessary for a fact to be reported in a verifiable secondary source before turning to primary sources. At Talk:Stephen_Barrett (toward the end of the linked subsection) Levine2112 suggested[46] that one or more of the following sources qualifies as a verifiable secondary source; my view is that none of them meets Wp:v#Sources as such:

• Examining the Truth By Terry S. Friedmann, MD, ABHM and Sabina DeVita, EdD, DNM, RNCP with Karen Boren
• Wathing the Quacker By Terry S. Friedmann, MD, and Karen Boren
• Anti-chiropractic groups spreading ‘stroke’ lies online World Chiropractic Alliance
• Stephen Barrett Loses Major Defamation Trial in Hometown Dynamic Chiropractic
• STEPHEN BARRETT, M.D., v. OWEN R. FONOROW, and INTELISOFT MULTIMEDIA, INC
• STEPHEN BARRETT, M.D., v JOSEPH MERCOLA, D.O.
• Quackwatch Founder Stephen Barrett Loses Major Defamation Case in his own Hometown Chiro.org
• Archives of Talk: Stephen Barrett post by User:Sbinfo (Stephen Barrett).
• Dr. Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch Exposed In Court Cases Canadian Lyme Disease Foundation

If Levine2112 agrees with these comments, and other editors agree that we have precisely identified the disagreement, then we may be able to resolve this case easily, since the reliability of secondary sources is a fairly narrow issue. Thank you! Jim Butler^(talk) 07:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

This was my original reason for removing the info from the article (diff). Levine2112 commented on the talk page, to which I replied (diff). I think that should have been the end of the discussion. However, it was continued, more arguments were advanced, and many other sources were provided. None sufficed, I think. AvB ÷ talk 19:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's not get into all of this again. We disagree on secondary sources. But what is certainly verifiable from secondary sources is that Barrett is not board certified. See Arthur Rubin's comment here. As far as the rest goes (that Barrett is failed the exam), I think we can all agree that the applicable policy is grey and can be interpreted to cut both ways. Therefore, in the spirit of good faith, I am offering as a compromise to leave that second portion out. I am hoping that me making this offer will in turn get you all to act in kind. Sound good? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a primary source. Still, that is probably verifiable from secondary sources. The exam failure is probably not. I consider the statement that he is not board-certified suitble somewhere in the article, probably not in the lead. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a little confused. What does that refer to. Also, could you kindly weigh in on the compromise just above. Thanks, Arthur Rubin. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Barrett writing on Wikipedia is not a secondary source; it's primary, and generally not acceptable as a source, even if we had confirmation that it really is Barrett. Court records are not a secondary source. However, I'm willing to believe that there is a secondary source, and am willing to accept listing the information, once. However, if Jimbo removes it, as he did clearly sourced and notable information in the CML article, I'm not going to insist. (The only question there was whether the information was notable, as seen from it being mentioned in reliable secondary sources. There's no question that the court documents (primary sources) were legitimate, even if the pointers were added by an opposing litigant.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Cool. How do you feel about the WCA article as a secondary source? Anti-chiropractic groups spreading ‘stroke’ lies online -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like Jim's approach won't get us anywhere. I wanted to check.

"and can be interpreted to cut both ways" Nope. Sounds bad. I think the actual policy and guideline issues here are clear-cut and simple. --Ronz 20:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ronz that the core issue is to determine whether there is a reliable secondary source that has put the board certifaction issue in context. I have made an extensive argument (found here [[47]] ) that the trade magazine Dynamic Chiropratic is such a reliable source. MaxPont 18:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolution

There has finally been a resolution to the trivial board thing. It is called no consensus has has been rejected by the community. I recommend to everyone involved to drop this matter and move on. This has gone on long enough and it would be exacerbating to continue to debate trivial matters against consensus. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 18:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No consensus? Move on?

I'd like to hear other's opinions on QuackGuru|Mr.Gurü's comments above. Is it time to put this to rest and move on? --Ronz 18:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

We must keep working on establishing a consensus here. Everyone please weigh in on the proposed compromise. If you have another compromise to suggest, please feel free. I am confident that if we work together, we can settle this with a proposal that will at least be satisfactory to all parties here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Straw-man again, I think. We have already worked together on this and there is no consensus. Please, give it a rest. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 19:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Please define what you mean by straw-man and how you think it applies to my comment here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I see no need to define "straw-man." Can't we just all give our positions?

I certainly don't see any reason why, "We must keep working on establishing a consensus here," but that's why I started this discussion, to see what others think on the matter. --Ronz 19:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr.Guru is making an accusation that I am making a strawman argument. I would like to understand how. Either it will help me learn or help him learn. Why must you, Ronz, jump in and tell people what they are obligated and not obligated to do? I am really starting to understand our mediator's frustration with you (link removed by Ronz). I am just asking Mr.Guru for clarity. What's wrong with that? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm just giving my perspective on the issue. Am I not allowed to do so? --Ronz 21:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, let's add the compromise edit proposed by Levine2112 and move on. MaxPont 20:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

First it was my compromise and I have since learned more about policies. So, I say no to adding it to this. I would also like to add that I don't appreciate the hard press I am getting about all of this to force me to follow the few. Again I apologize for being testy.----CrohnieGal^Talk/_Contribs 20:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

But what you have learned about policy is wrong. Notability doesn't apply to content. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this is simple confusion between WP:N and other common uses of "notability." We've been over this before, so I've only replied to Crohnie here. --Ronz 22:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Have fun, I'm done with this. As I see it there is no concenses to add anything in but the conversation keeps going. I have it all over my talk page and it's all over here. I even asked nicely to give me a chance and yet I feel I was being pushed to agree. So, I am done here for a while. This is not the kind of behavior I expected when I became a Wikipedian and I am sorry but I am totally disappointed. ----CrohnieGal^Talk/_Contribs 12:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is/was my suggestion

It's time to put this to rest already so here is my suggestion.

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. If we can agree to this, personally I think it would be wonderful. This has dragged on for too long causing much unhappiness with a lot of editors. Thank your for your considerations.----CrohnieGal^Talk/_Contribs 17:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Basically this is what the compromise is about. A brief mention that he is not board certified. So aside from some grammatical clean-up, I think the Crohnie's suggestion is done in good spirit and completely acceptable. The only change would be to split the last clause into a separate sentence (otherwise it is kind of a run-on) and to wikilink "board certified":

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.

Thanks for the suggestion, Crohnie. I believe it to be a solid one and would love to see it implemented. In fact, if you want to implement it, I think it would a fantastic gesture. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion is just fine as far as I am concerned though wikilinking board certified should be done. I see no reason to expand it and make another sentence about it. Also, prior to changing anything, I think we should wait for the others involved for their opinions. There are quite a few who still think it should not be entered, lets hear from them too, it's only fair. ----CrohnieGal^Talk/_Contribs 20:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. I really think it is a run-on as you have written it though. How about this?

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.

Thanks again for being open to compromise! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Out of interest, it says this over at American Board of Medical Specialties "From 1933 to 1970, the Advisory Board operated as a federation of individual specialty boards. In 1970, the membership voted to reorganize the Advisory Board as the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS), which was implemented that year. In 1971, ABMS became on the the five groups involved in continuing medical education. In 1971, the newly formed Committee on Study of Evaluation Procedures became responsible for education and research. In 1975, they adopted the policy statement, The Significance of Certification in Medical Specialties, and guidelines on recertification were published" hence I think using the ABMS in this particular fashion is inaccurate (and an example of SYN by the way). Shot info 05:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, now we are getting to the relevant part of the issue. As I previously pointed out, Dynamic Chiropractic is a notable secondary source (circulation 60.000, published since the early 1980s etc.). The next issue is to establish if it can pass the threshold of a reliable source. As Levine2112 pointed out, DC is not involved in the legal controversies with Barrett. The reporting about the Barrett controversies is a natural topic considering the scope of this magazine. The requirement that a secondary source has to be absolutely neutral to be deemed reliable is unrealistic and would exclude 99.9% of all news media, including the New York Times, CNN, and the Wall Street Journal. DC is an industry magazine and as such it has an agenda. The same goes for all other trade press and daily newspapers. Excluding DC on these grounds would exclude 99.9% of all news media, a policy shift that would collapse Wikipedia. MaxPont 13:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

A different suggestion - Tangent about whether we already do have a source

Given that Levine2112 thinks "We must keep working on establishing a consensus here" even though we don't, I offer this compromise:

Let's pretend that we have a reliable secondary source documenting Negrete's criticism of Barrett being not certified, and this pretend source demonstrates that this criticism is important enough that we should actually mention it in the article.

That said, I think we can come up with something that doesn't violate BLP, OR, NOT#INFO, and NPOV/WEIGHT. It would, of course, be a part of the Barrett v. Koren section.

Anyone have a problem with this, other than we're pretending to have a source that we don't actually have? --Ronz 02:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

We have a real source that isn't Negrete's criticism which documents that BArrett is not board certified. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a reference from an independent source which demonstrates its notability, relevance, and importance. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 04:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Right here for one. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 05:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

"We have a real source that isn't Negrete's criticism " check Shot info 05:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

That does not seem like an independent, neutral source. A bias reference would not be acceptable, IMHO. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 05:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It is independent of the trial. Every newspaper is biased to some extent. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 05:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The World Chiropractic Alliance is not a neutral source. Oh, by the way, you may want to brush up on policy around here because it is about verifiable and not truth. The trivial matter you want to include does not meet policy guidelines and there is no consensus. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 06:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The WCA article passes WP:RS. That Barrett is not board certified has been verified. Most of the editors here agree, two of which are admins. :) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thats your opinion, I think. You have failed to demonstrate the relevancy using independent, neutral sources. It fails to meet Wikipedia guidelines. Despite having no consensus, you continue to push this trivial matter to no end. The resolution is no consensus. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 06:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I think just how most of the editors here think, including two admins. Are all of our opinions about WP:V and WP:RS wrong? I am curious. From which policy are you getting the idea that I must demonstrate relevancy using independent, neutral sources? WP:RS says that articles should be based on reliable, published sources. WCA, for instance, is a both reliable and published. Please help me understand where you are coming from. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you need help understanding policy. We go by policies such as verifiable and not truth using neutral, published sources and not bias references. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 07:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Nowhere on WP:SPS does it say neutral published sources. I am unsure from where you are getting the word or concept of "neutral" in terms of sources. Please explain. Furthermore, WCA is not considered self-published as it is not a self-published book, personal website, nopt a personal blog. WCA is a reliable secondary source here. I hope this helps you with your confusion on policy. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[48] If all the sources for a given statement or topic are of low reliability, the material may not be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. What I meant by neutral is that the website should not be an attack site and should be reliable. WCA is not very reliable and seems to be self-serving. I hope this helps you understand. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 07:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, this has been pointed out to this editor before, yet here we are...again... Shot info 07:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Mr. Guru for pointing out that policy. It also says [[Self-published sources (online and paper)

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and personal blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.[3]

Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP.]] The site is self serving and an attack site which brings the question, what use is it? ----CrohnieGal^Talk/_Contribs 10:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

After reading this above thread and reading the policies shown, I withdraw my recommendation at this time to add the material into the article. I would appreciate not to be pressured about this nor considered not having relevent information. I do not know policies like all of you and I am still trying to learn but have a slow learning curve. Stephen Barrett not being certified is not important and is trivia so again I repeat I am reversing my decision at this time. If this needs to continue than I suggest someone bring it to a higher level because we are getting no where fast. Sorry for the confusion, ----CrohnieGal^Talk/_Contribs 11:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You are free to do whatever you want. Though I find it interesting that when you are pressured from "the other side" you don't seem to mind as much. Let me assure you that neither QuackGuru nor Shot info know policy very well (at least by what they have demonstrated above). WCA is not a self-published source - no more than any magazine. The same goes for Dynamic Chiropractic (as MaxPont has pointed out even further above). These two are widely read publications, each with their own reliable publication process which you can read about on their websites. Both publication had nothing to do with the trial where Barrett related his lack of board certification; thus both articles are completely independent on reporting this information. Both articles show the importance of this information - that the doctor critic is not board certiifed. Very relevant. It is not like we are putting in information about which color Barrett painted his kitchen or the name of his childhood pet. This is not trivia. He is a medical critic and these are his medical credentials. On topic and supported by reliable primary and secondary sources - as Arthur Rubin (an admin more often on the other side of the dispute from myself) put it, there is no reason why Barrett's lack of board certification shouldn't be mentioned. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 15:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

WCA is a self-admitted promotional website dedicated to the sole interest of chiropractic advocacy. I would not expect anything less from this type of website. Read how they paint themselved as.[49] BTY, do you want a chiro to touch your neck? Ouch! :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 17:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The key is for all parties involved to understand that there is no consensus. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 17:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

"QuackGuru nor Shot info know policy very well" well, it's obvious that Andrew has no idea what WP:CONSENSUS says (amongst others). Here's an essay that will help with his decision making process. Shot info 22:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Levine2112 clearly understands WP:Consensus, he's also been quite polite and followed procedure. I think some editors would do well to honor at least 5 or 6 of those points in the aforementioned essay to Levine. Also Wikipedia:Five pillars #1, "Wikipeidia is an encyclopedia" seems particularly imperilled here by the biography section's drift from sympathetic treatment of a controversial figure fixation toward outright adoration.--I'clast 00:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's quite obvious that he has just as much understanding of WP:CONSENSUS as you do of WP:COI. It would also be appropriate if you let your pet edits go as well and review WP:BLP sometime, something you keep ignoring by your uncivil comments above. 'Shot info 01:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think my understanding, along with Levine's, may more parallel the admins understanding and I am remaining civil. I have addressed this more below, [50], Slanting the balance of articles as a form of defence of some figure, group, institution, or product is bad for the encyclopedia.--I'clast 03:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It is more reflective of your assumption of bad faith that editors at "slanting the balance of articles as a form of defence". Perhaps if you actually read what editors are saying rather than just backing up your POV warrior, you might find that there are several reasons they object. Hence why I recommended that you engage in some other BLPs to learn how to develop some knowledge on consensus building. Shot info 04:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, my "assumptions" were covered earlier, below[51]. In case this policy link was not working for you, [52], a more pertinent part, again as earlier & below, On the other hand, the removal of reliably sourced critical material is not permitted. I have read the objections here, repeatedly. The Biography section has still promotional concerns and is still factually deficient.--I'clast 04:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

First one, then another, will the real policy diff please stand up? All your shifting around will make one dizzy. Given your perchant for COI, I strongly encourage you to take your accusations to RfC. After all, it is following the policy no isn't it? Or will this be yet another baseless accusation. Come Colonel Sandurz, what's wrong....chicken? :-) Shot info 05:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to hear others perspective before this is rejected outright. --Ronz 17:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

it's a long way to Tipperary, I commend Levine for all his effort.--I'clast 18:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a question: If the World Chiropractic Alliance is not a neutral source, can anybody specifically define what healthcare-related publications are neutral sources? Would the British Medical Journal qualify as a neutral source, for example, bearing in mind that it [makes its money largely from pharmaceutical industry advertising]? --Vitaminman 20:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I doubt anyone can. Of course, we don't need to restrict ourselves to healthcare-related pubs. -- Ronz  22:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

History of "Barrett certification" dispute

Now that the most recent part of this ongoing dispute has been archived, I think a history (and perhaps a summary) would be useful for the editors we're trying to get to help us resolve the stalemate, and for our own reference.

The dispute in TALK space goes back at least 15 months. The first discussion on it was on 8 February 2006 by Levine2112 [53]

• "According to the article I posted, under oath Barrett conceded that he was not a Medical Board Certified psychiatrist because he had failed the certification exam. If this is verified, I think it should be part of this article."

(Summary of earlier edit-warring on this issue forthcoming)

It was originally added to the article, with much dispute, on 6 July 2006 by Levine2112: [54]

• "On October 13, 2005 Barrett admitted in a Pennsylvania court that he had failed the optional certification exam for Medical Board Certification in psychiatry."

Up until 13 July 2006, it was repeatedly removed and changed, but ultimately removed completely:

• "He has been unlicenced since the early 1990's and was never passed board certified in any medical specialty." [55] - Ilena
• "Barrett has been unlicensed for well over a decade and never passed any board certification over the several decades he was licensed." [56] - Ilena
• "Barrett has not been licensed since the early 1990's and never passed any board certifications." [57] - Ilena
• "He was never board certified in any medical specialty" [58] - Ilena
• "In one such 2005 lawsuit, during cross-examination, Barrett conceded that he was not a Medical Board Certified psychiatrist because he had failed the certification exam." [59] - Levine2112

It was added, after much discussion, to the article on 23 July 2006 as a criticism of Barrett by NATTO [60]

• "Barrett claims to be a 'medical expert', however he has never been Board certified."

This evolved through September to:

• "Although he has provided expert testimony as a psychiatrist, a discipline in which he practiced for thirty years, Barrett was never board certified in psychiatry. He qualified as a physician in 1957 and completed his psychiatry residency in 1961, but failed the neurology portion of the optional board certification exam in 1964."

This was removed along with the entire Credentials section on 22 December 2006 by Jance [61].

It was added back, this time into the Biography section, on 10 January 2007 by Levine2112 [62]

• "completed his psychiatry residency in 1961, but failed the neurology portion of the board certification exam in 1964."

It was removed 22 March 2007 by Avb [63]

The dispute has been currently been discussed non-stop since 22 March 2007 (by Levine2112) [64]

--Ronz 16:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC), updated 01:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC), updated 18:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is astounding that a simple relevant fact on the medical credentials of an author renown for his attacks (successful or not) upon the credentials of others in medical related fields and upon authors more accomplished and credentialed in their fields of science and medicine, is *so* difficult to publish in this article.

"never/not board certified" - a simple fact relevant to both 30+ years as an active status physician & testifying psychiatrist and to the unfettered criticism of others, his credentials (M.D.) frequently asserted (an appeal to authority?), long with unrecognized qualifications thereof, that even continues into the WP biography here. Especially amazing when compared to the much more extensive coverage on educational pratfalls ...did not pass and attainment of professional credentials (or not) acknowledges...being asked to leave [UPenn] of other encyclopedic subjects at WP that are far less relevant to their subsequent professional careers. Positively amazing, more months than words, for even three words on a relevant if not exactly a glorious fact on an attempted ultimate level of credentialing. Such selective self censorship does not build a real encyclopedia.--I'clast 18:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is quite easy to find other Wikipedia biographies that go into questionable educational credentials or failed educations for Public Figures. Look at David R. Hawkins, Gary Null, and Rush Limbaugh. MaxPont 21:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's quite easy when the subject of the article is well-known, because there's so much more written about them. If Barret were better known and more was written about him, we'd likely not be in this situation. -- Ronz  22:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I got to the first section and found an inaccuracy. I was not the first person to introduce this content to the article. It goes back much further. I did some check and this was the first entry I saw: [65]. You will note that the edit you cite of mine above is merely a reversion of deleted content. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are a number of related edits like that about his licensing and credentials, but I'm trying to focus on specific mention of "certification" which is the current dispute. -- Ronz  20:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Even per your explanation, asserting that my reversion was the first time it was added to the article is fallacy. It goers back further than that and I was not the one to add it. Check the history more closely please and fix this error. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've done my best. Please provide an example of my error rather than making baseless accusations. I've been using searches of certif* in the article space, the talk archives, and edit summaries from the article and talk histories. I'm unaware of any tools to help with this, so there is a possiblity that I've missed something. I'm continuing to work on this, so a tool or other suggestions as how to search would be helpful. -- Ronz  22:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Look at the edit whcih you claim is the first time the material was introduced. It is a reversion of the material being deleted. Clearly, if I was reverting a deletion then the material would have had to have been there before in order to get deleted in the first place. In order to give "base" to my otherwise "baseless" accusation (as you put it), please have a look at this edit. Anyhow, I like to back up what I say. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Sorry that I had to confront you in order to get you to back your accusation. I wish you were more cooperative and assumed good faith.

Summarizing the article history is pretty difficult given the edit summaries. I might just make mention of edit-warring occurring before Levine2112's first mention of it in TALK, then work around what's documented in TALK, while looking for corresponding edits to the article. -- Ronz  23:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

A different suggestion - another tangent

I'm repeating my compromise because the previous discussion got completely off track. I would like editors to consider and comment on my compromise as written. I think it identifies the key area of disagreement that we currently have. Specifically, we do not agree that we have a source that shows, by adhering to WP:WEIGHT and related policies/guidelines, that the issue of Barrett's credentials is important enough to be included in the article. --Ronz 17:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Given that Levine2112 thinks "We must keep working on establishing a consensus here" even though we don't, I offer this compromise:

Let's pretend that we have a reliable secondary source documenting Negrete's criticism of Barrett being not certified, and this pretend source demonstrates that this criticism is important enough that we should actually mention it in the article.

That said, I think we can come up with something that doesn't violate BLP, OR, NOT#INFO, and NPOV/WEIGHT. It would, of course, be a part of the Barrett v. Koren section.

Anyone have a problem with this, other than we're pretending to have a source that we don't actually have? --Ronz 02:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Pretend source? Yes I have a problem with this. I am trying to learn policy not bend or break them.----CrohnieGal^Talk/_Contribs 18:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is with the Biography section, incomplete - not board certified, and still fluffy - like the eighth runner-up *below a whole list* (Top Skeptics of the Century) "with at least one" vote (for a member), puffery tagging onto the great names farce seems to project a pronounced bias. The simple solution to the first part is to just briefly state the bare fact about board certification, once.--I'clast 18:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Your problem is not with the article but with WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT. It is probably worth your while to edit some other BLP articles to gain an understanding what is and isn't acceptable in this encyclopedia. Shot info 01:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Clearly such an interpretation in the Biography section presupposes any edit less than praising should be given zero weight according to some editors' comments, contrary to both WP policy and many examples. Oh, btw, from WP:COI - Defending interests: On the other hand, the removal of reliably sourced critical material is not permitted. Accounts of public controversies, if backed by reliable sources, form an integral part of Wikipedia's coverage. Slanting the balance of articles as a form of defence of some figure, group, institution, or product is bad for the encyclopedia.--I'clast 03:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you said it, and you even quoted it, yet you just don't seem to get it. You're letting your POVs get in the way (again). Shot info 03:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, some here may be letting their POV get in the way. I checked the Biography sections on two of my favorites actually on the "Ten Outstanding Skeptics of the Century" list, Asimov and Einstein, and they contained far more "less positive", less career relevant information than has been allowed here at the SB Biography section, whom had at least one vote.--I'clast 03:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"far more "less positive", less career relevant information" (??????) As I said you're letting your POVs get in the way (far more or less :-). Shot info 03:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I added the hopefully helpful links.--I'clast 04:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

A different suggestion - trying to get back on track

I'm repeating my compromise because the previous discussion got completely off track. I would like editors to consider and comment on my compromise as written. I think it identifies the key area of disagreement that we currently have. Specifically, we do not agree that we have a source that shows, by adhering to WP:WEIGHT and related policies/guidelines, that the issue of Barrett's credentials is important enough to be included in the article. --Ronz 17:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Given that Levine2112 thinks "We must keep working on establishing a consensus here" even though we don't, I offer this compromise:

Let's pretend that we have a reliable secondary source documenting Negrete's criticism of Barrett being not certified, and this pretend source demonstrates that this criticism is important enough that we should actually mention it in the article.

That said, I think we can come up with something that doesn't violate BLP, OR, NOT#INFO, and NPOV/WEIGHT. It would, of course, be a part of the Barrett v. Koren section.

Anyone have a problem with this, other than we're pretending to have a source that we don't actually have? --Ronz 02:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Pretend source? Yes I have a problem with this. I am trying to learn policy not bend or break them.----CrohnieGal^Talk/_Contribs 18:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Ronz means the Barrett v Koren trial transcript or perhaps something else. The problems that I see for Ronz's suggestion relate to the length and sensibility of the issues in the trial (why was lack of board certification so pivotally important there to report here in conjunction with what else?) and give rise to the failed neurology part, lengthing the section in any case. Otherwise it is just burial at sea for the missing board certification part. Also my previous reply.--I'clast 07:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

If we need to pretend we have a reliable secondary source, then I would be against including the information at all. But seeing as we have several reliable primary and secondary sources which verify and give weight to this information, I reiterate what Arthur Rubin has said, there is little reason not to include a brief mention of Barrett's lack of board certification. I am so relieved that you are open to compromise, but your suggestion isn't workable and your presentation is insulting. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I reiterate something I have explained before about a "brief mention": I prefer no mention at all, and have given many policy and common sense based arguments (especially WP:BLP/WP:NOR). If there has to be a compromise, it would be full contextualized mention. I do not offer the latter as a compromise (although I've described it several times now) because it would feel odd to have to argue against my own compromise - however, as I wrote over two months ago, a compromise along those lines might well be viable. I believe Ronz's proposal is one of several ways to accomplish this:

Given that Levine2112 thinks "We must keep working on establishing a consensus here" even though we don't, I offer this compromise:

Let's pretend that we have a reliable secondary source documenting Negrete's criticism of Barrett being not certified, and this pretend source demonstrates that this criticism is important enough that we should actually mention it in the article.

That said, I think we can come up with something that doesn't violate BLP, OR, NOT#INFO, and NPOV/WEIGHT. It would, of course, be a part of the Barrett v. Koren section.

AvB ÷ talk 19:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue remains as it has over two months ago. You are not recognizing the reliable secondary source which have been presented here. Dynamic Chiropractic and the WCA are certainly adequate. Thus, it is in poor form to couch a compromise by stating, "Let's pretend that we have a reliable secondary source..." That's no way to acheive a consensus. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus. End of story. Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 20:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is no consensus to add this material or to leave this material out. I disagree that the story has ended. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no conensus after long duiscussions. End of story. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 22:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Lex De Minimis Non Curat

Perhaps everyone has been missing an important point. It is important to implement the Wikipedia guidelines as far as the general quality of an article is concerned. But no system of rules or laws can operate without the maxim "Lex de minimis non curat". The article must concern itself with Stephen Barrett and his notable critics and supporters on major issues. And if his work has serious shortcomings, they will be shown up sooner or later by his notable critics. If he and Quackwatch have no shortcomings at all, I am sure that this will be revealed to us in due course. His lack of board certification would be irrelevant in either case as is Einstein's initial failure to get into university. I cannot resist pointing out once again: "For someone to describe board certification in the terms in which he does here and not to have been board certified himself invites ridicule." But is bringing down that ridicule on his head encyclopaedic? I'm not sure. But I think it may be one of those minima de quobis nobis non est curandum. Pardon me if my Latin is timeworn. robert2957 17:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

My Latin is terrible. Translation please? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Lex de minimis non curat = de minimis non curat lex - see De minimis.

minima de quibis nobis non est curandum -> trivia we should not spend time on

(However, my Latin is timeworn too). AvB ÷ talk 17:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I don't think everyone has missed this point. You're saying two things: (1) it's a minor issue - I agree, but many editors here do not. (2) Let's wait and see if criticisms by notable critics are published (what I would call independent, reliable, secondary sources) - I agree, but some of those in favor of including this contextomized information argue that such criticism is already available. A point made by these critics is that the board certification issue means Barrett is not qualified and a reason to condemn his work.

I agree that Wikipedia is not the channel to ridicule a subject.

As to your point about the terms in which Barrett describes board certification here: Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't read this as Barrett criticizing medical specialists who are not board certified. I think he's criticizing the use of the term when advertising quackery. AvB ÷ talk 17:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No agreement on existance of reliable secondary sources

"But seeing as we have several reliable primary and secondary sources which verify and give weight to this information, I reiterate what Arthur Rubin has said, there is little reason not to include a brief mention of Barrett's lack of board certification."

Let's put an end to this. Consensus disagrees with you Levine2112. That's why I've offered my compromise. -- Ronz  17:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

More editors here (including the only two participating admins) agree that we have reliable sources to at least state briefly that Barrett is not board certified. I want everyone here to be satisfied however when we do insert the information. That is why I have offered my compromise. The majority of editors here support my compromise. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Levine2112, you may want to check out WP:Consensus in the light of WP:Voting is evil. Also note that the admin status of users involved in a dispute does not give their opinion extra weight and repeatedly belaboring this point may well irritate them. AvB ÷ talk 19:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I get it. I do. But in the face of so much support from so many, I am surprised that consensus cannot be established. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"at least state briefly" So you're now trying to demonstrate support for a different statement? That's fine, but has nothing to do with the point of this discussion topic. -- Ronz  19:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It's actually quite on topic. "Brief mention" has always been part of my original compromise. And this discussion - which you started - quotes me talking about the support we have for a brief mention. So why are you saying it has nothing to do with the point of this discussion topic? Now then, my compromise still stands and I hope in the name of good Wikipedia spirit you will be moved to accept this fair proposal. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I reiterate: 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. AvB ÷ talk 20:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Note to AvB: The compromise has a mention that is even more brief; whereas we would be leaving out that Barrett failed one-half of his exam. We would only say that he is not board certified (see Crohnie's wording above). Would you be opposed to that brief of a mention or do you think you can help settle this dispute by agreeing to this extremely fair compromise? BTW, if you have differenty wording in mind, I am more than opening to it. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

As before, what you're proposing is not a compromise to me. It's worse than the disputed language you wanted in the article. It's extremely simple. You want the info in the article, I don't want it in the article. Not only do you want the info in the article, you also want it in the lead or Barrett's CV (as if it was important at the time). You do not want it in the criticism section where it belongs. And finally you want to publish it out of context. That's a lot of requirements to base a compromise on. Ronz's proposal meets you halfway. My compromise would be to publish it together with its context and in the criticism section. Barrett's detractors say x, Barrett responds y. I'll probably still oppose my own compromise, since the Criticism section is much too long already, but at least I think it's viable. Your compromise is not. It violates NPOV, NOR and BLP. AvB ÷ talk 13:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This has already been discussed and rejected by the community. Question for Levine2112. Do you understand there is no consensus and there has been a long discussion about this? If you do understand this, it is time to drop it. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 20:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand consensus, but I disagree that it is time to drop it. Sorry. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you understand at the moment there is no consensus. When will it be time to drop it? :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 21:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

When there is a consensus? When an RfC comes through? When all parties agree to a compromise? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It does not work like that. Many people have spoken about this. It has gone on long enough. It has been given a chance multiple times. Please put this behind you. Do you agree and understand? :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 21:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree and understand. There is no consensus to leave the material out either. We are striving to reach a consensus. I would appreciate your help. I have suggested a fair compromise completely in line with Wikipedia policy. There shouldn't be any issue, yet you and others keep inventing them. Therefore this dispute continues. This dispute will end when you agree to the generous and fair compromise. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Please clarify. Do you understand after multiple lengthy discussions there is no consensus. This is a yes or no question. Why should the dispute continue when there is no consensus. We go by consensus here. Do you agree? :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 21:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but Wikipedia works by building consensus. That's why this dispute continues. What we are doing here - incivility aside - is exactly for what Wikipedia is designed; going through various dispute resolution techniques (including negotiating, discussion, straw polls and mediation) to establish a consensus. We don't give up when there is no consensus. Do you agree? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree to this. Wikipedia works by consensus but not pushing for consensus until an editor gets their way after repeated attempts have failed. There comes a point in time to let it go and move on. When do you think it is time to drop a dispute when there is no consensus? A month a year or five years? How long? What is your time frame? You said: We don't give up when there is no consensus. is rather an odd statement to me. There is a point in time to "give up." This has been a fruitful discussion but enough is enough. Do you agree? :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 21:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. Wikipedia works by building consensus. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Please provide me with the policy that Wikipedia works by allowing a certain editor or editors to never stop until they get their way on Wikipedia. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 22:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

<-- Outdent << Please provide me with the policy which describes when you give up on trying to acheive a consensus. BTW, in the last few months of this dispute, I have gone back and counted 14 editors in favor of adding the material and just 4 opposed (and 1 on the fence). Supermajority has failed as a policy, but I just want to make sure that you are aware of the outlook for consensus. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You have not answered my question to my satisfaction. When consensus cannot be reached after much much discussion after discussion is it time to drop it or keep going to a seemingly never end? All the discussions about the proposals have been rejected. Do you agree? :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 22:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to answer this to your satisfaction as I believe communication is essential for reaching a consensus. So let me be clear. Wikipedia is about building a consensus. Nowhere in the policy on consensus does it discuss futility. Wikipedia is living and breathing and its editing is ongoing for the life of Wikipedia. Therefore, there is no end to trying to reach consensus. (What's more, consensus can change!) When consensus cannot be reached through civil discussions, there are several other methods of dispute resolution that can be employed. We have tried a number of these approaches with some success but still a consensus has not been reached. I think negotiation and compromises will be a great way to solve this dispute; however, we are also awaiting an RfC. Now then, please reciprocate and answer my request: Please provide me with the policy which describes when you give up on trying to acheive a consensus. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I did my best to listen to your argument. I disagree with your proposals. It is done and over with on this talk page. Have fun. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 22:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No consensus on existance of reliable secondary sources

(Repeating another topic that was side-tracked) "But seeing as we have several reliable primary and secondary sources which verify and give weight to this information, I reiterate what Arthur Rubin has said, there is little reason not to include a brief mention of Barrett's lack of board certification."

Let's put an end to this. There is no consensus that such sources exist. Does anyone dispute this? -- Ronz  22:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that consensus has not been established. We need to work to establish one. Thus far, no one disputing the sources provided have given good reason why they shouldn't be considered reliable sources. If you have grounds why the Dynamic Chiropractic and WCA article cannot be used (let's start with these two), please provide your policy explanation. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Let's stop saying otherwise then. -- Ronz  22:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Look at the sources again?

Levine2112 has proposed we look at the sources again, "If you have grounds why the Dynamic Chiropractic and WCA article cannot be used (let's start with these two), please provide your policy explanation."

I think previous discussions on this suffice. -- Ronz  22:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Previous discussions do not suffice - so far the large majority of editors here (including the two admins) believe we have reliable sources to at least briefly mention that Barrett is not board certified. If you still disagree, please give a concise explanation why each doesn't qualify. Please be sure to leave out arguments and opinions that have no ground in Wikipedia policy (i.e. these are biased publication). Thanks. If you feel this is repetitive, I apologize. But let's do this one time, clearly and concisely. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Those that want the info in based on these publications need to show why these are (independent) reliable secondary sources with respect to the cited material. I'm sure they're reliable sources with respect to material about themselves, but that's not the issue here. With respect to Barrett, these sources are extremely biased. Using material found there without offsetting the bias is a clear violation of NPOV. Eventualists would probably want to let it stay and wait for others to come along and balance things, but that's explicitly disallowed in BLPs. AvB ÷ talk 12:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Both of these sources have obvious major biases and are not acceptable sources for this statement. At best they are sources that Barrett's opponents claim that he isn't board certified. JoshuaZ 15:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome, JoshuaZ! There is something which you may be missing (I know this conversation is huge!). Barrett is in fact not board certified. This has been verified by Barrett himself and by his lawyers. [66] [67] Nobody is claiming that Barrett is board certified. What is being claimed is that any combination or the sum total of these sources does not amount to stating quite plainly that Barrett is not board certified. This information is biographical and relevant. What is being claimed by his opponents in some of the sources is that Barrett "was forced to admit" that he wasn't board certified. Well, this is sort of true but certainly deceptive. You see, Barrett was under oath when he spoke this information. So yes, technically, he had to admit it. Anyhow, he sued the authors and republishers of this information for libel. He lost. Regardless, my proposal would be just to state plainly that he is not board certified and not bring in the whole hulabaloo about him having to admit it under oath (or that he indeed took the exam to become board certified, but failed - another bit of info verified by Barrett himself here at Wikipedia). AvB and Ronz have proposed slightly different versions of adding the material to the criticisms section. Ronz would like to keep it brief, but AvB would like to go into the details of who claimed that he had to admit this information under oath, etc. So one way or another, at least the information that Barrett is not board certified is going into this article. The questions now are: how, where, and by use of which sources? BTW, while I don't believe that the articles below are written from a major biased point of view, I would be curious to see where in Wikipedia policy does it say that biased articles are not reliable sources. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I view this as a bad faith misrepresentation of what I wrote. AvB ÷ talk 20:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify something. Levine2112 has (again) written the following:

• "Anyhow, he sued the authors and republishers of this information for libel."

To the best of my knowledge, Barrett has never sued anyone for publishing "that" information, but for publishing other statements of a libelous nature. The lawsuits have never concerned themselves with his board certification status, even though Bolen has misused the fact that Barrett has never been board certified (which Barrett has never claimed or even needed during his career) to imply (without clearly stating....sneaky!) that Barrett somehow acted improperly or tried to hide the fact. Barrett's only mention of the fact has been in response to false implications and misuse of the fact. It is otherwise a totally unnotable fact. -- Fyslee/talk 16:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Please review the following court documents which show that Barrett has in fact sued for claims that he was forced to admit under oath that he wasn't board certified:

• STEPHEN BARRETT, M.D., v. OWEN R. FONOROW, and INTELISOFT MULTIMEDIA, INC
• STEPHEN BARRETT, M.D., v JOSEPH MERCOLA, D.O.

-- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

(outdenting) I don't see it. Please provide the precise quotes that back up your precise statement: "that Barrett has in fact sued for claims that he was forced to admit under oath that he wasn't board certified." -- Fyslee/talk 18:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Look at the fonorow suit first.

COUNT I (Libel Per Se), The First Defamatory Webpage, Section 5, Part A: 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.

COUNT I (Libel Per Se), The Seventh Defamatory Webpage, 17, G: 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.

COUNT I (Libel Per Se), The Seventh Defamatory Webpage, 18 (response to 17), G: 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.

COUNT I (Libel Per Se), The Eighth Defamatory Webpage, 19, C: 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.

COUNT I (Libel Per Se), The Eighth Defamatory Webpage, 19, E: For instance, Barrett, it has been revealed, claims to be a retired 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.

COUNT I (Libel Per Se), The Eighth Defamatory Webpage, 19, H: 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.

COUNT I (Libel Per Se), The Eighth Defamatory Webpage, 20 (response to 19), C: 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

COUNT I (Libel Per Se), The Eighth Defamatory Webpage, 20 (response to 19), F: 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.

Now from the Mercola suit. Again the complaint filed by Barrett is libel:

COUNT I (Libel Per Se), The Third Defamatory Communication, 20, K: 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?

Make sense? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't make sense. You wrote, "which show that Barrett has in fact sued for claims that he was forced to admit under oath that he wasn't board certified." -- Ronz  19:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I asked for precision, not the whole thing. Barrett's own response is the most important part to focus on here. Please follow the KISS principle and leave out the unnecessary stuff. -- Fyslee/talk 19:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I went back and bolded areas where he is claiming that statements about him having to admit that he isn't board certified in court are libelous. His complaint in his suit is libel. This means that he is suing for libel. I thinkt his is pretty straightforward, but I hope the bolding will even clarify more. Let me know if you require more explanation. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm....I think I see where you're coming from. I have always considered those as clarifying remarks, since the major thrust of the libel charges are against other remarks that are openly and directly libelous, such as the deceptive claim that he is "delicensed" and other places where Bolen claims that he was "forced to give up his medical license," which are both untrue statements and thus libelous. I guess the mentioning of the other matters could be considered part of the charges, although Bolen's remarks are made as insinuations and are not direct statements, thus making them difficult to prove to be libelous. I'm not a lawyer, so the fine points of this are beyond me. What is obvious when reading anything Bolen writes is that he uses insinuation, "if", "maybe", etc. quite alot. He thinks that by using weasel words he can escape judgment. -- Fyslee/talk 20:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with you here, Fyslee. Bolen is quite slippery and knows just how far he can push the boundaries with clever weasel language. I really don't think that his statements play into this discussion though. All we want to insert is that Barrett is not Board Certified; a fact which can be confirmed by several reliable sources. (It would be one thing if we were trying to insert that Barrett "was forced to admit" this fact on the stand and were using Bolen as a source of this info. We are not.) Anyhow, I am glad that we are on the same page as far as these suits go. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

WCA article

Anti-chiropractic groups spreading ‘stroke’ lies online World Chiropractic Alliance -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:04, 30 May 2007

Dynamic Chiropractic article

Stephen Barrett Loses Major Defamation Trial in Hometown Dynamic Chiropractic -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:04, 30 May 2007