Talk:Stephen Barrett/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Blocked/banned editors

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

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

Moved to talk for discussion: dismissal of claims

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

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

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

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

writings of Barrett

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

If it belongs anywhere, that would be the location, though the individual chapters should probably be identified. --Ronz (talk) 23:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That said, it might be best to have a reliable source to meet WP:UNDUE, showing that it is notable in Barrett's career. --Ronz (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how these writings of his would be any less significant than the ones already listed. In fact, since they were selected for the book, they might be more significant. Bubba73 (talk), 00:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The book was reviewed in the Sept/Oct 2007 Skeptical Inquirer. I thought I'd seen the review online, but I'm searching for it again. Bubba73 (talk), 00:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is a review of the book. " a collection of classic articles written by the pioneers of the critical-thinking and debunking communities. ... but this anthology easily stands upon its own merits with contributions from scholars including Susan Blackmore, Michael Shermer, Stephen Barrett ... " Bubba73 (talk), 00:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't mind information that is produced by Barrett being included as "He has written XXXXX" in his bio. What Bubba has produced above does suggest to me that the info is notable to Barrett's audience. However, isn't encyclopedia.com just a mirror for Wikipedia (so it probably isn't a RS). Shot info (talk) 04:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The encyclopedia.com link I gave is an online version of the Skeptical Inquirer review of the book, and that page isn't a mirror of WP. SI doesn't have that article online, and I couldn't get it through FindArticles.com either, but I found it there. I present it for the notability of the book and Barrett's chapters in it. Another quote from the review: "Paranormal Claims comes with endorsements from Ken Frazier, James Randi, and Ann Druyan, which speaks volumes (excuse the pun), for the importance of this book". Bubba73 (talk), 04:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You can buy a copy of the review for only $9.95: here. Bubba73 (talk), 05:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The link you provided review of the book on the bottom says it's copywritten. So wouldn't that make this all unusable unless another source is found that isn't protected by copywrite? --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That means that we can't use the text of the review (or a major portion of it) in our articles. But that was not my intention. I posted a link to that review just to show the notability of the book and the articles/chapters in it, some of which were written by Barrett. Bubba73 (talk), 15:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Blatant WP:BLP violation

Anything further from either of these editors remotely along these lines should result in a block: [1] and [2]. --Ronz (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Quick answer: Given the previous discussions on this matter, not very likely.

Complicated answer: Tell us exactly what you are proposing to add, what sources you propose to use, and how WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:LEAD, and especially WP:BLP will not being violated. --Ronz (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Just as soon as you tell us how this line "Numerous sources have cited Stephen Barrett's Quackwatch as a credible or reliable source for online consumer information." does not violate WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:LEAD. 71.191.42.242 (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

We used to have a list of such sources, including Consumer Reports, NIH, and a few state Attorneys General — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

American Cancer Society could be added to that list. Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 07:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No doubt when one actually look at what the sources say, it won't be quite the same as how it's worded here. But probably best not to dig up the sources and cause a stink, even if it's not true as worded, we all know it's accurate, which is good enough for me! 71.191.42.242 (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Consumer Reports, NIH, and a few state Attorneys General? Please provide the references or links. Perhaps we can improve this article. Quack Guru 22:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Accurate? I certainly don't KNOW that, and I'm not about to BELIEVE it without WP:RS.DigitalC (talk) 09:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Townsend Letters are a RS

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

That ref is not RS. No evidence has been presented. QuackGuru 23:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Added to BLP/N here. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 23:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime, the best thing to do is to leave it at the last consensual version until you hear back opinions from BLPN. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

BLP violation

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

no consensus according to the editor who added the material

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

Guess what? A double-negative makes a positive. "There was no consensus ... that Townsend Letters was not a RS". Anyway, see here for the discussion. ImpIn | (t - c) 06:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There is the issue that there is no consensus to use this ref. And the views of a tiny mirority is a WP:WEIGHT violation. QuackGuru 06:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyedits

I reverted two edits which I think need discussion and agreement before implementation. The first one - a change to the lead - actually changes the meaning of what is sourced. The most common legitimate criticism of Barrett is claiming that he lacks of objectivity. The second one - a deletion of entire critics opinion - was done with an ES stating that too much weight is being given to a critic's opinion. It is but a mere sentence and it is sources to a published work. I don't believe that this is any violation of WP:WEIGHT. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed the following: "For example, nutritionist Dr. Colgan claims that one of Dr. Barrett's books, The Vitamin Pushers, hardly discusses supplements but is rather "filled with derisive statements about individuals and organizations in the health care and natural foods industry" and lumps scientists with obvious charlatans indiscriminately." as it gives to much weight to a single persons opinion. The statement of which this is an example remains, and the source supporting it remains too. Why not turn the ref into a proper citation and add that opinion as a quote? --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

In fact the reference does not provide enough information for me to find the source. Where was it published, for example? --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

While the reference could be improved, this quote provides a much needed example of a critic who in fact finds Barrett to lack objectivity and describes exactly why the critic feels this way. I think it should remain and agree with you that the reference itself can be improved. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless the sourcing is improved it should be removed per BLP. Also, it has weight problems if the quote is put into the body. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Please describe the perceived Weight issue. Also, we may want to consider how this was handled at the Colgan article. It's more of a he-said/he-said issue there. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the changes to the lead as well, especially, "Heavily criticised by those in the alternative health movement." What portions of the article support such a change to the lead? --Ronz (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

A number of practitioners and supporters of alternative medicine criticize Barrett and Quackwatch for its criticism of alternative medicine.[23][25]

Some alternative medicine practitioners and nutritionists have responded to Stephen Barrett's criticisms.[45]

The above two sentences is duplication and the Colgan ref is dated.

The previous lead was better. Stuff like "Heavily criticised" is way too dramatic. QuackGuru 18:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Good spot. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

WEASEL WORDS

I had deleted:

"Numerous sources have cited Stephen Barrett's Quackwatch as a credible or reliable source for online consumer information."

This was reverted with the following explanation:

"but doesn't appear to violate WP:WEASEL. Feel free to discuss on talk page."[[3]]

Implicit endorsement of faulty logic.

• The word "clearly" and other words of its kind are often a form of handwaving which asserts that a conclusion has been demonstrated. Wikipedia articles should not be making arguments in the first place. Simply state facts, cite the sources of them, and let the readers draw their own conclusions.
• Many people think... is often a lead-in to a bandwagon fallacy. It wasn't put there to establish the context of the following statement, but rather to lead the reader to accept a conclusion based on a claim that "many" others believe it. Cite recognized experts to establish the truth of a statement; don't allude to an anonymous crowd.

The Quack Watch article states:

"Numerous sources cite Quackwatch as a practical source for online consumer information"

The weasel is not half as fat as on this page. Don't get the wrong ideas, this sentence is of totally inferior quality compared to the actually sourced sources.

Gdewilde (talk) 06:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

So what exactly are you asking? Personally I don't think that a comment about Quackwatch does not belong in the lede of a biography of a living person. However your edit above seems to be arguing what exactly? Shot info (talk) 06:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Medical information is weaseled away under consumer information. I just read the sentence then I wonder what doctors claims quack watch is credible medical advice? I think the links are down there some place. It would be good to have them where the question comes up. That is all.

You are right about repeating the homepage in the biography lead. I think the legal battle doesn't need to be there either. This would be enouhg IMHO.

Stephen J. Barrett (born 1933) is a retired American psychiatrist, author, co-founder of the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF), and the webmaster of Quackwatch. He runs a number of websites dealing with quackery and health fraud. He focuses on consumer protection, medical ethics, and scientific skepticism.

Or even:

Stephen J. Barrett (born 1933) is a retired American psychiatrist, author, co-founder of the National Council Against Health Fraud.

Nice short neutral and clear, then stick the menu under it. Unnamed websites dealing with quackery is not what his note worthiness is based on? Or is it? Gdewilde (talk) 19:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, the first one is my personal preference, only per WP:LEAD rather than anything to do with weasel words. How about Stephen J. Barrett (born 1933) is a retired American psychiatrist, author, co-founder of the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF), and the webmaster of Quackwatch. He is best known for consumer protection, medical ethics, and scientific skepticism in which he operates a number of websites that deal with quackery and health fraud. The rest of the information is in the body of the article and only the main information (ie/ actually about Barrett) should be in the lede. Incidently if you read the article, you will see that Barrett is probably best known for Quackwatch.org (a website). So notability is assured there. Shot info (talk) 00:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I would be against saying that he is best known for consumer protection, medical ethics, and scientific skepticism. That is unverifiable. Instead, how about this?

Stephen J. Barrett (born 1933) is a retired American psychiatrist, author, co-founder of the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF) and the webmaster of Quackwatch. He runs a number of skeptic websites dealing with consumer protection, medical ethics, and health fraud.

-- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

See WP:LEAD for some helpful information on how to properly write the introduction section. --Ronz (talk) 19:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:LEAD says the controversy is relatively important. I initially called it weasel wording but it's mostly poor sourcing that is disturbing the flow of the read. Must mention who endorses such questionable writings. It's part of the controversy. The sources are not that disappointing. Gdewilde (talk) 05:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't particularly like Quackwatch / Stephen Barrett for some reason, but the statement in the lead is supported by the article. I don't think it is an example of weasel-wording. However, I am bothered by this common idea that things in the lead supported by the article don't need to be cited. A name should be applied to the the praising organizations and cite that statement. II 22:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, it can be seen from your edits that you don't like QW or Barrett, nevertheless writing for the enemy is always useful to help edit from an NPOV perspective. FWIW, WP:LEADCITE is a useful piece of info to help us avoid cluttering up the lede with cites. Shot info (talk) 07:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

MD NetGuide reference in lead

That reference really doesn't seem to work. It loads up a page with no information for me. Does it really work for you, Fyslee? II | (t - c) 07:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It works for me, clearing your cache might help. --CliffC (talk) 11:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like some browsers don't display the content properly, though the information is there and the browsers actually load it. --Ronz (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Adding the ref here for convenience.

-- Fyslee / talk 19:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Cleared my cache, still doesn't work. Ronz is right, though, because I can see the information in the page source. Nevertheless, probably best to put a different source in the lead. II | (t - c) 20:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Websites describing Quackwatch do not always claim it is credible or reliable.

Forbes: "great for the uninformed." Consultant Pharmacist: "relevant..poorly organized..." US News & World Report: "Worth a Click..." It comes up on the healthfinder.gov search engine, but the "reliable" claim is tempered by the fact that it only comes up on third party websites - some of which do not endorse Quackwatch. Cunningham and Marcason from the American Dietetic Association are quoted as describing Quackwatch as "useful." Southwest Public Libraries do not endorse or recommend Quackwatch - they give it zero stars. National Network of Libraries of Medicine offers Quackwatch for additional information. VCU Libraries does not endorse Quackwatch, they are simply listed as a source. U. of Kentucky's link did not say anything about Quackwatch on my click. Petergkeyes (talk) 06:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Instead of listing every single term used, I have edited it and just used the term "useful" as a reasonable compromise. None of the sources would have mentioned Quackwatch if they didn't think it was useful. We don't need to list all the accolades. -- Fyslee / talk 04:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

References

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

Barrett v. Rosenthal

That article seems to me to be a POV fork. I see no reason why it cannot be included here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not a POV fork. I like that article. It has very few references but there are other articles in mainspace like that too. However, I'm not sure if it would survive an AFD.

It is already mentioned in this article. There was much discussion. The amount it is covered in this article is enough. QuackGuru 04:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what the POV problems might be (you don't explain), but as one who researched and helped draft the tight and neutral "defamation lawsuits" section of this article, and as one who is interested in Section 230 immunity, I strongly oppose merger. Barrett v. Rosenthal is a thorough opinion relating to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. It's an important case and has a stack of citations independent from the subject of Stephen Barrett. Cool Hand Luke 04:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Fork yes, inasmuch as the overly large section of BvR was removed into it's own article - something that often happens in Wikipedia. Jossi, I would like to see why you think Barrett v. Rosenthal is a POVFORK. After all, (re)inclusion into this article would imply that it needs to be massively pruned to satisfy WP:WEIGHT. Shot info (talk) 05:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering how can one tiny court case have such a big article. Is there many references citing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in regard to Barrett v. Rosenthal or is this a tiny article that has somehow survived in mainspace. Soon I will remove the merge tags. We are not going to dump an inflated article into this article. QuackGuru 05:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend you leave it QG until there is a clear consensus for the merger. It won't hurt anybody if it stays up there for a few days or even a week or so. Shot info (talk) 05:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, it isn't a "tine article". BvR set some massive precident in the US effectively protecting anybody who republishes information (or even claims to be republishing info) from libel. Shot info (talk) 05:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I think there are enough reference to merit an article. It's the Supreme Court of California, and it was unusual because the California Court of Appeals had broken with most Federal courts since Zeran v. America Online, Inc.. The lower court refused to extend immunity to what it termed "distributor liability" for defamation (as opposed to publisher liability). The outcome of this case was therefore anticipated by those who wondered whether California would take a fresh and novel approach to interpreting Section 230. As it turned out, they didn't. I could work on it if you like. Cool Hand Luke 05:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Has any similar articles went to an AFD. What is the notability standard for these court cases. QuackGuru 05:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know, but I think it would pass (and I tend to be a deletionist anymore). If you nominate it, I'll fight to keep it, and there are an embarrassing number of possible sources from major newspapers to scholarly legal articles. I'll work on it this weekend, 'kay? Cool Hand Luke 05:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyone could AFD it and if it is speedly deleted you would not have a chance to work on it this weekend. In 24 hours it could be deleted. QuackGuru 05:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyone could, yes. I'm telling you to please not do that because I have a lot of things to do now, and don't really want to drop everything to defend the article. Incidentally, Zeran is a much more important case and that article is in even worse shape. Cool Hand Luke 05:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

←They should be kept as seperate articles as the content of the lawsuit one would dominate the Barret article. Both are notable, and I don't see any POV problems. I understand the suggestion as being consolidating related information, but I think here this would do more harm by overwhelming this article. Verbal chat 07:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I also think they should stay separated as they are notable on their own and merging them would over take the other. I also support Luke in working on the article. Luke go for it, this I totally support. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)