Jump to content

Talk:Stephen Barrett/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16

Who Are the Most Powerful People in American Medicine?

An interesting article:

Although Barrett is mentioned among what George D. Lundberg calls "a pretty impressive list of candidates", he concludes that the patient and physicians are the most powerful. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Busting the Quackbusters?

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Haley Fromholz wrote in 2001, that Stephen Barrett (quackwatch.com), and Wallace Sampson MD (Scientific Review of Alternative and Aberrant Medicine) "were found to be biased and unworthy of credibility." Peculiar that there is no mention of it here but rather sounds like a glowing POV-based review. Dobyblue (talk) 20:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

If you'd like to propose an addition to this biographical article, please review our policy on such material and describe the reliable source which would support your proposed content. MastCell Talk 21:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
LOL, predictable. As someone who would want to keep Wikipedia honest you'd think you might make the addition yourself? If of course that's the goal here?Dobyblue (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I haven't found any reliable secondary sources that would support such an addition. As you probably know, site policy forbids using court transcripts in isolation as sources for biographical material, because it's very easy for an unscrupulous editor to quote parts of a court decision out of context. I thought maybe you had some appropriate sources for this material, since you brought it up. MastCell Talk 19:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Judges are generally scientifically illiterate (your favorite expletive goes here)s, and are generally not RS. Their "peer reviewers" (appellate courts) uphold something like 98% of their decisions (remember Scopes and Darrow), and the burden is on disproving their findings of law (or of fact), the opposite of a scientofoc peer revoew. The RS New York Academy of Sciences and its peer review panel definitely does not agree with this judge re W. Sampson, since they published his "Antiscience" article re Alt Med as the peer reviewed defining article of their conference on "The Flight from Reason". - ParkSehJik (talk) 22:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

69.84.127.13 (talk) 22:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Paul O 69.84.127.13 (talk) 22:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC) The information above is incorrect. The court said the WITNESSES were "biased and unworthy of credibility" not Barrett himself.

(ref) www . whale . to/a/barrett.html

In its Opinion, the Court of Appeals agreed with King and Negrete. Specifically, the Court of Appeals found that NCAHF "presented no evidence that King Bio's products were not safe and effective, relying instead on a general attack on homeopathy, made by witnesses who had no knowledge of, or experience with, King Bio's products, and who were found to be biased and unworthy of credibility"

QPW as a source

Can someone who is well versed in this wikipedia editing put in some content using the references at quackpotwatch.org about stephen barret. the existing content of this article is very onesided with a strongly biased POV. 108.247.169.27 (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not considered a RS (except in its own fringe world). It is even blacklisted here because it has nothing reliable to say. Conspiracy theories are not good sources for facts. Its author is also blocked from editing here because he has behaved so badly.
Any bias you note is because all reliable sources are positive toward Barrett (and Quackwatch, which is another subject). We base our content on what RS say. If RS were critical, then we'd be happy to include such content, but it's pretty hard to find. What has been found has been included in this article. It is minor criticisms. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


The biography of this man seems very one sided, how come it's not mentioned that he was never licensed and failed a board certified test? Reliable sources are positive towards Barret? You mean like the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services? Sure, if you consider the US Government a reliable and trustworthy source...Shadowmyst87 (talk) 23:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC) --

Nothing one-sided about it if you look at sources that are reliable, which means probably any US government source that would be appropriate to use for this article.
Do you have new sources for us to consider, or current sources that you wish to discuss? Please note that claims and comments fall under WP:BLP and special sanctions. --Ronz (talk) 02:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
The statements suggested by Shadowmyst87 are not only unsourced, but the former is clearly false. He was licensed. We have evidence that he didn't pass a certification test, (but that was decided to be undue weight), but not that he failed a certification test. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:RTP move of discussion re Removal of talk page material from this talk page

(The following comment was made [1] on ParkSehJik's talk page, and was moved here by ParkSehJik --Ronz (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC))

ParkSehJik, I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person, Talk:Stephen Barrett, but that you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

I went ahead and removed your aside on the talk page as a WP:BLP violation. Your personal opinion is that psychiatry is pseudoscience - It's irrelevant to the article. You then went on to bring up attacks on Barrett without a source. --Ronz (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

- I did not know the BLP requirements for sources also apply to talk pages. Now I do"Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.". ParkSehJik (talk) 20:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- I have no problem with your removal, however, how can one call for finding sources in BLPs if one cannot state the as-yet-RS lacking assertions on the talk page?
- My "personal opinion" as stated at WP is based on RS and MEDRS, and is not an opinion. It is a statement of the content of mainstream MEDRS sources. Try reading the sources upon which the assertions in the third paragraph of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders are based, and the first four sources here. All I intended to do was restate the content of this RS information. :) ParkSehJik (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for responding! You're a new editor trying to edit highly controversial topics. In addition to WP:BLP, you should be aware that there are Arbitration Committee sanctions in place for the topics as well. You can look at the top of the article talk pages to find more about these sanctions.
I strongly suggest you leave these topics alone until you have a much better understanding of how Wikipedia works. Editing controversial topics will give you an extremely skewed perspective of Wikipedia, and gives you much less leeway in your editing.
If you want to continue trying to edit these articles, you should familiarize yourself with WP:BLP, WP:FRINGE, WP:MEDRS, WP:NPOV, WP:CON, WP:DR, and WP:TALK. Again, better to leave the articles alone for awhile and edit where you can take a leisurely approach to learning the details of Wikipedia's many policies. --Ronz (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Regarding [2], does this mean we're done here? I'm happy to answer your questions further, and as I've already foreshadowed, the answers will come from the policies listed. --Ronz (talk) 01:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. My edits at alt med seem to have stuck, albeit they generated conroversy. I do have a question, peripherally related to my edit on this page that you correctly deleted. My edits at psychiatry, forensic psychiatry, and bipolar disorder, were based on sources that are peer reviewed internationally recognized top journals in the field were dismissed at Wikiproject Medicine as violating "common knowlege".[3] The edits were about a controversy whether psychiatry is medcine at all, and were well sourced. There is significant conroversy as to whether simply listing mental category classification criteria, and defining "out of the norm", allows the attachement of the term "disease" to the category (e.g., bipolar "disorder"). Further controversy is as to whether the categories have any reality at all (e.g., penis envy). Further, psychiatrists at Guantanamo do not treat disease. They help extract information, somtimes using "discomfort". That may be science, but it is not medicine. What policy or guideline allows "common knowledge" that psychiatry is pure medicine to trump the sources I provided? Also, what talk page may have more self-critically thinking kinds of editors who might participate in such discussion? ParkSehJik (talk) 01:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Look more closely over WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 03:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I will read them more thoroughly. How does FRINGE apply? It is not FRINGE that there is historically and currently possible nonsense and pseudoscientific reasoning basing much of psychiatry. Popper used it as paridigmatic of pseudoscience in Conjectures and Refutations. Empirical evidence for attaching the term "disease" to psychic categories "researchers" keep coming up with is entirely lacking. Forensic psychiatry is so far from medicine and having a scientific basis that there are a plethora of academic peer reviewed articles about calling its experts "whores". Criticism of attributing being outside the norm in a psychic category as indicative of "disease", often resulting in involutary treatment, is similarly widespread. Overprescription of anti-depressants is household conversation. Abuses resulting in conservatorships and involuntary commitment (for which the patient has to pay... if they can ever get out), is standard academic stuff in medical ethics discussions. The profit motive to find a disorder, and to regularly change medications, a guarantee bi-weekly or monthly income of i insured $50/15 minutes to rewrite each patients presecriptions, for life, for diagnosing bipolar, is almost unique to psychiatry. There is no known way to get un-diagnosed. Once placed on a 5150 hold, even when made in error, for convenience, or by maliscious accusation of suicidal intent (SI), by an enemy, and the required involuntary hold and referal to a psychiatrist that results, results in removal of basic guaranteed rights for life, such as a second Amendment right to bear arms, or an ability to have a professino in law enforcement. These are not FRINGE ideas. I am mystified at the response to my mainsream MEDRS based edits as having less rationality in the deletions and arguments for them at talk, than argumentation by practitioner-editors in my alt med edits. ParkSehJik (talk) 03:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
No offense, but take a look at WP:BATTLE as well. Wikipedia may simply not be the place for most of what you're interested in discussing/furthering. --Ronz (talk) 03:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Institute for Science in Medicine

He's on the board of Institute for Science in Medicine. I'm not sure it's worth mentioning without an independent source. His bio there might be considered as an external link if it offers substantial information not already in the article or already available from external links. --Ronz (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Berrett and many other ACSH lobbyists is members of that Institute, so why not mention it. Why not mentioning that Barrett SLAPP-suited anti-fluoride activist Darlene Sherellhttp:// http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/99d0729p.pdf--Kar67Eriksson (talk) 08:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
As I mentioned, an independent source is almost a necessity. See WP:BLP. --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Scratch "almost"; an independent source for the (alleged) SLAPP is necessary. In fact, the court decision doesn't mention SLAPP; the court stated it was a simple "statute of limitations" error on Barrett's part, and did not mention any SLAPP issues.
I'm not sure about ISM (or whatever the correct acronym is). Unless there is some doubt about his membership, or his membership would be controversial, the organization's or Barrett's web site should be an adequate source. I'm not sure whether it would be controversial. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Barrett v. Rosenthal

It seems strange that there is merely a link at the bottom of the article about [Barrett v. Rosenthal], which is cited as a "landmark" Internet freedom case, but no discussion of it within this article. And there are reports of Barrett losing another defamation case of which there is no discussion. Both cases apparently relate directly to his "quackbusting" efforts. Nicmart (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Have you searched this Talk page's archive? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 22:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

"Other activities"

Is there any evidence that this addition refers to the right Barrett? If so, please add it to the section. I'm going to move that section here until we sort this out. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Barrett is also a competitive swimmer who placed 1st, 2nd, and 3rd in many state championship events.<ref>{{cite web|title=North Carolina Senior Games 2009 State Finals Results|url=http://www.ncseniorgames.org/results09.pdf|accessdate=8/11/2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=North Carolina Senior Games 2010 State Finals Results|url=http://www.ncseniorgames.org/results20102.pdf|accessdate=8/11/2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=North Carolina Senior Games 2011 State Finals Preliminary Results|url=http://www.ncseniorgames.org/results2011.pdf|accessdate=8/11/2012}}</ref> In April 2012, at the [[U.S. Masters Swimming Spring Nationals]] meet in [[Greensboro]], North Carolina, he won five medals, including two golds for men in the 75–79 age group. He finished 7th in the men's 50- and 100-yard [[breaststroke]] events, third in the mixed 200-yard [[freestyle swimming|freestyle]] [[relay]], and first in the men's 200-yard freestyle and 200-yard [[medley swimming|medley]] relays. The men's relay results were faster than any time recorded in the U.S. in 2011.<ref>{{cite web|title=USMS Spring Nationals Results|url=http://www.usms.org/comp/scnats12/results/index.php?MeetID=20120426SCNATSY&ag=12&s=M&f=m12|accessdate=8/11/2012}}</ref>

I had to use nowiki code because there is apparently a blacklisted link in there! -- Brangifer (talk) 20:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Since the edit was made by Susan Gerbic, it's worth just asking her - she probably knows Barrett personally, or at least has met and/or corresponded with him. Guy (Help!) 13:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Stephen Barrett. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Stephen Barrett. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Image

I just emailed him for an image for the infobox. Fingers crossed. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stephen_Barrett/Archive_16&oldid=1026322996"