Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:18, 14 May 2009

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. This article has had a peer review which is now archived. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Sbinfo (talk · contribs) / Barrett, Stephen Barrett, Stephen

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Stephen Barrett. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Stephen Barrett at the Reference desk.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to complementary and alternative medicine, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Archives----
October 2005 – July 15, 2006 July 20, 2006 – July 27, 2006 July 27, 2006 – Sept. 18, 2006 Sept. 18, 2006 – Oct. 28, 2006 Nov. – Dec. 2006 Jan 2007 Dec 2006 – February 2007 March 2007 – April 2007 April 2007 April 2007 – June 2007 June 2007 – Aug 2007 Aug 2007 – Sept 2007 Sept 2007 – Dec 2007 2008 Jan 2009 –

Time for arbcom enforcement

Anyone disagree that isn't making personal attacks or using this page as a battleground? --Ronz (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Ronz, will you please reword your question? It's not entirely clear what you are saying. It seems there are typos or words missing. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the behaviour of two editors here is beyond simply disruptive. (Levine and stmrlbs) Verbal chat 06:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Time for arbcom. I will have a lot to say, being a new editor on this page.

--strmlbs|talk 06:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement under BLP, I assume? Fringe Science or Pseudoscience (amended) might be applicable. Barrett v. Rosenthal appears not to have any broad enforcement provision, so probably not that one. - Eldereft (cont.) 15:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, past enforcement have been per Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy. Barrett_v._Rosenthal includes WP:BLP specifically. Levine2112 has been at this for over three years now, and he's encouraging Stmrlbs to take up this battle. --Ronz (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

so then lets go to it and take this to the arbcom to enforce then 70.71.22.45 (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

As the disruption has halted there seems little point, unless it starts again. Verbal chat 18:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Considering that an ArbCom is the ultimate disruption, it is saved as an absolute last resort. All other dispute resolution measures must be tried first, starting here at the talk page. An ArbCom could have very negative consequences for Levine2112, Stmrlbs, and of course a SPI for the IP. If we can avoid that, let's do so. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Ronz.. go ahead. Take us to arbitration for trying to discuss making a one line change that an outside administrator and mediation cabal member agreed was reasonable. I will be glad to discuss what it was like to try to hold a discussion while different editors in this group were continually crying WP:Battle, hatting the discussion, or archiving the whole talk page in the middle of a discussion without consensus. One good thing about Misplaced Pages, all actions are recorded.

All prior steps taken to try to resolve this disagreement will be discussed and I think any arbitration committee will be interested in how this group reacted to outside opinions and how they responded to attempts at mediation. I believe that WP:Own, WP:Bully, and WP:TagTeam are policies that can be brought up and documented.

--stmrlbs|talk 04:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I assume you believe there is consensus not to include the poorly sourced text in violation of a number of policies including BLP. QuackGuru (talk) 04:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I assume you have read outside opinions on this matter - that this is properly sourced and does not violate WP:BLP, just like I have QuackGuru.

--stmrlbs|talk 04:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought the general opinion was that it is not relevant? Only yourself and levine seem to think it is important to the article. Some things, even if sourced, should not be in a good article. David D. (Talk) 04:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

One or two editors basically wanted to add unsourced or poorly sourced irrelevant text. If this went to ArbCom a couple of editors could get a long break from this page. QuackGuru (talk) 04:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Another Reliable Source for Board Certification

For the record, ABPNis a better source than ABMS for the Board Certification status of a psychiatrist. They keep records of all board certifications of members - past and present. As of October 1, 1994, all individuals achieving Board certification by the ABPN are issued ten-year, time-limited certificates. Before that, Board Certification was permanent. Barrett retired in 1993.

Here is the main page for checking board certification. You can check all board certified members for a state (past and present), as well as check for a name. If you check for all board certified psychiatrists for New Mexico, you will see retired psychiatrists listed along with psychiatrists that were board certified, but their certification has expired. It is interesting how many psychiatrists are in Washington D.C., considering it is only 10 square miles.. hmmmm.....

If you check for the name , it will check all states. As you can see if you check, Stephen Barrett is not listed as board certified either in the past or the present. Now, if you check for Joseph Barrett, you will see that he got board certified in 1935, and that his certification is indefinite.
--stmrlbs|talk 04:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

So are we going to discuss this for another three years, just rehashing whether this is relevant or not? By the way, why is another source going to convince someone who thinks it is not relevant? David D. (Talk) 04:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

This discussion should not continue year after year. This is unproductive. So I am going to close the discussion. QuackGuru (talk) 04:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

QuackGuru, you cannot decide to hide my comments because you have decided the discussion should not go on. This is a new reliable source. It is pertinent to the issue.

--stmrlbs|talk 05:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It's just another source that says absolutely nothing about the subject, IOW it's a OR and SYNTH violation to use it alone. If other sources were sufficient to establish relevance, context, weight, and notablity of the matter, then it might be usable as a supplementary source, but otherwise it's useless. This brings nothing new to the discussion, so continuing this is just disruption. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The talk page in not for discussing irrelevant text not related to Barrett. So I closed the discussion. QuackGuru (talk) 05:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

QuackGuru, please do not close this discussion again. I did not agree to it. Please read WP:Talk, the part about consensus.

--stmrlbs|talk 05:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed for about three years now. It is time to move on. QuackGuru (talk) 05:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to hat this conversation. If you don't wish to participate, I suggest you simply don't participate. That's all. -- Levine2112 07:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Sighhh, here we go again... Shot info (talk) 07:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Not relevant etc etc, doesn't address previous concerns etc etc. This disruption should stop now. Verbal chat 07:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to continue this discussion. This thread needs to be archived. QuackGuru (talk) 08:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

My posting about another source for Board Certification information is not disruptive. If you don't like it, don't comment on it.

What is disruptive is the continual hatting/closing/archiving of other people's comments that Ronz/Quackguru/Verbal/Fyslee do to comments of new editors of this article. Please read this in WP:Refactor:

Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page. If there are recent heated discussions on the talk page, good faith may be lacking. If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted.

--stmrlbs|talk 08:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I refactored your comment, I hope you don't mind. You are being disruptive and I think that it is probably time for AE as this has flared up again. Also, I'm a newer editor here than you and have done nothing wrong here, thanks. Verbal chat 08:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Verbal, you joined in helping Ronz and Fyslee hat my comments when you knew that I was not asked about hatting the conversation and that I had posted my protest on the talk page. This was against WP:Talk Policy. You were not a participant of the hatted conversation, and had no business trying to force a hat on my comments.

--stmrlbs|talk 09:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

(T)hat was perfectly in line with WP:TALK and fully justified. Please don't make personal attacks in edit summaries, and try to remain civil and assume good faith. See WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Please direct your comments towards improving the article, per WP:TALK. Verbal chat 09:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Verbal, this is not WP:Talk Read it. WP:Talk calls for consensus among the involved editors. I did not consent, and you were not even one of the editors in the conversation. And as for comments on edit summaries, you should practice what you preach: "Next stop AE" is not civil What you did was more in line with WP:Bully

--stmrlbs|talk 09:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want a discussion with me, take it to my talk page. This page is for improving the article. WP:TALK is quite clear about that, and several of the points for editing others comments apply to comments you have made. You have not addressed the previous concerns raised by myself and others about this "addition", and this "new source" doesn't alter that. I have been civil, and will continue to be. Please stop your abuse of this page. I genuinely feel that unless you stop this disruption, the best thing for this page and the project would be to ask for AE. If you want to discuss WP:TALK more generally, go to the WP:TALK talk page. Verbal chat 10:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Ok everyone lets just calm down a bit please. Against my better judgement, I am going to make a brief comment about this new source. It doesn't mention Barrett in any way right? (yes I've looked). There is no other reliable sources commenting about Barrett's BC which is needed to show WP:N, undo weight and so on that has been discussed many times. Right now using it would be WP:Syn for sure and other policies that have too already been mentioned. So may I suggest that these new sources be use at Board certification if they are not already there. I originally tried to get this added when I was a new editor until I researched and found the BC wasn't important back when Barrett was a practicing MD, which my links above show. I also think that there is now another consensus to keep out the board certification information until or unless someone come up with a WP:RS that follows policies. Ok, I'm done, I hope this helps calm things down. Thanks for listening, going back to lurk/ignore mode. ;) --CrohnieGal 12:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

no other sources? thats not what the consensus at WP:RSN was! 70.71.22.45 (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, 70.71.22.45 is correct. This was the consensus at the RS noticeboard:

2007-05-29 request for 3rd party opinion on Reliable Sources

WJohnson and Piotrus, both neutral 3rd parties, both ageed that ""He is not board certified (citation), but he responds by stating that 'It is not necessary to be board-certified to practice psychiatry'"" was acceptable.

Poitrus came to this talk page, and you can read what he said and the responses to his 3rd party opinion.

Poitrus and responses

--stmrlbs|talk 20:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

When "It is not necessary to be board-certified to practice psychiatry" it means the information is irrelevant. Time to move on. QuackGuru (talk) 20:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Board Certification is ever really necessary to practice anything, but it is an important and notable qualification for a physician, medical researcher/critic and expert witness to have. The importance of this distinction goes far back to the mid-late 1970s. Barrett retired as a physician in 1993. Board certification was certainly already important then. Barrett continues his work as a medical critic and expert witness to this day. That he is not Board Certified does not necessarily make him less able to do his work, but the fact has come up in various reliable sources (including Barrett himself, who is self-cited throughout this article already). It's kind of like Magna cum laude. It is not necessary to graduate with that distinction, but it sure looks nice a resume. Now I wouldn't go to every academic's article and find out if the subject graduated with such a distinction. However, if there are reliable sources out there making such a claim~ and further, the claim can be verified by college graduation records which show that the subject did not graduate with such a disctinction, then there really is no problem stating so in the subject's article. -- Levine2112 20:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Levine2112, you have a good point:

• "However, if there are reliable sources out there making such a claim~ and further, the claim can be verified by college graduation records which show that the subject did not graduate with such a disctinction, then there really is no problem stating so in the subject's article."

That is very true. IF Barrett had made any claims that he was board certified, then the subject would become very relevant, especially if he wasn't certified. Then bring on the guns and document the fraud. BUT that is not the case. He has never presented his qualifications in a false light. This is the opposite. Here we have TB making a libelous assertion based on Barrett NOT making such a false claim. This subject came to light because TB made variously worded libelous claims to the effect that Barrett wasn't a real doctor because he wasn't board certified, which is nonsense. IIRC, he even went so far in his newsletters and discussion group statements as to demonstratively and often address Barrett as "Mr", which was an obvious insult. Now if Barrett had been a British surgeon, "Mr" would have been quite proper, IIRC. They have a very different set of titles. No, this situation is very different (opposite) than the one you describe. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

My statement has been misparsed and/or misunderstood.

• "However, if there are reliable sources out there making such a claim and further, the claim can be verified by college graduation records which show that the subject did not graduate with such a disctinction, then there really is no problem stating so in the subject's article."

Here, in terms of Barrett not being Board Certified, we have several reliable sources (not TB... that's just the scarecrow you keep bandying about!); sources which have been deemed reliable by third-parties on RSN to verify that Barrett is not board certified. It's a plain fact which Barrett freely admits and he himself is just as reliable of a source for this information as he is for the rest of his academic biography. No one is proposing to insert text that states Barrett has misrepresented himself; that's a strawman argument (if you're not familiar with that term, I encourage you to click through and read up on it). -- Levine2112 03:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Misparsed? Misunderstood? No, I quoted you correctly, and you wrote about a "claim" that "the subject graduated with such a distinction". Any other parsing wouldn't make sense, as your point seemed to make the logical and correct assumption that anyone who claimed to have such a distinction, but which upon further examination turned out to show that they did not possess such a distinction, IOW their "claim" was false, the fact they had made such a false claim should be stated "in the subject's article". Now if you didn't intend to make that logical point, then you must be attempting to make another one and rejecting your logical one. Which is it?

The TB thing is not a straw man. That is how we found out about the matter, and right from the beginning it was presented in a false light. Its original context is court testimony in a libel case against someone who quoted TB, and it has been requoted by people who have gotten their misinformation from TB, and therefore attempted to use his misinformation to miscredit Barrett. The fact remains that mainstream sources do not mention the matter, and none of his peers have criticized him for lacking board certification. He was among the majority of his time who did not possess board certification, and just like them, he had a rather normal career without any problems because of it. Things are different now for MDs who graduated later, but it would be improper and unfair to judge him by their standards. It was his peers, including the ones without board certification, who have been the teachers of the younger generation of doctors. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Strawman and I'm still being misquoted. I clearly said: ...the claim can be verified by college graduation records which show that the subject did not graduate with such a disctinction, then there really is no problem stating so in the subject's article... And why does this even matter? I was making an apt comparison which has been twisted into a distracting and pointless argument. Sorry, your magician's tricks are obvious and they won't distract anyone from the truth here. No one is talking about Tim Bolen here except you. Tim Bolen need not factor into this equation since none of the sources being presented here are from Tim Bolen. -- Levine2112 06:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

How many of his peers criticize him for not passing the boards?

And in 2006, I wrote "A doctors skills are learned on the job, NOT in the examination room. It is just a fallacy to use the failed board exam as evidence for him not being an expert in the field. Much more pertinent would be malpractice suits or similar." Has anything changed in three years?

And for context the clear goal of inserting this is the following assertion (also from 2006): "For whatever reason Dr. Barrett is not board-certified. Whatever the reason, it is hard to be a ‘health expert, advocate’ without at least being able to pass the board exams of your own specialty."

The whole argument revolves around whether such an assertion is valid. So is it? Are his colleagues saying he does not or cannot speak for them? In three years nothing has been brought to the table to convince me this assertion is valid. David D. (Talk) 21:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

David, if this is the criteria you think should be used for Barrett, then it is the criteria that should be used for everyone on Misplaced Pages who is notable for giving expert advice to the public. Why list credentials or educational background at all for anyone? Just list on the job experiences. I think that this would qualify most of the health experts out there. Are you willing to say that this is all that the public needs to know about anyone giving expert advice to the public?

I think educational background, credentials, and job experience are important for anyone that is held to be an expert. It comes with the territory of being an expert that this information should be public.

--stmrlbs|talk 22:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Please stop responding to editors who just repeat the same rejected arguments over and over. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't let editors bait you. Ignore them

We know that editors come to these articles to defame Barrett. Ignore them. If they persist, they'll be blocked. --Ronz (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes! Always remember that if anyone presents an unpalatable argument to which you can present no sound defence, there is always ad hominem. Trolls, POV pushers, socks and tendentious disruptive elements the lot. "If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell." Unomi (talk) 00:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I want to thank Ronz for coming to my talkpage and pointing out that I seem be encouraging improper behavior. I realize that text only communication can be confusing at times; I want to make it absolutely clear that my above post was meant to be ironic and that I find such tactics as I outlined despicable, nauseating and deeply problematic. I strongly encourage that all people off and on wikipedia refrain from resorting to such intellectually and morally bankrupt techniques. Unomi (talk) 01:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone have time to put together Arb Enforcement request?

I started putting a request together, but won't likely have time to complete it and format it into a request:

Yes, Barrett-related articles, again. (Covered under Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal). Once again we have editors continuing to try to find ways around WP:BLP in a dispute that is over three years old, and once again the discussions become disruptive while making no progress whatsoever. As is always the case, we have Levine2112 involved, encouraging other editors to take up this dispute User_talk:Levine2112#question_about_a_past_mediation while falling into his old habits of attacking others, "I was making an apt comparison which has been twisted into a distracting and pointless argument. Sorry, your magician's tricks are obvious and they won't distract anyone from the truth here."

This time around the new editors trying to push this dispute along are 70.71.22.45, who's already been blocked once for disruptive editing, and Stmrlbs who in repeating his position in this dispute ad nauseum, has now fallen to playing all to common approach of playing the victim after taking this dispute beyond the patience of everyone .

The situation began on Levine2112's talk page linked above, then moved to the article talk page Talk:Stephen_Barrett/Archive_15#Board_Certification. --Ronz (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Any progress with this, Ronz? Looking forward to neutral parties examining the situation. Of course we could try for Mediation again, that is if you will agree to it this time. -- Levine2112 23:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the problems continuing, so I don't see a need to pursue it at this time. - Ronz (talk) 23:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

So what do you say about Mediation? I think that's the only way to settle this long debate once and for all. Are you game to participate? -- Levine2112 02:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

No, that's not "the only way". You could just stop this disruptive campaign of yours. Simple as that. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Please try to consider things from my point of view. In my eyes, you're the one being disruptive by keeping well-source, relevant information out of an article in a campaign to protect your friend. We both are sure the other one is wrong. Mediation seems like a healthy, amicable way to resolve such a dispute. -- Levine2112 03:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing to mediate. We're too busy trying to keep the behavioral problems under control. --Ronz (talk) 04:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I find it interesting that this group of editors that continually points to anyone that doesn't fully support their POV as being "disruptive", refused Mediation when it was offered, or didn't reply (which will stop mediation):

Parties which agreed/rejected mediation; and those who didn't say

These users agreed to mediation:

• Levine2112 (talk · contribs)
• Metta Bubble (talk · contribs)
• Dematt (talk · contribs)
• I'clast (talk · contribs)
• Robert2957 (talk · contribs)
• Steth (talk · contribs)
• RalphLender (talk · contribs)
• Jim Butler (talk · contribs)

These users refused mediation:

• Mr.Guru (now QuackGuru (talk · contribs))
• Fyslee (now BullRangifer (talk · contribs))
• Crohnie (talk · contribs)

These users did not make a statement (which will result in mediation being rejected):

• MaxPont (talk · contribs)
• AvB (talk · contribs)
• Ronz (talk · contribs)
• Shot info (talk · contribs)

I think mediation is inappropriate, because what Levine wants is a violation of policy. But I wouldn't stand in the way if mediation were agreed to. But that's not going to happen. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is asking for mediation again a violation of policy? Is there only one mediation allowed?

--stmrlbs|talk 07:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with Arthur Rubin, and would not get involved in such inappropriate mediation. Verbal chat 07:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

1. ABPN FAQ http://www.abpn.com/general_FAQs.htm#faq2

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs of people
• Old requests for Biography peer review
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Skepticism articles
• Unknown-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• Articles with connected contributors