Wikipedia

Talk:Stephen Barrett and Silverberg family: Difference between pages

(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
David D. (talk | contribs)
11,585 edits
 
No edit summary
 
Line 1:
{{Notability|fiction|date=May 2007}}
{{WPBiography|living=yes|class=|importance=}}
{{in-universe}}
{{Notable Wikipedian|Sbinfo|Barrett, Stephen}}
 
The Silverberg family is a family of renoun military strategists from [[Konami]]'s [[Suikoden]] series of games. Among the characters listed are also those who have close ties to the Silverberg family.
<!--Template:Archivebox begins-->
{| class="infobox" width="315px"
|-
! align="center" | [[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]]<br />[[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]]
----
|-
|
# [[Talk:Stephen Barrett/Archive 1|October 2005 &ndash; July 15, 2006]]
# [[Talk:Stephen Barrett/Archive 2|July 20, 2006 &ndash; July 27, 2006]]
# [[Talk:Stephen Barrett/Archive 3|July 27, 2006 &ndash; Sept. 18, 2006]]
#
|}<!--Template:Archivebox ends-->
 
In the ''Suikoden III'' manga, Caesar Silverberg attributes the countless successful strategists who have emerged from the Silverberg family as a result not only of the family passing down their teachings to a subsequent generation, but also because of each tactician's own personality traits. Throughout the course of history in Suikoden, the Silverberg family have been known to be heralds of change because of their involvement in nearly all the conflicts which have occurred.
==Delicensed vs. unlicensed==
NATTO, please tell me what you feel is the difference between these terms? -- [[User:Fyslee|Fyslee]] 21:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 
Members of the Silverberg family frequently occupy the Tenki Star, the Star of Wisdom, amongst the [[108 Stars of Destiny (Suikoden)|108 Stars of Destiny]], which is the star assigned to the primary tactician of the hero or the Chikai Star, the Chief Star of Earth, which is assigned to the secondary tactician of the story.
* Fyslee. It is not for me , as an editor, to decide what the use of the word means so I will not get drawn into your line of questioning. The point of view of Barrett is included as well as the wording used by Bolen. It is not the job of an editor to draw conclusions or decide his definition of a word that would support one POV over the other. You have clearly tried to present a supportive view of the definition that Barrett has posted on his website by choosing selectively the words you wanted from references posted, conveniently ignoring, the rest of the argument. [[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 22:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 
==Julian Silverberg==
== Dr. Sahelian and FDA warning letter ==
A legendary strategist who helped Karnach Rugner, ancestor of [[Barbarossa Rugner]], become independent from [[Harmonia]] without any bloodshed, creating the Scarlet Moon Empire more than 200 years ago.
 
==Elenor Silverberg==
* The FDA warning letter was sent with regards to three products formulated by Dr. Sahelian and sold on a web site called www.physicianformulas.com.
Elenor Silverberg is the earliest known Silverberg since Julian himself. She was originally tactician for the Scarlet Moon Empire, but she was banished due to the actions of her subordinate, Graham Cray.
 
After this she headed south into the Island Nations where she settled on Hermitage Isle with her new apprentice, Agnes. She was recruited by the Island Nation Forces after hearing of Graham Cray's involvement and she eventually lead the army to victory against the Kooluk Forces. After the final battle she confront Graham Cray at the top of Fort El-Eal to question his actions which lead to his flight from the Scarlet Moon Empire and her exile. Fort El-Eal was destroyed in a massive explosion shortly after and it is believed that it was here that Elenor lost her life.
Upon further research by looking at the website in question we can find that:
 
Elenor appears in [[Suikoden IV]].
1- Physician Formulas is a nutraceutical company with headquarters in Irvine, California, and customer care centers in several locations including Nebraska, Iowa, and California.
2- they carry high quality products from several respected supplement manufacturers and by world renowned and respected doctors and herbalists including medical doctor and best selling author Ray Sahelian, M.D., who formulated several products listed below for the Physician Formulas label. These products are available on our website, other websites including amazon.com, and in select health food stores.
 
==Leon Silverberg==
Thus the website www.physicianformulas.com does not appear to be owned by Dr. Sahelian but is a distributor selling numerous products including some formulated by Dr. Sahelian.
The current head of the Silverberg family, the uncle of Odessa and Mathiu Silverberg, whom he took care of after the death of their parents, and grandfather of Albert and Caesar Silverberg. He appears in [[Suikoden I]] and [[Suikoden II]].
 
Leon is well-known throughout the world as a genius strategist and was involved in many wars, including the Succession War, the Toran Liberation Wars, and Dunan Unification Wars. He lives by his strategic maxim of "ending war as fast as possible with the fewest casualties", using whatever means necessary, regardless of the morality of it, and regardless of who will win the war. His philosophy is shared by his grandson, Albert.
When asked Dr. Sahelian had this to say: '''" I like Wikipedia but it bothers me that everytime I read information on this site I start thinking in the back of my mind whether all the info is accurate. In this case, it is not. The FDA should have addressed the letter to the CEO of Physician Formulas, not to me. The products I formulate are sold on several web sites. Therefore, the whole sentence should be removed regarding the FDA part, and we would appreciate it if you could do so. "'''
 
As a strategist, he is responsible for the Kalekka Incident which legitimized Scarlet Moon Empire's act of war against Jowston. During the Gate Rune Wars, Leon acted as tactical advisor for the Toran Liberation Army and aids them in ending the war. During Suikoden II, he is requested to become the strategist of the Highlands by [[Jowy Atreides]] (Jowy Blight). He aids the Highland until its defeat at the end of the Dunan Unification War.
I have edited this section of the article to try to keep it NPOV as those who posted the item originally did so in a way to attack Dr. Sahelian because of his polite response to Dr. Barrett's e-mail, the tone of which can be seen from the reference.
 
==Mathiu Silverberg==
I thus raise the above issue to be addressed by editors. [[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 22:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Mathiu Silverberg is the brother of Odessa and nephew of Leon, and is a well known strategist. He is also the mentor of strategists Shu and Apple. Mathiu's tactical philosophy contrasts with his uncle's, where upon Mathiu believes that the method is more important that achieving the end goal as quickly as possible. He appears in [[Suikoden I]].
 
He became a member of the Scarlet Moon military during his youth and participated in the Succession War as a strategist for Kasim Hazil, then served as a vice-strategist for Barbarossa Rugner under his uncle Leon. When Leon devised the plan to slaughter the town of Kalekka, Mathiu reluctantly carried out his duty, but retired from his position soon after, having realized that war inevitably causes innocents to suffer.
* For reference this is the text as it was reverted by Teadrinker on september 9 at 22:50:
 
Over a decade later, Mathiu became the head strategist for the Toran Liberation Army during the Gate Rune Wars following the death of Odessa. Near the end of the war, he was fatally wounded during the attack on the floating fortress by a spy. He dies shortly thereafter, just after the fall of Barbarossa.
''Dr Sahelian operates a website marketing drug products to the public, and has been warned by the FDA about making misleading claims on his website.[http://www.fda.gov/Cder/warn/cyber/2006/CL210e.pdf#search=%22Physician%20Formulas%20sahelian%22 FDA warning letter]''
 
==Odessa Silverberg==
[[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 23:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Odessa Silverberg is the sister of Mathiu and niece to Leon. She appears in [[Suikoden I]].
 
As an aristocrat, Odessa had lived most of her life in relative comfort and was unaware of the suffering of the common people. When she came to see the corruption within the Scarlet Moon Empire, she became one of the original founders of the Toran Liberation Army, an anti-imperial movement started by her late fiancé, Achilles.
:Indeed, the statement is factual, he was warned by the FDA about making misleading claims on his website. I am not opposed to alerting the wording to include "dietary supplements" rather than "drugs," however that he was warned is amply documented. I see no reason to allow people to whitewash well documented material which may cast them in a negative light. --[[User:TeaDrinker|TeaDrinker]] 23:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 
As the leader of the Toran Liberation Army, Odessa also acted as the group's chief strategist, using her knowledge of military strategy as taught by Mathiu. She welcomes a young [[Tir McDohl]] into the army and begins to see him as a potential successor as he gained her respect. When the Imperial Army attacked the rebels' base, taking advantage of the absence of a considerable number of their forces, Odessa is assassinated while attempting to save a child.
:I think the version removed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_Barrett&diff=75597472&oldid=75587232 here] is fairly neutral. I have not reverted the change until we can get consensus on the talk page, however. --[[User:TeaDrinker|TeaDrinker]] 23:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 
The surviving members of the Liberation Army seek out Mathiu to take up Odessa's place as chief tactician and nominate Tir as their new leader. Thanks to Odessa's foresight and advanced planning, the Toran Liberation Army is ultimately victorious in the war.
::: The following version: He recently received a warning letter from the FDA regarding three products sold on one of his website that did not comply with existing FDA regulation. He was also warned about the improper use of disease claims in the form of personal testimonials."[http://www.fda.gov/Cder/warn/cyber/2006/CL210e.pdf FDA warning letter] is the one I edited for NPOV but that was before I checked the website www.physicianformulas.com and realized that it was not in fact Dr. Sahelian website.[[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 00:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 
==??? Silverberg==
::It's neutrality is not being called into question. It's the truth of the statement which is questionable, if we are to take Dr. Sahelian on his word. Also, as NATTO has pointed out, the statement at least had one verifiable error. Dr. Sahelian didn't sell his products on his website, but through a third party's site. Again, this is if we are taking Dr. Sahelian's word on this. [[User:Levine2112|Levine2112]] 00:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Mathiu and Odessa had a younger brother, but his name is unknown as is his current whereabouts. It is certain that he is still alive.
 
==Shu==
:::I think Wikipedia's general method for dealing with such material should work here: report the verifiable information. He did recieve such a letter, with the contents as described. I don't think it would be wise to try ourselves to determine if the letter was appropriate and/or correct in ''its'' factual statements. That would stike me as original research. We can, however, indicate that he does not agree with the facts of the letter, however saying he recieved such a letter is verifiable. Perhaps we could add ''[[cf.]]'' in the ref and link to Sahelian's statement as well. --[[User:TeaDrinker|TeaDrinker]] 00:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Shu is the chief tactician of the Allied Forces during the Dunan Unification War. As a child, he studied military strategy under Mathiu Silverberg and alongside Apple, whom he views as a surrogate sister. He appears in [[Suikoden II]].
 
Under Mathiu, he learned everything about military strategy. Mathiu saw great potential in this young pupil. However, Shu used his knowledge for personal gain and was cast out from Mathiu's school. Since then, Shu has become a trader in Radat. With his uncanny grasp of the movements in the world, he quickly became rich through trade.
:::: You are right. We report what is verifiable. What is verifiable here is that Sahelian has been criticised by the FDA for aspects of his marketing. The truth of precisely how this was marketed, or what he did to provoke this, is a matter for an article on Sahelian. The criticism is relevant in the context of his relationship to Barrett. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> 21:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 
During the Dunan Unification War, the Allied Forces asked Shu to join them. He initially refused, but with persistent begging by Apple and Riou, he agreed and quickly whipped the Allied Forces into shape by scoring an initial victory against the Highland Army, resulting in the execution of Solon Jhee. He quickly devised cunning strategies to rally support from other city-states and established an alliance with the Toran Republic.
* Indeed. Teadrinker is missing the point. While it is not up to us to analyse the document one should at least look at what is written in the letter and check the website mentionned in the letter instead of blindly posting references.
 
However, Leon Silverberg suddenly sides with the Highland Army and causes disruption to Shu's plans. After the Dunan Army's retreat against Luca Blight, Leon helped Shu defeat Luca Blight by informing him of a planned night raid and Shu did not let that chance go by. Throughout the war, Shu's attitude towards military strategy had transformed. Originally, his philosophy was identical to Leon Silverberg's philosophy, where soldiers were pawns and strategists were never supposed to risk themselves.
If he goes and look at the website mentioned in the FDA letter , he will see that it is not operated by Dr. Sahelian, thus Dr. Sahelian does not control what is written on it. The FDA, although addressed to Dr. Sahelian ( and to PhysicianFormulas ) is about the content of the website www.physicianformulas.com and not about the content of Dr. Sahelian website which is http://www.raysahelian.com/index.html. Although the website www.physicianformulas.com does mention that the products are formulated by Dr. Sahelian, he does not operate that website so cannot be blamed for it's content. What Dr. Sahelian says it thus corroborated by the evidence. [[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 00:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 
However, with the influence of Apple and Nanami, he started to see that it is sometimes necessary to put himself on the line in order to truly win. In the end, he leads the Allied Forces to victory after he defeats Leon Silverberg. After the war, he became the Chancellor for the new Allied Nation while awaiting the return of the hero to his rightful post. He later retires, but then is brought out of retirement by the Higheast Rebellion, in which he secretly planned a plot to cause internal discord within Harmonia, which caused them to withdraw from the Highland territory.
: The letter was adressed to Sahelian. Inferences as to precisely who is responsible for the misrepresentation is [[WP:OR|original research]] unless you can source it from an independent reliable secondary source. Verifiability, not truth, is the thing here. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> 21:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 
==Apple==
:: Wow... I was under the impression that when living persons are concerned that extra care was needed to be taken so that not only the information was verifiable but actually factually correct. So if I understand correctly it is OK to place information that we know is untrue simply because we can find a document that says it.... Finally I have not place anything on the article that was based on OR and did not suggest we did but simply removed a phrase that was factually incorrect because based on a document that contained an error, i.e it was addressed to the wrong person,according to Dr. Sahelian. This was supported by the evidence but, again, I did not say we should placed that in the article. Please let me know if factual truth is not relevant in WP. I would like that clearly confirmed.
Like Shu, Apple is not a member of the Silverberg family, but was actually a student of Mathiu Silverberg. She appears in [[Suikoden I]], [[Suikoden II]] and [[Suikoden III]].
 
Apple deeply respects her mentor and aids him during the Toran Liberation Wars (Suikoden I). She becomes tactician to Viktor's mercenaries early in the Dunan Unification War (Suikoden II). After the fall of Muse, she successfully recruits Shu for the Allied Forces and helps him as a secondary strategist.
Also I have also looked at the FDA website and could not find the letter from the main page. [[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 00:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
:Ahh, understanding more fully now.... I must say I half agree with JzG/Guy-- it is original research of a sort to check up on the claims independently. However I can also see his disputing the factual accuarcy of the letter as relevant, and while perhaps not a strictly reliable source, a mention of his disputting the claim perhaps could be included (a footnote perhaps). I do think the criticism is sufficiently well sourced to meet bio of living peoplem, so I don't see it as a major impediment. --[[User:TeaDrinker|TeaDrinker]] 06:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 
During Suikoden III, Apple works as a historian gathering information to compile a biography on Mathiu. She travels with a student of her own, Caesar Silverberg, and assists the young tactician as he acts as strategist for the Flame Champion during the Second Fire Bringer War. According to Apple, Caesar's tactical mindset is likely the closest to that of her master's.
:: Yes. If we state the facts and avoid drawing inferences, then we are in the clear. The fact does appear to be significant in context. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> 11:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 
==George Silverberg==
::* Since it has been established that the FDA letter was sent in error to Dr. Sahelian, I am puzzled by this insistence to write this item in the article. Is it to attack Dr. Sahelian ? If you read his reply to the e-mail of Dr. Barrett, he was very polite and measured in his response. What is the point of writing such an item followed by a disclaimer stating the the letter should have been addressed to the CEO of the website www.physicianformulas.com, which is not the web site of Dr. Sahelian. It should be noted also that this letter does not appear to be accessible from the FDA page listing such letters. I looked at the letters sent during that month and it is nowhere to be seen. [[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 12:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
George is the son of Leon Silverberg and the father of Albert and Caesar Silverberg. Nothing else is known about him.
 
In the manga, Caesar describes his father as a "true tactician", a strategist who was capable of knowing when to choose between winning more battles or watching out for the soldiers under his command, which is what Caesar himself strives to become.
== Wikipedia as a source of reference ? ==
 
==Caesar Silverberg==
* In biographies of living persons where reliable, independant, references are the recommended standard, what is the situation with regards to the use of Wikipedia article as such a reference ? Editors will have noted that many Wikipedia articles are not properly referenced or not referenced at all, while some others are. What do you think ?
Caesar Silverberg is the son of George and the younger brother of Albert Silverberg. He travels with his mentor, Apple. Caesar appears in [[Suikoden III]].
 
Caesar is the youngest and most inexperienced of the strategists, though still possessing the talent his family is known for. Initially appearing to be a lazy and disinterested teenager, he possesses a keen and watchful mind and while he never demonstrates the elaborate plans of his predecessors his cunning misdirections and ability to see the situation stripped of emotional attachment serve the Flame Champion well.
== Assistant Listmaster ==
 
His motivation to pursue the life of a tactician comes from his sibling rivalry with Albert, hoping to best his older brother. Caesar believes in Mathiu's ideology, where reducing the amount of casualties on both sides involved holds priority to the goal in mind so that neither opposing forces loses their strongest human resources such that they will be able to rebuild and manage a peaceful resolution because each side remains able to empathize with the other.
The text below was moved from Levine talk page as it is relevant to this article:
 
Caesar is initially dismissed by the Grasslanders, despite how his tactics saved the Chisha clan from Harmonia forces, and becomes discouraged, though Apple assures him that as a strategist, he must find generals to guide in battle. He eventually earns his place as their strategist when he reveals that he is familiar with the tactical advisor of the Harmonian forces: Albert Silverberg. Karaya clan chief Lucia convinces the other chiefs to accept Caesar as their tactician since she knows of Caesar's grandfather, Leon Silverberg, and the value of having Silverberg tactician on their side.
 
He proves himself to be a skillful tactician (though assisted by Apple and Salome Haras of the Zexen Confederacy) and intends to test his skills against Albert by pledging his support to the new Flame Champion. While the Grasslanders and the Zexen Confederacy defeat the Harmonians and the Destroyer forces, Caesar realizes that Albert remains the superior tactician and decides to return to his studies in hopes of surpassing his brother some day.
On my talk page and elsewhere, he calls himself Barrett's "Assistant Listmaster".--Hughgr 03:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 
==Albert Silverberg==
Albert Silverberg is the son of George and the older brother of Caesar Silverberg. He appears in [[Suikoden III]].
 
Albert excelled in his studies and is an excellent strategist, eventually gaining the role of Harmonia's chief tactical advisor during Harmonia's invasion of the Grasslands. His ideals are largely similar to that of his grandfather, Leon, where bringing about the end goal as quickly as possible to spare lives takes priority over the methods used, no matter how amoral the methods may be or how much suffering must be caused as a result. He and Caesar, as a result of their differing ideologies, is a sore point between the brothers along with their contrasting personalities, especially since Albert is much more serious in comparision to his younger brother.
One questions: 1- What is an "Assistant Listmaster" ?NATTO 04:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC) OK I saw the short explanation on your talk page : "Assistant Listmaster consists of checking the list for excess traffic caused by off-topic discussions or trolls". It looks like Fyslee is working part-time for Barrett in that capacity. NATTO 04:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 
He initially works alongside [[Sasarai]], a bishop of Harmonia and the commander of the Harmonian invaders searching for the [[27 True Runes|True Fire Rune]], but reveals that he is actually working for Luc, the Masked Bishop. Albert's motives are unclear, but it appears that he believes supporting Luc will allow him to gain power within the Harmonian bureaucracy. It is revealed that he chose to follow Luc in hopes of lessening the amount of casualties in Luc's war through strategic means.
I'll be happy to explain my "relationship" with Barrett. I have never met him or spoken to him. I have no access to, or control of, any of Barrett's websites. He and his son, and possibly other assistants, take care of that stuff.
 
He eventually disappears at the end of the Second Fire Bringer War, intending leave the continent and start again under an assumed name. Caesar finds him before he leaves and informs his older brother that he will surpass him some day.
There is a discussion list that has existed for a number of years, the Healthfraud Discussion List. I have been a participant there since 1999. There are several hundred list members, most of whom only lurk. Some of the lurkers are people like Bolen. The list was not started by Barrett, but by Rebecca Long. It was a list sponsored by a local chapter (Georgia) of the NCAHF. (There is an interesting collection of information about her here. She couldn't continue running the list, so she turned it over to him, and he is now its Moderator (Listmaster). For the last few years I have been Assistant Listmaster, which is only relevant on rare occasions. If Barrett is out of town and can't monitor the list (he rarely participates in discussions), he let's me know and I try to keep an eye on it. There can be from 30-50 posts per day on many topics. A moderator's job is simply to make sure that no one disrupts the list, or gets too far off-topic. If that isn't done, the volume of posts can suddenly explode and people get irritated. This is naturally a voluntary effort, and it's been over a year since I last had to take any action. I can ban trolls when necessary, but I usually contact Barrett and let him do it. I am not a member of the NCAHF, although there are others here in Europe who are members.
 
==External links==
As far as the current discussion about the confusion about URLs, it's just that. The information above is incorrect. I'll try to explain it on the other page if I don't get dragged away from the PC before then. -- Fyslee 07:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
* [http://www.suikosource.com '''Suikosource''']
 
[[Category:Suikoden characters]]
Fyslee, thank you for the above explanation confirming that your are doing voluntary work for Stephen Barrett as a part-time Assistant Listmaster on the Healthfraud Discussion list of his website Quackwatch. He contacts you when he needs your services and you contact him to keep him informed of what is going on on the list. NATTO 23:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Not that it really makes any difference, but just to make sure you understand this. The discussion list is only mentioned at Quackwatch. It is on an independent server that has nothing to do with Quackwatch. It simply continues as it was before Barrett was asked to take over as listmaster: "Scottsoft Research, which donates the computers and technical support. Headed by Scott Ballantyne, its staff does unix and networking consulting." -- Fyslee 23:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 
Fyslee, thanks for the added information. I clearly understood your relationship with Dr. Barrett after your initial explanation.NATTO 23:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Levine2112"
 
== Confessions of a Quackbuster ==
 
Fyslee, it this your blog [http://quackfiles.blogspot.com/ Confessions of a Quackbuster ]? [[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 23:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:Yes it is. Just like many other people I am active on the internet and have websites, including blogs. You're welcome to ask specific questions about any of the topics you find there. -- [[User:Fyslee|Fyslee]] 20:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 
== Criticism section ==
 
The criticism section devotes separate bullet points to several separate criticisms by Bolen and by Negrete. This gives the unwarranted impression of multiple indpendent criticisms. The criticisms by these two individuals should in my view be merged into sections on "disputes with Negrente" and "disputes with Bolen", in each case including any conflicts of interest which underly those disputes (especially in the case of Bolen). YThe POV tag should also be moved to this section since the biographical data section is clearly unproblematic. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> 11:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:Negrete is Bolen's lawyer, and some of Negrete's press releases read as if they were written by Bolen, so they can be considered more or less the same source of criticism. All of Negrete's writings are characterised by extreme spin, and he doesn't tell the rest of a story if it's negative to himself. Bolen outright lies and manufactures conspiracy theories, which he was forced to call "euphemisms" under deposition. He has claimed that Barrett has committed criminal acts, but could not produce a single shred of evidence to support the charge. They are both unreliable and antagonistic sources of information.
 
:I have moved the tag and used the NPOV section tag. -- [[User:Fyslee|Fyslee]] 20:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 
 
:: Fyslee. It is not for you to decide to move the NPOV tag as you have not placed it ( I did ) and there has been no consensus reached about it on this talk page. Secondly the section on criticism is just that and clearly labelled so and it is all properly referenced. The lawsuit results are factual. it is too bad they are not usually in favor of Dr. Barrett but that is the reality and correctly reflects what has happened. You are far from being neutral - you have a anti-quackery blog and you call yourself a quackbuster and work part-time for Dr. Barrett as an assistant listmaster, so you should be cautious about your own analysis. [[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 21:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 
::: You misunderstand: it is up to you to justify the tag. I have reviewed the upper sections of the article and see no evident bias. Fyslee has no evident connection to the subject, and your accusations of bias says as much about your bias as it does about Fyslee's. Do not mistake your own bias for neutrality. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> 21:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 
* Guy. I am not sure I understand your comment: " Fyslee has no evident connection to the subject ". He said himself that he is the assistant listmaster of Dr. Barrett and he has a blog called " Confessions of a quackbuster ". Of course this does not mean that he does not try to be NPOV and follow WP rules however he has clearly chosen a side in his real life and is very close to this issue. He certainly is editing to present a positive side to the topic. Someone needs to present the other side of the story. Dr. Barrett takes very definitive views on numerous modalities as well as individuals involved in them and he is not shy in promoting those views on the Internet. [[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 00:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:* Guy. Also if the POV tag belong in the Controversy and litigation section, can you then please explain why as it is the most referenced section with many of the references from court documents and legal rulings ? I thus use your own phrase "it is up to you to justify the tag ". [[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 03:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 
 
::::NATTO, I have done my own addition of an NPOV section tag, as suggested by the admin, since I think it applies. You dispute the whole article, and I dispute the section. Neither of us is neutral or unbiased, and who we are and what we do outside of Wikipedia is immaterial. What we do in our editing is what is relevant. As long as we can follow the rules, our personal POV, which we naturally have, is irrelevant. -- [[User:Fyslee|Fyslee]] 21:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 
NATTO, why do you still wish to have an NPOV tag at the top of the article? Are there some unresolved issues there? -- [[User:Fyslee|Fyslee]] 21:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 
* Ther way the editors have chosen to structure the article is to have a separate section for critics and for the various lawsuits. That was not my decision as I would prefer to have the both mixed together in a more flowing style. As it stand the top portion is basically taken from the website of Dr. Barrett and represents mainly what he says about himself or was is written on his website. For example the section on online activism. The is definitely room to put in it information that does not support Barrett's classification of some of these items as quackery. Dental amalgam removal is one especially since recently an independant panel of scientists appointed by the FDA have rejected the FDA's conclusions on amalgam safety. On this issue, like many others, Barrett has taken a partial and one sided view that is not in keeping with the latest scientific evidence.
 
But because the article is structured the way it is ( a section for critics and one for lawsuits ) the article is broken in two. One that offers a positive view of Barrett and one that shows the negative side.
 
As far as the results of the lawsuits that is the way they turned out, too bad for Dr. Barrett. Editors have agreed to use a high standard of reference when legal issue are involved, that was agreed . If it is to be changed then we should discuss it again.
 
The article should reflect what is actually happening. Writing things NPOV is fine but events or activities that are not favorable to Dr. Barrett are also part of the facts and should not be considered POV simply because they are not favorable. If a legal decision is quoted than it is fact and not the POV of the editor.
 
So to place the POV tag only above the critics section is implying that this is the only part of the article that is POV when in fact the apparently NPOV top part is in fact written to present the views promoted by Barrett. To say that Barrett describe all the listed modalities as quackery is correct but the section does not give the other side of the story at all. [[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 22:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 
: To roll in the (very large) criticism section, which appears to be largely based on attempts by one or two individuals to discredit Barrett, would give undue weight to these views. It is scarcely a problem to state that he is a retired doctor who runs a website. The controversy that website stirs up mainly belongs in [[Quackwatch]] anyway, but that which belongs here should be boiled down to individuals and specifics. A criticism of Barrett from an authority who has widespread respect from the medical community would be important, a series of criticisms from people who have themselves been criticised by, for example, the FDA, carries much less weight, since a lot of it is likely to be [[special pleading]]. That is why I think we should group the criticisms and disputes by individual, so they can be viewed in the context of the individual and the nature of their dispute with Barett. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> 11:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:* Guy, as written earlier I am not sure how things work in England but the section Accusations of bias and conspiracy contains only '''one item''' from Bolen and '''one from Negrete''' , all the others are about other critics such as Dr. Sahelian, Deepak Chopra, Donna Ladd, Peter Barry Chowka, Paul Hartal. As far as the section on Licensure and credentials the critics include Bolen and Negrete as well as a California Superior Court judge. Barrett's own response is also included. Finally the section on Litigation is not about critics ( either Bolen or Negrete ) but about the various court cases initiated by Dr. Barrett as well as the court decisions in such cases. I think you are drawing premature conclusions regarding criticism by the FDA. In the above list the only person who you may refer to is Dr. Sahelian, however he correctly stated that the letter was sent to him in error and should have been sent to the CEO of the web site, www.physicianformulas.com, which is not his. Furthermore regarding such letters from the FDA, if you look at their website, these are routinely sent for a numerous reasons. They are sent to very mainstream groups, including large pharmaceutical companies. Interestingly Dr. Barrett does not put those on his website. [[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 12:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 
::* Wikipedia works the same way in England as it does in the US: policy must be followed, [[WP:SPA|single purpose accounts]] may be banned from articles where they cause disruption, verifiability matters, The Truth<sup>TM</sup> does not. Thje litigation section is not the problem, the Criticism section is. We can include cites to the FDA letters to major pharmaceutical firmns alongside thier published criticisms of Barrett, if such exist, because they too would inform the nature of their dispute with Barrett. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> 12:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 
::* I was referring to the fact that '''only two items''' in the criticism section are from Bolen & Negrete.You are an admin and your like the rules. If you wish to ban me than please do so, after all you are an admin yielding the RULE book. [[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 12:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:::* Happy to do that if you want, but I thjought it might be more productive to discus ways of improving the article. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> 16:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 
Okay. I think it is time to sit back and have ourselves a cup of tea and chill out. Take a step back and breath, before we say or do something which we might regret. While we do that, please ponder this...
 
As of now, the article is split into two major sections... Praise and Criticism. You can call the top portion "Biography" and "Accolades", but being completely filled with highlights of only the positive aspects in Barrett's bio and CV, it must be labelled (in our minds) as "Praise" (unless this were an article about an actual saint who has done nothing notable other than earn accolades and write completely respectful, universally accepted works... Barrett is not such a person).
 
As for the second section, it is a bit weird calling is "Criticism" when nearly half of it provides a review of Barrett's various court cases. I'm not sure why this is under the criticism section anymore. Perhaps it is because that the vast majority of these cases resulted in a loss for Barrett? Or maybe because the majority are libel cases which Barrett initiated after he felt he had been unfairly criticized? Help me out here and explain it to me why this subsection is in the criticisms section.
 
Now then, if Barrett's litigious activities were moved into the top "Biography" section or was made part of its own major section, that which would be left in the "criticisms" section would be entirely criticisms and Barrett's often lengthy statements in his own defense (as well as character attacks of the person/organization making the criticism). In your minds, please do this exercise... Extract Barrett's repsonses to the criticisms as well as the character impugment of the critics, and what is left is certainly a great deal less than the "praise" section above. So I don't think to "unfair weight" given to the critics argument is neccessarily valid here.
 
Remember, what makes Barrett prominent enough to even warrent a Wikipedia article is that he isn't afraid to make controversial proclamations about fields, professions, treatments, and people; and accordingly, these statements (as well as the person making them) are met with criticisms. Barrett would be a "nobody" if it weren't for the controversy which stems from himself and thus the criticisms of Barrett are at least half of what makes him so notable.
 
With this in mind, I am confused why the NPOV tag went up on the "criticism" section. Certainly this section is wrought with references and counter-arguments made in defense of Barrett. If anything this section, on its own, is balancing out rather nicely. However, the problem is that this section doesn't exist on its own. It is part of a largere article, which in itself is not fair-and-balanced. Given that the top section - the supposed "Biography and Accolades" sections are devoid of the controversy which Barrett himself incites (as well as any arguments against him meriting the accolades and praise), the article as a whole could warrant an NPOV tag. I would prefer to ditch the tag all together. Right now, being placed solely on the criticism section, it seems to serve as a warning made by Pro-Barrett editors to the readers of this article that they should not to accept anything negative that people have written or said about Barrett. Thus, the tag itself is has become a tool of POV pushing. Surely, this is not Wikipedia's accepted and intended purpose of using such a tag.
 
So what do we do now? Do we keep this article split into a sort of yin-yang with praise on top and criticism on the bottom? Do we attempt the very messy prospect of intertwining the good with the bad? If we go this latter route, we must all agree to work more cooperatively than ever before. Suggestions? [[User:Levine2112|Levine2112]] 16:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:This is what I have been trying to explain repeatedly, to little effect, including the fact that there is '''only two items''' from Bolen/Negrete in the criticism section. [[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 23:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
::There might be a good reason for that (although their names are liberally sprinkled throughout the whole "Controversy and litigation" section). In fact, many of the criticisms and libel suits can be '''traced back to one source - Bolen's "opinion pieces,"''' as he correctly labels them. Bolen writes the pieces describing his conspiracy theories, posts them on his websites, sends them out in his newsletter, and they get reposted all over the internet. Since Bolen's criticisms aren't legitimate responses to Barrett's specific criticisms of purported quackery, but are ''[[ad hominem]]'' and [[straw man]] attacks, often of a very libelous nature, Barrett has sued for libel in certain very aggravated cases. Thus we have both criticisms and libel cases all caused by Bolen's spin doctor tactics, which he started when Hulda Clark's son hired him to run defense for her.
 
::Since '''all these matters from that one source''' are lacking in documentation (how does one document a conspiracy theory, especially when one is forced under deposition to admit it was a "euphemism," with no evidence of criminal activity?), the only information available, and from easily verifiable sources, is libelous information, which violates WP:BLP.
 
::If your heroes' criticisms were legitimate responses, then the criticisms would be referenced with peer reviewed sources and from respected medical authorities, and not from quacks and their spin doctors and lawyers. The only reason Barrett hasn't won is not because actual lies and libel haven't occurred. They certainly have. No, he's a public person, and his critics can lie all they want and get away with it. Is that the kind of ethics you're supporting and attempting to place in the article? I hope not.
 
::The criticisms still name the libelous accusations, and also the ad hominem attacks, but legitimate criticisms are lacking for a very good reason - they just don't exist, with few exceptions. I've only seen about two serious attempts in the last seven years, where the criticisms were to the point, using scientific sources and argumentation, without ad hominem attacks of a personal nature. That's what's lacking. When you find it, please add it.
 
::Right now, WP:BLP helps to keep the worst stuff out of this article. -- [[User:Fyslee|Fyslee]] 22:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:::Please point us to or add these critiques of Barrett to the article. If you feel that they represent the best of the criticisms of Barrett, then in the interest of making this the best article possible, we should include them here. Thanks in advance. [[User:Levine2112|Levine2112]] 00:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 
::* It is well known on this talk page that Fyslee does not like Tim Bolen at all. However the individuals listed in the criticism section such as Dr. Chopra, Dr. Sahelian, Donna Ladd and Peter Barry Chowka are expressing their opinion and not simply repeating what Bolen says. If there are similarities it is because lack of balance in how Dr. Barrett present the information on his website is seen as a real issue by many. Dr. Sahelian and Chopra are both qualified medical professionals as well so they have as much credibility as Dr. Barrett. The above comments by Fyslee that they are just a mouthpiece for Tim Bolen are not factual. [[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 23:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:::* One more point about Barrett being a public figure: This is well discussed in the article. It is a legal standard in the USA and it is not just for Dr. Barrett. As the judges have correctly pointed out, Dr. Barrett has assiduously worked at becoming a public figure so he is not in this situation by accident or as the result of circumstances. After the first libel suit he must have been aware of the legal requirements, however has since lodge many other libel suits. Blaming the legal system is not going to solve his problem. [[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 23:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 
== POV tag - the situation ==
 
Fyslee in conjunction with Guy have previously unilaterally relocated the POV tag. Guy has not been involved in editing this article before and has just appeared in the discussion while Fyslee, Levine and myself have been involved for a long time. Levine and I do not agree that the POV tag should only be in one part of the article. Fyslee and Guy say that the '''Accusations of bias and conspiracy''' section of the article is POV while Levine and myself say that the top part is biased toward showing only the positive aspect of the subject of the article, reflecting essentially what he writes about himself on his websites. We both have suggested re-working the article to improve flow and avoid polarity in the article.
 
It appears that the reason Guy came in, was to check the situation regarding the information about the Barrett v Mercola lawsuit. Fyslee insisted in putting information that was referenced with one-sided documents. As editors in this article we had agreed previously that in legal matters only independant and preferably legal documents was the standard or verifiability. Based on that agreed standard of verifiability, references based only on what Dr. Barrett said are clearly not acceptable. So I reminded repeatedly of such. He had earlier agreed and removed the item but re-inserted unilaterally.
 
After a quick look a the situation, Guy seemed to have misunderstood the issue, assuming that there was a problem between verifiability and what he call The TruthTM, whatever that means and which seems to be an issue with him. [[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 03:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:NATTO, I read the article; there is no neutrality issue with the main body, only with the criticisms section. As usual with criticisms sections it is bloated and repetitive, and gives as much (more) weight to apparent charlatans and shills as it does to genuine criticism from authoritative sources. You may not ''like'' the fact that the scientific consensus broadly supports conventional medicine and opposes alternative therapies, but that is how it is.
: So: the upper part of the article is a biography. It seems to be pretty neutral, I don't see any compelling evidence of bias. Your proposal that by representing his history in neutral terms we are biased towards him, I find unpersuasive. It is usually considered a ''good'' thing for editors to come in from outside. If you want to try a more formal way of resolving your disputes there are plenty of [[WP:DR|dispute resolution mechanisms]] open to you and I encourage you to try these. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> 12:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 
::* The issue raised is that the article is split into two polar poles and should be better integrated. The reality is that Dr. Barrett is a controversial figure and criticism is relevant in the article. As far as your layman opinion on what the scientific consensus is regarding alternative medicine is irrelevant to the point at hand. Your world view is not the issue here. I also remind you that Fyslee and I had agreed to the standard of verifiability in legal matters in this article and had actually come to an undertstanding on the Barrett v Mercola issue before you " barged in ". [[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 01:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 
Below is the relevant part of our discussion where we had agreed on the issue:[[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 01:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 
''The properly referenced information is fine and can remain in the article. However the statement by Barrett that the lawsuit was 1) settled 2) he was paid an amount of $50,000 is A) not a point of view but an affirmation B) involves another living person thus as to meet the standard established for legal cases i.e independant, reliable, verifiable and preferably legal documentation. As stated earlier there is a reason why Barrett has omitted the name of Mercola in his current version of events. While it is not up to us to analyse the reason, we have to take it into account. Efforts to piece different pieces of information from Barrett out of date or up to date web pages does not amount to a proper reference in such cases. His POV could be given if Mercola was making his own claims about the results of the lawsuit but he does not. If there is a valid, independant,reference to support that the case was settled then it can be included, the same goes for the result(s) of the settlement.NATTO 01:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
'''Okay, let's settle for that for now.''' If you are interested in seeking truth in this matter, then you will be just as eager to find good references as I am. The nature of out of court settlements being what they are (usually with confidentiality agreements), I'm not sure we'll find anything better than Barrett's account, which I agree can't be on Mercola's article. It should be allowable on this one, since the subjects of articles are allowed to quote themselves as sources of their own POV. -- Fyslee 01:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Fyslee. Good. As long as we adhere to a high standard, as previously agreed between editors, what is written in the article will be factual and reflect what has happened in NPOV as much as is possible. This principle, in fact, should apply to all living persons that are mentioned in Wiki articles whether it is an article about them or they are mentioned in another article. As you are well aware this is not always the case. This is even more important if these individuals are not public figures discussing public issues. Regarding out of court settlement , they generally happen by mutual consent. If there is anything in an out of court settlement that prohibit naming a person involved, it is certainly not the job of wiki editors to try to circumvent the purpose of the settlement agreement. I, for one, do not know why Barrett has removed his name from his up dated web page but he did. Even if it was still there, his comments would still require independant confirmation from a reliable source. Finally there is not even an independant reference supporting that there even has been a settlement in this case. We only have a valid reference for a mutually agreed dismissal of the suit.NATTO 03:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
And yes, I did look for a valid reference but have not found any. If such a document could be posted on a public website, don't you think that Dr. Barrett would have posted it on his web site ? As I said there is a reason why he did not.NATTO 03:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)''
 
== Rearrangement? ==
 
I just reread Levine2112's comments [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stephen_Barrett&diff=next&oldid=76430581 here], and wonder if he might have a point (if we ignore that there are no headings labeled "Praise" and "Criticism", which were his sarcastic(?) paraphrases). The current section title "Controversy and litigation" is a correct description of the contents, but it could be replaced with "Controversy and criticisms," and then move the "Litigation" section to right below the "Online activism" section.
 
To make a logical progression, it should start with the KingBio suit, since participation in it was a natural part of the stated mission of NCAHF (although it wasn't initiated by Barrett or the NCAHF, but the attorney, who then called them in as expert witnesses), which is a part of his activism. Then the other lawsuits could follow, since they are more personal matters related to reactions to his activism, and the libel cases are not part of his activism at all. (He has only sued for serious and deliberately deceptive personal libel which would not be retracted or corrected after warnings that it was deceptive, not because "he felt he had been unfairly criticized," as charged by Levine2112. He generally ignores that type of criticism, or writes about it in articles, where he debunks it.)
 
What do you all think about a rearrangement? -- [[User:Fyslee|Fyslee]] 13:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:I like the proposed rearrangement. However, with regards to the King Bio suit, you are making a claim that Barrett's attorney initiated the case and called Barrett in as an expert witness, however, the judge's opinion states otherwise... Barrett essentially paid himself as an expert witness and thus the judge feared that a NCAHF victory would lead to more cases where Barrett could pay himself from NCAHF funds to act as an expert witness.
 
:Your statement above is troubling and I don't like what you are accusing me of... You state: ''He has only sued for serious and deliberately deceptive personal libel which would not be retracted or corrected after warnings that it was deceptive, not because "he felt he had been unfairly criticized," as charged by Levine2112.'' Would you not say that when someone feels that that have been personally libelled seriously and deliberately deceptively is equivilently stated that the person felt unfairly criticized? I wonder if you are trying to accuse me of something to show other editors some form of impropriety on my part.
 
:Above you mentioned that you have seen two criticisms of Barrett in recent years which you consider to be fair and of high quality. ''I've only seen about two serious attempts in the last seven years, where the criticisms were to the point, using scientific sources and argumentation, without ad hominem attacks of a personal nature. That's what's lacking.'' You may have overlooked my reply to this statement, but I would love if you introduced those criticisms here in the interest of making this the best article possible. Thanks in advance. [[User:Levine2112|Levine2112]] 16:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 
::There is a big difference between being "unfairly criticized" and being libeled. There is no comparison. Libel is miles beyond unfair criticism. That's what I wanted to emphasize, lest someone misunderstand the seriousness of what has happened and continues to happen. You need to be careful with your choice of words, lest one get the impression that you believe Bolen. Even the most staunch and closest friend of his employer, Hulda Clark, has denounced his methods. Even she doesh't believe him! (Yet she continues to believe Clark. Go figure....)
 
::Barrett is very used to unfair criticism. Bolen's defamation campaign is quite different than most other forms of criticism, since it is based in his own perverted conspiracy theories and wild rhetoric, with no facts to back up the serious charges. You should see (I've seen the whole thing) his deposition. He's shifty in a primitive way. The deposition is still interesting reading, even without the eye movements and body language. Both Bolen and Negrete squirm all they can to avoid admitting anything. It was a circus, with Negrete doing his obstructionist best. I wouldn't trust either one of them to babysit one of my cats for 10 minutes.
 
::I have answered your concerns about the cases of more serious responses to Barrett:
 
:::"I've only seen about two serious attempts in the last seven years, where the criticisms were to the point, using scientific sources and argumentation, without ad hominem attacks of a personal nature. That's what's lacking."
 
::If I could remember who it was, or where I read it, I'd certainly bring them to this article. They didn't succeed in debunking him, but they made a serious try, and I can respect that. As soon as critics dodge the issues and go directly after him personally, they lose all credibility. Personal attacks show the quacks are desperate, and since they usually have no scientifically legitimate arguments, they often start their criticisms with personal attacks. Bolen doesn't just call Barrett names or make careless and petty accusations. He has made serious charges of criminal activity and has lied about Barrett's professional status. That's bad enough, yet - in spite of being notified of his errors - he persists. That makes it deliberate and malicious behavior. -- [[User:Fyslee|Fyslee]] 20:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:::But you can't call it "libel" or "serious libel" if the court didn't find it to be so. The best you can say is that it was criticism. Barrett can claim the criticism is unfair or even libelous. But his claim does not make it so.
 
:::With regards to Bolen, I don't think the criticim section should rest on his criticisms. Nor does it. You can personally attack Bolen all you want and then in the next breath say that "personal attacks" are a sign of desperation. That's fine by me. That's why I try to avoid personal attacks. However, there is a diference between an ad hominem and an attack of credibility. This article has many different people critiquing Barrett's credibility (or lack thereof) and in most cases, these critiques are followed by an attack on the critics' credibility.
 
:::Barrett publicly condemns entire fields as well as picking out and picking on particular people. Are these personal attacks or attacks on credibility?
 
:::Please think hard and try to remember where you read those critiques on Barrett. I think they will be of paramount importance. [[User:Levine2112|Levine2112]] 20:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:::* Very good suggestion. Let's stop the repeated accusation of libel regarding Bolen. When and if the court do make a decision then it can be properly included in the article.[[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 01:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 
==Barrett's comments about the KingBio suit==
Levine2112 has written above:
 
:I like the proposed rearrangement. However, with regards to the King Bio suit, you are making a claim that Barrett's attorney initiated the case and called Barrett in as an expert witness, however, the judge's opinion states otherwise... Barrett essentially paid himself as an expert witness and thus the judge feared that a NCAHF victory would lead to more cases where Barrett could pay himself from NCAHF funds to act as an expert witness. [[User:Levine2112|Levine2112]] 16:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 
I have not made any claim about "Barrett's attorney." Grell is normally Barrett's attorney. That doesn't prevent Barrett from cooperating with other attorneys who need help dealing with anti-quackery issues.
 
If Barrett were to ever use any funds from the NCAHF, that would be perfectly proper, since that's what the members expect. They pay their dues to support anti-quackery efforts, and that can include lawsuits. Whether that has ever happened is unknown to me. I do know that Barrett often pays many expenses out of his own pocket. Fortunately most of his efforts are relatively inexpensive, since there are many volunteers who help him with their time, server space, legal skills, and other forms of expert help.
 
Here at Wikipedia Barrett has personally taken the time to address a few issues. Here are Barrett's descriptions (from this talk page) of what actually happened:
 
*"Response from Dr. Barrett: The above description of my being paid in the manner described is 100% false. It is based on a wild distortion of my involvement and testimony in a single case in which Attorney Morse Mehrban sued KingBio Pharmaceuticals for false advertising of homeopathic products and used NCAHF as the plaintiff. The suit was one of many that Mehrban brought against false advertisers. After the first case was settled for a considerable sum, part of the settlement was supposed to be allocated to pay expert witnesses in the other suits. I agreed to testify in the KingBio suit for a very low fee and had no interest in tstifying in the non-homeopathic cases. Nobody asked how much I was being paid, which was unfortunate, because expert witnesses ordinarily charge much more, and if the judge knew the facts, I doubt that he would have thought the payment could influence me. KingBio's lawyer persuaded the judge that somehow my testimony would be tained because I had an indirect interest in being paid. This was preposterous, but he said it during his closing argument and there was no opportunity opportunity to rebut it. The statement that donations have been used to pay me in legal matters is 100% false. Donations to Quackwatch are used to defray the cost of running my sites, which is about $7000 per year. If they don't cover the cost, I pay out of my own pocket." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stephen_Barrett&diff=next&oldid=65259211]
 
*"Response from Dr. Barrett: I never paid myself to be an expert witness. The lawyer who brought the suits paid for expert witnesses out of his own pocket. As noted above, after he won a large settlement in a false advertising case, I suggested that part of the winnings could be used to retain experts in other cases. I testified that money was put into a fund for this purpose, but I later found out that no fund was actually established. Even though NCAHF agreed to serve as the plaintiff, it never received a penny from the settlements." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stephen_Barrett&diff=next&oldid=65274673]
 
*"Comment from Dr. Barrett: Trial testimony is conducted under rules that sometimes makes it difficult to provide a coherent picture of the facts. In this case, the judge heard that I was being paid and that there was a fund. Prodded by the opposing attorney, he jumped to the conclusion that there were many caes involved, that a lot of money would be involved, and that the situation was one he didn't trust. The judge was completely wrong. I had minimal interest in testifying, my fee was very low, and--it turned out--I was mistaken about the fund. In fact, no such fund ever existed." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stephen_Barrett&diff=next&oldid=65277114]
 
-- [[User:Fyslee|Fyslee]] 19:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:And yet this is what the Judge in the case wrote in his opinion: '''Both witnesses’ fees, as Dr. Barrett testified, are paid from a fund established by Plaintiff NCAHF from the proceeds of suits such as the case at bar'''. Based on this fact alone, '''the Court may infer that Dr. Barrett and Sampson are more likely to receive fees for testifying on behalf of NCAHF in future cases if the Plaintiff prevails in the instant action and thereby wins funds to enrich the litigation fund described by Dr. Barrett'''. It is apparent, therefore, that '''both men have a direct, personal financial interest in the outcome of this litigation'''. Based on all of these factors, Dr. Sampson and Dr. Barrett can be described as zealous advocates of the Plaintiff’s position, and therefore '''not neutral or dispassionate witnesses or experts'''. In light of these affiliations and their orientation, it can fairly be said that '''Drs. Barrett and Sampson are themselves the client''', and therefore their testimony should be accorded little, if any, credibility on that basis as well.''
 
:Who's word are we to take? The client who lost this trial or the judge. Barrett under oath or Barrett (or someone claiming to be Barrett) on Wikipedia. I think WP is clear on this. The judge's opinion trumps.
 
:Again, Fyslee, as you mentioned above, you want to make this article more NPOV. You mentioned two critiques of Barrett which you described as being fair. In the interest of improving this article, please include those critiques here. '''This is a topic we should address now.''' Thanks in advance. [[User:Levine2112|Levine2112]] 19:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 
::Levine has a very good point. There is no benefit in Fyslee repeating over and over again the same information. There is no doubt that Barrett is critical of many people and that many people are critical of him. So there is a placed for that in the article. So I ask Fyslee to provide any relevant information that he has instead of just repeating what is written on Dr. Barrett website. [[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 21:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:::How many times am I going to have to repeat this? I don't know when or where I read it, and if I could I'd be very interested in bringing it here. I'm not hiding anything, so please stop asking. BTW, I never said it was "fair." I said it was "serious," in contrast to the usual frivolous personal attacks designed to thwart attention from the real issue at stake, that the one being criticized for using or promoting unproven, disproven, unscientific or illegal methods should stop doing so.
 
:::As for NATTO's repeated statement (here's an example):
 
::::"There is no doubt that Barrett is critical of many people and that many people are critical of him. So there is a placed for that in the article."
 
:::I have never objected to or questioned the legitimacy of a place for criticisms in the article. NATTO has repeatedly written such things in a [[straw man]] fashion, leaving the clear impression that I am against such a thing. Definitely not. I am against repeating libelous info here, in keeping with policy (WP:BLP). -- [[User:Fyslee|Fyslee]] 06:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:::* While the above statement was not directed specifically at you, I accept what you say so we can move on to another issue. And if yes can you please stop raising the ad hominen and straw man issue ?
 
However I do agree with Levine that we should not say something is libellous when the courts have not found them to be so. As far as criticism of Barrett for how he deals with issues, I think it is relevant in the article. In the QW article there is criticism of the website and some of it's content but this is the SB article. Also Barrett does not practice medicine anymore, so he cannot be criticized for his therapeutic choices but only for the way he deals with the modalities he is critical of or the qualifications he has to do so.[[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 08:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 
== Moved from Guy's talk page as it regards this article ==
 
All of which would be so much more credible if it wasn't for the self-evident fact that some of these critics are charlatans. Whihc is why I want to collect the criticisms by person. Guy 10:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
With respect to the Mercola article, this 1998 editorial in the Archives of Internal Medicine references an ongoing general bias in medicine against nutrition[15], dif. I don't think Mercola's WP:BLP should depend on the QW/SB/Bolen is-too, is-not byplay. However, with respect to QW, SB et al as polemics questioned for reliability on alt med/nutrition subjects pertaining to Mercola, this article[16], dif seems more independent and relevant than the current critics cited at SB. I would especially take time to read this latter, it's an eye opener.--I'clast 15:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Negrete is a lawyer, fully licensed in the state of California, Dr. Chopra and Dr. Sahelian are M.D. the same medical qualification that as Barrett has, Peter Barry Chowka is a former adviser to the National Institutes of Health's Office of Alternative Medicine and Haley J. Fromholz is a judge of the California Superior Court... What is the problem with them... They do not share your POV, is that the problem ? It leaves Bolen which Fyslee does not like at all and constantly rails about. Like it or not Bolen is openly critical of Barrett and Barrett is openly critical of Bolen. This is factual and well known so it is relevant. By the way Guy calling others charlatans and quack does not help progress the discussion.NATTO 12:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 
What a lwayer says tends to be dependent on, and should be viewed in the context of, who is paying him to say it. That is a large part of the problem. And there is little doubt that there are many charlatans in the alternative health market, and all of them would be a great deal happier if consumer advocacy groups like Quackwatch went away. Which is why it is vital for any criticism to fully establish the bona fides and conflicting interests of the critic. This is a general principle and is not so very controversial, I think. Guy 13:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a very general statement that is not helpful in progressing the discussion. Please be specific. If you think that Negrete, Chopra, Sahelian , Chowka , Fromholz fit your above description, then please provide factual information instead of ranting based on your view of the situation. NATTO 21:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle. Guy 21:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 
 
Barratt is a controversial figure, and it is right that opinions of him should be clearly and accurately reported, both favourable and unfavourable. It is also the case that the opinions reported should be selected as notable, and selected to display different ngles or views rather than reiterations. Opinion is inseparable from the issue of who exactly is the source of the opinion, and exactly why they are a noteworthy or authoritative source. I think it is therefore essential to characterise briefly but accurately and with V RS the identify of every cited source of opinion, explaining their status and authority. I do not think that references to unnamed critics are useful, where the names are clearly accessible. I think that supporters of Barratt should also be similarly identified where notable, if they have identified themselves publicly.[[User:Gleng|Gleng]] 09:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 
* Gleng, I think that the article as is does name the critics and give background information either directly or by allowing reader to check the related references. It also differentiate between opinions or claims by critics and proven facts. Whether it is criticism or laurels,I agree it should be clearly identified and referenced.
 
I posted the above to indicate that it is not enough to make general claims based on one's prefered worldview without providing specific information since it cannot progress the work on the article. Comments such as "Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle " in reply to a reasonable question is not constructive in any way. [[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 09:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 
: You appear to perceive your own bias as neutrality, and make accusations on that basis. This is a common human failing. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> 10:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 
::* Which, of course, you are devoid of... By the way I do not claim to be neutral and never said so, that is your own conclusion. However It is well known that Dr. Barrett is a controversial figure and that there are two sides to the issue. Some editors are hard at work at presenting one side so there is a need for counter-balance, based on verifiable, factual information, both ways [[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 11:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 
== Libellers getting away with it because of technicalities ==
 
Levine2112 writes:
 
:"But you can't call it "libel" or "serious libel" if the court didn't find it to be so. The best you can say is that it was criticism. Barrett can claim the criticism is unfair or even libelous. But his claim does not make it so." -- [[User:Levine2112|Levine2112]] 20:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 
Let's not get too far from reality here. We all know that court decisions are not always accurate or just. Just how many murderers and other crooks, where there is no doubt about their guilt, get acquitted because of technicalities? That's a fact of life. They are still murderers, but one cannot state that they have been convicted of murder.
 
It's the same type of situation here. Barrett has not succeeded in proving actual malice. It's still libel, both in a definitional sense and a legal sence, but we can't say they have been convicted of libeling Barrett, even though they have done so. They have gotten off the hook on technicalities.
 
The other technicalities that have been used are his status as a public person, and definitions of "actual injury":
 
*:"''But assuming arguendo Barrett and Polevoy could point to a statement that would support a libel claim, their claims would fail because they are public figures."'' They also added that when public figures are concerned, ''"'actual malice' may not be presumed. To the contrary, Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving actual malice, and it must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. This means that Plaintiffs must show not only that the statements they attribute to Defendants were false and defamatory, but also that they were published with actual knowledge of their falsity or otherwise circulated with reckless disregard of whether they were false or not."'' Finally the judges indicated that a public figure plaintiff ''"must produce 'competent evidence of actual injury' in order to state a constitutional claim for defamation arising from matters of public concern." "In this instance, however, Plaintiffs have submitted no evidence that they suffered any actual monetary damage as a result of Defendants' publications. Having failed to establish that they suffered any monetary damage of any kind, Plaintiffs' claims are properly stricken for failure to show that they have prima facie merit."'' <ref name="casp">[http://www.casp.net/barrett.html] Order Granting Defendant's Special Motion to Strike, (Barrett v CLark)</ref>
 
Barrett has been libeled repeatedly, and that fact is undeniable. Bolen's lies have been very bold and have no basis in reality. Barrett has, because of technicalities, not been able to get a favorable judgment. The closest (of the cases named here - there are others) he came was when Mercola read the writing on the wall and settled out of court.
 
Barrett can call it lies and libel, and we can call it lies and libel. But we can't write that they have been convicted of libel until it happens. Hopefully justice will be done in Bolen's and Negrete's upcoming case. I was one of those falsely charged, and it's not a pleasant experience to be accused of such serious crimes.
 
'''References'''
<div class="references-small"><references/></div>
-- [[User:Fyslee|Fyslee]] 09:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:It is not our job as editor of this article to " judge " the legal system and assess if a court decision is just or not. Society accept the validity of court decisions. They are thus valid, verifiable, independant sources for WP. As Levine says Barrett can claim whatever he wants ( and he does ). He is entitled to his opinion. But if the court do not agree with his opinion then it can only be his opinion and not a legal fact that is quotable in the article. The fact is that Barrett has lost many libel suits, so the odds are not in his favor. If and when he win one in court then it can be included in the article. [[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 09:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 
::This is the talk page, not the article. What is discussed here doesn't always qualify for inclusion in the article. -- [[User:Fyslee|Fyslee]] 10:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:And Fyslee, I understand that "it's not a pleasant experience to be accused of such serious crimes" and I do not comment about the specifics of your own situation since I do not know them and it is not my business, As a general comment: if someone is openly and publicly critical of others and give only a one side view of the issues, he should expect a response in kind. Reciprocity of effects or action/reaction, whatever you wish to call it. [[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 09:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 
::You write: "... a response in kind." I understand your point, but that isn't the case here.
 
::Let me illustrate: If you were to criticize me for having the wrong opinion or color of hair, and I responded by saying you were a whore and illegitimate, would you consider that to be "a response in kind"? (Notice that my response doesn't address your criticism either by subject matter or by degree. It avoids the subject matter, and is a very viscious and personal attack, way out of proportion to the original criticism.) That type of "response" is Bolen's specialty. (He doesn't believe in defense, but chooses offense: [http://www.geocities.com/healthbase/TimBolenfinger.jpg "You don't win a war on defense..." - Tim Bolen]). That's what [[straw man]] and ''[[ad hominem]]'' attacks are all about. They are not "response(es) in kind." They avoid dealing with the real issue and point of the original criticism, since they are usually guilty as charged. -- [[User:Fyslee|Fyslee]] 11:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 
::* Fyslee. I also wrote that my general comment was not addressed at you since I do not know your situation. It was a general comment that I feel apply to situation when people make one sided attacks against others. I am not defending Tim Bolen and I am not defending Stephen Barrett. They will both have to deal with the consequences of their actions. [[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 11:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 
== Kaufman ==
 
This para:
: Dr. Joel M. Kauffman, B.S., Ph.D. of the Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry at University of the Sciences in Philadelphia did an independant review of the [[Quackwatch]] website and wrote " The use of this website is not recommended. It could be deleterious to your health." <nowiki><ref>[http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/bookreviews/pdf/v16n2_websitereview.pdf, Website Review - Alternative Medicine -Watching the watchdogs at Quackwatch ]</ref></nowiki>
 
# Since he is not a medic, what credentials fit him to judge the quality of a site pertaining to medical issues?
# It's not obvious what his motivation was for investigating the site
# This belongs if anywhere at [{Quackwatch]] since it primarily addresses the ''site'' not the person.
 
<b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> 10:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:::* Please read the review. Since there is section on Quackwatch in the SB article. The conclusion of the review on the website is a valid item. It is verifiable and the reviewer and those involved in the review are well identified, He is a qualified scientist and the way he did the review is well explained. If Barrett can make public comments about modalities he has no training in at all ( M.D. are not trained in all health modalities ) then Kauffman can make a review on the QW site on issues he is qualified to, this is well explained in the review. [[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 11:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 
== What I mean ==
 
Some people seem determined to misunderstand my motives here; perhaps that is my fault for not being clear enough.
 
This is a biography, specifically of a [[WP:LIVING|living individual]]. Criticisms of his website or organisation, are not necessarily criticisms of him personally and can be addressed at [[Quackwatch]] to reduce duplication and to avoid the appearance of guilt by association.
 
Personal criticisms like those of Sahelian have more weight, and Sahelian makes a fair point which Barrett acknowledges re the focus of Barrett's work. That ''does'' belong in a biography. And maybe not even in a criticism section, since it goes to the heart of Barrett's comsumer advocacy work, which is a good chunk of his career. The Sahelian para is still not great, it could do with a little more flesh and a bit less he-said-she-said, but it's clearly got a place.
 
Spats with lawyers acting for varius aggrievced parties shold be viewed with ''much'' more caution. Lawyers are hired mouthpieces. Sometimes they are acting out of a genuine commitment to the public good (arguably Nader's work on automobile safety was of this kind) but much more often they are just saying what they are paid to say. Note the difference in character between Sahelian's comments and Negrete's - Negrete is a lwayer dealing in black and white, Sahelian is looking atshades fo grey. So: disputes with lawyers should be de-emphasised.
 
Finally, presenting criticisms as a laudry list is rarely conducive to a good article. I made it prose instead.
 
Perhaps now you can see what I am getting at. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> 10:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:Edits and postings designed to improve the article are always welcomed. I agree that Dr. Sahelian is a more balanced critics, that is why I raised the issue with previous attempts at posting erroneous information simply to " get back at him " because he dared to be critical of Dr. Barrett. To have him on top of the section is fine by me. I also think that the comments from Donna Ladd are equally valid. This said the previous format of the section was easier to read and better presented.
 
:Finally the reply by Paul Hartal was named a response to Stephen Barrett, not to QW, so I am unsure why you removed it, expecially since you left the part about unidentified critics from Columbia followed by the comments on Columbia as a diploma mill. Have we said that the names of critics should be identified ? [[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 11:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 
::I can't speak for Guy, but Hartal's criticism was originally removed as a clear violation of WP:BLP. It was a libelous attack without any basis. -- [[User:Fyslee|Fyslee]] 14:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 
::* Yes his comments were removed by you but you left his name and a link to his comments for the reader to make their own mind. Guy removed everything about Paul Hartal and left only one side of the issue. [[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 21:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 
One more thing. Your comment about lawyers is valid as a general comment. However in this case Dr. Sahelian was not attacked directly by Dr. Barrett as he was simply relying to a "rude" e-mail that he received from Barrett. ( please check the reference ). Negrete and Barrett have a different history of antagonism, however as a lawyer it is highly unlikely that Negrete would post something on his website that he cannot defend or support. If it is OK to post information " as is " from QW than his critics should also be able to give their view, as long as it is verifiable with a good source and is not simply an attack without any basis. [[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 11:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:Barrett's letter should be seen as a part of his investigative process. Sahelian was being investigated, apparently for good reason. FDA warning letters are often a good place to start. -- [[User:Fyslee|Fyslee]] 14:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 
::* The point here is not the fact that Barrett sent the letter, it is the tone of his letter. As far as the item about Dr. Sahelian and the FDA letter, it has already been discussed extensively on this talk page.[[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 21:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:::* No, the point here is that the article, or large parts of it, is a rehash of the arguments, rather than relating the analysis of it in reliable secondary sources. We are not here to promote or debunk anyone, we are here to reflect what reliable secondary sources say about the subject. Almost all of this is primary sources, and skating on the edge of original research.
 
::* Guy, just to clarify, I was only replying to Fyslee's posting about the letter from Barrett to Sahelian, not your posting about what you meant. [[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 22:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:::: I also removed the ludicrous "de-licensed" comment. It's an absurdly inflated semantic argument of no obvious significance. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> 22:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:::::I agree with the "de-licensed" removal. The whole thing was so trivial and blown out of proportions by both parties. The only thing that it demonstrated was that for someone who has dedicated his life to bashing others, Barrett is remarkably thin-skinned. [[User:Levine2112|Levine2112]] 22:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::I really liked the way in which NATTO worked in the Kauffman critique into the main portion of the article. Nice work. I would like to see all of the critiques worked in in such a fashion, instead of having a separate section for them. [[User:Levine2112|Levine2112]] 22:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:::* Leaving the sarcastic and judgmental comments aside, I agree that the " de-licensed" thing is exagerated. However this is so because of Barrett's own interpretation of the meaning of the word and his response to it, fuelling his legal efforts. [[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 22:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 
::::* And the reliable secondary sources say?... <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> 22:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 
::::* "Dr. Barrett was a psychiatrist who retired in or about 1993, at which point he contends he allowed his medical license to lapse " [http://www.quackpotwatch.org/quackpots/california_superior_court_judge_.htm].There are other from the legal deposition if Tim Bolen but I have not taken the time to source it again. However I agree that item is of limited relevance apart from the importance accorded to it by the subject of this article. Whether that makes it an item to be left, in some form or another, in the article, is an issue for editors to decide. Levine and you say remove it and I tend towards that view myself. What does Fyslee think ? [[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 00:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
::::::I lean toward removal too. it just seems petty and detract from what could otherwise be a good article. Criticism is fair, but it can go too far. [[User:David D.|David D.]] [[User talk:David D.|(Talk)]] 00:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:::::::* OK. So unless Fyslee or JokeStress or anyone else with an interest in this article has a different opinion we agree that it should not be included in the article. [[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 01:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 
== Whoever keeps italicizing quotations ==
 
Please stop and refer to [[WP:MOS]]. [[User:Jokestress|Jokestress]] 00:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
:Are you sure? If you use the <nowiki><cite> cite option </cite></nowiki> is looks like this: <cite> cite option </cite> So it would appear that italicised quotes is standard for some people. [[User:David D.|David D.]] [[User talk:David D.|(Talk)]] 00:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
::[[WP:MOS#Quotations]]. [[User:Jokestress|Jokestress]] 00:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
:::I can live with that, but i don't think this is a black and white thing. [[User:David D.|David D.]] [[User talk:David D.|(Talk)]] 00:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
::::I'm comfortable either way. I just saw the trend going toward italicizing on this article, so I wanted to normalize it for the entire page. I believe that is what NATTO was trying to do as well. Just trying to keep it consistent on the page. [[User:Levine2112|Levine2112]] 00:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::NATTO's idiosyncratic formatting (like the insistence on bulleting talk page replies) should not be setting any stylistic precedent. [[User:Jokestress|Jokestress]] 00:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
::::::I probably italicised quotes too, I do it quite often. I don't think this has anything to do with one individual. Look at other articles. Italicising quotes is quite common despite the MOS. Actually, bulleting talk pages is not unheard of either. Lets not argue about this and just agree on a standard for this page. i have no strong opinon and can go either way. [[User:David D.|David D.]] [[User talk:David D.|(Talk)]] 01:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Yeah, I really don't think this is worth condemning anyone over. Nor should we drag this out. I don't care either way, so Jokestress please do whatever you want. [[User:Levine2112|Levine2112]] 01:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 
::::::: I think that to italicise quotes makes them more readable as they more clearly stand out form the rest of the text so reader know immediately that it is a quote and not text from a WP editor. Before some quotes were in italics and others not. Simply trying to make the article more readable but I will not start a debate on it. [[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 01:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 
==Holding Barrett up to his own standards==
I moved the Salhelian quote where he holds Barrett up to his own definition of quackery to the portion of our article which deals with questioning Barrett's qualifications within the alternative medicine fields. [[User:Levine2112|Levine2112]] 17:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 
==Kauffman's Quackwatch review==
Do we know if Kauffman wrote this review specifically for the Journal in which it is published or if he wrote the review indepentdently (or for some other reason) and the Journal merely decided to publish it? Right now, the text seems to insinuate that Kauffman wrote it for the Journal and that the Journal is characterized as "a fringe science publication". That may be so. I just want to make sure that we get this right. [[User:Levine2112|Levine2112]] 18:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:Not sure what the concern is. Kauffman wrote it after seeing Barrett speak about several topics Kauffman has written about (low-carb diets, chelation, etc.). Barrett holds differing views than Kauffman on these matters, and Kauffman has written on the dangers of "mainstream medicine." He has published other articles in JSE, which is considered "fringe science" by [[CSICOP]] and other skeptic groups. Typically, articles are submitted, not solicited, but I'm not sure why it's relevant. [[User:Jokestress|Jokestress]] 20:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 
::If it wasn't solicited for the Journal, then I will leave the mention of the journal out (except of course in the reference). Basically, if the journal had nothing to do with it other than publishing it, then why is it worth mentioning in any other place besides the reference note? [[User:Levine2112|Levine2112]] 20:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:::Because as with most criticism of Barrett, it appeared in a source where reliability/credibility has been questioned. We're trying to contextualize these criticisms so readers can gauge the credibility of the statements. [[User:Jokestress|Jokestress]] 20:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 
::::I can't find Kauffman on the board of editors, but he's a frequent contributor. I wasn't familiar with that journal before now, and after looking through the subject matter, I feel like I should take a bath in strong soap. It's filled with pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo. -- [[User:Fyslee|Fyslee]] 21:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:::::Let the reader check the context themselves. By calling the journal a "fringe science publication", you are showing your POV. It is atypical to criticizse a publication in which an article is published as if that is to reflect poorly on the research itself. Research can be published in multiple publications and journals. Contextualizing it is unfair and repetitive here. It the reader wanted to, they can check the reference and see where it was published. That it the point of references. If anything find critiques of the research (or if you must the researcher himself) and cite that here. Don't insert your own POV, please.[[User:Levine2112|Levine2112]] 21:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 
::::::It's not POV to note that ''JSE'' is the house organ for one of the main fringe science groups in the US. See Time Magazine. [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1064461,00.html] See also this article in Qualitative Sociology [http://www.springerlink.com/content/r5682r5306778652/]. [[User:Jokestress|Jokestress]] 21:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:::::::Thet's fine. Just work the reference in there. I understand what you are doing now. You are trying to cast some honest research against Quackwatch in a negative light. That's been standard fare in this article. Anytime there is criticism against Barrett, the critic is then criticized. Real nice. [[User:Levine2112|Levine2112]] 22:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 
::::::::Kauffman's research is POV rhetoric in service of his beliefs about mainstream medicine, Atkins-type diets, etc. We need to point out that the context of such criticism needs to be considered. [[User:Jokestress|Jokestress]] 22:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:::::::::That's an unfair characterization. I could easily say that Barrett's research is POV rhetoric in service of his beliefs about alternative medicine. But that's my POV. Same standards apply with your POV. It goes both ways. I know you know this.
 
:::::::::For what it is worth, I think that Atkin's diet is very dangerous, causing the body to self-cannibalize. The weight-loss is not only fat but muscle and other vital tissue as well. The Zone is much better, though far from perfect. [[User:Levine2112|Levine2112]] 22:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 
::::::::Calling it a "fringe science journal" as it turns out is not how the journal officially characterizes itself. Therefore, the label "fringe science" is a POV. The Time magazine article actually never uses the term "fringe science" to charactarize the journal. We can't see the complete Qualitive Sociology study to see if it characterizes the journal as such. Regardless, this would just be an opinion, and the way it was worded didn't make "fringe science" seem like a POV but rather a statement of fact. You are clearly trying to keep "fringe science" in there to belittle the journal and thus belittle the criticism of Barrett. Instead, why don't you address the actual criticisms? [[User:Levine2112|Levine2112]] 01:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:::::::::Cross states in Qualitative Psychology: "The International Journal for Scientific Exploration, which publishes articles on UFO phenomena and other fringe science topics." [[User:Jokestress|Jokestress]] 01:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 
::::::::::What do you think of my solution? It still lets the reader know that the review was published in a journal which is focused on areas outside of the mainstream, yet uses the objective language of the journal's mission statement rather than someone else's POV. Basically, I want to make sure that it is clear that JSE doens't blindly support all Fringe Science, but rather scrutinizes its study. It looks for the charatans and listens to the skeptics, and tries to present things in scientific, rational terms. The Time magazine article does a good job of characterizing it as such. [[User:Levine2112|Levine2112]] 02:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 
== Article from Donna Ladd in the Village voice ==
 
:* Guy removed the comments from the article written by Donna Ladd because of sensationalism. The Village Voice is a credible internet publication anc the comments were not sensational at all. Barrett was quoted and what was commented on is factual. The item should be re-inserted in the article. [[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 03:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 
::The section it is under is: ''Accusations of bias and lack of objectivity''. Seems to me that the article and the chosen passages from said article suit the section perfectly. [[User:Levine2112|Levine2112]] 04:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 
== Silent Clots ==
 
The quote about Silent Clots and the linked court case findings are not a violation of [[WP:BLP]] - indeed a US court found it not to be libel which clearly free's it up to be posted on Wikipedia. The purpose of WP:BLP is to protect Wikipedia from libel law suits, and since the source has already been determined by a court not to be libel, it's fine for Wikipedia. -- [[User:Stbalbach|Stbalbach]] 21:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
:Stbalbach is right. ''Silent Clots'' is a published source and should be included, as should information about author Privitera's run-ins with the law. Wikipedia is about verifiability not truth. [[User:Jokestress|Jokestress]] 21:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
::I will assume good faith that the purpose of adding these "run ins with the law" will have something to do with the article (Stephen Barrett specifically) rather than be just an attempt to defame another critic. [[User:Levine2112|Levine2112]] 21:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
:::Barrett goes after people he considers quacks. Barrett went after Privitera. Privitera went after Barrett. Privitera had a patient die under circumstances involving the issue about which Barrett went after him. Goes to credibility of Privitera. [[User:Jokestress|Jokestress]] 21:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
::::Absoultely relevant. Go for it. [[User:Levine2112|Levine2112]] 22:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
::::Wait. Did Barrett "go after" Privatera for the reason that the patient died before the patient died? Or did he "go after" him for this afterwards? If it was before, then it is relevant. Afterwards, not nearly as relevant. Also, does Barrett's defense have anything to do with the charge Privatera is making... "Barrett got his start in the bogus consumer protection game by attacking the chiropractic profession on behalf of the American Medical Association." It would be better if it had something to do with that, rather than a blind attack on credibility which isn't really relevant to the criticism. Don't you think? [[User:Levine2112|Levine2112]] 22:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:::* I agree with Levine. The issue of credibility is open to subjectiveness. Numerous physicians have patients who die during the course of treatment. In this instance Dr. Privatera was found NOT GUILTY. The fact that he was charged may simply be the fact that he had enemies who were waiting for an opportunity to attack him. Unless we have the details of the case and can show that he was most likely guilt and got away on a technicality it should not be in the article, especially since he is a living person. In our system of justive NOT GUILTY means you did not do it.The issue a Laetrile is another issue. Was there any problem in his use of laetrile or was it simply a regulatory issue. He was pardoned so it looks more like a regulatory issue. It should be put in context. If WP is to have any credibility it should not simply repeat anything that is written simply because it is verifiable.[[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 00:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
::::Privitera believes that many health problems are caused by "silent clots." He administered huge doses of anticoagulant to the woman, for a headache, but she started hemorrhaging to death in his office. The source, as noted in the article, is the State of California. [[User:Jokestress|Jokestress]] 00:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:::: Yet he was found '''not guilty''' so there si certainly more to it than what you are describing. It is well established that clots are involved in the death of a very large number of people so there is nothing unusual in stating that clots are are involved in many health problems. As far as being "silent" that is simply a figure of speech to mean either "undiagnosed" or "ignored" or something to that effect. I do not doubt that he has been charge but my point is : Is it really relevant since he was found not guilty or is the point simply trying to cast Dr. Privitera in a bad light ? [[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 01:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::Privitera was officially reprimanded, fined, and forced to take courses on proper medical procedures, as noted in the State's dossier. Convicted in the 1970s on another charge. Goes to his reliability and credibility in his attacks on Barrett. [[User:Jokestress|Jokestress]] 01:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:::: Please provide evidence and proper references of such. The only reference in the article is from QW and is very incomplete indeed ( confirming again what Dr. Kauffmann has found in his review ). The document he posted is far from telling the whole story. Laying charges do not mean they are proven. If it is not better referenced then that it should be removed.[[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 01:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::PRIVITERA, James R., Jr., M.D. Covina, CA License number: C-30445 Stipulated decision effective: 11/8/2004 [http://www.medbd.ca.gov/Pubs_Hotsheet_2004_12.pdf Public Reprimand issued: 11/17/2004] [[User:Jokestress|Jokestress]] 02:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
::::::See also this [http://www.bioethicswatch.org/pd/priviteracoorder_19860110.pdf order against Privitera in Colorado] after he did prison time in California and the [http://www.bioethicswatch.org/pd/priviteracadecision_20041108.pdf full text of the California reprimand] above. [[User:Jokestress|Jokestress]] 02:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 
::::* Is that all you have ? Nothing you have provided comes close to the serious charge of having killed a patient. As I mentioned if the only verifiable evidence you have is that he has been reprimanded by the Medical Board, and then, as a result being monitored by another state Medical Board ( they do talk to each other ), then allegations of having murdered a patient should not be in the article. Numerous health professionals receive reprimands by various licensing Board, that does not mean they have committed crimes. He was found NOT guilty. [[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 04:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::I suggest you read page six of Appendix 1 of the reprimand where he admits to being subject to disciplinary action for various failures. It doesn't appear you have. You might want to read the other one, too, which shows that the Colorado order took effect after he was released from prison following his criminal conviction and has nothing to do with the dead patient. Note also who Privitera's lawyer was in the second case. [[User:Jokestress|Jokestress]] 04:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:::::* I think you are missing my point. None of the above amounts to evidence in relationship to the allegation of killing a patient. The patient involved was an elderly lady suffering from numerous severe diseases. Assuming that the Medical Board did everything it could to prove the charges ( a logical assumption ), they were unable to do so and the final action was only a reprimand. That is the result. Anything else is speculation unless you have evidenciary documentation to the contrary. Whether he has been subject to disciplinary action in itself is not evidence of guilt, nor should it be under the rules of due process. This then should not be included in a quality article. Regarding the Colorado Board, apart from probation, what other action have they taken ? If he has been imprisoned as the results of the criminal charges for which he was found not guilty then even that period of imprisonment is not evidence of any wrondoing in relationship with the death of his patient. As for his lawyer, you do not assess someone's guilt because of who his lawyer is, that is purely speculation. Based on the evidence that you have we can only say that he received a reprimand in relationship to the death of a seriously sick elderly lady under his care, and that in itself has nothing to do with the criticism he made of Barrett and would, rightly be seen as an attempt to undermine him because he has dared to be critical of Barrett. [[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 05:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:::::* Jokestress, I can also see that you are the sole editor of the Privitera article, conveniently linking to the item on the SB article.... [[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 06:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
::::::And?... [[User:Jokestress|Jokestress]] 06:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 
NATTO, you write:
 
1. that he was found "not guilty." Where did you read that?
 
2. about "killed a patient" and "murdered a patient." Who has said that?
 
He was judged responsible for unprofessional conduct which resulted in the death of a patient and he was reprimanded for it. That's not the same as "killing" or "murdering," which would involve that he somehow did it deliberately. I don't think anyone even dreams that such was his intention. Shit happens, and if one violates the rules and practices unprofessionally, it is going to happen more often. -- [[User:Fyslee|Fyslee]] 22:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:Fyslee, your imagination is running ahead of the facts. He was reprimanded "for failing to perform an adequate history and physical of a patient before commencing treatment and failing to maintain adequate and accurate records of the care and treatment provided to a patient. " The professional misconduct charge was dropped if you can remember... Sorry to rain on your parade. Nothing in the final decision is stating that he was responsible for her death. You should know that a charge is just that, a charge, until proven and it was never proven. [[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 05:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 
NATTO, you wrote that he was found "not guilty." Where did you read that? I'd like to read that source. Please provide it here. -- [[User:Fyslee|Fyslee]] 06:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:Fyslee I wrote he was not guilty in the context of the death of the patient as it was written in the article. He was found guilty of " failing to perform an adequate history and physical of a patient before commencing treatment and failing to maintain adequate and accurate records of the care and treatment provided to a patient." and reprimanded for THAT. He was not found guilty of the death of the patient. Is that CLEAR enough or do you need more explanations....[[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 08:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 
::Now we're getting to the point of my question, and you have now used new wording which makes it clear. You have written above that he was "found NOT GUILTY" four times, three times in capitals, and once more in capitals, without the "found" before it. You wrote it as if it was an actual decision made by the powers that be.
 
::Now you write something with a very different meaning: ''"He was not found guilty of the death of the patient."'' Maybe where you come from that difference in wording is too subtle to be understood, but it is quite a big difference. Now it's your opinion, not some kind of judicial decision or legal opinion. Okay, that's your opinion.
 
::I think we understand that it's your opinion, BUT the facts say otherwise, because the reprimand would never have occurred if she hadn't died, and it was determined that she died because of his negligence and substandard treatment. IOW, no death, no need to place responsibility for the death. She died, and her death resulted in him getting punished. "Is that CLEAR enough or do you need more explanations...." -- [[User:Fyslee|Fyslee]] 05:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 
== Use of the libel word ==
 
This has already been discussed by other editors, including Levine. If judges have found that what Barrett call libel is NOT then it should not be supported in the article. The FACT is that in all court cases in the article, except one, which is still pending, the judges have '''all''' ruled against the claims of libel made by Barrett and associates. This is all very well referenced by court documents. As far as the "devious" comment, the mirror effect is hard at work. I am not the oe fixated on libel and personally involved in litigation in this matter... The editor in question should take that into account [[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 21:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:Not getting a favorable ruling because of technicalities does not mean it wasn't libel. Even if he could prove libel, because he's a public figure it would be hard to get such a decision. -- [[User:Fyslee|Fyslee]] 22:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 
::The litigation is factual. The judicial decisions are factual. The litigation is notable enough to have been taken up by the California Supreme Court in one case and by appeals courts in several others. They belong in the article. Simple as that. [[User:Jokestress|Jokestress]] 22:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:::Has anyone suggested they shouldn't be in the article? I'm actually working on adding to it, since one of the most important ones is missing. -- [[User:Fyslee|Fyslee]] 22:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 
::::NATTO is suggesting we not describe the charges in the complaints. Barrett sued most of the defendants for libel. That should be reflected in the article. [[User:Jokestress|Jokestress]] 22:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:::::I am just questioning [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stephen_Barrett&diff=prev&oldid=77423424 NATTO's interpretation] for the losses. There were at least three other reasons for the losses. They are described in the cases. Technicalities of various kinds cause many lawsuits to be lost. Just because a murderer gets off on a technicality doesn't necessarily mean they didn't commit murder. It just means they weren't convicted of murder. There is a difference. -- [[User:Fyslee|Fyslee]] 23:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 
::::::You know how the U.S. system works... Innocent until proven guilty. Thus we can say that Barrett claims libel, but we (as of yet) can't say that anyone committed libel against Barrett. Despite your gut feelings, you can't legally call the King of Pop a child molestor. It belittles our court system to claim this to be a fact. [[User:Levine2112|Levine2112]] 02:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:::::::This point has been clearly made before and is, not only eminently logical, but fair. For some reason Fyslee keep raising this point again and again.... and again. Based on what he wrote previously he seem to have a personal, vested, interest in having this issue of libel against Barret inserted in the article. Other editors have removed it and he keeps trying to get it back in. What part of NO doesn't he understand ? Editors of WP should not second guess the legal system , this would not only be OR but POV. When there is a court ruling that Barrett has been the object of libel, then it should be included but that has not yet happened ( if it does ). Repeating that Barrett is seriously disadvantaged as a public figure does not change the reality. He sought actively to become a public figure, even claiming that " I am the media ", He got what he wished for so he has to live with the other side of the coin - stricter legal standards that apply not only to him but to all public figures. [[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 04:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 
Levine2112, that's exactly the case in the article. The language there is very NPOV. There we write that Barrett considers the charges to be libelous and that's why he has filed libel suits. It's only on this talk page that I "tell it like it is." That doesn't belong in the article.
 
Fact: Privitera has never provided any proof that his AMA charge is true, and thus the statement is libelous. The same goes for Bolen's lies. Publically stating one's own private conspiracy theories about a person as if they were actual facts can be insulting, and can also be defamatory or libelous, depending on what is said or written. The latest ruling (about Negrete and Clark) is worded rather strongly:
 
:''The scurrilous nature of the defendants' allegations of wrongdoing and their efforts to publicize them widely on the Internet, when coupled with their utter failure to offer any proof of their charges, gives rise to a compelling inference of malice.
 
:''The district court's judgment is REVERSED and this case is REMANDED for further proceedings.'' [http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/negreteappeal.html]
 
There are over 30 individuals and entities who have been falsely charged of very serious crimes, and we're very interested in the outcome of this case. Here's the "laundry list of crimes" and civil wrongs:
 
:''"mail fraud; wire fraud; perjury; subordination of perjury; extortion; stalking; terrorist threats; assault; filing false police reports; illegal lobbying; illegal influence of foreign government officials and/or agencies, trespass; invasion of privacy; web site tampering; Internet Spam; investigation without license; violation of Civil Rights & Free Speech; and interference with right of free speech and association."'' [http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/negreteappeal.html]
 
Needless to say none of us have done a single one of those things. We're ordinary people who simply criticize unscientific, unethical, and often dangerous practices. -- [[User:Fyslee|Fyslee]] 06:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:That's last more-righteous-than-tho part is laughable. Please. I mean, come on! Seriously. ;-) Fact: Barrett is using donations made to a nonprofit (based in a state that has no record of said nonprofit's legal existence) to pay himself to act as expert witness on matters which he is neither qualified to repesent nor able to discuss objectively. What does Stephen Barrett call someone who puffs themselves up with a false knowledge of healthcare? If it looks like a duck... If it sounds like a duck... Now I know why he doesn't like to call himself a "quackbuster"; one would find it difficult to bust oneself. [[User:Levine2112|Levine2112]] 08:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 
: I agree. It is easy to dish dirt on others but it is not so fun when that same dirt comes back at you....Well if you dish it you must expect to have to taste it. [[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 08:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 
 
== Is this article a Link Repository for Stephen Barrett Enterprises (Donations gladly accepted!) ==
Has anyone noticed that this article seems to be a link farm for the benefit of SB Enterprises? (Donations Gladly Accepted! Isn't there some concern that there are approximately 50(!) links to SB owned and operated franchises? Not to mention links to his books.
 
It seems that he has re-invented himself from an ex-psychiatrist who failed his boards and took a correspondence course into a mini-industry and now we are letting Wikipedia be used as a sort of franchise to expand his reach, not to mention fill his donation box and boost his Google rating.
 
Is anyone else concerned about this? Should we just recommend this article for deletion and Wikipedia will once again be a safer, cleaner place for us to play? [[User:Steth|Steth]] 11:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 
 
Have to disagree with you Steth; Barrett by any criteria is notable, noting that that implies neither endorsement nor repudiation.
He is clearly a very public figure, and this is a biography of a living person, so it deserves care and due sensitivity. His business is controversy, so my guess (Idon't know him) is that he would expect that the controversy about him is reported here, including both attacks on him and declarations of support; my guess is that these would be balanced in some way so that the article reports both criticisms and praise without appearing to endorse them.
 
However all opinions of Barrett are opinions, not facts, and as with any opinion, the issue of whose opinion it is is absolutely critical. Again I suspect that Barrett himself would consider it fair reporting if both criticisms and praise were clearly and verifiably identified with named individuals, whose status, notability and authority is clearly specified. I see no virtue in quoting anonymous attacks or declarations of support, or in identifying people by name with no objective information given to justify why their opinion should be credited as noteworthy. Is this a recipe that all can agree on?[[User:Gleng|Gleng]] 19:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 
* I think the point Steph is trying to make is that there are so many links to his websites ( they are all listed ) when in fact all his web sites can be reached via QW, the main website. I am not sure what the policy is about listing website but it may be allowed to list all his websites. Personally I do not have an issue with it. If readers are provided factual and balanced information they will be able to make up their own mind about what is presented on Barrett's website. By the way Gleng, opinions can also be facts. If an opinion is proven to be correct, then it is a fact. I agree however that sources should be identified with releavnt information about them but not as a way to try to discredit them because they have dared to criticise Barrett.... Regarding Barrett, the credibility he is given varies widely depending on how he is viewed. To some what he writes is dogma and to other is it eminently biased and one-sided. I have noted that his writings are widely used to write some articles in wikipedia with the infromation almost reported verbatim, making for a one sided view of issues that is not in the best interest of WP or it's readers.
 
Finally I think this article is probably better referenced than many other WP article, including BLP, especially some about alternative health practitioners [[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 21:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 
OK, get the point. Yes there afe facts citable as facts as well as opinions citable as opinions. Agree best to cite sources directly where possible (and strongly agree that some biographies of alt health practitioners are very poorly sourced)[[User:Gleng|Gleng]] 10:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:Yes NATTO, you are correct. I was referring to the quantity of links. While they may be allowed, I believe it degrades the article to list all of the privately owned and operated sites of Stephen Barrett Enterprises (Donations gladly accepted!) when they are available through his homebase. These sites are represented as "guides" which is a euphamism for professional bigotry. These so-called 'consumer guides' of course represent the opinions of one ex-psychiatrist who failed his boards.
 
:I am not questioning whether his opinions are good or bad, but I do find it alarming that while 'non-profit' is claimed, there are no officers who determine where the donations go. It is all decided by one person, the subject of the article who has testified that he pays himself with the 'donations'. BTW, these so-called 'consumer websites' are all run from his basement in Allentown, Pennsylvania.
 
:I feel they should be removed as non-encyclopedic since, at best, they do nothing except to exploit WP for donations channeled directly to the pockets of dubious private enterprises. The article still elevates the self-invented notoriety of ex-psychiatrist Barrett, so his disciples will still be happy. [[User:Steth|Steth]] 04:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:* Steth you have a very valid point. I am not aware of any financial statements posted on the website(s) to justify how the donated funds are used. This is a worry as you correctly pointed out. If anyone has verifiable information on how the funds are handled and used then it should be included in the article. As Levine pointed out the state where the non-profit is supposed to be located do not appear to have any records on it. Again if any information is available it should probably be included in the article. [[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 05:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 
== Sahelian and the FDA letter ==
 
* It has already been discussed that the FDA letter concerning the website www.physicianformulas.com was sent in error to Dr. Sahelian. IT IS NOT HIS WEBSITE. The website does sell supplements from numerous sources including some formulated by Dr. Sahelian but , again, it is NOT his website. [[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 05:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 
?? at the bottom it states © COPYRIGHT 2004 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED RAYSAHELIAN.COM
In what sense is this not his website?[[User:Gleng|Gleng]] 10:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:* Gleng. In the FDA letter that was posted as a reference, the name of the website that is cited is [http://www.physicianformulas.com/store/Scripts/aboutus.asp www.physicianFormulas.com]. If you check that page you will see :" Copyright ©2005 PhysicianFormulas.com. All rights reserved". You will also read: "About Physician Formulas: Physician Formulas is a nutraceutical company with headquarters in Irvine, California, and customer care centers in several locations including Nebraska, Iowa, and California. Our aim is to provide formulas of the highest quality and effectiveness. Our scientific research team is highly specialized to review the latest research on various supplements and herbs. '''We are proud to carry high quality products from several respected supplement manufacturers and by world renowned and respected doctors and herbalists including medical doctor and best selling author Ray Sahelian, M.D.''', who formulated several products listed below for the Physician Formulas label. These products are available on our website, other websites including amazon.com, and in select health food stores. "
 
The information you mentioned is from a different website [http://www.raysahelian.com/ www.raysahelian.com] which is the website of Dr. Sahelian, wehere it it written, as you pointed out : © COPYRIGHT 2005 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED RAYSAHELIAN.COM. The website www.sahelian.com '''IS NOT''' the website mentioned in the FDA letter. Dr. Sahelian comments , posted earlier on this talk page, are that the FDA letter should not have been sent to him but to the CEO of www.physicianformulas.com [[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 20:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:Yes, there seems to have been some confusion about the copyright info on which website. NATTO is correct about that point. We still don't know Sahelian's relationship to physiciansformulas, as requested by Barrett, since Sahelian wouldn't answer him. He may well be the owner or major shareholder, since it is his products that are sold by them. I doubt that Sahelian does it for free.....
 
:It's interesting that the http://www.physicianFormulas.com website has this information at the bottom, and the '''only''' link that works is Sahelian's.....:
 
::Website Design Company and Maintained by eDesignerz.com
::For more information on medical topics, you can visit these websites: , The Food and Nutrition Informaiton Center, nutrition.gov, nutri-facts.com, csfan.fda.gov, www.raysahelian.com, webmd.com, nutrition.gov, berkeleywellness.com, consumerlab.com, worldhealthnews.harvard.edu and others.
 
:Barrett needs to continue his investigation. Something's wrong with this picture.
 
:As for the information about the FDA letter, the current version I have placed on the page, and which NATTO deleted, is not the original version, which was properly criticized. This version is revised and factual, and is important to mention, because it is the reason for the whole discussion about Sahelian. -- [[User:Fyslee|Fyslee]] 21:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:* We can speculate,as is being presently done, however editors cannot edit articles based on speculation. Dr. Sahelian clearly said that the letter should '''not''' have been sent to him. He also said that he would have replied to Barrett if he has shown any manners in his e-mails ( he is quoted in the article) What Fyslee wrote is pure speculation. Maybe Fyslee should concentrate on providing information about how the money donated to QW and related websites is spent since no information appears to be provided on this issue on QW. [[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 21:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 
Exactly why I feel the list of websites owned and operated by Stephen Barrett Enterprises (Donations gladly accepted!) should be removed from an encyclopedic article. It's overkill. Free enterprise is fine, but why should WP be used as the marketing arm of SB Enterprises (Donations, etc.)
 
Since I haven't heard any objections, let's go ahead and do it. QW seems to be the gateway to the inside of an ex-psychiatrist's mind, I think that is more than generous. [[User:Steth|Steth]] 02:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:* Steth. No objection from me. I would leave only the main website - QW - only since it does link with all the others anyway so the readers that are interested can alway look them up. WP does not need to advertize them. [[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 05:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 
Agreed. And I think that it should be shown how the donations are spent, otherwise these sites should be viewed as dubious shills, fake non-profits. [[User:Steth|Steth]] 12:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 
::* <s>[[WP:EP]]</s> [[WP:EL]] says:
 
"'''Links normally to be avoided'''
Except where noted, the below do not override the list of what should be linked to; for example, if the subject of an article has an official website, then it should be linked to even if it contains factually inaccurate material.
 
Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. "
 
Since there is valid evidence to conclude that QW and related sites fit the above description, these additional links should be removed. The link to the main site QW can remain as the official site of Barrett , even if technically it is about QW and not Barrett directly. [[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 20:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 
==Precedents? WP rules==
OK I can see two sides to the issue of websites. I can certainly see the case that a biographical article about SB should in an encyclopedic way document fully and accurately the actity which he is most notable for. On the other hand this need not necessarily involve listing everything, just as you wouldn't list all publications, but only select those most notable. I also see the fair case that this article should not set a precedent for articles being gateways to multiple commercial (or non-commercial) websites; it's a precedent that I wouldn't like to see argued for other cases. So what are the precedents here exactly? Are there other comparable articles either with multiple websites included or excluding them where they might have been expected to be included? Lets see this settled on precedent if possible. Can we try to decide on this basis? I am inclined to think that as SB is notable in large part for the websites, then not to detail them would seem perverse, but maybe there might be another way - like discussing the main ones in the text more fully, and without a separate section like this. [[User:Gleng|Gleng]] 16:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:I fully agree. I can see the point made by Gleng. If the current rules need to be changed, then it needs to be done in a proper manner. Right now, and in a large number of Steth's comments here at Wikipedia, the logic is perverse, hateful, POV suppression, and definitely not motivated by any concern for "donations," but is obviously motivated by attempts to suppress the information found on those websites. They are obviously not commercial sites by any stretch of the imagination, and any income from donations is likely miniscule. All non-profits do this and it is perfectly proper. Even private sites do it, and it is still perfectly proper.
 
:By contrast, some of the chiropractic websites that Steth never objected to are extremely commercial, with multiple advertisements for seminars, practice builders (scammers), quack products, etc.. Funny thing he never objected to them, but only objected to Barrett's information sites. The double-standard is glaring. If any change of rules is made, then his twisted logic certainly shouldn't be part of the process. I can go along with limitations made on reasonable grounds, but Steth's are just hatemongering. He misuses Wikipedia and the edit summaries to preach his unique form of hatred. It's rather tiring and one-sided. You'd think he had other interests than to nearly exclusively oppose Barrett and attempt to delete his sites from Wikipedia.
 
:I have added very few of them here at Wikipedia (and they have been specifically on-topic), contrary to what Steth has often insinuated, and the current list is placed on Barrett's article itself, where such lists are allowed, so his objections are doubly suspect here. It would be another matter if selling products was the main purpose of the sites, which it obviously isn't.
 
:If such lists are to be questioned or forbidden, it would seem more appropriate for websites that are obviously commercial sites used to sell products or advertise a private practice. In such cases one link on the person's own article would be appropriate. As an example, Mercola has one link, and that's how it should be, even though his is a very commercial enterprise earning him millions of dollars. I have nothing against him earning money, if it weren't for the questionable products and anti-medical and anti-vax propaganda used to sell it. -- [[User:Fyslee|Fyslee]] 20:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:* As written above <s>[[WP:EP]]</s> [[WP:EL]] says:
"'''Links normally to be avoided''': Except where noted, the below do not override the list of what should be linked to; for example, if the subject of an article has an official website, then it should be linked to even if it contains factually inaccurate material.
 
'''Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources.''' "
 
Since there is valid evidence to conclude that QW and related sites fit the above description, these additional links should be removed. The link to the main site QW can remain as the official site of Barrett even if it contains inacuracies and even if technically it is about QW and not Barrett directly, it is Barrett's official site, or as close to it as avaialble. This is WP policy which is the bottom line.
 
I do not think that comments about Steth are relevant in this discussion so please let's stick to the issue at hand. [[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 20:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 
::* <s>[[WP:EP]]</s> [[WP:EL]] excluded list also mentions "Links that are added to promote a site". Since all QW related sites can be accessed via the main website, it does look like adding them all in the SB article appears to be promotion rather then information, especially since there is already an extensive list of modalities that Barrett is critical of that is included in the body of the article. [[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 21:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 
::::That seems to be the right thing to do then. Let's remove all of the links to external sites except the most official Stephen Barrett representative site.. i.e. Quackwatch. The others are just templates of the same QW idea but scoped down to a more specific subject. [[User:Levine2112|Levine2112]] 22:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 
What policy is being cited here? I can't find any of this at [[WP:EP]]. -- [[User:Fyslee|Fyslee]] 04:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 
::::* Apologies everyone. I made a mistake when typing the page name, it is [[WP:EL]] and not <s>[[WP:EP]].</s> [[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 07:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 
Thanks for the correction. So, according to that policy, the links are expressly allowed. -- [[User:Fyslee|Fyslee]] 13:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:No. I would say that NATTO assessment was correct, even if the WP link he provided was in error. WP:EL states which kind of external links are to be avoided. The complete list violates: ''Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that require payment to view the relevant content, colloquially known as external link spamming.'' and individually, each site violates: ''Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]].'' Now since QW could be considered Barrett's official site (and his biography information which is posted there is arguably accurate), a link to that site should remain. The others are overkill and certainly there to serve as link spamming, over-promotion, and they all contain facutally inaccurate material with unverified original research... though I would hesitate to call what Barrett does "research". [[User:Levine2112|Levine2112]] 16:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 
Fyslee, I don’t see why you need to be uncivil and venomous in your post above.
 
Aren’t you overplaying the hate thing just a little bit? I have stated in the past that I am in favor of removing commercial sites from the chiropractic page or any other page. I am OK with that. My motivation is to remove sites that are not what they appear to be and are using WP for personal gain. What is your motivation for keeping these sites here? It has been established that you have a personal relationship with SB. Have you considered that you are a little too close to the subject to be objective?
 
I originally went ahead and deleted the links since there seemed to be no objections here at Talk. I still feel that it serves more to serve Stephen Barrett Enterprises (Donations, etc.) with free advertising rather than improve the article. Fyslee, don't you feel that around 50 links to SB Enterprises constitutes a link farm? Deleting the list still leaves plenty of opportunities in the article to visit the sites and donate money, if so desired.
 
You have stated that you have added very few of SB links at WP. Can you be a little more exact? I would agree with NATTO that a link to SB Enterprises is found on many articles about topics that are on his ‘enemies’ list. How did they get there? I have stated several times that you have added links to SB Enterprises in a number of locations around WP. I wonder just how many. And, If as you say, donations are “likely miniscule”, then you probably are referencing something. Can you point us to where this information is available that says how the donations are spent? Non-profits usually make this information available.
 
I agree with NATTO and Levine regarding OR. I feel another, greater issue here is that the word ‘skeptic’, which all of us are about many different things, has been hijacked by you, SB and others, and has become a euphemism for a self-issued license to act out in bigoted, anti-social, marginalizing and dehumanizing behaviours. Being skeptical about something is fine but we don’t spend our time and earn cash by setting up 20 anti-whatever websites proclaiming very subjective opinions like “quack, charlatan, fraud, pseudoscience, etc., etc.” the sole purpose of which is to damage and impugn people and reputations, and than ask for donations to pay for our bigoted, bias, unprofessional conduct. That, to me, says personal grudge, which IMO are not Wikipedian and certainly not encyclopedic and should not be encouraged. [[User:Steth|Steth]] 16:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:::::* I would have to agree with the above. There is a difference between healthy skepticism and spite. The titles of many of QW articles, written by Barrett or other contributors ( which are usually NCAHF board members... ) are frequently designed to attack a topic, a group of persons or an individual, and that it just the titles. It is about time that QW and the rest of the group be recognised for what it really is - A blog under the disguise of a non-profit consumer information site. [[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 23:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 
== Removal of reference names ==
 
I'm wondering why the reference names have been removed here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_Barrett&diff=next&oldid=77872413] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_Barrett&diff=next&oldid=77872837] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_Barrett&diff=next&oldid=77872596]
 
Such removal is rather risky, since it can (1) destroy other links in the same article. It also (2) makes the reference list longer than necessary, and one (3) cannot see how many times a single reference is used. Please restore them. -- [[User:Fyslee|Fyslee]] 20:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 
 
* Actually these references were not functional at all and some had blanks beside the reference number, so needed repair. Now they work.[[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 21:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 
::They were functional, and now they are either gone or duplicated unnecessarily. -- [[User:Fyslee|Fyslee]] 05:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 
== Links to Barrett's critic ==
 
* I think we should also look at the critics websites to make sure they meet [WP:EP]]. It might also be a good idea to seprate them in two groups : the critics involved in litigation and the others. Any comments ? [[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 21:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:::I think that they should be grouped according to the topic of criticism. It keeps it on point. [[User:Levine2112|Levine2112]] 01:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 
== Fun ==
This doesn't neccessarily apply to this article, but I just read [http://www.chirobase.org/14Misc/acaobesity.html this response] which is Barrett's response to an advisory for nutrition given by the ACA. In his petulant gripes, Barrett states: ''Chiropractors have very little training in clinical nutrition, and their textbooks and journals say very little about science-based nutrition. Most chiropractors who give nutrition advice make inappropriate recommendations for supplements.'' I guess I find this funny because every chiropractor that I know has attained at least a B.S. in nutrition. For many (if not all) chiropractic colleges this is a requirement for graduation. Barrett of course has no degree in nutrition. What a hypocrite!
 
For the first statement, of course he gets his information from a Chiro-hate-mongering book published by Barrett's Prometheus Press (who prints all of Barrett's books). The second statement...? I don't know where he pulled this out of. It's unqualified and to use Barrett's words... ''This statement is untrue.''
 
Salhelian's statement about Barrett really rings true here: '' '''Stephen Barrett, M.D. does not have a degree in nutrition science'''. He has been trained in Psychiatry but has not practiced psychiatry for many, many years and has, to the best of my understanding, never practiced nutritional medicine. In my opinion, '''Stephen Barrett, M.D., when it comes to the field of nutritional supplements, can be easily defined as a Quack since he pretends to 'have skills or knowledge in supplements and talks pretentiously' without actually having clinical expertise or sound knowledge of herbal and nutritional medicine'''."''
 
LMAO. [[User:Levine2112|Levine2112]] 01:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 
* Another proof that the conclusions of Dr. Kauffmann's review on QW are correct. It is interesting to know that both a skeptic ( Kauffmann ) and other Barrett's critics agree that the information he gives is not accurate, biased and subjective. When people from different spectrum of life all agree on the same thing, it is usually true. The fact that Kauffmann is a credible, qualified noted skeptic ( a group Barrett belongs to ) is even more telling. Sadly many articles on WP and on the internet quote QW almost as as if the information there was peer-reviewed and vetted for accuracy when, in fact, it is not. I have noticed that there are WP article that are almost taken verbatim from his website, especially about alternative modalities. Lack of formal qualification and relevant real experience does not stop Barrett from being critical of anything he does not like. One of his favorite technique is to use FDA letters ( he does not publish those sent to pharmaceutical companies...) and accusations from lawyers as if the charges were true. When the court results are not in his favor or support his POV , he conveniently omits to post them on his website. Yep Dr. Kauffmann called it like it is - QW is dangerous for the health of it's readers. [[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 07:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 
::Kauffman a skeptic? Surely you jest! Skeptical of science, yes. A [http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLJ,GGLJ:2006-37,GGLJ:en&q=kauffman+site:www%2escientificexploration%2eorg frequent contributor] to the fringe science Journal of Scientific Exploration. Skeptics wouldn't consider him an ally. As for the other stuff you write, well, Mr. Pot meet Mr. Kettle. It's so easy to create a straw man argument and then attack it. Have fun tilting at windmills, because you're missing the real points. -- [[User:Fyslee|Fyslee]] 15:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:::I am not sure what you are trying to point out with that Google link, Fyslee. Actually, I do know what you were ''trying'' to do, however the Google results demonstrate the exact opposite. It shows several articles which Kauffman has written that skeptically explore certain urban myths about health. And, unlike Barrett, Kauffman performs actual research to form his conclusion. The only research that Barrett does, as we all know, is to first form his conclusion and then search for research which supports his opinion. (Oh, and then apparently runs it by his wife, according to Barrett... nice peer review system there, Steve.) [[User:Levine2112|Levine2112]] 16:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 
::::* Fyslee, Dr. Kauffmann is a skeptic. Skepticism is not limited to the issue of alternative medicine... Maybe he is not your kind of skeptic. As for the rest of your phrase, whatever that means, please drink your own tea. [[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 23:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:::::Regardless of Barrett and Kauffmann's respective biases, none of the 4 chiropractor's my wife and I have gotten to know have degrees in nutrition. Some of them have taken courses in nutrition, some in "alternative" nutrition, but no degee in nutrition. &mdash; [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] | [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 13:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 
== Do these pass the smell test for articles? Looking for feedback ==
 
* [[Quackwatch]]
 
* [[Homeowatch]]
 
* [[Credential_Watch]]
 
* [[Chirobase]]
{{unsigned| Steth}}
:Quackwatch definitely passes the smell test. Isn't that the original organisation pre web site era? The others are presumabably spinoff web sites, or are they independent entities? [[User:David D.|David D.]] [[User talk:David D.|(Talk)]] 22:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 
They are all owned and operated by Stephen Barrett. I guess that makes them spin-offs. [[User:Steth|Steth]] 22:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC) (Remembered to sign)
 
:* It looks like three of the above are only a title with a very short description and not real articles. Since they are all spinoffs of QW, there is really no purpose for these to be in WP, in my opinion. They should be removed. As far as the QW article, it is a proper article. However much of the information in it is already in the SB article. In fact it could be argued the QW is almost an alter ego for SB. As written earlier it is more like a blog than a true consumer information website. Should the QW article be also deleted ? [[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 23:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 
::Maybe QW and the Barrett article should be merged? The others are not notable and should be deleted. [[User:Levine2112|Levine2112]] 23:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:::* Merging the QW article with the SB article sounds like a reasonable solution since the SB article contains information on QW as well as the NCAHF. [[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 23:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
::::* Just to be clear. I suggest that the QW article be merged into the SB article since most if not all the information on the QW article is already in the SB article and that QW is basically the toll SB uses to express himself on the web. This said some editors may say that QW is better known and more notable so that merging the SB article into QW would be better. The fact is that people who read QW know that it is the workj of SB since his name is prominently displayed at the top. [[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 00:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
:::A note to all who edit here, I have begun merger proposals for Quackwatch, Stephen Barrett and the NCAHF articles. The discussions for these proposals can be found on the Quackwatch talk page. Please chime in. Thanks! [[User:Levine2112|Levine2112]] 00:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 
Well then, I guess it is agreed that the other three above (Homeo, Credential, Chirobase) should be deleted. What is the best way to go about it, and who is going to be the one to break the news to Fyslee when he wakes up so he doesn't gag on his coffee and Danish? [[User:Steth|Steth]] 03:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:The process is already under way. And I assume good faith in that I suspect that Fyslee, like me, eats a much healthier breakfast than coffee and Danish. Coffee being a stimulant and a Danish being empty, high glycemic carbohydrates. Together, without any protein, you are sure to send your body into insulin shock. Me, personally, I go for freshly juiced organic vegetables and some raw (unpasteurized) cheese. It ain't Coco-Puffs, but I'm cuckoo for it anyhow. [[User:Levine2112|Levine2112]] 04:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
::(edit clash with levine) Just put them up for [[AfD]]. That way they will get an objective hearing. [[User:David D.|David D.]] [[User talk:David D.|(Talk)]] 04:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:::re: Homeowatch, Credential_Watch, Chirobase in Wikipedia: just '''QW spamlinks'''--[[User:I'clast|I&#39;clast]] 05:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 
::::Put them up for AfD if you like, but I've removed the {{tl|prod}}s as not giving a "reason" to delete the articles; at most, it could justify a merge. (There may be something else here that doesn't pass the smell test.) &mdash; [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] | [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 13:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:::::Arthur, will you handle the merge? Or at least try to add to those paltry articles. They either need to be helped, merged or deleted. YOu clearly don't want them deleted, so please take the next steps. Thanks. [[User:Levine2112|Levine2112]] 17:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
::::::Don't know why i didn't think of it before. They can be merged into quackwatch and instead of deleting each of them let them exist as redirects to Quackwatch. [[User:David D.|David D.]] [[User talk:David D.|(Talk)]] 18:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 
::::::: The article mentioned above are not real article, just a name with a very brief description. That is clear to anyone. [[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 20:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::::: I'm confused? I agree and that's why i think a redirect would be appropriate. Do you think the redirects should be avoided? [[User:David D.|David D.]] [[User talk:David D.|(Talk)]] 20:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stephen_Barrett"