Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WCA is a self-admitted promotional website dedicated to the sole interest of chiropractic advocacy. I would not expect anything less from this type of website. Read how they paint themselved as.[2] BTY, do you want a chiro to touch your neck? Ouch! :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 17:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I think my understanding, along with Levine's, may more parallel the admins understanding and I am remaining civil. I have addressed this more below, [3], Slanting the balance of articles as a form of defence of some figure, group, institution, or product is bad for the encyclopedia.--I'clast 03:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Again, my "assumptions" were covered earlier, below[4]. In case this policy link was not working for you, [5], a more pertinent part, again as earlier & below, On the other hand, the removal of reliably sourced critical material is not permitted. I have read the objections here, repeatedly. The Biography section has still promotional concerns and is still factually deficient.--I'clast 04:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The dispute in TALK space goes back at least 15 months. The first discussion on it was on 8 February 2006 by Levine2112 [6]

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

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

It was originally added to the article, with much dispute, on 6 July 2006 by Levine2112: [7]

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

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

• "He has been unlicenced since the early 1990's and was never passed board certified in any medical specialty." [8] - Ilena
• "Barrett has been unlicensed for well over a decade and never passed any board certification over the several decades he was licensed." [9] - Ilena
• "Barrett has not been licensed since the early 1990's and never passed any board certifications." [10] - Ilena
• "He was never board certified in any medical specialty" [11] - Ilena
• "In one such 2005 lawsuit, during cross-examination, Barrett conceded that he was not a Medical Board Certified psychiatrist because he had failed the certification exam." [12] - Levine2112

It was added, after much discussion, to the article on 23 July 2006 as a criticism of Barrett by NATTO [13]

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

This evolved through September to:

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

This was removed along with the entire Credentials section on 22 December 2006 by Jance [14].

It was added back, this time into the Biography section, on 10 January 2007 by Levine2112 [15]

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

It was removed 22 March 2007 by Avb [16]

The dispute has been currently been discussed non-stop since 22 March 2007 (by Levine2112) [17]

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

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

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

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

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

I got to the first section and found an inaccuracy. I was not the first person to introduce this content to the article. It goes back much further. I did some check and this was the first entry I saw: [18]. You will note that the edit you cite of mine above is merely a reversion of deleted content. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AvB ÷ talk 19:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reiterate: If a brief mention in the biography is your compromise, I remind you of the fact that this all began when I removed such a brief mention from the biography. AvB ÷ talk 20:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Welcome, JoshuaZ! There is something which you may be missing (I know this conversation is huge!). Barrett is in fact not board certified. This has been verified by Barrett himself and by his lawyers. [19] [20] Nobody is claiming that Barrett is board certified. What is being claimed is that any combination or the sum total of these sources does not amount to stating quite plainly that Barrett is not board certified. This information is biographical and relevant. What is being claimed by his opponents in some of the sources is that Barrett "was forced to admit" that he wasn't board certified. Well, this is sort of true but certainly deceptive. You see, Barrett was under oath when he spoke this information. So yes, technically, he had to admit it. Anyhow, he sued the authors and republishers of this information for libel. He lost. Regardless, my proposal would be just to state plainly that he is not board certified and not bring in the whole hulabaloo about him having to admit it under oath (or that he indeed took the exam to become board certified, but failed - another bit of info verified by Barrett himself here at Wikipedia). AvB and Ronz have proposed slightly different versions of adding the material to the criticisms section. Ronz would like to keep it brief, but AvB would like to go into the details of who claimed that he had to admit this information under oath, etc. So one way or another, at least the information that Barrett is not board certified is going into this article. The questions now are: how, where, and by use of which sources? BTW, while I don't believe that the articles below are written from a major biased point of view, I would be curious to see where in Wikipedia policy does it say that biased articles are not reliable sources. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Look at the fonorow suit first.

COUNT I (Libel Per Se), The First Defamatory Webpage, Section 5, Part A: Stephen Barrett (www.quackwatch.com), who claims to be a retired Psychiatrist, but never actually completed the basic qualifications to be 'Board Certified' as such, today announced the end of his lawsuit against U.S. Health leader Joe Mercola, DO.

COUNT I (Libel Per Se), The Seventh Defamatory Webpage, 17, G: A Florida State Attorney, in the original Probable Cause Hearing (which Phillips was not invited to) had downloaded Barrett's writings on Autonomic Response Testing, and submitted them as evidence. Barrett has no professional qualifications that would make him an expert on this subject. In fact, Barrett, who claims to be a retired Psychiatrist, in a recent a [sic] court case, was forced to admit under oath, that he had never completed the requirements to become Board Certified as a Psychiatrist.

COUNT I (Libel Per Se), The Seventh Defamatory Webpage, 18 (response to 17), G: Dr. Barrett is a retired psychiatrist, and he does not misrepresent his credentials. Dr. Barrett never was "forced to admit" under oath that he had never completed the requirements to become Board Certified as a psychiatrist, let alone in a recent court case.

COUNT I (Libel Per Se), The Eighth Defamatory Webpage, 19, C: Barrett's credibility has suffered a major downturn when certain facts were brought to light about his alleged qualifications. It turns out that Barrett has been de-licensed, and has not had a license to practice medicine in any State since 1993. Also, Barrett made claims to being 'a retired Psychiatrist,' without benefit of ever having been board certified as a Psychiatrist in the first place.

COUNT I (Libel Per Se), The Eighth Defamatory Webpage, 19, E: For instance, Barrett, it has been revealed, claims to be a retired Psychiatrist without ever having been qualified to claim board certification in that specialty. He has not had a license to practice medicine, in any State, since 1993.

COUNT I (Libel Per Se), The Eighth Defamatory Webpage, 19, H: But the biggest blow to Barrett's professional status as a leader in the 'quackbuster' movement is an unconfirmed rumor circulating about Barrett's status as an 'expert witness.' It is already known that Barrett was officially disqualified as an 'expert witness' in a case in New York when he was forced to admit, under oath, that he was never board certified as a Psychiatrist.

COUNT I (Libel Per Se), The Eighth Defamatory Webpage, 20 (response to 19), C: Dr. Barrett is not "de-licensed" and has not had his medical license revoked. Dr. Barrett also has not misrepresented his credentials by claiming to be a retired psychiatrist. Psychiatrists do not need to be board certified to practice psychiatry

COUNT I (Libel Per Se), The Eighth Defamatory Webpage, 20 (response to 19), F: Dr. Barrett never was officially disqualified as an expert witness in any case in New York, let alone for having been forced to admit, under oath, that he was never board certified as a psychiatrist.

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

COUNT I (Libel Per Se), The Third Defamatory Communication, 20, K: In fact, last year Barrett was disqualified as an 'expert witness' in a case in New York, when it was discovered that although he claims to have 'been a Psychiatrist for 35 years' he NEVER passed the requirements to be admitted to the Board of Psychiatry, and hence was never 'Board Certified.' Hmmm?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A request to comment on reliability has been received at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard; I have commented at relevant subsection.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

So it seems our primary sources are enough to say that Barrett is not board certified. Please read Piotrus' comments on our sources by following the link to the relevant subsection. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope. This ignores the WEIGHT, BLP, OR, and NOT issues. All we've done here is shown that our previous concensus that the information is verified is indeed still verified. -- Ronz  19:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This shows that the information is verified and acceptable for insertion according to WP:RS. So that argument against insertion is moot. We have more than enough sources to insert this verified information based on the primary sources alone.

Now then, what specific issues with WEIGHT, BLP, OR, and NOT do you think there is. Please cite directly from these policies where you feel that inserting "Barrett is not Board certified" would violate. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"Please cite directly" No. The reasons have been repeated over and over for you. If another editor would like a brief summary of our past discussions on these issues, I'm happy to do so since Levine2112 obviously is not going to. -- Ronz  19:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't be difficult here. Just list out the specific issues you have with WEIGHT, BLP, OR, and NOT. Easy. Just go one by one with each policy and then I will be able to discuss my contention with your argument, if any. For all I know, you may be spot on, but if you don't cooperatively let me know exactly what your issues are, how are we supposed to carry on a discussion here? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion over. -- Ronz  19:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This policy deals with viewpoints. That Barrett is not board certified isn't a view point. It is a verified fact. WP:WEIGHT also says: An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Barrett is a doctor and a medical critic; the topic of his board certification has been a subject in at least two lawsuits and has been mentioned in several widely read articles and reseach papers. This information has enoguh significance for at least a brief mention (i.e. Barrett is not board certified.) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This policy deals with removing unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material. This doesn't apply as we do have reliable sources to make the statement that Barrett is not board certified. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This policy refers to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. That Barrett is not Board Certified is indeed a published fact that has been reliably sourced. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This policy is broad, so I am unsure what about it Ronz feels is being violating by stating that Barrett is not board certified. Previously, it had been argued that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (see WP:NOT#IINFO). There you will see a list of 10 kinds of information which may at times be considered "indiscriminate". None of them mention the kind of material we are dealing with.. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks like all these viewpoints of yours have been refuted before. See the many previous discussions. -- Ronz  16:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Just spell out your objections here. You have made a lot of arguments here but you never do back them. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to past discussions per WP:TALK. You might want to reread the entire article.

Please remove you never do back them since obviously I do. I'm sure you didn't actually mean such an obvious mistake on your part. -- Ronz  17:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It isn't obvious to me that you back them with explicit points from policy. If you did, we wouldn't be having this conversation. So please, per WP:TALK summarize your objections here or at the bottom of this page. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"If you did, we wouldn't be having this conversation." You're mistaken. You're overlooking past discussions. Why you insist on having this conversation is beyond me. -- Ronz  17:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Because I want to know what your arguments against inserting this material is. That is all. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_in_articles_about_themselves According to policy it should be relevant to their notability; or it should not be included. End of discussion. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 17:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

(First, thank you for spelling out your objection!) My response is two-fold. One, Board Certification is relevant to his notability. Barrett is a doctor and a medical critic. Therefore his medical credentials are entirely relevant. It is not as if we are talking about what his cat's name is. We are talking about a widely recognized certification in the medical community. Two, we are relying on more than just Barrett's own comments as a source. We also have the court documents which detail that Barrett is not board certified. The self-published source (Barrett's discussion at Wikipedia) just adds to the verifiability of this information. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"Therefore his medical credentials are entirely relevant." This is just an opinion that you hold along with Barrett's detractors. -- Ronz  18:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

In the medical community as a whole, Board Certification is considered a relevant credential. Barrett's detractors may think that not having Board Certification disqualifies Barrett as an expert witness or makes his opinions less qualified, but that is not what we are saying here. We are simply stating the verified fact that Barrett is not Board Certified. We are not making an argument for or against Barrett with this statement. It is neither praise nor criticism. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read this carefully. You have not demonstrated how the board cerification thing is relevant to his notability. It did not affect his career. It is a moot point. We cannot synthesize controversy. So, that makes your argument irrelevant. You want policy. You got policy. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 18:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Board Certification is relevant to Barrett's notability, but that is beside the point. The policy which you are citing (WP:SPS) referes to self-published sources. The court documents which verify that Barrett is not Board Certified are not self-published. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

SPS refers to Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves. The source is questionable because it does not prove notability. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 18:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"The source is questionable because it does not prove notability." Huh? That doesn't make any sense to me. Please clarify. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Material from self-published sources and sources of questionable reliability may be used in articles about themselves, so long as: it is relevant to their notability; You said you want policy! :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 19:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, the court documents (which verify that Barrett is not Board Certified) are not self-published sources, nor are they of questionable reliability. Thus, this policy is not applicable. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The source is questionable because it does not demonstrate the notability of the board thing. The key is notability as it applies to this policy. Read: it should be relevant to their notability; How is this bit of information relevant to his notability? :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 19:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that you may be misreading this policy. The source doesn't have to be relevant to the subject's notability (which it is, BTW); the content needs to be. Again, this policy referes to self-published sources and those of questionable reliability. Therefore, it doesn't apply to the two court documents as sources. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons in biographies and elsewhere. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability. You like policy. Here is more policy. Have a nice day! :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 18:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. The content (that Barrett is not Board Certified) is neither biased nor malicious. We are not dealing with a point of view here; the content is a verified fact (not an opinion). -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The content seemed to be bias because it is pushing a point of view by his detractors. The critics are trying to run a smear campaign when the board thing is a moot point. There is no clear demonstration of relevancy to the person's notability. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 18:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Barrett is not Board Certified. This is not a point of view. This policy is not applicable to this content. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The detractors are trying to make something out of nothing. Synthesize controversy. This policy applies here. You said you want policy. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 19:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I do want policy, and I thank you for participating in this cooperative manner. I understand what the detractors are trying to do. We are not doing that here. We are simply adding content verified by a reliable source. Again, this is not a point of view; this is a fact. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

And what are the detractors trying to do? Are you trying to do the same here? What is the difference? Nothing or something. Please clarify. Hmmm. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 19:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

All I am doing here is adding relevant and verifiable content from a reliable source. I have no other agenda. I am not here to figure out what Barrett's detractors are trying to do, but apparently it is their point of view that Barrett has tried to hide the fact that he wasn't Board Certified. That is contentious and has been directly refuted by Barrett here at Wikipedia. Again, I am not trying to insert these detractors' point of view (that Barrett was forced to admit that he wasn't Board Certified), but rather I am trying to insert the verifiable content that Barrett is not Board Certified. That's all. Again, this policy is not applicable because this content is neither biased nor malcious. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability. This is official policy. You show an appearance of pushing an agenda regardless if you are or not. The key is appearance. Therefore, since it appears you are pushing an agenda (even if you are not), I insist on you providing a reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability. The bar has been raised to both third party reliable sources and the clear demonstration of relevance because of your appearance of pushing an agenda (whether you are or not). :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 20:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no basis for you accusation. I am not pushing any agenda. Please read WP:AGF. What's more, the agenda which you are accusing me of pushing is not at all what I am doing. Once again, the agenda of Barrett's detractors is to push the idea that Barrett has denied/hidden his lack of Board Certification. My proposed entry does not even allude to that. Simply, I am asking to put in verifiable information that Barrett is not Board Certified. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The inclusion of this information appears to promote an agenda and biased viewpoint. This point been brought up many, many times in our past discussions here, but it's worth repeating. There are no assumptions of anyone's motives here, let alone accusations, only the simple observation that this information has been used to attack Barrett. -- Ronz  20:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well said. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 20:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Levine2112, there is no accusation. It is the apprearance of pushing an agenda. I am AGF. In accordance with policy: I now insist on you providing a reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability. The bar has been raised to both third party reliable sources and the clear demonstration of relevance because of your appearance of pushing an agenda (whether you are or not). :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 20:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This policy is going to stick. Detractors have used this bit of information for their agenda. This appears to be agenda driven and I AGF. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 20:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You said you want policy. You got an ocean of policy. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 20:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no appearance of agenda pushing. This information doesn't promote any agenda or point of view. The agenda which you are referring to - that of Barrett's detractors - is to show that Barrett has been hiding the fact that he is not board certified; that he was reluctanct to divulge this information. Barrett's own words here at Wikipedia show just the opposite; he is completely open about this information and it has been available publicly for 30 years. The ocean is a desert with its life below and the perfect disguise above. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

There is an appearance of agenda pushing promoted by his detractors who are quick to talk about the board cerification thing which is what you continue to push for. Since there is an appearance you must comply with the above mentioned policy. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 16:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

First. This bit of information is bias/agenda driven because of the detractors who point to the board thing. Second. Levine2112 has certified there is an appearance of an agenda driven push because of his never ending post after post beyond exhaustion when there is no consensus. Of course, I love and am AGF. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 17:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Your argument here is that this content is malicious and biased because it supports the POV of Barrett's detractors. The problem with this line of reasoning is that the content is not a POV. Barrett is not Board Certified. This is a verifiable fact. The POV of his detractors is that Barrett was reluctant to admit that he is not Board Certified. The POV of Barrett is that he was not reluctant to admit this. We are acheiving a neutral point of view by simply stating that he is not Board Certified (and leaving out whether or not he is reluctant to say so). I think this makes it pretty clear why WP:BLP#Biased_or_malicious_content doesn't apply in this case.

Now then, the reason why I am never-ending in my quest to have this material inserted is in fact driven by an agenda - my agenda is making Wikipedia the best source of information it can be. Perhaps what this comes down to for you is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The key is the appearance. For example, the never ending posts. The detractors are quick to talk about the board thing. That is an agenda. This policy is valid and is on point. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 18:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid that you are misunderstanding the policy and the detractor's agenda. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems like there's some confusion here when Levine2112 says, "So one way or another, at least the information that Barrett is not board certified is going into this article."

I disagree. There's no consensus that this information will go into the article, and no reason to think at this point that it will. -- Ronz  19:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

For months now, you have been arguing that we don't have reliable sources. It turns out we do. I am just asking you to keep an open mind to the possibility that you may be wrong about other policies as well. I am certainly doing the same, meaning that I am totally willing to accept that I may be wrong about policy as well. Thank you. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope. "For months now, you have been arguing that we don't have reliable sources." I've made no such statement. It appears you've overlooked what I actually said and the context in which I said it. Please go back through my previous comments and notice the what I really said and the context. Please don't use your mistakes in reading what others have written as justification for accusing them of being wrong. -- Ronz  19:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm repeating my previous post since the previous discussion got off topic. -- Ronz  20:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems like there's some confusion here when Levine2112 says, "So one way or another, at least the information that Barrett is not board certified is going into this article."

I disagree. There's no consensus that this information will go into the article, and no reason to think at this point that it will. -- Ronz  19:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It has been confirmed that we have reliable sources stated that Barrett is indeed not Board Certified. If you have other issues with inserting this information, please elaborate. Bear in mind that your previous contentions hinge on having a reliable source. Now that we have confirmed having several reliable sources, I am not sure that your contentions still apply. Please describe them so we can have a civil discussion and please continue to assume good faith with me here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"Bear in mind that your previous contentions hinge on having a reliable source" No, my previous comments did not. Please stop framing my perspective this way. See the many, many previous discussions. -- Ronz  21:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:Weight, WP:BLP, and WP:OR all hinge on having no sources or sources of questionable reliability. Now that we have confirmed that we have reliable sources, your orignal arguments might not hold water. Please take the time to relist your arguments that you believe still apply. Your cooperation will be most helpful for all parties here. Thank you. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to repeat, but summarize: We have no consensus, only proposals. Until there is consensus, the article doesn't change. -- Ronz  21:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

We have no consensus based on wrong interpretation of WP:RS. Now we know for sure that we have reliable sources from the primary sources alone. This changes everything. Please restate your arguments in relation to this new discovery. Thank you. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"This changes everything." It changes nothing at all. We already agreed that we could verify the information. Numerous other issues prevented us from reaching consensus on what to do with that information. All this has been said many times. -- Ronz  21:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Those issues dealt with - for the most part - not being able to say that this information was verified by a reliable source. We now can say that for sure. WP:RS has been met. Therefore, I am kindly asking you to list your current arguments against inserting this information. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read this comment given to us by a very experienced Wikipedian. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ronz is right. Levine2112, you're also once again ignoring the fact that the burden of evidence is squarely on the shoulders of those who want to reinsert disputed material. This and other basic Wikipedia tenets have been explained to you very often. I think you should be more willing to accept explanations and consider opinions offered you by other (often more experienced) editors that go against your POV. You seem to have no such problem with explanations and opinions that seem to support your POV. AvB ÷ talk 21:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

First, please WP:AGF. Second, I am open to every editors opinions regardless of their experience at Wikipedia. Currently, the most experienced Wikipedians looking at this issue are saying that we have met the burden to insert that Barrett is not Board Certified. We have met the burden, so unless another policy can be cited which insertion of this material would violatae, I see no reason to delay. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"I see no reason to delay" You mean besides a lack of consensus, or are your overruling that? -- Ronz  22:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Lack of consensus is based on moot arguments, unless you have new arguments which you would like to discuss. I am open to hearing them. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you read Jhonson's comment? it is not necessary to support primary documents with secondary ones. If a primary document says "he is not board-certified" then that may be quoted and cited and you're done. Or how about Pitorus' comments? If there is consensus that the primary sources you have are stating he has no board certification, they are enough for it. Well? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"Lack of consensus is based on moot arguments" I disagree that the arguments are moot. I just think you overlooked the fact that we reached consensus long ago that the information was verifiable, and all the arguments concerning why the information still cannot be included. -- Ronz  22:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Then feel free to list out your arguments in the space I provided. Be sure to quote policy. Thanks. This sort of cooperation will certainly help resolve this matter. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This edit (since reverted) is a pretty good example of what can go wrong when lay persons start interpreting primary sources. The Bolen site is further illustration of such misunderstandings and hyping. I would say this info belongs in the article, but let's just wait for a reliable source to comment on this. Edit warring is not going to help. I think this will make it into the article before the deadline. AvB ÷ talk 21:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. To clarify, we need a reliable secondary source to determine WEIGHT. -- Ronz  21:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere in WP:WEIGHT does it mention a need to have a reliable secondary source. Again, we are not dealing with a minority view but rather a verifiable fact. In terms of verifiable fact, WEIGHT says to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. $433,715.93 is certainly significant. But I do agree with AvB. If we - as lay persons - are misinterpreting what the primary source is saying, then we should have it restated correctly by someone "in the know". -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ronz is right, once again. And you're once again misrepresenting my words. In fact I am "in the know", that's why I can state that the reverted info was missing the point entirely. You seem to misunderstand WP:NOR (and even worse, your comments imply that I misunderstand it). As we've explained to you a number of times, we need secondary sources to interpret e.g. legalese for us. We're not allowed to publish our own interpretations here. For one thing, to whom would you want to attribute them? AvB ÷ talk 21:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

How am I misunderstanding WP:NOR here and how am I implying that you misunderstand it? Please WP:AGF.

Explained above. Rephrasing: we should have it restated correctly by someone "in the know" - this violates WP:NOR as explained in the policy. Hint: "interpretive". In fact I'm having a hard time assuming good faith with you any longer. You seem intelligent enough, yet you act as if you do not understand what others are writing when you don't agree. You seem to understand others well enough when they seem to agree with you. In the latter case you do not require the same explanations for the same things over and over again. AvB ÷ talk 22:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The primary source here is sufficient to report on this information. We don't need a secondary source to interpret the legalese any more than restating any other information from a primary source. In fact, we describe several court cases and their outcomes using similar sources. Perhaps - in this case - it would be just easier to quote the source rather than risk misinterpreting in our attempts to summarize the ruling. What do you think of that solution?

Oh, if you are in the know then I take it you have some legal experience. Can you tell us here what the documents are saying then? I certainly may be misinterpreting them as I am a lay person when it comes to legal matters. I am rereading the document, and it seems to apply more to Barrett v. Rosenthal than Barrett v. Clark, but the former is a child case of the latter, I believe. To me, it looks that the plaintiffs are ordered to pay award and attorney fees to Ilena. No? Please explain. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is just another case of the cerfication issue. Let's take them one at a time. -- Ronz  22:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Now that it comes down to the primary sources being reliable, then I see the similarity. I think we are close to resolving the Board Certification issue and this one will probably follow in suit. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflicts) Yes, I have "some" legal experience (although in a different country). No, I'm not going to interpret it for you - we can't use my interpretation anyway. Yes, we can use primary sources, within clear constraints (see the links I gave you), in some cases - and just as clearly this is not one of them. For the rest, see the relevant policies and the information you've been given regarding primary and secondary sources ad nauseam over the past two months. AvB ÷ talk 22:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe we can include this information because it's part of a story already in the article. I have a problem using Bolen's site as an intermediate source though and would at the very least require an authoritative primary source. Once we have one, I still believe we should not put in a verbatim quote since it's quite apparent that most people will misinterpret it. Wikipedia is not an oracle. Perhaps I am one when I say: Rosenthal is expected to be awarded reimbursement for costs and attorneys' fees at a later stage. I propose we wait for a reliable secondary source. It's a lot of money and the story will make the papers soon - or once it's been awarded to Rosenthal. AvB ÷ talk 23:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

These are the links which I used. They are the authoritative primary source. Please note that they are not from Bolen's site but rather directly from the California courts.

• http://apps.alameda.courts.ca.gov/fortecgi/fortecgi.exe?Servicename=DomainWebService&PageName=Image&ID=1&Parent=13174143&Action=19825551
• http://apps.alameda.courts.ca.gov/fortecgi/fortecgi.exe?ServiceName=DomainWebService&PageName=itree&Action=19900620

-- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's a thought. If this is related to Barrett v. Rosenthal, perhaps we should just in clude it in that article instead. I am going to give it a try. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 05:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The consensus being formed at the Reliable Source noticeboard is that Barrett's discussion at Wikipedia coupled with the two court documents (v. Fonorow and v. Mercola) are indeed reliable enough to post the information that Barrett is not Board Certified. Again, we are not putting any spin on this; good or bad. This means that saying he is not Board Certified is not to be taken as praise or criticism. And yes, to a neutral person coming here to read this article, it may be viewed as praise. They might think, "Wow, look at what this guy has accomplished without being Board Certified." The point is: we don't know what a neutral reader of this article will think about this information if we present it neutrally. This is why I propose to just keep it cut-and-dry.

Stephen Barrett is not board certified.

Simple. Easy. WP:NPOV. Any objections? If so, please be specific. Otherwise, can we finally end this? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

See previous discussions. -- Ronz  16:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The previous discussion is "Costs and attorneys' fees" and is about an unrelated topic to this proposal. Please, if you have any objections to this proposal, please list them here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Previous discussions. There have been many. You've been a part of those discussions, so there's no need to repeat them. Thanks. -- Ronz  17:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This is no way to carry on a discussion. In light of the guidance we have received from the Reliable Source Noticeboard, we need to have you spell out your current objections. Please be cooperative and help resolve this dispute. Thank you. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"This is no way to carry on a discussion." I agree. -- Ronz  17:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I just want to know what your arguments against inserting this material is. That is all. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Levine2112 asked for comments and input on the results of the discussion on the Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Please comment and that particular new development and don't make sweeping comments about "previous discussions". To repeat: please stay focused and comment on the results from the the Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. MaxPont 19:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is not, and has never been, purely an RS question. As the analysis there only deals with the RS question, it's not relevent. There were RS that CML was sued and lost, but Jimbo unceremoneously removed that information. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

In the CML case there were only primary (though reliable sources). No secondary source had established the notability of the CML info. Here we discuss secondary sources. MaxPont 09:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. We still have the problem that (most) experienced editors here do not accept any of the sources provided so far as independent, reliable secondary sources for information on Barrett. AvB ÷ talk 10:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Not true. Most experienced editors have accepted these sources. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it isn't a pure RS question. Many (if not all) of the prior arguments against inclusion hinged on not having a reliable source though. Now that the analysis has confirmed that our primary sources are indeed enough and that the secondary sources are icing on the cake (the more the merrier), I think it would be most helpful for those still opposed to insertion to relist their arguments (or introduce new ones) with relevant policies so we can move forward with this discussion cooperatively. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"Icing on the cake"? "The more the merrier"? Ignoring arguments against your edits will not make those arguments go away. Secondary sources are often (and certainly in this case) a sine qua non as explained to you in the recent past. "Many (if not all) of the prior arguments against inclusion hinged on not having a reliable source"? Have you even read the arguments? This is patently untrue. You still seem to deny that other editors have explained how the unavailability of independent, reliable, secondary sources prevents us from assigning sufficient weight to quote this tidbit out of context and makes quoting it in context debatable at best, the context being hate mail and attack sites written by individuals whose statements there have been characterized by courts as "statements of opinion, not of fact". AvB ÷ talk 10:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The more the merrier comes not from me put from the very experienced editors who analyzed our sources for reliability and didn't find an issue with declaring them reliable. Have you read that analysis? (By the way, neither the Dynamic Chiropractic article nor the WCA article are hate mail, attack sites nor have been characterized as presenting "statements of opinion, not of fact". -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Those are not the primary sources you're now relying on. From WP:BLP: Material from primary sources should be used with great care. For example, public records that include personal details such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses, as well as trial transcripts and other court records, should not be used unless cited by a reliable secondary source. Where primary-source material has first been presented by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to turn to open records to augment the secondary source, subject to the no original research policy. See also Wikipedia:Verifiability. AvB ÷ talk 13:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Above, the only policy currently being discussed is BLP:Biased or malicious content. This one does not apply here as the information about Barrett not being Board Certified is neither malicious nor biased. It is a verifiable fact. It is not a point of view and saying that Barrett is not Board Certified doesn't advance any agenda other than making our article more complete.

I would appreciate a frank discussion of other relevant policies. Thanks! :-) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this is a neutral and reliable addition. But since this concerns more than just reliability, I'd also suggest widening the discussion - ask for more comments on WP:RFC.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Our RFC has been posted in two places for some time now. Patiently waiting. . . (Anything you can do to get our RFC on the fast track?) ;-) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Where is the RfC posted? I'd be interested in reading it. RalphLender^talk 11:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure. The RfCs can be found here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Maths,_science,_and_technology and Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biographies. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I also added a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics under the area of politics. This is a conflict with strong connections to opinion making. Editors with experience from how political conflicts are intermingled with biographies of the people involved in these conflicts can contribute with outside viewpoints. MaxPont 17:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a fantastic idea. Thanks for your commitment to help resolve this issue. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stephen_Barrett#Biased_or_malicious_content Here is one perfect example being discussed in another section above that confirms that this is against policy to add this information. Don't forget, there is no consensus to add this trivial point. We finally have a resolution on this matter. We have turned the tide. We have a flood of policy on this. We are drowned in policy. We all must comply with the waves of policy. Have a nice day! :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 16:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus to keep this information out of the article either. MaxPont 16:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No consensus either way is still no consensus. Thanks for your kind help to resolve this matter. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 16:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

As Mr.Guru has been told several times, this policy doesn't apply for two reasons: 1) The content is neither biased nor malicious. It is a verified fact and not a point of view. 2) This policy only refers to self-published or questionably published sources. The court documents are neither self-published nor questionably published sources. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Biased_or_malicious_content As Levine2112 has been previously told, policy does apply in this case. There is a reason we have policy. It seems Leveine2112 dos not understand this policy. Hmmm. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 17:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, spell it out for everyone here. How is saying the verifiable fact, "Barrett is not Board Certified" either biased and/or malicious? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I have already answered this question in the precise section.[21] :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 17:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems Levine2112 has ignored we have no conensus in any direction and continues to push this matter. This gives an appearrance of pushing this point to no end. There is specific policy on this.[22] Wikipedians should comply with policy. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 17:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Your argument here is that this content is malicious and biased because it supports the POV of Barrett's detractors. The problem with this line of reasoning is that the content is not a POV. Barrett is not Board Certified. This is a verifiable fact. The POV of his detractors is that Barrett was reluctant to admit that he is not Board Certified. The POV of Barrett is that he was not reluctant to admit this. We are acheiving a neutral point of view by simply stating that he is not Board Certified (and leaving out whether or not he is reluctant to say so). I think this makes it pretty clear why WP:BLP#Biased_or_malicious_content doesn't apply in this case. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

(copy of policy) Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons in biographies and elsewhere. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability. There is an appearance of an agenda push here. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 18:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please communicate clearly with us which policies you believe would be violated by inserting the verified content (that Barrett is not Board Certified). Mr.Guru has been gracious enough to share his/her thoughts on at least two policies he/she felt may be violated. I am wondering if there is anything else. I understand that you may feel reluctant to communicate thoughts which you feel you have already expressed, but in light of the expert analysis (which in a nutshell says that our primary sources are enough to state the content, and that secondary sources aren't even necessary but certainly helpful), I think it is reasonable to look at your policy contentions once again. (BTW, I have posted a request on the same noticeboard to have two of our secondary sources analyzed just in case.) I would sincerely appreciate everyone's cooperation here. Thanks! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to the many, many previous discussions on this topic. No new evidence or arguments have been suggested since, so repeating them would be a waste of time and disrespectful to the editors who previously took the time to discuss them. Besides, WP:BLP appears to be enough and has been discussed ad nauseum, so why bring up the other ones again? -- Ronz  17:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

BLP is broken down into several main sections. With you giving us anything specific within BLP, I would like to do cursory overview of the policy so you can see generally why I don't feel it applies.

• Reliable sources - our primary sources have been given the stamp of reliability by the RS analysis team.
• Presumption in favor of privacy - Barrett himself has come to Wikipedia and said that he is open with this information and in fact it's that his detractors were saying that he wasn't forthcoming with this info that was bothering him.
• Criticism - This is a verified fact not an opinion and we are not using it as criticism.

Is there something more specific in WP:BLP we can look at and see if it applies? Again, I am completely open to the possibility that there is some policy that does apply and prevents us from inserting this content. Please spell it out for us. Thanks! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Levine2112, I have spelled it out for you.[23] We cannot ignore policy. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 17:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

(copied response from just above) Your argument here is that this content is malicious and biased because it supports the POV of Barrett's detractors. The problem with this line of reasoning is that the content is not a POV. Barrett is not Board Certified. This is a verifiable fact. The POV of his detractors is that Barrett was reluctant to admit that he is not Board Certified. The POV of Barrett is that he was not reluctant to admit this. We are acheiving a neutral point of view by simply stating that he is not Board Certified (and leaving out whether or not he is reluctant to say so). I think this makes it pretty clear why WP:BLP#Biased_or_malicious_content doesn't apply in this case. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

(copy of policy) Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons in biographies and elsewhere. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability. There is an appearance of an agenda push here. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 18:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

What agenda am I pushing other than making the article more complete with relevant reliably sourced information? Saying that Barrett is not Board Certified doesn't push any agenda. The appearance is being created in your mind only. Perhaps for you this comes down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I am sorry, but you are going to have to do better than that in terms of making a policy argument against inclusion. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Levine2112 said: The appearance is being created in your mind only. Thanks for your confirmation. We are in complete agreement that there is an 'appearance' of an agenda push. You have posted and reposted and continue to post beyond exhaustion. The key is the appearance. Thanx, :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 18:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Meaning that the so-called appearance is a fantasy invented by you and doesn't exist. Please present a valid policy argument rather than continue this charade seemingly propogated because you don't like the idea of this content being added but are unable to come up with a valid reason why. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The key is the appearance as it applies with this policy. This is a valid Wikipedia policy[24] in which you still seem to misunderstand and has been explained to you repeatedly.[25] :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 18:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It has been explained to you that this doesn't give the appearance of pushing the agenda which you are referring to. The agenda which Barrett's detractors are pushing is that Barrett is reluctant to say that he is not Board Certified. By simply stating that Barrett is not Board Certified, we are not pushing that agenda. That's really all there is to it. Is there some other agenda which you think I am pushing or was that it? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This matter should have been resolved a long time ago. The policy still stands. I did my best to explain the policy (repeatedly) to you. There is an appearance of an agenda push. You continue to assert we should continue to work until we establish consensus. You continue to post when you know there is no consensus either way. You continue to misunderstand policy. Detractors point to the board thing about he was not certified. Since there is an 'appearance', please demonstrate using third-party sources to its relevance and notability. You have not demonstrated any relevance or notability regarding this matter and you have not submitted a single third-party reference. Hmmm. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 20:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Your failure to understand this is mindboggling. The detractors agenda is not to point to Barrett not being board certified; but rather that he was "forced to admit" this information under oath. Barrett himself has said that he is open about not being board certified and that this information has been available publicly for over thirty years. If I was pushing to have it stating (outside the scope of quoting his critics) that Barrett was forced to admit his lack of Board Certification or that he is reluctant to say that he is not Board Certified, then perhaps you would have a point by invoking this policy. But as it stand, a simple WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:V statement that Barrett is not Board Certified no more furthers his detractor's agenda of claiming Barrett's reluctance than it does to further Barrett's claim that he is open with this information. (PS, I have submitted many third-party references, but according to the RS noticeboard analysis, those are only the icing on the cake - the primary sources are reliable enough to make this statement.) Now then, do you have any other policies which you would like to discuss. Again, I am open to being wrong about inclusion of this material, but with regards to WP:BLP#Biased_or_malicious_content, your claim of an agenda push on my part has been summarily debunked. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

From WP:BLP: Material from primary sources should be used with great care. For example, public records that include personal details such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses, as well as trial transcripts and other court records, should not be used unless cited by a reliable secondary source. Where primary-source material has first been presented by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to turn to open records to augment the secondary source, subject to the no original research policy. See also Wikipedia:Verifiability. AvB ÷ talk 13:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

In this case, the community's consensus demands in its (WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:ATT) policies a third-party reference, describing the relevancy and notability. Editors should read and comply with policy. Editors who ignore policy will eventually find themselves on the wrong end of a block. See:Wikipedia:Tendentious editing Wikipedia:Disruptive editing Wikipedia:Civility Wikipedia:Beware of the tigers The key is for you to understand we open-arm acceptance but not blind faith. This is becoming very disruptive with your ad nauseum posts. There is a real and present appearance of an agenda driven force. Who is it? Its Levine2112! Now, please stop. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 21:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Guru, your comments have sunken into the depths of incivility. Please check your attitude. Furthermore, your argument that including the information that Barrett is not Board Certified furthers a malicious agenda is completely unfounded and the discussion on that is now over. If you have another policy which might actually apply here, please feel free to bring it up. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

My comments are informative and on point. They have risen to a higher level in sticking to policy. My arguments are on the ball. Editors who continue to ignore policy will be greeted with a block. Have a nice day! :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 22:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

In spite of the incivility by Mr Guru, I will comment on the posting. There is a third party reference that establish the context and notability of the fact that Barrett is not Board Certified, by mentioning it. Stephen Barrett Loses Major Defamation Trial in Hometown Dynamic Chiropractic MaxPont 21:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, MaxPont. And the WCA article does just the same. I just don't think they are even all that necessary in this case, though. Mr. Guru's claim at agenda pushing is just wrong. Anyhow, if they do become neccessary, I have posted them to the RS noticeboard for review. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Both references are promotionally, driven attack sites that are against Stephen Barrett. This reconfirms the agenda driven elements at play. They have not demonstrated any relevancy or notability to the board thing, other than that of their own clear agenda. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 22:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"promotionally, driven attack sites" - that's your opinion. "They have not demonstrated any relevancy or notability" - but in fact they do. Regardless, your application of this policy has been debunked. Any other policies which you would like to bring up? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have gotten it backwards. The references are useless because they are attack sites designed for their own self-interests. I would not expect anything less from these kinds of people. Believe me, pal, we all know what types of people they are. There is clearly an appearance of an agenda driven push. You continue to post after there is no consensus and have been told about those websites before. Enough is enough. Please stop. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 23:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Your bias against these publications are clear. But that remains your opinion and has no bearing on Wikipedia's policies whatsoever. I really feel like this is a clear-cut case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT for you. Basically, it is the weakest line of reasoning in terms of making an argument. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You got it backwards, again. You are walking a fine line (be careful, don't trip) with your never ending posts here to bring up this matter when you know there is no consensus. The bias/attack sites/agenda driven is from the websites who want to attack Barrett. The detractors are quick to point to the board thing. Maybe, they need to find something more productive to do. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 01:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Levine certainly likes to post (a LOT) about one subject. Shot info 01:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Barrett has routinely spoken against the chiropractic profession. Thus, the sources from chiropractors are NOT regarded as third-party sources such as Anti-chiropractic groups spreading ‘stroke’ lies online(World Chiropractic Alliance) and Stephen Barrett Loses Major Defamation Trial in Hometown (Dynamic Chiropractic). There is specific Wiki policy against using the chiro sources.[26] We cannot use these sources because they are not third-party sources. Chiros are known to be against Mr. Barrett. Moreover, it was irrelevant to his career regarding the board thing. So what is the point? There is no point to add this information, except to support (the appearance) agenda elements at play.

It appears this is pushing an agenda. I will AGF. In accordance with policy: We insist on the the use of a reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability. The bar has been raised to both third party reliable sources and the clear demonstration of relevance because of your appearance of pushing an agenda (whether you are or not).

This is a flood of policy (its raining cats and dogs). Detractors (who seem to have too much free time on their hands) have used this bit of information for their agenda to synthesize controversy. This appears to be agenda driven and I AGF.

(copy of policy) Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons in biographies and elsewhere. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability. There is an appearance of an agenda push here.

First. There are no third-party sources. Second, there are no references from any source demonstrating the relevance or notability in oder to comply with policy Therefore, we cannot add this tidbit in the article. Editors who ignore policy or disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point will be greeted with a block. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 22:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The interpretation of policy put forward by Mr. Guru would lead to preposterous consequences. Any news source that is critical of for example George W Bush or Hillary Clinton would be excluded as a RS on the ground that is biased. As pointed out by Levine2112 above, WP does not require a RS secondary source to be absolutely neutral. All secondary sources have an editorial profile and as a consequence some bias. MaxPont 13:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that none of Barrett's articles could be used either ;-) -- Dēmatt (chat) 14:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Not the way RS works. Sources about oneself are presumed to be reliable unless we have reason to believe otherwise (i.e. we have neutral sources saying the guy is a habitual liar such as Aleksey Vayner) However, sources which are biased must always be used carefully and per WP:BLP are not acceptable for sourcing negative information when they have clear interests against the person in question. Furthermore, it isn't at all obvious to me that these homeopathy sources are even WP:RS-compliant anyways. JoshuaZ 15:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

(The sources have very little to do with homeopathy.) I think Dematt has a point here. The web site Quackwatch (where Barrett’s articles and auto-bio can be found) was declared unreliable in an ArbCom earlier this year[27]. I also don’t believe that JoshuaZ has support for his comment in WP:RS. Of course JoshuaZ has a point in that partisan sources are somewhat less credible. However, to define a RS is not a binary thing. There is a grey-zone. Opinion pieces and unsourced attack articles might be excluded while straightforward news articles would be included from the same source. The article in the trade magazine Dynamic Chiropractic is a regular news article. There is no requirement that a RS must be strictly neutral. New York Times is not neutral, neither is CNN or Fox News Channel, but news reported by these media are included in WP if there are no obvious ground for doubt. MaxPont 18:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

"The web site Quackwatch was declared unreliable in an ArbCom earlier this year" No it wasn't.

The RS issue has been a red herring all along. Let's drop it, as it should have been months ago.

It's the issue of the lack of reliable, non-partisan, secondary sources to address WEIGHT and BLP issues that's always, and continues, to be the the problem.

My apologies for repeating what's been written here over and over again. No disrespect meant for those who previously put considerable time and effort into making these points. -- Ronz  18:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that RS is not a black and white notion. However, the notion that a trade magazine is a reliable enough source for negative information about a person who has spent a substantial amount of time criticizing that trade (indeed, saying that the trade is complete bunk) is simply not consistent with either the spirit or letter of WP:BLP. JoshuaZ 18:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You guys may be missing the point. The RS noticeboard declared our sources reliable enough to verify that Barrett is not Board Certified. The BLP concerns - if any - will hopefully be addressed soon at the BLP noticeboard. The WEIGHT concerns carries "no weight" (forgive the lame pun) as nowhere in WP:WEIGHT does it say that in needs to be satisfied with reliable, non-partisan, secondary sources. In summary, for the statement "Barrett is not Board Certified", WP:RS is satisfied completely, WP:BLP concerns wil be addressed on that noticeboard, and WP:WEIGHT does not apply here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I may be getting a bit confused. What statement precisely do you want in the article? JoshuaZ 01:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Barrett is not Board Certified. That's it. We don't even need the chiropractic news articles to verify this information. The primary sources have been deemed adequate as far as WP:RS goes. Do you still feel that there is a WP:BLP issue, JoshuaZ? If so, what specifically from WP:BLP do you feel would be in violation? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, if we aren't using the chiro source I don't have much of an issue with that although I still have trouble understanding why you think the information should be there other than that the chiros have used it as a point against him. JoshuaZ 14:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

JoshuaZ, I am glad that you don't have an issue with including this material. Please understand that I am including this only to make Wikipedia a better resource. For instance, if someone came to Wikipedia wondering if Stephen Barrett was Board Certified, that person could come here a find out (with content verified by Barrett himself and the court documents). Barrett has said that he is public with this information, so I don't think there is any BLP concerns. However, BLP will be addressed on the corresponding Noticeboard. Thanks for your input there! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The info was used in a very specific context in the primary sources. We shouldn´t take it out of that context (where it was relevant: criticism from .com Bolen and Barretts responses ) and insert it into Barrett's CV (where it is not relevant). Please note that Levine2112 prefers a brief mention precisely for the reason that he thinks it could go into the CV or lead for optimum effect. He is not in the least interested in getting it into the (overlong) criticism section because there the argument based on the info would be demolished by Barrett's response. Once again, a brief mention is not a compromise. It's giving more than a little bit of weight to assertions from partisan critics without giving at least the same amount of weight to Barrett´s response. AvB ÷ talk 16:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Lets stay focused. BLP policy states we must use third-party sources and we have no third-party references. This discussion is moot and getting tiresome. It seems Levine2112 continues to misunderstand policy, BLP, Weight, and no consensus. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 16:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

First, there is no Barrett "CV" section in this article. Second, I am not trying to put this information in the lead, but rather place it in the bio section with the rest of his education and credentials. Third, both of you please AGF. Fourth, we have presented many secondary (i.e. third-party) sources. Instead of carrying on here and making comments about who misunderstands what, let's wait to hear from editors more experienced with the policies of concern. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

"his education and credentials" - that's a CV to me. By the way, a common sense argument to exclude would be that this is given more weight than e.g. the man's professional accomplishments such as the positions he has held (which are not mentioned anywhere). AvB ÷ talk 12:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You have not presented any third-party references. We cannot pretend we have third-party refrences. Thus, adding this bit of information is against BLP. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 17:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I have presented at least seven third-party references. If you have a specific BLP concern which you would like to have addressed, please take it to the BLP Noticeboard where we are awaiting comment from the contributing editors there. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You have supplied zero third-party references. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 17:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Then I am confused. Please define what a third-party reference is. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No matter what I say you will still assert you have third-party refs when you do not. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 19:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I already explained the sources (chiro refs) do not meet BLP standards. The primary type refs are not third-party. Additionally, you have to demonstrate the relevance and notability. You continue to avoid presenting any relevance or notability. Therefore, you cannot add this information to the article against policy. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 19:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

"Levine." "Levine." Where are the third-party references? Please provide your evidence or it is time for YOU to piperdown. End of discussion. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 23:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"Levine." Please respond to Guru's question by providing a list of third-party references (vanilla icing on the cake). :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 18:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"Levine." I hope you did not forget. We need third-party references first. No references = no information. It is about verifiable and not truth. Remember? _-Mr. ^o G-_02:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No. You have forgotten that I have provided you with several. You seem to think that the WCA is a reliable source at Chiropractic. See this edit. Curious evidence. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 08:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh, somebody is forgetting what an RS means. Next I think we will be using WCA over at say Helium because somebody seem to think that the WCA is a reliable source at Chiropractic. Maybe you should research what the expressions mean in the context of WP. Shot info 09:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

According to Levine2112: He has provided me with several. No. Not even one is a third-party reference. Levine2112 continues to REFUSE to provide any third-party references because he does not have any third-party references to meet BLP. The article on chiropratic is not a BLP article. Therefore, BLP does not apply. This shows Levine2112 does not understand policy and is confuses. "Levine." Please provide me with a list of third-party references that meet the BLP policy for my review. If you avoid or ignore my simple request it shows you do not have any third-party references. You have made your point and it is time for you to stop or provide me with a list of third-party references. Levine2112 seems to think BLP policy applies to articles that are not articles on a person.[28] Very odd. He got it backwards again. BLP is for any article on a person. Chiropratic is not a person. The declaration by Levine2112 is concrete evidence Levine2112 is still misunderstanding policy. Now then, provide me with a list of refs you claim you have. Thanx. _-Mr. ^o G-_ 16:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I find your comments very uncivil. My response here only feels like I am feeding the troll. Regardless, once again, here is a partial list of thrid-party sources all documents and verifying what Barrett himself has told us: That he is not Board Certified. Please make note of this list this time as this has to be the sixth or seventh time that I've posted it for you.

• Anti-chiropractic groups spreading ‘stroke’ lies online World Chiropractic Alliance
• Stephen Barrett Loses Major Defamation Trial in Hometown Dynamic Chiropractic
• Quackwatch Founder Stephen Barrett Loses Major Defamation Case in his own Hometown
• Examining the Truth By Terry S. Friedmann, MD, ABHM and Sabina DeVita, EdD, DNM, RNCP with Karen Boren PDF
• Wathing the Quacker By Terry S. Friedmann, MD, and Karen Boren PDF
• Dr. Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch Exposed In Court Cases Canadian Lyme Disease Foundation
• True Lies About Anti-Aging and Growth Hormone by Fintan Dunne for MyLongLife.com.

-- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

None of those sources are third-party references. The chiro refs are not third-party. The alternative medicine refs are not third-party. Barrett is a critic of chiros and alternative medicine. Detractors references are not third party references and thus fail to meet BLP policy. You have been repeatedly debunked. End of discussion. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 17:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you don't understand what a third-party source is then. It is different from a tertiary source. I think you must be confused. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

According to Levine2112: Detractor references are reliable third-party references. Nope. This is a joke. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 18:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That's odd becuase over at chiropractic you are trying to use the WCA (a detractor of the NACM) as a reliable source for the NACM. Hypocrisy? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That chiro article is not a person. Thus, BLP does not apply to that reform chiro sentence. This confirms your confusion in understanding policy. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 21:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

If a source is good for a subject matter then it is good. If it isn't, it isn't. You want to use a source from WCA to say something that the source doesn't say (that Reformers tend to be a part of the NACM). The WCA source doesn't say that at all. This is an invention. However, the WCA does confirm what Barrett has told us; that he isn't Board Certified. Do you doubt that this is true? Do you think Barrett is Board Certified? I don't see how you can. Yet, you put more stock in information without a source than you do in verified information. You are truly enigmatic. I hope you are full, because I am done feeding this troll. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

One more morsel to chew on: New York Buyers' Club: Disturbingly, he (Barrett) is also closely tied to the American Medical Association, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Food and Drug Administration, having testified on their behalf as an "expert" in psychiatry - although he is not Medical Board Certified. He has lost forty defamation lawsuits nationwide. Quackery, indeed! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yet another alternative medicine detractor website. Quackery indeed? :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 00:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. Have another look. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Barrett has criticized vitamins and their alternative medicine jargon.[29] Have a look yourself.[30] These are not (uninvolved) third-party references. Only detractor references have been presented which fail to meet BLP policy.  :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 01:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Levine continues to fail to produce any third-party sources. Therefore, it is against BLP policy and the spirit of Wikipedia. This has been repeatedly explained to Levine there are no third-party references. It has also been repeated to Levine he has not demonstrated any relevance or notability in accordance to meet BLP policy. Levine, you have made your point. Now stop. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 19:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, the 3rr does not apply to BLP violations. Ignoring policy and adding BLP violations against consensus and policy is incivil, disruptive, and is making a point. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 21:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Levine2112 has been summarily debunked and is UNABLE to provide even one third-party reference, ignores there are ZERO third-party refs, and yet continues to push beyond exhaustion when he very well knows this is against policy because there are NO third-party refs to satisfy BLP. Either his learning curve is very low (I doubt it) or he is intentially ignoring (more likely) there are NO third-party refs. Hmmm. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 20:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yoo hoo, I'm up here. "Levine." Please stop ignoring my comments and pretending we have third-party refs. Agreed? :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 23:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I am responding the the request for commnet in the medical section I was directed to above. My comment is that the fact that Dr. Barrett is not Baord Certified is relevant and non-trivial and belongs in a biographical article. It's inclusion is consistent with the various Wikipedia policies cited above. Three paragraphs on the subject would be too much. One or two or three lines would be appropriate. RalphLender^talk 17:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• I agree above!

Politics rule 12:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If it's that simple, it seems entirely reasonable to me. I note that there is a brief reference to this in the intro, which seems appropriate. --Marvin Diode 03:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

One of many arguments already provided (straight from WP:BLP): Material from primary sources should be used with great care. For example, public records that include personal details such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses, as well as trial transcripts and other court records, should not be used unless cited by a reliable secondary source. Where primary-source material has first been presented by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to turn to open records to augment the secondary source, subject to the no original research policy. See also Wikipedia:Verifiability. AvB ÷ talk 13:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

How do you highlight in the green you have here? Please take it to my talk page, thanks, ----CrohnieGal^Talk/_Contribs 19:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)