Talk:Stephen Barrett/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Pseudoskepticism

I think Pseudoskepticism is a valid link for several reasons: (1) This is an element of the criticism leveled at QWrs & Barrett by *many* critics including commercially uninvolved, substantial scientists (e.g. Kauffman, Pauling); (2) Barrett is reasonably a subject to be contrasted with the description of pseudoskepticism given the published analyses directly contradicting him (& QW), (3) the subject background may also reflect on QW/his critics.--I'clast 04:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Would be one of the only BLPs to link to it. Shot info 04:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
It would be the sole BLP linking to it, other than Marcello Truzzi. --Ronz 05:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Then maybe it would be good, and not bad, to link to it. I see nothing wrong with it. One can agree or disagree with its premise. It might be of interest to readers, though. Jance 06:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
If you have a reliable published source that calls Barrett a "pseudoskeptic," we can discuss its inclusion. Otherwise, it's original research. Jokestress 10:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I needs to be sourced well enough to withstand WP:BLP. --Ronz 16:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I will note that he does indeed claim to 'be' a sceptic, or at least base his writings in it: "He says that he bases his writings in consumer protection, medical ethics, and scientific skepticism. " Also, the article makes it plain that he is an outspoken critic of what he calls "junk science", and those he complains about criticize him. Why this is not enough to use an external link (not text in the article) is mystifying.Jance 01:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
While any 'comments in the article about pseudoskepticism certainly need sourcing, that source may include descriptions of something or actions rather than just verbatim vocabulary or phrasing, and can pertain to his writings, in degree thereof, rather than just labelling him. "See also" is about relatedness and interest to the average reader, not WP:V in the text. Don't sweat it too much, there are credentialed skeptics that question Barrett's skeptical essays & objectivity, Barrett obviously sponsors/supports openly acknowledged skeptical groups - which may disagree with other skeptics, and some sources clearly speak of pseudoskepticism. I found the Characteristics of Pseudoskeptics section is actually a good quick scorecard for checking any series of skeptical articles/authors (could expand PS article's WP presence), where QW etc are quite notable and controversial. Obviously two confident, conflicting skeptical points of view should want to present their scorecards and analyis for review by all third parties to ensure objectivity if they are to preserve their skeptical message, identity and stature, if not automatically do so even w/o the conflict part. Do you prefer discussion sentences or "see also"?--I'clast 01:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't follow Jance's comment. We're discussing the inclusion of a very controversial internal link, which is included in no other wiki BLP article (other than that of a single author that popularized the term). Use of the term is defamatory. Ironically, it appears to me that if you apply the term to someone, you are guilty of being a pseudoskeptic yourself. --Ronz 01:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Again, if I'clast or others have a published reliable source that calls Barrett a "pseudoskeptic," we are good to go. Otherwise, it's original research and POV which should not be included. Jokestress 01:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't know Wiki rules well enough, and will defer to Jokestress. However, Rontz, no - the use of the term is not defamatory. It would be considered opinion. And that was my point. Just as an aside...It amazes me that people are so willing to concede the decision-making as to who is and is not a quack to a self-appointed "quackbuster". No doubt many of these people/products are "quackery". On the other hand, where does he draw the line? What if he is wrong? How does he fix his mistake? How does he repair an individual's life or livelihood? I do not question his ability/qualifications to research or to write about his opinions generally. That, I think, is the red herring. The issue that is only implied in this article, is that one private person is attempting to usurp the power of traditional government functions in investigating and prosecuting fraud. In the US, individuals have rights as against governments. That is why we have a Bill of Rights. Dr. Barrett may find this a trivial point, but I do not think it is. Jance 03:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I think I've had more problems around here (QW/SB/NCAHF) with adverse (mis)quotations, constructions, and interpretations of basic WP policies with several editors than my combined edits elsewhere.
AFAIK, the only "see also" policy is Wikipedia:Guide to layout, "...Useful links that are not mentioned in the prose paragraphs can be added to the "see also" section near the end." "See also Put here, in a bulleted list, other articles in the Wikipedia that are related to this one ".--I'clast 05:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Probably, although your contribs to Glyconutrients is up there too (and you can add in Mercola too) :-). BTW, the link you propose is not useful. Several editors have told you so, and reverted it and explained why, yet here you are trying to suggest that it is. In the words of one I'clast "Why can't you let this go?"  ????  ;-) Shot info 06:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
You are totally ignoring my basic discussion points above (characteristics, writings vs the person, differences of textual policies vs "see also" guidelines) and making unfounded claims. You should recognize I haven't even started, I was pointing out & offering options. Re Glyconutrient & Mercola really had very little truly contested policy interpretation, just content resolution, policy education and in Glyconutrient, a real discussion finally driven by the neurologist (look up the repeated rebukes of the other, "mainstream" editor for serious attitude issues, I was looking for broader science vs just denouncing a dominant vendor).--I'clast
I'clast, I ignore your basic discussion points, because you keep appealing to (your) authority and ignoring others basic discussion point (other than what support your pushpov). Shot info 01:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
There is a similar controversy about the "See also" section in the Debunker article. I agree with I'clast in this debate. For this very controversial person, 7 out of 10 "See also" links are still "pro-Barrett". MaxPont 12:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I asked for any other policy guides that specifically referenced the "see also" as I did previously, no one else has provided any here. That's not an appeal to self-authority; scatter shot accusations are not needed. Given the pro-qw reasoning here "pseudoscience" should probably go too, in case someone gets mad, lest the subject be tainted with PS2.--I'clast 08:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we need some consensus before we add this in. It would be the single BLP entry linking to Pseudoskepticism, it also appears it would be at least fairly unique as a derogatory term in the See Also section of a BLP. Finally, see the final comments on the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pathological_skepticism discussion, where the result was to merge with Pseudoskepticism. --Ronz 18:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Since Barrett has been named one of the top twenty skeptics of the 20th century, the addition of a See also link to Pseudoskepticism is in the same category as adding the now deleted Quackery category, and the arguments for inclusion or exclusion are basically the same - they are editorial opinions not evident in the article, but added by editors who hold the opinion that the person is a pseudoskeptic. (The parallel isn't perfect, because even in articles where quackery was identified and sourced, the Quackery category was still not allowed by those promoting or protecting the quackery promoted by the article!)
No scientist, state or government anti-fraud organization, Consumer Reports (they all use him and are allied with him), or other person not involved in pseudoscientific endeavors would dream of labelling Barrett a pseudoskeptic, while just about any of his detractors would do so. It's a very POV label. Unsupported by very good sources (if it was it would be included in the article, and not as a See also link) it is a violation of BLP. If it is included in the article using very reliable sources, it could be included in the text, and the leanings (as pseudoscientists, quackboosters, producers of criticized products, whatever) of the source should also be listed to show why they call him such. -- Fyslee 20:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Sounds ok to me. I was not aware the criteria for an external link was the same as that in text. Jance 02:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually the criteria are different, but I wasn't talking about External links, only about the See also section. There are various types of links, all with different criteria, and when applied to BLP it gets an added dimension:
  • Embedded links (often as references)
  • Wikilinks to other articles
  • See also links (only links to other articles)
  • External links
  • Categories
-- Fyslee 23:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Again I do not think that pointing out the topic of "pseudoskepticism" is synonymous with labelling the author as a pseudoskeptic. Rather that some skeptics' (specific) writings may veer to various degrees into it is an occupational & reader hazard. That QW / SB don't have specific writings that exhibit a number of these characteristics is folly. Scientists Pauling (on others), Kauffman on QW/SB emphatically assert these points about conventional medicine itself and specific arguments presented in QW+. LP & KF seriously marshal technical data to support their arguments despite much misrepresentation in other circles. Pauling, dead 12+ yrs is even back at bat on cancer and (IV) vitamin C,[1][2] although few, including Pauling & Klenner, think that vit C is an effective monotherapy for cancer by itself except for a lucky fraction. Does QW or SB ever acknowledge this? That's at least one characteristic on the Characteristics of Pseudoskeptics list, a much needed critical guide (or warning) to maintain objective thought. Again, whither, pseudoscience, I don't see any cringing out there about someone(s) being pseudoscientists.--I'clast 08:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

ABOUT: SEE ALSO LINKS: Quoting from the Wikipedia:Guide to layout about the See also links:

“The "See also" section provides an additional list of internal links to other articles in the Wikipedia that are related to this one as a navigational aid, and it should ideally not repeat links already present in the article. Mostly, topics related to an article should be included within the text of the article as free links.”
“Useful links that are not mentioned in the prose paragraphs can be added to the "see also" section.”

A general comment about links is that they should be included if they provide:

“Major connections with the subject of another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully”

My interpretation is that the See also section should provide CONTEXT for the articles, which by the way is the impression I get from how the See also section is used in most other articles. I view the section as a pointer to related articles for the first time readers. Most editors of QW/Barrett/NCAHF are often visiting the Pseudoskepticism article. (Shouldn’t the first time readers be given that pointer too?) Note that it is OK (not ideal but acceptable) to add links in the See also section even if the link has appeared earlier.

If the restrictions in WP: BLP prevent the disputed link here, it can very well be added to the Quackwatch and Debunker article. MaxPont 09:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Defamation Lawsuits

Just after it is pointed out that Barrett has never been sued for libel except in one countersuit there appear these words: 'He explains, "I protect myself by not saying anything that isn't true."' This quotation is referenced, but it definitely does not add any fact not contained elsewhere in the article. Its use at this point introduces a pro Barrett bias. I propose that it should be removed. If you don't agree with this, just read and re read the relevant section and I think you'll see what I mean. One final comment. Dr Barrett is often discussed in a febrile atmosphere in which people get labelled 'pro' or 'anti'. Although Wikipedia is not a soap box, I do feel constrained to point out that I think that Stephen Barrett deserves more cheers than jeers, although he is clearly not perfect. I do hope he would not be offended by the latter comment. Robert2957 10:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is not a soap box. Barrett has undoubtedly exposed fraud and phony "treatments". As a lawyer, I am interested in his methods, more than the merits of any particular 'treatment'. That seems to also be the concern of at least one legislator. As to bias - I don't like that 'introductory' statement either. It sets a tone that is inappropriate. Jance 15:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
What legislator is that? -- Fyslee 20:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Dan Burton (R-IN), Chairman, Committee on Government Reform, has stated that it is not in the public interest for a health fraud watch group such as NCAHF to operate unrestrained and unendorsed by the government. (It is in the article on NCAHF). And, of course, Quackwatch has criticized him as "quackery's best friend in Congress". Well, maybe or maybe not - I don't know. I do know that he expressed some of the same concerns that the court in King Bio did. Jance 21:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Dan Burton --Ronz 21:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay and your point would be? Is the King Bio court similarly biased against Barrett, or in favor of questionable remedies/etc? This has nothing to do with this point. Nothing. The "Truth" of the quackery is not at issue. The method of going after it is.Jance 22:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
My point is just that he has an entry here, he's obviously notable, and we certainly want to link his name. --Ronz 22:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Then wikify it.  ;-) Jance 23:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspected as much. Maybe you should check out why he is considered by many (not just Barrett) to be quackery's best friend. I would say he makes Hulda Clark look good, but they are in different ball parks. His huge influence makes him more dangerous. There is practically no form of quackery, including the most dangerous, which he doesn't believe and support.

Happy reading! -- Fyslee 22:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


Fyslee, I think you missed my point. My point is not whether Burton is right or wrong. It is not whether or not he is "quackery's best friend". My point is whether or not a private individual should have governmental powers. And I believe that was the court's point, as well. It appeared to be Burton's point. Whether or not he is biased, I don't know or care. About all I know is that he is R-In. Jance 22:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

My reply was delayed by the time it took to prepare it, and then a couple edit conflicts. I do see your point, and have seen it several times, but haven't addressed it. I understand your consternation over the King Bio thing, which was not Barrett's case, but the lawyer's who got him involved. The lawyer made the mistake, and Barrett probably mistakenly assumed that medical ethics and scientific logic were allowable, when they clearly are not in a court. It's a different situation, and we both agree on that matter. I do fear you are engaging in a bit of hyperbole when you attribute such vast powers to a man and organization when they are just exercising their right to free speech and right to criticize and expose unethical and illegal behavior. Barrett cooperates with Consumer Reports, and follows the same methodology, and criticizes in the same manner. Consumer Reports is a private organization. They even lost a case when the goofed. The same could happen to Barrett if he goofed. If you check out the actual cases, there have been very few court cases. Most of the work is written critiques, which can also be found written by others in newspapers and journals. Are they also guilty of usurping governmental powers? No, free speech is a right we all have. When done honestly, without competitive motives or attempts to hurt innocent people, it is not only proper, it is a part of the duty of medical providers to fulfill their obligations to protect patients. He's a doctor and is still concerned about protecting people from unscrupulous or ignorant snake oil merchants and promoters of pseudoscientific ideas. It comes with the territory and is something governments are very poor at doing. They leave huge cracks where the quacks work unhindered, and Barrett specializes in ferretting them out of those cracks. -- Fyslee 23:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Fyslee, what you are saying about scientific logic & ethics not being admissible is utter bull. The requirements for expert testimony are requirements for a reason.
I agree that the lawyer did not represent him well. However, it is my understanding that Barrett agrees that the defendant should have to prove he is 'innocent' - eg have to prove in court, after he has been sued, that he has not done what plaintiff has claimed. Please correct me if I iam wrong, but isn't part of the 'role' of NCAHF to sue "quacks" in court over various things....Is that correct? That seems to be more than "free speech" and more than what Consumer Reports does. Also, I don't believe that Consumer Reports attack individuals, do they? I don't know, actually. Of course they are entitled to do so, as long as such speech is not defamatory, but is it wise? That's a different question. What they are not entitled to do is to abuse the legal system and assert prosecutorial powers and shift the burden of proof in a court of law. If Barrett or NCAHF do not do this, then I stand corrected.Jance 23:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me for not writing more clearly. In science and skepticism, it is the logical requirement that the one making an unusual claim has the burden of proof. That is not the case in a court of law.
The lawyer (who is not Barrett's or the NCAHF's lawyer) got them in trouble. It was his idea, and they went with it, and that was a mistake. To my knowledge the King Bio case is the only case where this type of blundering strategy has been used. The NCAHF and Barrett don't usually operate that way, which is why I feel you are judging them harshly for one mistake, instigated by a lawyer who got them involved. While there are occasions where Barrett has reported frauds and dangerous quacks to the authorities and has acted as an expert witness, it's not a common occurence for him, and it is the authorities who are doing the prosecuting, not him. All citizens have a duty to report crime. That is not wrong.
His normal mode of action is critical writing, which is an activity he shares with myriad others, including many journalists. Are they all doing wrong? As long as there is no defamation taking place, alls as it should be and the ones criticized have a right to debunk the charges. What is special in these cases is that the quacks (practically) never do so. They are in the wrong ethically, morally, scientifically, and often legally, and thus they lack legitimate responses. So they respond by using straw man diversions and ad hominem attacks. That's why Barrett gets back something entirely different than he gives out. He engages in typical scientific debate, and scientists would respond by producing evidence, but quacks react like street thugs - they libel him and attack him personally. It's very unfair and improper, and should not be defended. They simply to not respond in kind. -- Fyslee 00:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Fyslee, maybe you are right. I know that this attorney somehow approached NCAHF. And, I suspect that Dr. Barrett was thinking like a medical doctor, and not a lawyer. I do not know how common or rare this is. However, it was astonishing and alarming. But we don't need to belabor this. I don't see the article focusing on this point. Jance 03:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Restatement of my question

I have attempted to start a discussion about removing a sentence from the Barrett article and everone else has gone off at a tangent. So I will restate it: Just after it is pointed out that Barrett has never been sued for libel except in one countersuit there appear these words: 'He explains, "I protect myself by not saying anything that isn't true."' This quotation is referenced, but it definitely does not add any fact not contained elsewhere in the article. Its use at this point introduces a pro Barrett bias. I propose that it should be removed. If you don't agree with this, just read and re read the relevant section and I think you'll see what I mean. One final comment. Dr Barrett is often discussed in a febrile atmosphere in which people get labelled 'pro' or 'anti'. Although Wikipedia is not a soapbox, I do feel constrained to point out that I think that Stephen Barrett deserves more cheers than jeers, although he is clearly not perfect. I do hope he would not be offended by the latter comment. Robert2957 03:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Robert, I fear you misunderstand the nature of biographical articles and NPOV. The subect of the article is allowed to be quoted, including defending themselves, and including with a bias, AS LONG AS it is clear that it is their POV, and not editorializing by editors who introduce their POV. BLP rules favor the subject, and thus tip the balance in favor of the subject of the article. Positive stuff can be sourced as normally required, while negative stuff must be extremely well sourced or it gets deleted. -- Fyslee 23:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I do not think we have to defend our edits, however, as far as our position. I know I have done this also. I wonder why? Jance 03:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I am tempted, whilst everyone else is chasing Dan Burton in the rugby scrum, to go ahead and remove the offending sentence from the article. But I have learned the importance of proceeding by consensus. Still, I am tempted to be bloody bold and resolute, laugh to scorn the power of other Wikipedia editors and say: "Out! damned sentence" Robert2957 09:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

That is hysterical. Go for it.Jance 09:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
The sentence is not "offending" in any sense but to you. According to the principles I mention above, it should stay. -- Fyslee 23:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
To whom? I wonder if the way or place it is presented may be offensive? Is there another way to say this, or maybe a better location?Jance 01:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Leaving on one side the question of bias, what does this sentence : 'He explains, "I protect myself by not saying anything that isn't true."', add to the article? How would the article be worse for its removal? Robert2957 08:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It is part of a quote from a biographical article that presents content and context to the way Barrett has avoided getting sued for libel. Avoiding such suits doesn't occur in a vacuum, especially considering the amount of criticism he directs at various practices and practitioners who would love to sue him, but can't. There is a specific reason for that, which is because of Barrett's deliberate strategy in how he words his criticisms (that's why the sentence is important). He words them carefully, specifically, and documents them. The only weapon left for those criticized is the one that fits their often unethical mental status -- the desperate street thug tactics of personal attacks and libel. Their true colors come shining through when they are exposed. IOW, when it is pointed out that "the emperor has no clothes," they retaliate by blinding (lie to their followers) all who look at them and attack those (Barrett) who criticize and expose their nakedness, instead of doing the right thing -- putting on some clothes (ceasing their improper actions). -- Fyslee 15:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Wait, Fyslee, just a second. Is this like saying "The United States has not been attacked since 9/11 because of the wonderful job George Bush is doing"?? Whether you like Bush or not, this is an absurd statement.Jance 21:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're talking about. -- Fyslee 00:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
It is a speculative, potentially self-serving statement that represents one possiblity from a list of possibilities (he knows all the specific reasons why other people don't sue? most people don't sue). Not encyclopedic.--I'clast 23:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I removed that sentence, but left the factual statement that Barrett has never been sued except for the one counter-claim. This should satisfy. I hope the quote is a direct quote from the book. Someone should verify that.Jance 00:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
He was just sued in the last couple of weeks. Also, with NCAHF having no apparent legal corporate status for 3 1/2 years, they could (conveniently) not be sued. Ilena 17:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
You have halved the quote from the biographical article, and thus removed the basis for the whole reasoning of the introduction to the section. Now the introduction has no teeth or logic. The removal wasn't a consensus either. -- Fyslee 00:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
From what I can see here, there was 3-1 consensus. If you disagree, then let's discuss it. I do not think the intro with the quote that nobody has sued him is illogical. This is a statement of fact. I was not aware that "having teeth" was what editors should do on Wikiedia. Barrett's statement that he has not been sued because he is truthful is illogical. Barrett may believe that. It may or may not be true. But it doesn't make sense as it is situated here, because it conveys an implication that is not logical. I had not given it much thought until Robert brought it up, but I think he is correct. If you would like me to revert it back, until we have more input, that is fine. (Done).Jance 00:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the paragraph reads better from a content POV with the "offending" sentence removed. I also think that from a formatting view, the entire paragraph could flow better without the bulletting and consolidating the two concepts.
  • Barrett's public denouncement of "alternative" health practitioners has resulted in an equally vehement backlash, specifically on the internet. In a biographical article about Barrett, Fred D. Baldwin wrote, "Despite Barrett's pattern of naming names of people as well as products, he has never been sued for libel, except for a counter-suit to a libel suit he once filed (the counter-suit was dismissed).[1]
While the statement about "truth" does add interest, it adds an element of opinion that distracts from the fact that he has never been sued.
--Dematt 04:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
It seems we do have a consensus now. I will change it.Jance 18:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

References

Using "Quackwatch" as a source is fine for some things. However, I do not think it is appropriate to cite to the subject's own website as a source for the awards he has received. That is bad form. It is also unnecessary, when we have sources for the awards mentioned. In fact, I found two of the sources, rather than deleting the awards. Jance 00:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfactual information removed

There was a false statement that Barrett had not appealed his loss to Rosenthal in Barrett Vs Rosenthal at the appellate level. In fact, his petition for rehearing was denied. I have fixed this inaccuracy as to the court record [3]Ilena 04:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


Expert witness ?

In the Stephen Barett article we read: He or NCAHF has initiated a number of lawsuits against those engaged in what he considers unscientific medical practices. He has also offered testimony as an expert witness on psychiatry, FDA regulatory issues, and homeopathy and other areas of "alternative medicine." (An "expert witness" is a legal definition, and qualification sometimes requires specialized education or experience in the particular matter that is before the court.)

A California court dismissed a lawsuit filed by Barrett's organization NCAHF that accused a homeopathic pharmaceutical company (defendant) of "false advertising" and "unfair business practices."[24] Plaintiffs presented no evidence, apart from the testimony of two expert witnesses, to prove any of the elements of their claims.[25] The court stated that by law, the testimony of both witnesses (Barrett and another member of the board of NCAHF) should be given little weight, because neither witness was qualified to testify as an expert on the issues raised. Plaintiffs mistakenly argued that the burden of proof should be on the defendant to prove that its products were safe. The court further stated that both witnesses were "zealous advocates" rather than "neutral or dispassionate witnesses or experts". Id.'''''

I find this confusing. If the debacle mentioned in the second paragraph was the one and only time he had ever offered expert witness testimony on homeopathy, then it is misleading to say in the first paragraph that He has also offered testimony as an expert witness on ... homeopathy .... If it was the only time his evidence as an expert witness in relation to homeopathy had ever been rejected then this should be made clear. In fact, whether he has offered testimony as an expert witness tells us nothing unless it can also be verified that when he did so his status as an expert witness was accepted by the court. I think this section should be pulled until it can be made clear on how many occasions and in relation to what areas his evidence has been so accepted, and by how many courts it has been rejected. robert2957 09:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Because of the febrile partisan atmosphere of this discussion page, I do feel constrained to point out that I have no involvement in homeopathy either as consumer or practitioner. I work as a mathematics tutor. robert2957 09:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that this section should be pulled. It represents an important criticism of Barrett/ NCAHF. I think the NCAHF mission includes going after those it considers quacks, and this includes legal action - do you need a reference for that? And, if that is not the case or if this is the only time Barrett/NCAHF has done this, then this should be removed. It is my understanding that it is not the situation And, this particular case does represent one complaint some have of Barrett, in the words of a court. By the way, I have no involvement in homeopathy either, as a consumer or practitioner. In fact, I don't think much of most 'alternative' medicine. I am an attorney, but have an undergrad degree in electrical engineering/math. And as an attorney, I do not represent, or sue alternative med practitioners. Jance 23:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


I only said that it should be pulled until it can be made clear on how many occasions and in relation to what areas SB has been accepted as an expert witness. What do others think ? robert2957 02:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. This is a court case, and a valid and relevant (notable) source. I know of at least one other case, from 'googling' - there, it appears that a similar false advertising case was brought, but there may have been more evidence, since Aroma Vera Inc. seems to have at least partially lost in the trial court. I am not going to look at the NCAHF website tonight, but will. Regardless, this is sufficient for this paragraph in the criticism. The issue is the use of courts by a private person litigating "quackery." I have no problem using this other case as an example of where NCAHF 'won'. However, there is no doubt that there has been more than one lawsuit. Jance 02:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not Dr. Barrett has offered expert testimony is of no interest. What is of interest is to note those occasions on which a court has accepted him as an expert witness and those on which a court has rejected him as such. Anyone can offer expert testimony or be presented as an expert witness. The article in its present form is unsatisfactory for the reasons I point out above. robert2957 08:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You do not understand the case. Or, you have not read it. Dr. Barrett testified and the court said his testimony was to be accorded "little weight" because he lacked the qualifications on the issues raised and he lacked objectivity. The only way to describe it was a 'sharp rebuke'. Are you an attorney? The section is not unsatisfactory. I'm sorry you disagree, but it stays, unless there is a consensus otherwise. Jance 17:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not talking about one particular case. I am objecting to the fact that the SB article states that,

"He has also offered testimony as an expert witness on psychiatry, FDA regulatory issues, and homeopathy and other areas of "alternative medicine." (An "expert witness" is a legal definition, and qualification sometimes requires specialized education or experience in the particular matter that is before the court.)"

This material should not be included unless it can be shown that he has been accepted as an expert witness by the courts in question. robert2957 18:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


I propose that the following paraphrase of the definition of "expert witness" as given in the Wikipedia rather than just the internal link be included in the text at this point.

An expert witness is a witness, who ... is believed to have special knowledge of his subject beyond that of the average person, sufficient that others may officially (and legally) rely upon his opinion.

It should then be made clear whether and if so when Dr Barrett's evidence has been accepted by a court as that of an expert witness. All we know at the moment it that he has offered such evidence in the list of matters referred to in the article and that it was rejected as such in the King Bio case. robert2957 18:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No. The case is accurate as described. Please read the appellate case; and you can read the trial opinion via Quackpotwatch, or pull the case yourself from the citation. Both the trial court and the appellate court were very clear about what occurred. This paragraph is contained within the section called 'criticism'. I do not believe that I have ever seen a more pointed and more critical opinion by a court. The direct quotes provided encapsulate the essence of the criticism. However, if you want to add cases where he has been accepted as an expert witness, be my guest. Finally, the wikifying to 'expert witness' is more than adequate. I regard any attempt to delete the quotes and this paragraph as unacceptable bias. I am not a Barrett-hater. I also see the importance of providing relevant criticism - especially when by a court. In my opinion, this criticism is more potent than any by those whom Barrett crticizes.Jance 06:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not talking about one particular case, as I say above. robert2957 11:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the sentence about "expert witness" in the intro. It was very clear in the court that he did testify in the plaintiff's case-in-chief. It is equally clear that his testimony was deemed (go back to quote). For you to belabor this is pointless, in my opinion. I did delete the sentence about "expert witness". The court referred to this as "expert" testimony but was not clear whether it ever formally accepted him as an 'expert' witness. We can remove that portion of it. YEs, there is a distinction between being certified or qualified as an expert v. testifying about something based on one's own knowledge- evidently, in this case, it is a distinction wtihout a difference, since the court refers to it as 'expert' testimony, Barrett did testify, but there is no information as to where or when the court qualifed him as an expert (and indeed, the court did not consider him an expert on the matters before the court). I can change that introductory paragraph although it accurately depicts the purpose of his testimony... Jance 13:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Revision Of The Lead ?

In the first paragraph of the Stephen Barrett article it says : "He says that he bases his writings in consumer protection, medical ethics, and scientific skepticism." Should this basic introductory paragraph also contain the fact that he describes himself as an expert in medical communications? This is a very prominent part of the way he presents himself to the public. It appears under the heading Stephen Barrett, M.D., Biographical Sketch to which you are directed on the home page of Quackwatch. robert2957 14:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Does that link work? It did not for me. Jance 03:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Board Certification And Licensing Again

In view of the fact that defamatory information, which is unfair to Dr. Barrett, about the status of his licence to practice medicine is all over the internet should the Wikipedia article should state something like this: "Dr. Barrett voluntarily relinquished his licence to practise medicine and retired. [citation needed] This is not the same as being delicensed [citation needed]. He was never board certified as a psychiatrist because he failed an exam [citation needed]. 2/3 of the psychiatrists of his time were not board certified [citation needed]. "

By the way, as an Englishman, I didn't understand what board certification meant. For those who may not know what it means and why it may be important, Dr. Barrett explains this [http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/QA/board.html here. He also provides guidance on the matter of checking whether a particular board is genuine. For those who may wish to know whether their own physician is board certified, Dr. Barrett provides a weblink on the home page of Quackwatch to an organisation known as Healthgrades. robert2957 12:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Barrett retired. "Voluntary relinquishment" still sounds like a disciplinary action, which to my knowledge did not occur. Doctors retire all the time. He probably let his license lapse, which is often the case.Jance 15:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


Dear Jance, It simply did not occur to me that "voluntary relinquishmet" might have any pejorative connotation. I certainly wouldn't have intended any. Thank you for your reply. robert2957 15:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem, Robert. Board certification is pretty important today, but it may not have been years ago. I still contend that is irrelevant to this article. Jance 16:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Jance, Thank you for your reply. I feel that the whole question of board certification/delicensing etc should be cleared up in the article. Someone surfing the internet will find some quite disgraceful rubbish about Dr Barrett being delicensed. People will want to know the truth, and the Wilkipedia s the place to which they will go to find the answer. I do not believe board certification to be irrelevant to the article if it is placed in its proper context in the way I suggest, but I do take your point. robert2957 16:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

For the thousands of targets of Barrett, many, many far more qualified and degreed and licensed than he, it is extremely notable that he flunked his boards in the 60's and refused to retake them. This is a patient protection. He had the 60's, 70's, 80's and early 90's ... 4 different decades to do so. With no board over him, it was less scrutiny to the 'watcher.' He operates CredentialWatch and has spent years investigating and attacking others licenses and credentials. That makes it extremely notable that he never passed any boards. When he gave up his license, although he still pontificates and sues and calls himself an "expert" on things he has no education in, there went any checks and balances over him by State or Med Boards. Thank you. Ilena 16:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
interesting article on the high percentage of Psychiatrists who can pass the Board and do. [4]Ilena 16:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I guess we can agree to disagree. The point is that very little of his writing is related to psychiatry. So I do not see the relevance.Jance 01:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Footnote 17

I am trying to get the title to footnote 17 to read as it should : 'Doctor Who ?' 'Diagnosing Medical Fraud May Require a Second Opinion' but I can't. Can anyone help ? Thank you. robert2957 15:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I have fixed it. -- Fyslee 09:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Zealous Advocates ?

I am puzzled by the account of the King Bio case under the heading Qualifications and Objectivity. It is stated that the court found that Barret and his co plaintiff were : "zealous advocates" rather than "neutral or dispassionate witnesses or experts" yet when I clicked on the [weblink] in the associated footnote I couldn't find either of these two phrases in the court report. What I did find was : The trial court concluded NCAHF failed to prove a false or misleading statement. King Bio's expert testified the products were safe and effective. The products were included in the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia and complied with FDA guidelines. NCAHF presented no evidence that King Bio's products were not safe and effective, relying instead on a general attack on homeopathy, made by witnesses who had no knowledge of, or experience with, King Bio's products, and who were found to be biased and unworthy of credibility. So could we have a good source for the quotations "zealous advocates" etc. And if one cannot be found, should not reference to these quotations be excised, perhaps to be replaced by the passage I quote ? robert2957 18:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It used to be worse, but after a discussion here it was changed to "zealous advocates" which is verifiable. Look back in the archives a bit. Dunno how or why we lost the ref. --Ronz 19:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ronz, Thank you for your response. I do think that if the quotations "zealous advocates" rather than "neutral or dispassionate witnesses or experts" is to be attributed to a court then a footnote which does not fail to source it should be supplied. The present situation does not seem to be satisfactory. robert2957 19:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Found it in NCAHF talk [5]. It's from the following ref: Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Case No. BC245271. --Ronz 20:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we shouldn't quote "zealous advocates" if, as I understand, it has legal meaning that most readers wouldn't know. A description might be better then. Jance? --Ronz 20:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ronz, Thank you for getting back to me on this. It still seems we need a new footnote in the Stephen Barrett article to give a source for the quoted words. And/or perhaps to add in some of the text I quote since the existing footnote has a link which points to a source. The footnote on this in the article entitled[The National Council Against Health Fraud] does source these words, but it comes from [here] on the quackpotwatch website. It is the source refrerred to in the discussion which you mention. Should we not try to get a direct authority for them from the actual court documents if they are to feature in the Wikipedia ? robert2957 20:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't there some agreement recently about trying to reduce or elimate reference to quackpotwatch? Probably why it was removed. I'd like to hear from Jance or someone else with legal expertise concerning the legal meaning. --Ronz 20:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ronz, Once again I appreciate your assistance. I'm afraid I've been away from SB/Quackwatch editing for a few weeks. At the moment, we have a footnote in the NCAHF article leading to quackpotwatch which sources the quotations in the NCAHF article, and a footnote in the Stephen Barrett article which fails to back up what the article says. Is this satisfactory ? Perhaps we should add in some of the text I quote since the existing footnote has a link which points to a source. One further observation. I think that where it is said in the Stephen Barrett article that a legal action was dismissed or withdrawn a brief explanation should be give as to why in that article if the information is in the public domain. Without such explanations one is just left wondering why. What do people think ? robert2957 20:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi all. I am not sure where to start... Here goes.. First, "zealous advocate" has no special legal meaning. However, it was used by the court in context with the need for neutrality of expert witnesses. The source for that is supplied, as a citation of the court opinion. The confusion may be my use of Id. Fyslee helped me with that, because I was unsure how to reference the prior citation in a Wiki article. In a legal brief, Id is used to reference 'the same as the previous citation'. Perhaps I need to change that to the style of reference Wiki uses. To my knowledge, there is not a hotlink, because trial court decisions are not usually pubished in reporters. The use of a citation is a perfectly acceptable Wikipedia reference. Quackpotwatch was the original 'source' for that, and that was questionable. While I think perhaps 'Quackpotwatch' may be an external link, given the nature of the article, it is not appropriate as a reference. That was why I removed it, in favor of the citation. Anyone can pull the case by that citation. Finally, the court case (King Bio) was dismissed - a 'directed verdict', or a 'non-suit' after the plaintiff presented his case. This means that the court did not wait for the defense to present his "case-in-chief", because there was not sufficient evidence presented by plaintiffs to continue the case, as a matter of law. The trial court was very critical of the plaintiffs in this case, and their attempt to shift the burden of proof to the defendant (King Bio). This is why it is in the section it is in. The court's opinion is most certainly notable, as it relates to both objectivity and qualification. In that case, the court said that Dr. Barrett was not qualifed to testify on the issues before the court (specifically regarding false advertising & unfair business practices re FDA regulation & homeopathy). This does not mean that Dr. Barrett is not a qualified medical doctor. It does mean the court criticized his role in this case, as an expert in the claim brought. From what I have 'heard' and read, it sounds like the attorney approached the plaintiff, and not the other way around. And, arguably NCAHF's counsel did not provide very good representation. But we have no facts to make these claims. And, of course, the plaintiff did bring the case as it did. For that reason, the case description belongs where it is. (It is notable, and presents a criticism regarding Dr. Barrett or affiliated organizations bringing lawsuits and testifying as experts in these matters. It doesn't mean that they couldn't bring a claim under CA statute, had they presented testimony to prove their case - they cannot, however, shift the burden of proof onto the defendant. Does this help? Jance 21:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

We still have not resolved the question. Are we going to put the link to the quackpotwatch version of the case at the bottom to soucre the

"zealous advocates" rather than "neutral or dispassionate witnesses or experts"

quotations or are we going to put into the text the following:

"The trial court concluded NCAHF failed to prove a false or misleading statement. King Bio's expert testified the products were safe and effective. The products were included in the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia and complied with FDA guidelines. NCAHF presented no evidence that King Bio's products were not safe and effective, relying instead on a general attack on homeopathy, made by witnesses who had no knowledge of, or experience with, King Bio's products, and who were found to be biased and unworthy of credibility." or a combination of paraphrase and partial quotation from it? robert2957 18:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The quotes I provided are direct quotes from the CA Superior Court case. That case is referenced as a citation. I personally would not include the Quackpotwach site as a reference. It is perfectly acceptable in Wikipedia to reference the case citation. That is what I did. A hotlink is not required. I had originally deleted the Quackpotwatch site as a reference. If you read the history of this talk page, you will see where this question has been asked and answered, so to speak. I also said I would try to pull and scan the case. I will try to do that, but cannot do it today. And indeed, it is not required. You quoted the appellate court case, here. In my mind, this question is resolved. The trial court names the two witnesses, and one was Dr. Barrett. This is the reason this section is here. An NPOV article should be just that - NPOV. Something as noteworthy as this case needs to be addressed. The place to address it is under "criticism". The way to address it is exactly as I did. There should be no other paraphrasing. The paragraph as written is not biased, and it encapulates the issue succinctly and accurately. Jance 22:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Defamation lawsuits

In response to I'clast's edit summary:

need cite, but it is a balancing counterpoint & quote in paragraph, Barrett's extensive defamation claims v at least one SC rejected

Thanks for at least separating it out from Barrett's own comments. However, I disagree. It's no "balancing counterpoint" and there's no need for a "balancing counterpoint". The appropriate place for it is in the Barrett v. Rosenthal section, but we've already agreed it doesnt belong there. Perhaps it belongs in Barrett v. Rosenthal. --Ronz 20:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

?? Jance 23:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Fyslee has removed the edits in question, pointing out that they are extraneous. --Ronz 23:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Fyslee said the sentences are duplicative, after moving it into close range with the individual trial coverages, then deleting. The problem is that the section's introduction is unbalanced in the quote department (pro-Barrett: "never been sued..." & "* "None...are thin-skinned...To defend ourselves,..." w/o *any* balancing quote when he's gone down in flames multiple times in court. The SC quote seemed an appropriate balance.--I'clast 02:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
And the two paragraphs make absolutely no sense together. This section obviously needs work when nonsensical edits are justified as "balancing counterpoint". --Ronz 16:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Do other editors think the Defamation lawsuits section before Barrett v. Mercola makes sense? --Ronz 16:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
No. It seems out of place. Also, this statement does not properly represent the case. This makes it sound like the court ruled on the Barrett statements, which Barrett did not appeal from the lower court. This one sentence by the court is dicta. To mention this twice, and once in an intro paragraph stating the court 'reaffirmed' this, is very misleading. Jance 18:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This would widen a pro-Barrett misrepresentation in the section's introductory text to two major factors: (1) this introduction already fails to convey the scale of Barrett's legal operations "approximately 40" lawsuits over several years which is shocking to the average American and (2) removal of any substantial stmt about dramatically prevailing counterparties and the lack of his success in the courtroom in the paragragh after a one-sided (self) justifications favoring Barrett. Ilena complained about continual inversion and rewriting of the historical record in this area, this seems a good example.--I'clast 22:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If there are approximatey 40 lawsuits over several years, it should be stated in the introductory section. Also, were those lawsuits all filed by Barrett? Were they defamation cases? This is what would be notable in the intro. Not a single case that is then misrepresented in the intro.Jance 01:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I'clast, it's not pro- or anti-Barrett to want the section to make sense. Can you stick to the topic at hand? --Ronz 02:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I was responding to l'clast. The intro paragraph is the topic at hand. If Barrett filed 40 defamation lawsuits, then yes, it would be worth mentioning in this paragraph. The statement abotu B v. R is not. It does not fit, because it does not make sense there. It also is a misrepresentation of the case.Jance 02:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I was responding to him as well. Sorry it was unclear. I hate using an editors name, but I guess I should when there's already a reply. --Ronz 02:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok. He was not off topic. The topic is that paragraph. The sentence you and I agree should go, for the reasons stated.Jance
The paragraphs most refer to Barret-Clark/Bolen and now flows into them, which then implies BvR. The section focuses on SB claims of defamation, the SB claims with some indicator of results. We do not need to represent this stmt[6] as BvR in all its legal precedence and CDA basis, but rather simply that SB alleged defamation again, struck out in first instance on defamation and in the opinion of a SC Justice on the specific topic of defamation, not the prime SC law question. That's all. Very encyclopedic at SB on defamation and a different angle than the BvR article's focus. Without a statement like this, right there, I think that most readers will miscue on the defamation trial results as being strongly in favor of Dr Barrett, when they aren't.--I'clast 12:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok.Jance 01:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Ilena objectivity

There is a lot of precedent that people directly involved with a person should not be editing related articles. I am formerly asking Ilena (talk · contribs) to stop editing Barrett related articles. Your edits are not improving this article but instead being used to forward your OWN agenda. Please do not bring your arguments with Barrett into the wikipedia domain, but please do use your energy to edit other articles in wikipedia where your edits will be less contention and more constructive. I hope you can see this is a sensible step forward. David D. (Talk) 21:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry David. Please tell me how Barrett should be allowed to restate his case and claim libel, even after the Supreme Court of California has ruled on it against him. I also do not understand how those with one link away from every website of Barrett's empire, can post his links all over Wikipedia, but I am not allowed any links to my legal non profit foundation. I disagree that I bring nothing of value to the discussions of Barrett. For example, in June I tried to post that his NCAHF had been suspended for several years, but was blocked and it reverted as it his operation was legal. Now, after much ado, the article is less POV and more balanced. Also, there was a clear error in regards to Barrett Vs Rosenthal regarding Barrett's appeals that I corrected yesterday. No one else would have known this and this unfactual / unverified point would have been left on. I am further confused as to why there are Wiki articles filled with Barrett's viewpoint as a critic, even after courts have ruled him to be "biased and unworthy of credibility." I could name 20 articles that sound more like Quackwatch (which in itself is an attack site against those he deems worthy of defamation) than anything encyclopedic. I am a serious health advocate and activist with a support group of several thousand of women, run a legal non profit foundation, and have been a target of Barrett's for years. I am not the only activist who has been successful in defending myself against his meritless SLAPP suits. However, I am outnumbered here, as those in his operation, seem to have a full time job defending his articles. Thank you. 21:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilena (talk • contribs)
There are pleny of editors here who are writing the article from your perspective. In the past there have been good, productive discussions that have involved editors from all perspectives being considered. For this reason I am confident that this article will never become and advert for Barrett or Quackwatch. Let others fight your battles and move onto greener fields. That is how it should be done in wikipedia. David D. (Talk) 22:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, few have the knowledge that I do having to defend myself from his team on many, many, many fronts. I don't know if you realize that I came to Wikipedia last month because the article on Barrett Vs Rosenthal was unrecognizable. One example, it is being claimed that Barrett has never been sued as if this were a verifiable fact. It's not. He's been sued in the last month. Also, with no apparent legal corporation behind his NCAHF for several years, NCAHF could not get served/sued. During this time, it was being claimed on Wikipedia that NCAHF was a legal California corporation and any edits to link to the State files would get immediately reverted to claim it was. Thank you. Ilena 22:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
So write to Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) and complain about the inaccuracies in the article about yourself. He takes this sort of thing seriously. But two wrongs don't make a right and what you are doing here is actively discouraged by wikipedia. David D. (Talk) 22:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Excellent. Thank you. Ilena 22:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
We really do have an inherent bipolar problem here (who else really knows the details?). I think that it is fundamental to this article, similar to lawyers' adversarial process between two sides for the truth to emerge, with more restraints available & expected. I think that Ilena would be more effective if she could try to keep her edits to one edit per am or pm in a section, giving other editors more time to get around to examine these matters and try to make sense out of the various views (it would also help Ilena focus on her phrasing *and* be less cyclically abrasive to the other pole). Likewise some of her counterparties could sometimes be a little less provocatively critical of her attempts to identify & deal with issues and a little less exploitive on their knowledge of the rules with her. IMHO, Ilena has a valid point about some pro-Barrett biases dominating here and she does pick up biases that I (and probably the others) couldn't even identify.--I'clast 02:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. More importantly, by your ignoring the behavioral problems here while making accusations of bias, you only escalate the problem. --Ronz 02:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I am not ignoring the problems, rather trying to work through them as fast as possible where I personally have time and awareness limits. I think that a clean job will let Ilena lose interest here, us too. This is simply not an easy place to be with disparate b/g & interests. Ilena is not the only pov here, just less Wiki skilled, drilled & committed. We are also dancing with active BLPs. So I grit my teeth and try to help mediate, educate, advocate & conclude for a better article.--I'clast 03:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Wise words and it worked before. Specifically I remeber we nailed the Kaufman section which has been stable since. I admit it is hard work. Best strategy is to remember you are typing to a human being. i know it sounds corny, but if we were doing this in real life i am sure the arguments would be fierce but polite. I am sure we would respect each others ideas more. David D. (Talk) 03:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
You did not sit in the condominium board meeting I did today.  ;-) Jance 03:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone object to immediately archiving this section? --Ronz 02:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do. We're not yet done here.--I'clast 02:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Not a problem --Ronz 02:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Barrett v. Mercola

Current version:

Barrett v. Mercola
  • In July, 2001, Barrett refiled a lawsuit in Illinois against Joseph Mercola.[2] On April 17, 2003 the suit was dismissed by mutual agreement (settlements are not generally public knowledge.).[3]

We have been over this ground before with previous editors, but now other editors are participating and some things need to be discussed again.

The phrase "(settlements are not generally public knowledge.)" is true enough, but in this case part of the settlement has been public knowledge since the case was dismissed by Barrett, after he got what he wanted from Mercola -- a retraction of the likely defamatory statements and a relatively small economic compensation, in relation to what Mercola stood to lose if he didn't settle out of court -- the judge was clear about the possibility that Barrett had a chance of winning (judge's words at end of paragraph below):

  • In October 2000, I filed suit in Pennsylvania against an osteopathic physician in Illinois who had republished one of Bolen's messages and added some thoughts of his own. Bolen's message had falsely claimed that I (a) was "de-licensed," (b) had committed extortion, and (c) had been disqualified as an expert in a malpractice suit. After the doctor contested the suit on jurisdictional grounds, I withdrew it and refiled in Illinois [10]. In March 2002, the Illinois judge ruled that these statements "imply the existence of objectively verifiable facts" and therefore provided grounds for a libel suit. In April 2003, the suit was settled with a retraction and payment of $50,000. [7]

He has published that precise monetary amount on his website since 2003, but for some reason certain editors refused to allow that information to appear here. (The identity of Mercola is very clear when one reads the development of the archived copies as the case progressed. The website was constantly revised to keep it up to date.)

Even though the rules for biographical articles here specifically allow the subject to be directly quoted as a source (so Wikipedia policy is not being followed here), and even though the wording could be NPOVed as a "claim" by Barrett, it has not been allowed by Barrett's enemies here. I still find that strange and a violation of Wikipedia policy. In light of the fact that that part of the settlement is public knowledge, I believe it should be included and sourced as Barrett's own statement of the outcome, IOW his opinion. Right now we have a conflict between the public facts and the phrase above. -- Fyslee 22:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no problems with it as it is verifiable. In any case the statement "settlements are not generally public knowledge" is OR, doesn't add to the paragraph other than to imply that the information is unknown. It should be replaced with what is known. Shot info 23:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
We have a difference between Barrett's public statements vs. WP:BLP facts (not just stmts or "opinion" about themselves). Given different parties propensity to sue, to me it looks like some kind of game to not provide the hard copy and make "I dare you" public stmts (i.e. what if $ are true but SB gave a sweetener like a a rare classic car he had left over or even $500/yr x 100 yr payments or that lawsuits & discovery create numerous unpleasantries & invasions) that are likely incomplete. I don't think we should try to establish WP:BLP facts like abandoned car titles by advertisement. It also sounds dangerous.
Assuming Mercola is successful as some critics imply, some sort of risk mgmt settlement, pre Barrett v Rosenthal obviously might make sense. Other previous takes on this: archives, with NATTO, & me. Personally, I wish SB (or JM) would be a little more forthcoming on backup, it could be even more enlightening ;->--I'clast 00:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't quite understand what you are saying, especially in the light of WP:BLP when a figure makes verifiable statements about themselves. Nonetheless, the "settlements are not generally public knowledge" is OR editorialising. Shot info 00:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Good grief, y'all. Then delete "settlements are not generally public knowledge". I think I added that, in an obviously vain attempt to preclude assumptions about "dismissed by mutual agreement." I did not know of prior talk page discussion on this. I am not a Barrett enemy and have no ulterior motive by adding this statement (in fact, I added it so one would not assumeBarrett had no case). If Barrett has quoted the settlement on his website, the figure isn't exactly private. I do not claim to be an expert on Wiki rules, so I defer to the advice of elder Wikistatespeople. I have no problem with quoting Barrett, and it should be a quote, unless one of you has a reliable source other than Barrett. I will note, however, that the statement I added is not 'OR editorializing'. Pardon me, but that is absurd on its face. Jance 03:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Dismissing my opinion that one of your edits is 'OR editorializing' by saying it is absurd is rather absurd in itself.Shot info 04:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think so, but we can agree to disagree. I suppose it may be a matter of perception, although stating the obvious hardly seems OR:editorializing. By that definition, anything but a quote would be OR:editorializing. That said, I could have used less offensive language than "absurd." Since I am not arguing your main point re the article, I see no reason to belabor it.Jance 04:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I have improved the statement structure for the references. I have provided some WP support for the usual confidentiality feature of settlements, but didn't see a beautiful reference, so added ({cn}}.--I'clast 08:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I will observe that, in light of B v R, Mercola would probably have prevailed, if only because of the immunity of Section 230. Had he published this himself (and not republished), then there could well be liability. Those look like proveable factual statements - hence potentially libelous. All I can say after seeing all this about Barrett and Enemies....I dont want to hear any doctor say anything about "our litigious society" ever again. Hah! (To be fair, someone that would publish those kind of statements has a screw loose, imho.) Jance 03:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The information which Fyslee wants to include about this case is just the kind of information which should be included about all the legal cases. I feel just a little uneasy about using Barrett himself as a source even if it is NPOVed by using the word "claim". But there must be a way of quoting the original case record. Barrett himself could supply this. Whilst he can't be used as a direct source in an article about himself, I do wish he would himself join us in these discussions sometimes. He could point us in the right direction on some things and supply sources for information as in the present case. robert2957 10:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that it is a great idea adding settlement info on all legal cases. I'm not sure it is a great idea here, but I don't have any particular objection if it is clearly public information (Barrett has posted it). I wouldn't wish this on us, Robert, because then we could end up with several subjects mentioned in the article on the talk page. You think it is contentious now! Jance 13:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI on Barrett v. Rosenthal

Barrett did not appeal the ruling (that IR's statements were non-defamatory opinion) to the CA Supreme Court. I thought I read somewhere where Ilena said this was not factually accurate. Where did you find that information?Jance 21:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Another FYI re court opinions & defamation

A concurring opinion is not binding, although it may be persuasive in future cases. The ruling in the majority opinion is binding. Dicta usually refers to obiter dicta which are part of the opinion but not legally binding. "Obiter dictum" (singular) is editorializing; may be (and likely is) an accurate statement of law. However, "dictum" or "Obiter dictum" is often considered an 'aside', or an extraneous opining or explanation. In Barrett v. Rosenthal, any comment in the opinion regarding statements against Barrett would be considered dicta since the only issue before the court was Section 230 as it related to one statement against Polevoy. I hope this helps.

The statements against Barrett were considered opinion, therefore not defamatory. Opinion, no matter how vile, is not actionable. If I said, "X is a moronic, evil pig", I would not be defaming anyone. That statment is inflammatory and mean, but it is not defamation. Jance 21:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfactual comment

1) "In November 2000, Barrett and two associates sued Hulda Regehr Clark, Tim Bolen, Jan Bolen, David P. Amrein, Ilena Rosenthal, and their related companies." This is not accurate as to me (Ilena Rosenthal.)Ilena 03:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you suggest a more accurate wording here, on the talk page, and then we can work together to get a sentence that everyone agrees is acceptable for the article. David D. (Talk) 04:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I changed it slightly. "their related companies" were not sued. I don't know who wrote that, but I changed it to "unknown defendants" (the actual suit names "Does 1-100".) I also spelled out the plaintiffs. I will leave it to you all to decide if you want first names, titles, etc. Jance 14:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Using Barrett's comment here with no balance

"...To defend ourselves, several of us have filed suit for libel."[28] Comments about Barrett have been ruled to be opinion and not libel, by every court, including the Supreme Court. They reiterated, in the final words of Judge Moreno in their Opinion: "As the lower courts correctly concluded, however, none of the hostile comments against Dr. Barrett alleged in the complaint are defamatory." I would also like to comment that the anti-SLAPP statute was created to stop meritless suits as this one, intended to silence critics. Barrett still claims he was 'libeled' but no court has agreed with him. This appears to be another attempt to retry the case here. Have a lovely evening all. Ilena 03:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a lousy paragraph, and misleading, since courts found all but one of the statements non-defamatory opinion. While I think other cases are pending, in the same 'Barrett v. Clark' case, it is unlikely that statements found non-defamatory in one case will be found defamatory in another. In fact, I don't see a need for this or any of these quotes. Especially since the case against Ilena is over. Jance 14:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the paragraph is relevant in an encyclopedia article on Wikipedia about a living person. The material reflects history and on-going disputed and the nature and quality of those disputes. RalphLendertalk 15:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree. My question is whether or not these cases are still ongoing. If they are not, then the quote is not accurate, anbd there is not an on-going dispute. Are there any cases related to the quote that are ongoing - eg have not been ruled on or settled?Jance 19:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment on Barrett never being sued

Apparently, two and perhaps 3 lawsuits have recently been filed and served against Barrett, so the comment about this is misleading. Thank you. Ilena 16:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you offer a specific suggestion here on what you'd like to change, add, or edit and then, based on comments, your material can be added or replace what is there. RalphLendertalk 18:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

POV Wording

"...from the illegal Mexican cancer "treatments" to the more tolerated (and regulated) fields of chiropractic and homeopathy." Putting quotations around treatments is POV. Further, Barrett criticizes many treatments that are NOT illegal in Mexico. Chiropractic and homeopathy are perhaps "tolerated" by him (since he has been unable to stop them) but they are legal and a part of the medical system in the United States. Thank you for any help in removing his POV from this article. Ilena 16:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you offer a specific suggestion here on what you'd like to change, add, or edit and then, based on comments, your material can be added or replace what is currently in the article. RalphLendertalk 18:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I think we've lost too much context with the changes now with just "Mexican cancer treatments". This is an article about Barrett, so I think we need to be careful of removing Barrett's pov vs writing a npov article. I'm not sure what to add until others weigh in. --Ronz 00:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Looking much better. However, homeopathy and chiropractic are legal treatments, not just tolerated. That is total POV. Thank you. Ilena 00:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I wrote that sentence (about more tolerated and regulated)... if you are going to say chiropractic & homeopathy are "legal", should we say the Mexican cancer treatments are illegal in the US? Jance 01:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I think not. The more I read it, the more inappropriate these changes appear. We're talking about Barrett's pov in an article about Barrett. Removing his pov is inappropriate, especially in a section where we're talking about how controversial his pov is and how it's caused him to bet the target of legal attacks. We just need to make it clear that it is his pov, while we don't misrepresent his pov. --Ronz 01:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I made some adjusmtents in that section to reduce redundancy and POV issues. I think it flows much better now. Levine2112 01:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Getting much better. "involvement in legal system" may be more accurate if it said something like, "Barrett's use of the legal system to attack those with which he disagrees has also spawned controversy about his objectivity and qualifications to pass judgment on those he deems "quacks". Have a lovely day. Ilena 14:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Nice work, Levine2112. Simpler is better. --Ronz 16:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Yep.Jance 22:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Qualifications and objectivity

I would like to see this subsection moved outside of "Litigation Controversy" as it is has little to nothing to do with litigation. This should be in a separate section entitled "Criticism". Everything else is "Litigation Controversy" can stay. I am going to be bold and make this change. Levine2112 18:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

looks good.Jance 22:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

village voice

I removed this paragraph, which misrepresents its source.

  • Village Voice journalist Donna Ladd has questioned Barrett's objectivity. She has further observed that Barrett relies only on negative research to criticize alternative medicine, rejecting any positive studies as unreliable. Further, Barrett insists that alternative therapies should be disregarded if they don't conform to established scientific principles. From the same article, Peter Barry Chowka, a former adviser to the National Institutes of Health's Office of Alternative Medicine, says of Barrett: "He seems to be putting down trying to be objective," and goes on to compare Barrett's work to "medical McCarthyism".[4]

First, the article itself does not question objectivity, but quotes something of Chowka to that effect (from the article):

“He seems to be putting down trying to be objective,” says Peter Barry Chowka, a former adviser to the National Institutes of Health’s Office of Alternative Medicine. “Quackwatch.com is consistently provocative and entertaining and occasionally informative,” Chowka added. “But I personally think he’s running against the tide of history. But that’s his problem, not ours.”

Second, the characterization of relying only on negative research seems to me to mischaracterize the thrust of this paragraph:

Barrett depends heavily on negative research and case studies in which alternative therapies do not work, but he says that most case studies that show positive results of alternative therapies are unreliable.

Third, Chowka clearly does not compare Barrett's work to medical McCarthyism, but the idea of having one big government watchdog for websites:

“A power struggle has been going on for decades between those who have the power and the insurgents,” Chowka says. “Give people the benefit of the doubt,” he adds, calling for an end to “medical McCarthyism.” “We no longer need a nanny state or a government-appointed watchdog to filter information to us.”

Obviousy there is some material in Ladd's article that is useful, but the paragraph that I've removed seems to me to misrepresent it. Bucketsofg 16:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a great article and good reference. Please work at rewriting it rather than deleting. Thank you. Levine2112 19:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • In this case, I think rewriting wouldn't solve the problem. As I explain above, none of the things that are attributed to Ladd's article can be sustained in light of what the article itself says. If you think there is material that is useful, you are perfectly entitled to do so and should go ahead. Bucketsofg 21:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
The paragraph as it was written did not accurately represent what was stated. What Chowka refers to is Barrett's disregarding alternative therapies without further research because he deems them illogical. That is not the same as saying they do not conform with scientific practices or research. And, this is a more interesting point as well. Should expensive research be done on, say for argument's sake, "zappers" that Hulda Clark says will treat everything from cancer to menopause (I made up this)? I would agree wtih him on this one. But I can also see how and why that is seen as brash and biased, by someone else. That does make this article interesting.Jance 15:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Jance. Great wortk as usual. Levine2112 19:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Barrett's loss to Mr. Fonorow

[8] Here is the State archive of this case. There were several reasons listed. Findlaw [9] Ilena 17:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... so it sounds like the court didn't really question the defamatory nature of Bolen's statements ("Significantly, however, Intelisoft does not also allege that any of the factual allegations in Barrett's complaint are false, including Barrett's claim that the Bolen articles were false and defamatory. Intelisoft, therefore, has conceded that Barrett filed his lawsuit to recover for what were in fact tortious statements"), but found that Intelisoft was protected under the CDA because they simply republished Bolen's email, without editing it. The court also explicitly rejected Intelisoft's claim that Barrett was using the legal system inappropriately to silence his critics. Of course, I'm not a lawyer, but that's interesting. MastCell 19:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I love that expression, "I'm not a lawyer" as if being one, means that his/her opinion is not questionable. In fact, on nearly every lawsuit there are a minimum of 2 lawyers, each with entirely differing opinions! The appeals court upheld the dismissal of this suit, meaning that Barrett lost both at the Superior Court and the Appeals Court levels. I have an experience with Barrett's lawyer suing me for libel when I had never even mentioned his name! I just read over the case, and couldn't find the Court's opinion on this comment you made "The court also explicitly rejected Intelisoft's claim that Barrett was using the legal system inappropriately to silence his critics." Could you please point out where they said that? I read this, "The question of whether Barrett acted improperly by filing suit in the face of contrary law is a question that clearly could be resolved without an evidentiary hearing. Indeed, it is the very question we addressed above. Therefore, we find no error in the trial court's refusal to hold an evidentiary hearing on whether Barrett sued Intelisoft for an improper purpose." Thanks very much. Ilena 20:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm misinterpreting, hence the "not a lawyer" disclaimer. I just mean that someone with a legal background might be more qualified to interpret a court ruling than I. It seemed that the decision said that Intelisoft was conceding that the statements were defamatory, and that Barrett filed his lawsuit "to recover for what were in fact tortious statements." It seemed they were saying that Barrett may in fact have been defamed, and therefore had launched the suit on legitimate grounds (rather than to silence valid criticism). Of course, Section 230 still protected Intelisoft as re-publishers of the statement. MastCell 20:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don;t read it that way. In fact, I believe what the Superior Court, Appeals Court, and the Supreme Court found in Barrett's SLAPP suit against me, and I quote, "As the lower courts correctly concluded, however, none of the hostile comments against Dr. Barrett alleged in the complaint are defamatory." page 39 Ilena 20:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I would love for Jance to look at this. I believe he/she is a lawyer? Levine2112 20:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I didn't get the part about Intelisoft was conceding that the statements were in fact defamatory. My "lawless" interpretation was that that question was never addressed because essentially it would not have mattered(my opinion), because it failed on the Section 230 anyway. I might be wrong, but it does make a slight difference on what we can say here. --Dematt 20:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, my interpretation was that Intelisoft fought the case solely on Section 230/CDA, rather than fighting the claim on grounds that the statement was not defamatory. Hence the court's statement that, "Significantly, however, Intelisoft does not also allege that any of the factual allegations in Barrett's complaint are false, including Barrett's claim that the Bolen articles were false and defamatory. Intelisoft, therefore, has conceded that Barrett filed his lawsuit to recover for what were in fact tortious statements." But perhaps Jance could parse the decision more accurately? Legal matters make my head hurt. MastCell 21:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I will give it a shot, but not tonight. I have been swamped. But will try in next day or two. I presume you are talking about the link Ilena posted above? I will look at it ..Jance 03:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
You think it makes your head hurt! Can you imagine how Barrett's attorney felt when the Court asked him in Oral Arguments why he was suing me when I had never even mentioned his name!?! Courts frown on such things ... particularly from lawyers. Ilena 21:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
LOL:) I thought it was just me:) It looks to me like law is just as subjective as WP:) --Dematt 21:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's often ridiculously subjective. But, for instance, in the Fonorrow decision that Ilena mentioned, the court wrote that "...the trial court noted that the parties had submitted opposing affidavits on the issue of Barrett's motives and specifically found that the affidavits did not show bad faith on Barrett's part." Which is not particuarly subjective. MastCell 23:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see that. Of course they were talking about the allegation that Barrett had filed suit to silence them, not because of defamation:
  • Intelisoft alleges in its motion that Barrett filed his lawsuit to silence his detractors. Significantly, however, Intelisoft does not also allege that any of the factual allegations in Barrett's complaint are false, including Barrett's claim that the Bolen articles were false and defamatory. Intelisoft, therefore, has conceded that Barrett filed his lawsuit to recover for what were in fact tortious statements. The question that remains is whether Barrett acted with an improper purpose in seeking recovery from Intelisoft. Intelisoft claims that we may infer Barrett's bad animus from the fact that he sued Intelisoft knowing that no published state or federal case had interpreted section 230 to permit tort suits against distributors like Intelisoft. The question of whether Barrett acted improperly by filing suit in the face of contrary law is a question that clearly could be resolved without an evidentiary hearing. Indeed, it is the very question we addressed above. Therefore, we find no error in the trial court's refusal to hold an evidentiary hearing on whether Barrett sued Intelisoft for an improper purpose.
Is that your interpretation? --Dematt 00:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

RE: INTELISOFT. There are two issues here.

  1. Was whether or not Section 230 immunized Intelisoft. Barrett claimed that the fed case Zeron need not be followed, and this court could interpret the statute differently. The court focused on a need for uniformity of federal court opinion, absent a ruling by SCOTUS. And, while it is true that a state court is not bound by a federal court's interpretation of fed law, the fed interpretation is accorded great deference unless there is a split of opinion (one fed court rules differently than another). Moreover, where mobility is at issue (like boats, or here, internet publication), the need for uniformity is even greater. Therefore, the CA Supreme Court ruled in line with Zeron, that Intelisoft was immune from liability.
  2. The second is what you all are discussing. Mastcell, this was entirely separate from the issue of defamation. This issue is only whether or not Barrett could be sanctioned under a CA law, for bringing a suit that was (1) "not well-grounded in fact" or (2) "supported by existing law, lacks a good-faith basis for modification, reversal, or extension of the law, or is interposed for any improper purpose." The first thing the court considers is the standard of review. Abuse of discretion is a stricter standard - did the trial court abuse its discretion, based on the record, of facts it relied on? Abuse of discretion only rules on a point of law, not fact. De novo standard means that the court can review the case all over, from scratch, so to speak, 'as new', including new facts & evidence that is available, etc. The court ruled, as both parties agreed, that the proper standard of review was "abuse of discretion." Therefore, it only reviewed those facts raised that were on the record. Next, the court then looked at the two elements of the claim (for sanctions).

(1) Was the lawsuit Barrett brought 'not well-grounded in fact'? Since Inelisoft did not allege that the factual allegations in Barrett's complaint were false, the court concluded the only thing it could: "Intelisoft, therefore, has conceded that Barrett filed his lawsuit to recover for what were in fact tortious statements." Note that Intelisoft conceded as a matter of law, because it did not contest the factual allegations in Barrett's complaint.

(2) Did Barrett bring his complaint in bad faith? That is, where there was no support in existing law, or Barrett had no good-faith basis for believing the existing caselaw could be modified, or reversed... The court ruled that because there are not many federal decisions on the statute's interpretation, there were numerous criticisms of courts' interpretations, and because the trial court had made explicit findings of fact after reviewing opposing affidavits on the issue of 'bad faith', the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Barrett did not bring the suit in bad-faith. Jance 13:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ilena, lawyers do have different opinions, but it is not that simple. A lawyer is an advocate for his client. Therefore, the lawyer must look at the same facts (as his opponent) but find a legally defensible way to interpret them in favor of his client. Jance 13:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I too, have much experience with lawyers, had several loving relationships with them, and have had amazing legal minds I've worked with on my successful case. In the breast implant issue, I've seen the very best ... and the very worst. I've seen attorney greed destroy the cases of many women, and I've seen fine attorneys fight the good fight for women in my support group. I was sued for libel and conspiracy to libel a lawyer, Christopher Grell, (Barrett's attorney) although I had never mentioned his name nor knew anything about him. I have seen posted on talk pages via his publicist, Barrett's absurd claims (in my humble opinion) about his King Bio disaster and his silly notion that it was the attorney's fault for filing the case. Had he not wanted to be the plaintiff and hire himself as an "expert" he wouldn't have done it. To this day, I believe that the information about Barrett's loss to King Bio is not balanced, as the court's ruling in this case was the harshest wording against plaintiffs I've ever read, and much relevant material has been removed from the article such as the ruling that Barrett was "biased and unworthy of credibility." That is quite notable, I believe, but was deleted. Thank you and have a lovely day. Ilena 17:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Did I miss the consensus vote?

I see that unilaterally, the no longer true edit regarding Barrett's "never been sued" comment has been reverted. I have spoken with the plaintiff and indeed, the case for defamation was filed against Barrett in Allentown, PA, and he has been served. I believe this fact is indeed notable, all things considered and should be a part of this article. Thank you. Ilena 21:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. However, we need to get a reliable second-party source stating that this suit is underway. Court record would be great or something from a party not involved in the suit or with either party. Levine2112 21:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I reverted it back. It is not OR to leave out a questionable paragraph. It would be OR to make an affirmative statement that isn't necessary, or is without support. I thought it was a rather questionable paragraph, anyway. Jance 02:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
You make an excellent point yet again! Levine2112 02:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
And I have to third that, or fourth or whatever. --Dematt 02:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I also will note that the article scientific skepticism exists, and should remain (Ronz readded it).Jance 03:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it was revived from a speedy delete. --Dematt 04:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Very POV, non encylopedic language

self-styled "alternative medicine" These may work on the QW page, but it feels very un-encyclopedic to me. I don't recall consensus with this type of language. Mr. Bolen has a registered California company, Tim Bolen, President Jurimed Public Relations & Research Group, Inc. Just a bit of balance and non-bias. 03:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC) Ilena 03:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I made my attempt to make it NPOV and clarify the controversial relationship that they had. --Dematt 04:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
It was discussed somewhere, but I sure don't recall where now. I think what you wrote is better. I disagree with Ilena about adding his company. Jance 04:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I am sure that this is one of the most discussed articles anywhere, other than perhaps Jihad or something like that;). The business could be inserted, it gives Mr. Bolen an identity, which is not a bad thing from any POV. IOWs, by giving him a business, it doesn't look like Barrett is attacking an everyday person, which draws sympathy from the reader. That's why I added the "opponent" part, to try and let the reader know that there was a real reason for a lawsuit here. --Dematt 05:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^ Appeals Court Upholds Malicious Prosecution Suit against Hulda Clark and Attorney Carlos Negrete , (Mem,. No. 04-55193 D.C. No. CV -02-0221 O-JML; No. 03-56663 D.C. No. CY -02-0221 O-JML March 14, 2005).
  2. ^ Case refiled on July 30, 2001 at Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Case No. 01 L 009026.
  3. ^ Case dismissed by mutual agreement on April 17, 2003. Judge: Casciato, Joseph N.
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Ladd was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stephen_Barrett/Archive_7&oldid=1137204577"