Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-05 Stephen Barrett/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Note from Mediatior

Mediation will commence within the next few days. anthony^[cfc] 12:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Further note — comments here are removed; mediation starts now. anthony^[review] 01:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Mediator Statement

Good evening (GMT time) fellow Wikipedians, and thank you for agreeing to take part in this step of the Dispute Resolution chain. As mediator, it is my duty to remain completely neutral at all times - from full-out statements, to my tidying-up of the Mediation page. To this end, I drew up both a Neutrality and Mediation policy which I follow; these pages lay out my general approach to remaining bias, and my conduct and actions I normally undertake during mediation (respectively). Please do consult these pages, as they shed an enormous amount of light on my actions in the numerous Mediation Cabal cases I have undertaken.

If you have any questions during this case, please don't hesitate to get in contact with me, via:

• E-mail — Internal or externally at anthony [dot] cfc [at] gmail [dot] com;
• User talk — feel free to drop me a message at my talk page;
• IRC — although I'm most often at #wikipedia-checkuser, for general access I can be requested to be at #wikipedia-en (or any other channel at your discretion, including private chat).

Kind regards,
anthony^[review] 01:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Stage 1

The first stage of Mediation (under the format I operate) is to request quick-fire, at-a-glance round-ups by each disputing editor over:

1. What the problem is
2. What they want to see changed, and why

Kind regards,
anthony^[review] 01:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to post comments below, with a particular focus on what you want changed and why!

anthony^[review] 17:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Levine2112

My general approach is that information about Stephen Barrett not being board certified should be included in the article:

• In my opinion, the main problem is that although the topic of Stephen Barrett's lack of board certification credentials has been an issue in the courtroom, in several lawsuits, covered by trade publications, organizational journals and newsletters, written about in studies concerning Stephen Barrett, and verified by Stephen Barrett himself at Wikipedia as User:Sbinfo, several editors do not feel that any of these sources are good enough to mark this information as notable. Verifiable? Yes. We all seem to agree that this information is factual and has been verified to Wikipedia's satisfaction. It is the notability of this information which is the well-spring of this disagreement. My feeling is that given Stephen Barrett's notability -- (as a reknowned "quack buster" he critiques other doctors and therapists, healthcare remedies and practices, entire professions and universities and labels them as "quacks" or as "non-recommendable", he thus is dispensing healthcare and wellness advice to the masses) -- that Stephen Barrett's verifiable credentials are inherently notable. Regardless, I have provided numerous sources which I believe pass the standards of WP:RS. While this list isn't complete, it is a selection of the very best sources which I could find on the Web:

1. Examining the Truth By Terry S. Friedmann, MD, ABHM and Sabina DeVita, EdD, DNM, RNCP with Karen Boren
2. Watching the Quacker By Terry S. Friedmann, MD, and Karen Boren
3. Anti-chiropractic groups spreading ‘stroke’ lies online World Chiropractic Alliance
4. Stephen Barrett Loses Major Defamation Trial in Hometown Dynamic Chiropractic
5. STEPHEN BARRETT, M.D., v. OWEN R. FONOROW, and INTELISOFT MULTIMEDIA, INC
6. STEPHEN BARRETT, M.D., v JOSEPH MERCOLA, D.O.
7. Quackwatch Founder Stephen Barrett Loses Major Defamation Case in his own Hometown Chiro.org
8. Archives of Talk: Stephen Barrett post by User:Sbinfo (Stephen Barrett).
9. Dr. Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch Exposed In Court Cases Canadian Lyme Disease Foundation

Since it had been requested that a reliable secondary source be presented which discusses Barrett's lack of Board Certification, I have singled out the Dynamic Chiropractic (DC) article above in particular. It covers the story of one of Barrett's failed lawsuits and quotes his opposing council: ...he [Stephen Barrett] was, in fact, not a board-certified psychiatrist, because he had flunked the examination that was required to receive certification. Dynamic Chiropractic is a widely read publication both as a magazine and an online "zine" boasting a circulation of 60,000 [1]. Their Article Submission Guidelines explicitly state: Your article will be reviewed by an in-house editorial panel. Sometimes an article may be sent to an outside reviewer for additional input. Additionally, their editorial page states: All articles submitted for publication are reviewed by our editors to ensure they meet our professional standards. Reliable sources - according to Wikipedia - are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. As an online publication, Dynamic Chiropractic has been the recipient of many awards. Its reliable publication process and "trustworthiness" is firmly established. DC was not directly involved (either as a party or witness) with the Barrett v. Koren trial covered in this article. In relation to the subject at hand, DC is considered authoritive. DC passes WP:RS. Given that the information about Barrett's lack of board certification has been verified by Barrett himself (User:Sbinfo) and his lawyers in the links above, all these secondary sources need do is establish notability of the information. Being independent from the subject and the widest read publication of its kind, Dynamic Chiropractic's coverage of Barrett's lack of board certification qualifies this information as notable.

• What I would like to see changed/added would follow Sentence 1 of the Stephen_Barrett#Biography Biogrpahy section which reads: Barrett is a 1957 graduate of the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and completed his psychiatry residency in 1961. A new sentence should be added here (or the old phrasing should be reinstated - as this current dispute began when this phrasing was deleted). In effect, the new sentence or phrasing should minimally convey that 1) Stephen Barrett is not a board certified physician and might also convey 2) Stephen Barrett took the board certification exam in 1964 but did not pass the neurology half of the exam and 3) Stephen Barrett never retook the exam. Given that we know he took this exam in 1964 per User:Sbinfo and various other sources confirming the date, I feel that the sentence or phrasing would fit in naturally with the biogrpahy section following the first sentence which discusses him completing his residency in 1961. However, I am open to other placement suggestions.

Hopefully my opinion will be carefully considered,
-- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Disputes, questions or comments of the above section by other users should be placed here

1. Agree I won't repeat the arguments made above. I agree with the material presented above and with the recommended additions. RalphLender^talk 18:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Concerning the Dynamic Chiropractic article: I don't find this a reliable source, this matter has been discussed at length multiple times, and I don't recall seeing anyone other than Levine2112 claim that this source meets RS. The author of the article is not named, and the article is just a slightly edited version of Negrete's press release on the Barrett vs Koren case. Dynamic Chiropractic's failure to identify the author and the source of the article shows it's publishing standards are below the level required for Wikipedia sources. (Strikeout: I think this source reliably quotes Negrete). Even if this were not the case, this article puts the credential issue in the context of the Barrett vs Koren case, and the various Bolen-Barrett disputes. In this context, the information is not appropriate for the article with the current weight we've given the details Bolen-Barrett disputes, and especially the Barrett vs Koren case. Further, Negrete's (and ultimately, Bolen's) personal opinions about Barrett do not meet BLP nor NPOV. (Note that similar arguments have already been made for all the sources listed above.) --Ronz 18:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Concerning the Dynamic Chiropractic article and secondary sources: Because the only information in the article about Barrett's certification are quotes of Negrete, this source is not a secondary source concerning this information. To date, no one has identified any reliable secondary or tertiary sources for this information. --Ronz 23:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Unsigned articles are in no way an indication of sub-par quality. Many daily newspapers use unsigned articles. The super-reliable weekly 'The Economist' almost never publish signed articles. Unsigned is rather an indication of higher reliability than signed articles. Unsigned implicitly means that the entire publication stands behind the claims in the article. MaxPont 23:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe your comment is in response to mine in 3.1.1: [2]. You miss my point. The issue is that Dynamic Chiropractic demonstrated a clear lack of publishing ethics, making the article unsuitable to use as a source. They republished Negrete's press release without indicating they were doing so. (Strikeout: Dynamic Chiropractic is reliable source for Negrete's quotes.) --Ronz 16:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

They did not republish the press release nor is it a slight rewrite of the press release. Both the press release and the DC news article reported on the same trial; they are no doubt similar. However, DC's article is different, including more information and less bias than the press release. I see no clear lack of publishing ethics. I see a reliable source. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

We both agree then that this source, reliable or not, gives us the certification information in the context of this trial. Further, I'd like point out that this source only gives this information as part of a quote from Negrete. So, the only reason for mentioning it in the article that this source supports is as a quote from Negrete, in the context of the Barrett v. Koren case. --Ronz 19:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

4. Disagree. I have several issues with the Dynamic Chiropractic reference. Although ChiroWeb, the site that hosts the online version of the magazine, has received some awards,[3] I see no evidence that Dynamic Chiropractic itself has ever received any awards. The requirements for articles submitted to Dynamic Chiropractic do not indicate that peer-review is a normal procedure; they state: “Your article will be reviewed by an in-house editorial panel. Sometimes an article may be sent to an outside reviewer for additional input.” [4] Peer-reviewed journals do not send their manuscripts for outside review sometimes; they do so always. Furthermore, information on their in-house editorial staff does not indicate that they have any expert credentials.[5]. The article does not strike me as balanced reporting but rather a very one-sided retelling of the case from the defending legal team’s perspective (i.e. Negrete, Turner, and Koren). No quotes were included to represent the other side’s position. But more importantly, the article only quotes Koren as saying that the Barrett was “delicensed”, which seems to conflict with the fact that Barrett’s licensing status is “Active-Retired”, and quotes Negerete as saying that Barrett failed his board exam. All this artilce proved to me is that Negrete, a partisan critic of Barrett's, thinks the issue of licencing/failed board exams is noteworthy but it does not convince me that the issue is noteworthy for the WP article Rhode Island Red 17:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

No one has claimed that DC is a peer reviewed journal. Only that it has an acceptable level of editorial integrity. (In line with similar trade publications.) Yes, the article in not perfectly NPOV but how many news media could pass the same rigorous examiniation for NPOV that articles on Wikipedia have to withstand? MaxPont 17:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

MastCell

Briefly, I think that the notability of Barrett's licensing and board certification are sufficient that they should be mentioned briefly and carefully, not in the lead, but in the "Biography" section. I'm a little leery of using the comments of a Wikipedia account - Sbinfo (talk · contribs) - on a Wikipedia talk page as a source. I would favor something like the following:

Stephen Barrett holds an active medical license ([6]) but is not board-certified in psychiatry.

The reference for "not board-certified" could be one of the lawsuit depositions, I suppose. I should note I don't feel strongly one way or the other, but that would be my preference. MastCell ^Talk 18:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Disputes, questions or comments of the above section by other users should be placed here

1. Agree with User:MastCell, in the interest of having some peace. Although I tend to agree with User:Ronz that this particular aspect of the disputes on Stephen Barrett might be resolved here without resolving the underlying issues, this resolution of this issue seems reasonable to me. References to his having failed the boards would have to have come from a secondary source who is not a party in a lawsuit with Dr. Barrett — a court document would be acceptable as a primary source if a secondary source can be found. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Provisionally Agree with User:MastCell, inasmuch as "but is not board-certified in psychiatry" has a RS per Ronz (below) and Arthur (above). Generally though the comment is a piece of trivia with little notability and doesn't deserve to be included in an encyclopedia. Shot info 01:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ronz

My general approach is to change the editing environment in Stephen Barrett from one of disruptive and tendentious editing to one more in line with Wiki policies and guidelines. In this regard, the certification issue is just one of many, though it's one of the older ones with discussions going back well over a year:

• In my opinion, the main problem is that while the editing environment, though decidedly better than early this year, is still tendentious. I fear we may solve this certification problem without making any changes to the editing environment. That said, the certification problem is simply one of finding verifiable, reliable sources that show the information is important enough for inclusion in the article, and to what extent. Additionally, these sources, if any are found, must also meet the criteria for the biography of a living person. Currently, none of the sources offered meet these criteria, and the discussion repeatedly swings between why the sources suffice and why the policies and guidelines discussed do not apply.
• Unless I'm overlooking something, the article does not currently mention Barrett's certification and hasn't since late last year. What I would like to see are other editors explaining the policies and guidelines well enough so that we can settle this issue for the sources we have available, and give us a better understanding so we don't spend another 500+ edits over one month on such a small issue as this.

Hopefully my opinion will be carefully considered,
Ronz 21:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Disputes, questions or comments of the above section by other users should be placed here.

1. Agree with User:Ronz, see comments above. A significant portion of the discussion(s) was over why a poor source was suitable rather than finding better sources. Shot info 01:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Agree with User:Ronz AvB ÷ talk 00:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

AvB

My general approach is to try and break the deadlock in this dispute. While I view this as important in its own right due to its WP:BLP aspects, I also believe we're doing important work regarding WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP. Similar discussions are going on elsewhere and together we're generating or withholding community support for aspects of these policies. See also the - admittedly much more visible - precedent where Jimbo specifically removed primary source information where secondary sources were lacking (see Christopher Michael Langan).

I also agree with Ronz that the article's editing environment should be improved. (And, of course, I believe we need world peace.)

I think the solution for the issue at hand is simple: we only have primary sources, so we should not mention this information at all, BLP or not. This seems accepted by around half of the involved editors. Under such circumstances WP:BLP requires that we err on the safe side and do not include material seen as contentious by many editors. It is, or should be, a no-brainer. The tendentious editing environment is very visible in that such a no-brainer can lead to eternal bickering. As stated many times already: In order to be able to gage the weight of this primary source info, and find out if it is at all notable or important, we need to find coverage in reliable secondary sources. (In this case the secondary sources should also be independent of the conflict between Bolen/Koren/etc. and Barrett/Quackwatch/etc). Such sources have not been provided and the discussion kept going around in circles because some will not acknowledge, and others maintain, that the secondary sources provided are unreliable. A consensus has not been reached.

I have tried to inform the discussion with background info from various policies and feel that basic tenets would be violated if we were to give weight to information that has been ignored by all reliable secondary sources, regardless of how important it seems to Barrett's main detractors (such as Bolen, Koren, Negrete) and those who forward their message (often verbatim).

I feel that repeating more of what I have already said in the preceding discussion and RfC will not be useful.

Having said all that, a way out - one I have also floated at the beginning of the talk page discussion - might be to discuss possible mention of this information in context along the following lines: detractor X criticized Barrett blah blah not board certified blah, Barrett responded that board certification blah blah. If I recall correctly, this idea was first misinterpreted and then rejected. I would not support this, once again feeling that Wikipedia would be giving a platform to a handful of detractors by assigning weight to information that is only important in their own eyes and ignored by the rest of the world. However, it may be possible to get a consensus for this alternative without my support.

Hopefully my opinion will be carefully considered,
AvB ÷ talk 00:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Disputes, questions or comments of the above section by other users should be placed here.

• A few points of clarification:

1. The editor above states that about half of the involved editors support not mentioning this information at all. The straw poll taken at Talk:Stephen Barrett revealed that only 5 of the 17 editors were not in favor of mentioning this information. The remaining 12 were all in favor of adding the information, just in varying ways.
2. Many secondary sources have been provided. As suggested by Jim Butler and myself, this entire dispute may come down to whether or not any of the provided sources are reliable ones. No one has determined this for sure at this point. There are reasonable arguments being made for and against these sources. I am confident that this Mediation or an RfC will help settle this.
3. The suggestion to state that "detractor X criticized Barrett blah blah not certified" would be acceptable except that the sources provided do not use this information as a criticism; but rather as a statement of biographical fact.

-- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Are we talking about the same thing? We had this straw poll where 5 out of 8 involved editors were against including the information. We also had this RfC, where 6 out of 13 editors found the information non-notable. The latter includes some of the uninvolved editors who merely voted, since their response failed to address the question asked at the top of the RfC. Consensus is not a vote. There is no clear consensus about including this information, otherwise we would not be having this mediation. On a side note, the RfC was largely a failure in that it did not really enlarge the pool, attracting only the usual crowd. This usually means that any outsiders that saw the RfC did not feel strongly one way or another and reinforces the general impression that this remains contentious information and as such can't be included due to a lack of consensus. Especially in a BLP.
2. As explained by me right from the start, this dispute has always been about reliable secondary sources. I removed the disputed text because there weren't any. See also Undue Weight explanation by Ronz above. And even if we had a positive consensus on the provided secondary sources, this would still not trump WP:NPOV aspects detailed in WP:WEIGHT, so we must be cautious per WP:BLP and keep this info out.
3. The primary sources contain this information as a statement of fact in a specific context (namely response to criticism). The disputed secondary sources do not use this information as a statement of biographical fact but as a criticism. The alternative is not based on the secondary sources but on the primary ones. Removing context from primary sources is not allowed.

Please also note that I am not prepared to repeat the entire discussion here. Also, my weekend is starting soon and I'm not sure if I'll be able to participate in this mediation until next Monday. AvB ÷ talk 13:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

1. I am refering to the RfC section which became a poll of who is in favor of instituting the information and who is not. I cover the results of this here. And I went on the cover new editiors opinions and old editors changing opinions. In the end, 12 of the 17 editors discussing the issue were in favor of adding/re-instating the information in one form or another. The only editors completely opposed to any mention of Barrett's lack of board certification were you, Ronz, Shot info, David D, and Jim Butler.
2. Absoultely. We need to find out for sure if any of the secondary sources are reliable sources to establish notability of this verifiable information.
3. The primary source of this information is Sbinfo's discussion on Wikipedia as well as the two legal documents drafted by Barrett's attorneys for the libel lawsuit. The libel which allegedly had been committed was not a criticism (and didn't turn out to be libel at all according to each and every trial). Barrett was bothered that Negrete's press release stated that on the stand Barrett was forced to admit that he wasn't Board Certified because he failed the exam. Barrett thought that "forced to admit" constituted libel, because he is open about this information and never tried to conceal it. However, "forced to admit" is a true statement as when someone is under oath they are "forced" to tell the truth. Granted, the language is a bit slippery as one judge noted; however, it does not constitute libel as it is technically still a statement of fact. This all goes to say that this statement isn't a criticism but rather a statement of fact reporting accurately about the events in a trial when Barrett was on the stand. You will note that the Dynamic Chiropractic article doesn't use this language directly, but rather quotes Negrete presumably from an interview; hence, Barrett never sued the publishers of Dynamic chiropractic.

-- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a comment about the intervention by Jimbo Wales[[7]] in the Christopher Michael Langan article. The text he removed was an extensive elaboration about details in a court-case. The text was only based on primary sources (court documents and web sites of the warring parties) and no secondary source had found it notable enough to mention it at all MaxPont 14:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Crohnie

I believe that these links show that board certification was not something that was regularly done during Dr. Barrett's career:

• [8];
• [9].

I really believe that using the information about the board certification is not the right information to put into the article because it's not important nor notable. The links show that the testing under went a lot of changes and that over an eight year period a lot of Dr's also did not pass this tests. I now disagree with this informations importance for the article.

Hopefully my opinion will be carefully considered,
Crohnie 22:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

 Note: per discussion, I have refactored Crohnie's comments into a more organised form — anthony^[review] 01:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Disputes, questions or comments of the above section by other users should be placed here.

MaxPont

I have only been involved in this for a couple of days and my comments will focus on what I believe is the remaining contentious issue: how to handle and evaluate WP:RS and WP:N

To judge whether a source is Reliable and Notable has to be adapted by the Context. For example: The more controversial and unexpected a claim is, the higher demands for Reliable Sources to support it. If on the other hand there are primary sources to support the claim, the bar for inclusion can be lowered. Several sources supporting the same claim will also reduce the bar for determining if each source is RS.

WP:RS does put some weight on the demand for neutrality but it does not automatically exclude sources that have a POV. There is a significant difference between a traditional publication with a POV or an editorial policy (99% of all news media) and the fringe unreliable self-published and often extremist sources that we should try to keep out of Wikipedia.

One conclusion from the arguments above is that we can’t make a binary demarcation between good sources that are RS&N and the rejected crap-sources. There is a large grey zone. For some extreme claims even the New York Times and Washington Post would not suffice. ( e.g.: unnamed government officials reveal that George Bush is a secret Satanist)

For news about narrow and industry-specific topics the relevant sources are the industry publications. Of all news, 99.9% are never reported in main-stream media because they are not relevant for the mainstream readers. The absence of reporting about Barrett’s failed board exam in large daily newspapers is not ground for excluding this fact. The Barrett WP article is an article about a narrow topic.

As I see it, if it can be established that Dynamic Chiropractic is a Notable and Reliable source it is obvious that the fact about Barrett should be included in Wikipedia.

I did an extensive compilation of facts and arguments to support the Notability and Reliablity of Dynamic Chiropractic on the Barrett Talk Page. Reposted here:

Dynamic Chiropractic has been published since 1983 (Library of Congress records) with 26 issues per year and is the number one trade publication for the Chiropractic profession. [10]. The magazine has a circulation of 60.000 [11] Dynamic Chiropractic is a professional trade magazine and not a scientific peer reviewed journal. However it is notable enough for the community of Life Science academics to sometimes be mentioned or used as a reference. A search for “Dynamic Chiropractic” in the database PubMed [12] returned 39 articles

A search in a subset of the PubMed/NIH databases with fulltext access (PMC [13]), gave three articles explicitly mentioning or refering to Dynamic Chiropratic (inserted below)'.

In spite of the rather narrow industry focus of the magazine, Dynamic Chiropractic is sometimes quoted and mentioned by main-stream media. A few examples are provided below (sources available in Factiva).

The Washington Post (20 Dec 1987) "Candidates Barraged With Questionnaires" Article about questions to political candidates from various stakeholders in society. The questions from Dynamic Chiropractic get a paragraph.

Los Angeles Times (27 Jun 1990) "Church Seeks Influence in Schools, Business, Science Series: The Scientology story" About controversies around front organizations for the church of Scientology. Dynamic Chiropractic mentioned as a newspaper resisting this infiltration.

Journal of Nutrition (1 Nov 2006) "Glucosamine Supplementation Accelerates Early but Not Late Atherosclerosis in LDL Receptor-Deficient Mice" Dynamic Chiropractic used as a reference of a “lay” publication.

New York Law Journal (25 Jan 2005) "Litigation Review; Black Box Evidence; Civil Implications" A Dynamic Chiropractic article used as a reference.

Austin American-Statesman (15 Oct 1993) "What they’re reading Series: The latest word" About what five Austin chiropractors are reading. Dynamic Chiropractic mentioned.

The Sacramento Bee (8 Mar 2007) "Chaos on chiropractic board; The governor's appointees -- including ex-bodybuilding chums -- accused of 'coup.'" Article about controversies around gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. The “industry magazine Dynamic Chiropractic” mentioned three times in article.

The Sacramento Bee (9 Mar 2007) “Governor fuels board furor; He's criticized for saying chiropractic panel should represent the industry” More about controversies around gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. The “industry magazine Dynamic Chiropractic” mentioned.

Journal of the American Dietetic Association (1 Aug 2000) "Provision of nutrition counseling, referrals to registered dietitians, and sources of nutrition information among practicing chiropractors in the United States" A study conducted by Dynamic Chiropractic used as a reference.

The News & Observer (18 Feb 2007) "Law favoring chiropractors, Black's doing, might not last" Dynamic Chiropractic mentioned.

Argus Leader (31 Oct 2004) "Wider acceptance fuels chiropractor boom" Section about how to choose a Chiropractor drawn from Dynamic Chiropractic

Roanoke Times & World News (8 Sep 2003) "Host for Cheney’s visit is called 'effective fund-raiser'" About a philanthropist donating funds to Chiropractic, mentioned in Dynamic Chiropractic

Additional articles from the database PMC:

Am J Public Health. 2002 Dec; 92(12): 2001–2009. “Chiropractic Health Care in Health Professional Shortage Areas in the United States”

Chiropr Osteopat. 2007; 15: 4. “On the reliability and validity of manual muscle testing: a literature review”

BMC Complement Altern Med. 2003; 3: 3. “Searching biomedical databases on complementary medicine: the use of controlled vocabulary among authors, indexers and investigators”

Hopefully my opinion will be carefully considered MaxPont 14:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Disputes, questions or comments of the above section by other users should be placed here.

1. Disagree. Specifically, MaxPont asserts, "If on the other hand there are primary sources to support the claim, the bar for inclusion can be lowered." This is actually the reverse of the policies and guidelines concerning primary versus other sources. Because of this, I'm not sure what MaxPont means by "primary sources." See WP:ATT#Primary_and_secondary_sources and Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources. Additionally, MaxPont's statement ignores WP:NPOV. Inclusion of information is done by first finding reliable sources, and second by assessing the sources available to determine proper weight for that information. --Ronz 15:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I don’t understand Ronz at all here. Or maybe Ronz don’t understand me. Here is an example to illustrate my point: Assume two RS (New York Times + Washington Post) claim that George Bush is a secret Satanist with no supporting primary sources. If so, the WP community has to decide where to draw the line for inclusion. My guess is that it is a borderline exclusion. If you add primary sources in the example (documents, court records, photos, etc.) the bar for inclusion can be lowered and the borderline exclusion will tilt towards inclusion. I don’t see why this example is contradicted by the WP Wikilinks Ronz supplied. MaxPont 17:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The examples you give are all primary sources. If a source makes a claim unsupported by other sources as to why that claim is made, then it's a primary source for that claim. --Ronz 17:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Disagree. For what it's worth, I did a PubMed search and Dynamic Chiropractic is not listed in their journal database nor are any references from the magazine cited in the article database. The 39 hits generated are merely articles that contain the words "dynamic" and "chiropractic" but none were published in the magazine Dynamic Chiropractic. Rhode Island Red 16:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not claim that Dynamic Chiropractic was indexed as a scientific medical journal. (Thanks for correcting me about PubMed. I did a new search in PMC and found three articles. There might be more articles in PubMed but as I don't have full-text access I can't say anything about that.) MaxPont 16:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I'clast

The policy discussion seems to involve (it changes) the granularity (fact, phrase, sentence, paragraph, section) level of WP:RS and application of the WP:V and WP:RS (now rich, synchronous subset descriptions in WP:ATT) policies for combined primary and secondary sources facts with different individual degrees of WP:V & WP:RS to establish, if nothing else, a compositely Notable, WP:V, WP:RS fact, in this case the lack of a common, often presumed professional credential as a single fact. To deny multiple sources, as above, should require a recitation of the objections under historical Reliable Sources policies compared to specific granularity level. At the time I previously worked on this (ca Dec-Jan), there was referenced support for WP:NOT requiring at the topic and subtopic levels that appeared to correspond to the article as the topic and the section heading (*not* at the sentence or phrase level) and that primary facts could be used augmentatively.

My review of the Michael Langan article is that the situation is quite different. Jimbo seems to have granted a complaining subject of the article, an editor (and subject) article banned per RFAR from his own article, some BLP relief that apprears to have little public impact, what ever policy Jimbo cited, perhaps finding some merit in this part of the exchange.[14].--I'clast 10:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

1. Disagree. You ignore WP:NPOV, which is not only official policy, but, "a fundamental Wikipedia principle." This dispute here is about points of view: the pov of editors here, the pov of Negrete and Bolen, the pov of the various sources we have (reliable or not). The only way we can possibly address all these points of view is by careful application of WP:V, to filter the sources to only ones appropriate for Wikipedia use, and of WP:NPOV, to properly address the disputed information in a way that it can be treated neutrally. --Ronz 15:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)