Talk:Stephen Barrett

Psychiatric boards

It is asserted that Barrett "failed his psychiatric boards.” Is there a credible source to substantiate that claim? Nicmart (talk) 04:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Self-Sourced Content

Barrett appears to be the original source for many references which, according to Ronz via Naveen Jain and Naveen Jain Talk violates several policies. A consistent editing policy seems necessary for both articles. Either interviews and articles are legitimate or they are not. Unless there's a WP:HYPOCRISY policy I missed? --Lawfulneutral (talk) 13:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussions about the status of QW (and thus Barrett) here at Wikipedia

For some odd reason, existing discussions have not been announced here, which is a big violation of our usual practice. There are two major places where participation is encouraged:

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is Quackwatch an SPS and thus not allowed as a source on BLPs?
• Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#SPS and Quackwatch

BullRangifer (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Rule 11 Sanctions in "Quackwatch" Libel Case

Rule 11 Sanctions in "Quackwatch" Libel Case I'm not sure if there's anything worth using here, but someone else may think so, so leaving it here. -- Valjean (talk) 01:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Probably not without more coverage. Applies to American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine as well. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 02:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Notice about deletion of Barrett's retirement and license status

Just for the record, so this will be easier to find in the archives.

This content about Barrett's retirement and license status was deleted:

Barrett was a practicing physician until retiring from active practice in 1993. Template:As of, his medical license was listed as "Expired" in good standing: "No disciplinary actions were found for this license."

It was required at one time because of widely disseminated and libelous charges against him on the internet. It was claimed that Barrett was "de-licensed" (his license taken away) and thus was a disgraced physician, but those claims were false. With the current state of the article, this content may no longer be relevant.

For context, in case anyone wants to develop and restore this content, here is more information. It's part of the history of organized attacks on his credibility by several promoters of quack medicine:

"After thirty-five years, at age sixty (60), Dr. Barrett opted to inactivate his Pennsylvania medical license in December, 1993. He was voluntarily retiring, without any negative marks upon his license or career. Dr. Barrett never had his license taken away from him. He simply chose to retire to an inactive status."[1]

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

The issue is you are not giving any reliable sources to back any of it up. I do not doubt it is true, but if it is only backed by primary sources, either from his own websites or legal filing, it has no place in the article. 4.7.212.46 (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Note that I did not revert you. BTW, "from his own websites" is covered by WP:ABOUTSELF and is clearly allowed within reasonable limits. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:28, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate that but if no secondary sources are found then its not notable enough for the article. 32.140.33.58 (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Such sources are not currently in the article, hence why I have not reverted the deletion. There are secondary and primary sources about this, but not in the article, and I don't want to bother with it. Can we stop this now? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

No worries, it seems like you know the topic super well! How long have you been working on this one? 32.140.33.58 (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I started editing as an IP in 2003 and registered in 2005. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC)