Talk:Stephen Barrett

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Stephen Barrett. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071103051137/http://new.thegoodwebguide.co.uk:80/index.php?rid=1772 to http://new.thegoodwebguide.co.uk/index.php?rid=1772
 * Added tag to http://www.health.gov/scipich/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Defamation
Why nothing about Barrett’s failed defamation suit against chiropractor Tedd Koren? It is relevant to his work. Nicmart (talk) 04:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

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:


 * Reliable sources/Noticeboard
 * Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

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)