Talk:Eric R. Braverman - Knowledge (XXG)

2468:

such as personal email accounts to communicate private health information, including patient records. PATH Medical reached a settlement with the OAG in December 2014, called Assurance 14-222, promising to reform its practices to ensure that all consent forms would clearly indicate that patients will likely not receive insurance coverage for their treatment, that patients would receive an itemized receipt with costs and Current Procedural Terminology codes before any treatment is conducted, and that protected health information would no longer be sent via email.

350: 1546:), he is an expert on the topic and this is not disputed, they are left as reliable sources. There seems to be some sort of cherry-picking going on. Braverman has been selected and all critical material including Quackwatch has been removed but other living biographies that use Quackwatch are all fine. Does not make sense. We should restore the material here if Quackwatch is being used on other living biographies. 522: 441: 288: 264: 389: 481: 233: 403: 378: 2184:, whether they seem to be adequately factual and due as they are, and whether they need to be balanced by Braverman's perspective. It might be more useful to look at specifics instead of discussing the concerns in general. Also, I agree that we should not cite anything from pages of a newspaper that are self-labeled as gossip pages. -- 298: 1726:

traffic then some of the others. Quackwatch is a decent source and the most detailed that documents Braverman's career on the web. I am not interested in editing this article again, it has been whitewashed, sad. But I have high-lighted a major contradiction and inconsistency here. It really is terrible.

1519:

First off RSN has said that material published by Barrat is SPS, SPS are not allowed to be used for BLP information. Having said that at least some of this removed material was not sources to QW (or Barrat) and thus is not covered by the RSN findings. Indeed some of it appears to have been sources to

2941:

much for compiling this. It's very helpful. I've reformatted it so that each item is numbered, so that we can refer to each one by its number. I've only done a quick examination so far, but here are a few thoughts from me for the time being. I think anything that is sourced only to a court record or

2467:

The OAG also found that patients were not provided documentation about what testing had been conducted at the time of treatment, and that many patients complained that they were being charged extra to discuss the results of those tests. Finally, the OAG found that PATH Medical used insecure methods

1836:

instead. I also updated the bot/autogenerated ref names so it's easier to see which sources are being used for which claims. If anyone knows of reliable sources that support content I've removed, please feel free to re-add it. Or let me know and I'll gladly add it back myself. (I'm not sure "gladly"

2164:

Except that Neither the NYP or NYDL are deprecated in a way that says we should never use them. I would argue *as I did above) that as this was really of only local interest only local papers would have covered it. I see no issue overall with using them, especially if there are primary sources that

2065:

The NYT is fine, and to the "tabloids" this has a rather different meaning here. For (what is in effect) local news they would be fine. I am not sure that undue applies purely because it is a local issue. But none the less is still relevant to his professional standing. Moreover much of it seems to

1754:

Thank you to everyone who came here from the post I made at BLPN. I'm going to say the same thing here that I'm about to say there. I would be fine with shortening the page so as to reduce the reliance on tabloid sources, although my review of the article led me to think that a lot of what they are

2402:

including the statement, 'the Lord said . . . I am YHWH from Yahweh...' taken in aggregate with other circumstances, such as Braverman's license plate which reads 'YHWH MD', indicate that Braverman may suffer from a mental disorder." Due to this, besides suspension of license, the State sought an

2397:

Regarding the first 11 counts of the complaint, the New Jersey attorney general charged that Braverman's diagnosis and treatment of 11 different patients was "so inappropriate or unsafe, evidencing gross misdiagnosis and/or mismanagement of a wide variety of patient complaints, that the health or

1560:

Irrelevant policy says "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." Barrats material on QW is SPS (according to RSN) thus cannot be

1725:

We both know that Quackwatch will still be used as a source on Null's article in a year, and many of the other biographies on Knowledge (XXG). I will check in a year and it will still be there, heck maybe it will be there for ten years. This article has been singled out because it has much less

2027:, I would break down the evaluation of the sources into (1) reliability, and (2) due weight. I doubt that the information that has been sourced to those cites is really untrue. This isn't like the "little green man" stuff that appears in some tabloids. Rather, I think the key issue for us is 2090:

often does with aliens. (Or did? I can't say I'm current on the type of content they run.) It's that they have a reputation for sensationalism, covering gossip stories that reliable sources tend to consider unimportant. They also have a reputation for running articles that are misleading or

3051:

Except it does not say "for facts" that is because we are aware of the old trick of "Bert Terrible has said that Raymond Luxury Yacht is a pedo" as a means of getting round libelous statements (and yes adding the word "alleged" is the same kind of dodge. In modern parlance its called a dog

3235:, which has not been paid any heed to. Both the tabloids are pretty much reliable in mundane reporting of negative affairs unless we are dealing in highly controversial domains. And, if we are not using these sources, I propose that the article be deleted for it fails ANYBIO and GNG. 2978:

is that they are considered to be self-published under our definition of self-published. The key consideration to most people is that Mr. Barrett is also the editor of the website and there is thus no second set of eyes that would make their articles non-self published as defined by

3014:

Yes, you are right about the RfC and I was wrong, sorry. I stand corrected. My reading of the section of the verifiability policy is that it says not to use self-published sources for assertions of facts about living persons, but that there is nothing wrong with using them for

1595:, which is considered reliable for BLP claims. I'm definitely not opposed to restoring some of this content, just not claims sourced to SPS, court documents, and tabloids. I've often found that, if Quackwatch covers something, reliable sources will follow. It would be great if 1755:

cited for is factual rather than sensational. I'd also much prefer to revise the page than to continue the edit warring that has been going on. But what originally led me to restore the material in the one edit that I made was that the page also cites

2179:

Perhaps someone could made a sort of list here in talk, of the specific bits of content that were cited to the contested sources, and then we could go through each of them, one-by-one, and evaluate whether they are borne out by, for example, the

1452:: "Articles written by Stephen Barrett on Quackwatch are considered generally reliable (as Barrett is a subject-matter expert) and self-published (as there is disagreement on the comprehensiveness of Quackwatch's editorial process); 3435:

would be more appropriate. It is a single critic, after all. (Of course, if anyone has additional sources, I'm absolutely fine with keeping it as-is.) In addition, if we're using it as a source, should it also appear as an external

2398:

lives of his patients are endangered." The Attorney General claimed that Braverman represented "a clear and imminent danger to the public." In the 12th count, New Jersey said that the writings of Braverman "contained in his

1837:

is the best word here, given the subject, but it is what it is.) For what it's worth, I do think it's important that we include negative information, but it needs to be reliably sourced and compliant with our BLP policies.

2942:

the like, without also being reported in a news account, should be omitted, because the BLP policy is very clear about that. I took a quick look at the RfC at RSN about Quackwatch, and the consensus seems to be that it

2007:

There's been too much edit warring, in my opinion, so I've requested full protection for the page. I think it's reasonable to hold the page in the more BLP-cautious condition it is now, pending more discussion here in

3560: 1972:

If anyone thinks that any of these sources are reliable enough for BLP, or has alternative sources, please discuss it here. On a personal level, the more I read these sources, the more I feel like we need to mention

1504:

for example, Barrett's article on Quackwatch is used on the article. Barrett is an expert on the subject. If you eliminate that source, there is no detailed alternative in this case. I believe it should be restored.

153: 2050:

I wasn't sure the edit warring was that bad but in view of BLP concerns and the current holiday season, I full-protected for two days and do not need consultation if another admin wants to remove the protection.

2113:

might be fine for basic news coverage, but for negative or controversial claims in a BLP I think we need to look for higher quality sources with an actual reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Like

2031:

for material that has been reported in tabloids, but has not also been reported to the same extent in higher-quality sources. Given the sheer extent of this stuff, I think at least a goodly amount of it

656: 1828:

I've just removed negative/controversial claims sourced to tabloids, court documents, and self-published sources per BLP. Where possible, I kept or updated some claims that could be sourced to the

2830:(Munchausen syndrome by proxy) by exaggerating the children's symptoms and repeatedly subjecting them to unnecessary and at times invasive medical treatment, and had a fixation with their health. 1955:

I do not have roll back access and thus am unable to undo my revert as I removed some material afterwards. But you are correct, it should not have been restored until consensus had been reached.

2200:

Yes, it would be nice to have each piece objected to individually. At the moment we have some SPS (not the rules applies to people, not their views), RS considerations (or is it undue weight?).

3271:

I'm also concerned that the removal of this material veers towards whitewashing information that is reliably sourced. But I'd rather have a careful discussion of those sources here. Now, the

3555: 414:. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the 1627:? I didn't think so. It seems only this article has been targeted. Yawn. You have 0 chance of removing Quackwatch from Null's article without being reverted... and you know it. LOL. 359: 274: 2385:

sources, plus the mention of 12 counts and "constitute a clear and imminent danger to the public" are taken from the court records and not Barrett's analysis, which is an issue of

212: 1561:

used for information about a living person. Your argument is not an argument to restore the information, but to remove it form those other articles, two wrong do not make a roght.

2238:, along with policy justifications. I won't list claims that I left in the article because I found (or they already had) better sourcing, though I may add some notes about that. 1096: 666: 3125:

are for WP purposes both considered "tabloids" and thus barred for use as sources for use on a BLP? BTW, "tabloid" can refer to a paper size and does not necessarily equate to

3088:

No, I am saying what policy does not say. You might not want to write it, others might. As I have said before we should treat all subjects the same, not by differing standards.

2878:

His ex-wife's attorney said: "Despite his claims of insolvency he has admitted to the court that he recently enjoyed a respite on St. Bart’s at a multi-million dollar estate."

1500:

Woodroar, this has already been discussed many times. Quackwatch articles written by Barrett are sometimes used on biographies of living persons where no other source exists.

147: 3590: 3565: 3439:

If we do restore 10-12, 16, and 20, we should rewrite the (removed) text. While verifying those claims in the sources just now, I've noticed that the (removed) text was

2036:

due weight for inclusion, but we should be careful to not go beyond what is clearly verifiable, and be careful not to omit any rebuttals that Braverman has expressed. --

1591:

fine. It's never been discussed at RSN but it's independent, written by a reporter, they have an editorial team, it's ultimately run by AOL, etc. And of course there's

862: 858: 844: 740: 736: 722: 3580: 940:, until his contract was canceled in June 1996 following board action in the state of NJ and PA. He has appeared on television networks and primetime shows including 657:

https://web.archive.org/web/20140104203835/http://www.internalmedicinenews.com/single-view/p300-evoked-potential-may-identify-early-brain-deterioration/ec6d54b408.html

1677:

Barrett's articles on Quackwatch are used on more than ten living biographies on Knowledge (XXG). So the rules only apply to Braverman and nobody else? Interesting.

2357:

was suspended by the New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners after finding that he repeatedly misdiagnosed his patients and prescribed them inappropriate treatments.

217: 415: 410: 383: 1803:. But I also think it's reasonable to look carefully at the sourcing and BLP issues, independently of that. I suspect that this is a case of a page subject who 2920:

I think that's it. If I've missed any, please let me know. I'm very short on time (especially after this) so I may not be able to get back to this right away.

660: 79: 2321:, was served by the New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners with a 12 count 'verified complaint.' Later that month, the board temporarily suspended Braverman's 3545: 200:) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or 2785: 2437:

General Health Care Bureau for deceptive and misleading business practices due to 20 complaints to the OAG of unnecessary testing and excessive billing.

316: 192: 2994:

use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.

44: 1623:

Slatersteven, all talk and no action! Are you going to remove Barrett's articles on Quackwatch then from all the other living biographies, including

1366:

I've removed the claims again. More than two-thirds of the sources are to court records (which aren't reliable sources for BLPs) and tabloid papers

85: 3570: 3191: 320: 2619: 2138:, however, we should probably attribute their statements if there aren't multiple sources. (Though if there are multiple sources, why use the 1937:, court documents should not be used to support claims about living persons. As for the tabloid sources, why should we use them? Do they pass 1900:

Woodroar I am going to undo you last (overly large) deletion and ask you to only remove sources that violate SPS . We should discuss the rest.

667:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120610104000/http://dailynightly.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/03/11007637-the-surprising-new-face-of-obesity?lite

830: 2671: 2521: 30: 2703: 1584: 315:, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Knowledge (XXG)'s articles about people. All interested editors are invited to 3550: 2360: 1756: 1592: 600: 596: 3224:

I have seldom seen such outright whitewashing, under the garb of an absolutist interpretation of policies. RSP, at the very top states

1102: 670: 459: 324: 2841: 2799: 1641:

You were the one who drew my attention to this by posting about it on a noticeboard I watch, and no I am not required to do anything.

540: 508: 311: 269: 99: 3585: 3246: 2759: 2547: 840:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

718:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

580: 576: 3469: 3226: 2826:

The court based its opinion on the determinations of a court-appointed psychiatrist and abuse specialists that Braverman committed

2717: 2663: 2625: 532: 500: 492: 104: 20: 2109:

is (or was) considered the "least-credible" major local paper, plus a number of specific examples of shoddy journalism. Now the

168: 74: 1918:, as I just mentioned at BLPN. We can certainly discuss sources, but that content should be removed until a consensus develops. 560: 556: 3480: 3458: 2765: 2679: 2599: 2505: 2268: 244: 135: 3447: 2573: 2513: 1328:

I just reverted a revert of material that puts the page subject in a negative light. It seems to me that the information was

3491: 2881: 2672:

Anti-aging doc accused of sexually assaulting patient during massage in his private office by Thomas Tracy and Shayna Jacobs

2522:

Anti-aging doc accused of sexually assaulting patient during massage in his private office by Thomas Tracy and Shayna Jacobs

1915: 661:

http://www.internalmedicinenews.com/single-view/p300-evoked-potential-may-identify-early-brain-deterioration/ec6d54b408.html

646: 636: 65: 3575: 2803: 3186:). Off wiki, you'll find criticism of both papers' tabloid journalism, "sensationalism sells" approach—for example, from 3275:

source that we were just discussing has been added as an external link: I'm not so sure that this is really progress. --

3236: 2434: 2429:

because many of the specific details/quotes are original analysis of the court records and not what Barrett highlighted.

2350: 2322: 905: 783: 3070:. Knowledge (XXG) cites opinions, with attribution, all the time. A self-published source is a reliable source for the 2482:(court records) because there isn't even any analysis by Barrett here, it's simply a court record hosted by Casewatch. 3403: 3230: 3515:

I've updated the Quackwatch claim and also removed Quackwatch as an EL because it's already being used as a source.

920:

some of the refs here might be use-able to generate encyclopedic content. Otherwise this is just promotional trash

3177: 3158: 2101: 1790: 1731: 1682: 1668: 1632: 1551: 1510: 1439: 1407: 1357: 936:

Sundays at noon, and has also made guest appearances on other radio shows. In the past, he hosted a weekly show on

129: 3430:

has stated that PATH promotes and sells questionable health products, and has also accused Braverman of promoting

2986: 2980: 2570:

His wife had claimed their children were not safe with Braverman because he had tried to improperly medicate them.

536: 201: 109: 3420:

has stated that PATH promotes and sells questionable health products, and critics accuse Braverman of promoting

2950:

look like he wrote it, so those may be appropriate to include. I still need to look at the newspaper sources. --

2440: 861:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

739:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

388: 2711: 2486:

Braverman and his divorce attorney Diana Moyhi were arrested for trying to steal two confidential custody-case

2015:

should be included, but that we should do so correctly and carefully. First of all, I really do think that the

3187: 1886:

The SPS ones are not, as you are now fully aware. So reinstate the rest and find non SPS sources for the rest.

1322: 979: 250: 125: 1799:

I'm not surprised. The edit history of the page sure looked to me like it could be a sock farm, perhaps also

1063: 2491: 954: 896: 810: 774: 628: 590: 2889: 2867: 2845: 2815: 2811: 2773: 2751: 2725: 2687: 2641: 2637: 2607: 2581: 2555: 2529: 2479: 2452: 2422: 2386: 2280: 2276: 2250: 1938: 1934: 1921:

As I see it, the non-SPS issues are with court documents (sourced from various sites) and tabloid sources (

983:. In addition, Braverman's work has been featured in magazines and non-academic publications, including as 834: 3262: 3213: 3093: 3057: 2789: 2487: 2205: 2170: 2071: 1960: 1905: 1891: 1876: 1856: 1696: 1646: 1566: 1525: 831:

https://archive.is/20121214183540/http://web.cs.gc.cuny.edu/~rllc/colloquium/talks/Fall2010/2010-11-18.htm

453: 3399: 2819: 2456: 2406: 2332: 1432: 175: 55: 2853: 2793: 2378: 2318: 1786: 1727: 1678: 1664: 1628: 1547: 1506: 1435: 1403: 1353: 1162: 1038: 880:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

868: 758:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

746: 586: 570: 2544:

After trying to steal the reports and being caught by the court clerk, he allegedly tried to bribe her.

2329:, finding that if he continued to practice it may constitute a clear and imminent danger to the public. 809:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 627:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 70: 566: 3386: 3280: 3079: 3042: 2955: 2372: 2189: 2041: 1812: 1772: 1337: 211:. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to 3481: