Talk:Broda Otto Barnes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No mention of Barnes' theories in hypothyroidism entry[edit]

I'm staying out of substantive editing of this article based on past experience with obvious partisans (being one is not necessarily a bad thing - I am one on other biographies) involved in biographical entries. However, I am mystified at the amount of effort expended regarding the citations about Barnes' work since this is a biographical article and not an article about hypothyroidism. When I actually visit Wikipedia's hypothyroidism entry I find no mention of Barnes' work. I would suggest that efforts towards presenting his theories are better suited to inclusion in the appropriate wikipedia entry on the malady where those who understand such things can weigh in on them (and I am not such a person). I construe the investment of effort in bolstering Barnes' theories in this article as a stealth mechanism to insert them in wikipedia if they can't stand up to communal editor scrutiny in the appropriate entry. I have no problems with them being listed bibliographically in an article about the man, but the effort to expand, bolster, and defend them in detail seems to be not only a misplaced effort, but also an inadvertent barrier to others who may wish to edit the article as stated in arguments above. It's almost impossible for all but an experienced editor to wade through the wiki-code. My observation, not my fight. --Quartermaster (talk) 14:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The idea isn't very practical. There are, lets say, 5,000 philosophers and maybe 1,000 professional baseball players in their categories. That they are not mentioned in the article on Philosphy and Baseball has zero relevancy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're using the reductio ad absurdum fallacy in your argument. Of course what you say is true, however, the baseball article does mention Babe Ruth, among other seminal figures and characters in Baseball (Fernando Tatis, not so much). If Barnes is considered such a revolutionary thinker on the topic of hypothyroidism as seems to be posited in this bio, one would think that at least he or his theories might be mentioned in passing in the article on hypothyroidism. I think the effort to expound on his theories here are because they wouldn't stand under scrutiny by peers in the hypothyroidism article. Hence my point about stealth placement of them herein. --Quartermaster (talk) 19:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only an absurdity in your mind. Inclusion or exclusion from any Wikipedia article has never meant anything at all in regards to notability. The phrase "revolutionary thinker" or "revolutionary " do not appear in the article at all. Correct me if I am wrong. I haven't a clue where you pulled that from, your colon? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gee whiz RAN, there's not much editing value in winning a consensus debate on points while becoming snicker bait to one's honorable opponents. Milo 03:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clues: Footnote 5 - A prime mover in clinical research on the thyroid gland for half a century, the late Broda O. Barnes, MD, Ph.D., was also a prime mover behind the writing of ...; Footnote 8 - One of the twentieth century's most prolific researchers with regard to hypothyroidism was Broda O. Barnes, M.D., Ph.D.. The rest of the hagiographic quotations in the citations create an impression that Barnes was one of the great researchers in the history of hypothyroidism. I want to point out that I'm abstaining from editing the article, as well as abstaining from returning not so thinly veiled personal insults. That doesn't stop me from observing that "the emperor has no clothes." I'll try to self-enforce avoiding this article (off my watchlist now), with the exception being to mark it as a classical example of where wikipedia can go awry. The Broda Barnes article now resides proudly in my pantheon of shame next to David DeAngelo --Quartermaster (talk) 01:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Prime mover" and "prolific" have never been synonyms for "revolutionary thinker". I don't know what thesaurus you are using. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is notability source on this point which I posted in the AfD:

Solved: The Riddle of Illness ; 4th edition McGraw-Hill (July 20, 2006) [1] Page 4: "I am thankful that I stumbled across the monumental research in this area of Broda O. Barnes, MD, PhD, one of the world's foremost authorities on the thyroid gland."

Good historians take into account that notable figures in their field go through up and down periods of assessment of their contributions. Harry Truman and Jimmy Carter are examples probably well-known to you, who went through a down period but recovered. For a less famous example consider Reginald Fessenden who claimed to, and is widely credited to have made the first radio broadcast. Fessenden was unquestionably a genius who could have been first and maybe should have been first. Recent historical analysis has uncovered inconsistencies that could eventually cause his claim to be judged as wrong, yet he might later recover due to efforts by people with investment in his story (books, museums, family).
With due respect I think your concerns are misplaced. I'm not much concerned that Barnes might be hagiographed. I'm concerned about keeping an article at all. Out of control deletionists are snapping like crocs in this article. Just since the AfD it has become seriously underrepresentative of notable disease treatment outcomes and misrepresentative of the basic facts. Milo 03:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Your evaluation is rational but reductionist. Reductionism assumes that the whole is the linear sum of the parts. In the real world, science is strongly influenced by nonlinear politics and wealth (see Global warming). If you are interested in how science evolves in practice, see Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions on "paradigm shift". And not only science, but history, business, etc.; see Paradigm shift#Other uses.
Furthermore, health and medicine are a worst case. Because evolved biology is so convoluted and individually dissimilar, health and medicine are arts influenced by science. Hippocrates wrote approximately, "Who is a proper doctor is a matter of opinion." (Search { Hippocrates "proper doctor" })
In Wikipedia practice, the presentation of notable ideas begins with the credibility of the founder, and builds to the details of the founder's discoveries. Until the sources and details of presentation have been vetted here, any small statement placed in hypothyroidism will likely disappear unless adequately presented and exhaustively cited in this article. The buck starts here.[2]
Do add WikEd Gadget (User talk:Cacycle/wikEd) to your Wikipedia profile. It took impossibly long for me to edit extensively-cited controversial articles on religion without it. Milo 21:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Really don't understand how this articles wiki-code is different from any other article. Don't see why biographies should be constrained to discussing things which are fully-featured in basic topical articles. II | (t - c) 16:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits 2[edit]

I've reverted a series of edits which (I believe) another editor (Verbal) had also taken issue with. There are multiple issues here; I'll hit a few for discussion here, and maybe we can make some progress along the lines of WP:BRD.

  • The language is full of WP:PEACOCK terms and vaguely grandiose statements. Barnes published "hundreds of papers"; he devoted "over 50 years of his life"; he wasn't just a physician and researcher but a Renaissance man, and so forth. The tone of the article diverges substantially from the encyclopedic, and this propensity embodies the overall trend of recent edits, which appears to be to use this article to promote Barnes' claims out of proportion to their actual level of acceptance by experts in the field.
  • I'm not clear that Barnes published "hundreds of papers" in mainstream medical journals. A PubMed search for "barnes bo[au]" returns about 14 hits, some of which belong to a different B. O. Barnes. A presumably more relevant search ("barnes b[au] AND thyroid") returns 4 hits.
  • A "signficant minority" of practicing physicians do not support Barnes' claims. A handful of low-profile, sometimes virtually self-published, alternative-medicine books have been written promoting them. That's different. If this were a "significant-minority" view, it would have some presence in the peer-reviewed medical literature or in expert opinion - as does, for instance, the significant-minority view on lowering the TSH threshold. The terms used here again inflate Barnes in a promotional and non-encyclopedic manner. Lists of "100 doctors who agree with Barnes" are a common marker of true fringiness; after all, AIDS denialist websites proudly point to a list of several thousand people whom (they allege) support AIDS denialism.

I think we can make the point that Barnes published in the mainstream medical literature and held a position at a major university without descending into the tone of a late-night infomercial. Part of it depends on using good sources, and part depends on our willingness to see this as an encyclopedia article rather than a chance to burnish Barnes' image. MastCell Talk 22:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the language like "Barnes was the foremost authority on the thyroid gland" is problematic and shouldn't be in the article. II | (t - c) 22:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Because you've never heard of Dr. Barnes? Because he didn't win a Nobel prize? Because he's of a nationality that you think gets too much praise? Wrong race? (Hypothetical – you get my point.) You seem to be inadvertently substituting a personal standard for the Wikipedia standard at WP:PEACOCK. Since there's no limit to how unfair that can become, that's why there are guiderules on this issue.
I did look up the direct quote issue in this guiderule before copying the quote:

WP:PEACOCK#Do not hide the important facts: "In some contexts, the fame or reputation of a subject may be an objective and relevant question, better supported by a direct source than by drawing inferences indirectly based on other facts (which would constitute original research or synthesis). A sourced statement that the subject is "famous", "well known", "important", "influential", or the like may be appropriate, particularly to establish a subject's notability in an introductory sentence or paragraph."

WP:PEACOCK#Exception for quotations: "Do not impose Wikipedia style guidelines on sources that we cite or quote. It is proper to say, "Music critic Ann Bond wrote that Mozart was a great composer," or "Smith said, 'Senator Jones's acceptance of this contribution is a major scandal.'" Such indirect or direct quotations may be useful in presenting important perspectives, especially on contentious subjects,..."[emphasis mine]

It passes both the "do not hide" and "direct quotations" tests shown above.
Milo 03:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that Barnes is not famous, and not viewed as any sort of authority on the thyroid gland by any recognized expert or expert body. If he were, it would be relatively easy to cite mainstream, reputable sources to illustrate his contributions, instead of leaning heavily on the Barnes Foundation website and a handful of low-profile alternative-medicine books. You seem to want to take the word of a few such obscure books which claim that Barnes was a famous thyroid expert, and substitute that for any actual evidence of fame or recognized expertise.

To be clear, I have no problem with saying that "Several authors of alternative-medicine books have described Barnes as a major authority on the thyroid gland." That would be accurate and reasonably encyclopedic (if you leave out the more egregious self-published and unreliable sources that keep finding their way into the article). MastCell Talk 06:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with MC and II. Sorry I didn't leave an explanation here, I'm having computer/wiki problems. I don't get the reference to racism, and I think it's inappropriate. Verbal chat 07:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote that for II who seems to identify as a writer. As a structured rhetorical argument, that series of questions builds to a hypothetical absurdity – demonstrating that the underlying and unspoken assumption is false. Milo 11:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the moment there are behavioral policy priorities in the section below which trump the guiderule WP:BRD. However, I want to make it clear that while I did pursue WP:BRD as a good faith issue, posted in full right now it would be a distraction.
I wrote a draft that answered almost every point you raised in (MastCell 22:12). Your objections meaningfully summarize to my article use of "seminal" and "significant".
seminal: "seminal survey research of normal basal temperature"
Per M-W.com: seminal "2  : containing or contributing the seeds of later development : creative, original <a seminal book>"
You were unable to prove this was not true in #A normal temperature range of only 0.2 C? above. But I'll consense to delete that word until evidence for seminal becomes available.
"A "significant minority" of practicing physicians do not support Barnes' claims."
The reliable source quote says the number of Barnes' physician followers is "more than one hundred". For 100+ physicians to do this – and collectively risk losing licenses and many millions ($100M+ ?) of dollars in income or lawsuits if they are wrong – they must be quite certain that they are correct. That much money at risk is significant even in the pricey doctoring business.
In (MastCell 06:10), you are essentially trying to repeat an earlier claim about the weight of mainstream experts, as though this was a mainstream article. The point you've missed is that this article contains, and is weighted toward, what may or not have been the historic mainstream view of 65 or more years ago, but what is certainly a well-known and scientifically credible minority view today. In a Wikipedia minority view article, the experts of today are limited to briefly making it clear to the reader that they don't agree by majority medical practice. Depending of which of the three major issues, the science is adequately to mostly on Barnes' side – which is why more than a hundred docs risk their licenses and big money being followers of Barnes.
It being your known WP agenda, you keep mentioning alternative medicine over and over again. Barnes himself seems uninvolved in alternative medicine, per the "Barnes never thought of himself as a maverick" quote. Popular conventional medicine, yes, but I don't think that's the same as alternative medicine.
In fact, you are going to have to find reliable source definitions of "alternative medicine". And then more reliable sources to verify to whatever extent Barnes' methods were picked up by alternative practitioners, as reliably defined.
If you can't do that, you're going to have to drop this whole "alternative medicine" issue as unverifiable POV. Milo 11:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like WP:OR to me, and a "significant minority" is a politicians phrase; it means "minority". Only 100 physicians? I know more than 100 and I'm not even a medical doctor. To be brief, I disagree with everything you say - including allusions to racism being appropriate (I am a published author too!). Verbal chat 13:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If he was a leading authority in his field, what prizes or awards did he receive? Unfortunately these are not listed in the article. Perhaps a list of these awards could be found in an obituary? Indeed, it is quite odd that no obituary is listed, since prominent researchers like Kenneth Sterling or Jacob Robbins have these. Perhaps I was looking in the wrong place? Tim Vickers (talk) 16:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Milo, if you feel there are unaddressed behavioral issues, then please feel free to pursue those in the appropriate venue. Regarding your content points: 100 physicians is not a "significant minority". In 2002, there were about 853,000 physicians active in the US ([3]). Thus, 100 physicians would represent less than 0.01% of US physicians - that's a tiny minority, and that's US-centric. If you look at the number of doctors globally who espouse Barnes' ideas, vs the total number of doctors, the percentage will rapidly approach 0. And all of that assumes that the given source - an alternative-medicine book promising cures for everything that ails modern humanity - is reliable enough to support such a claim (certainly the book's claim about "hundreds of papers" seems hard to substantiate objectively). See WP:REDFLAG: exceptional or surprising claims require exceptional sources, and this isn't such a source.

Tim hit the nail on the head: if Barnes is as notable, famous, influential, etc as you repeatedly insist, then let's produce the objective evidence of that notability - maintream awards,recognition, obits, etc. On the other hand, if Barnes is chiefly notable as the inspiration for an alternative medicine cottage industry - as the currently available sources indicate - then we should reflect that.

As a separate issue, please be clear: WP:NPOV specifically prohibits using "minority-view" articles to rewrite content from a minoritarian perspective. Whether the article is hypothyroidism or Broda Otto Barnes, the mainstream scientific view is the mainstream scientific view. We of course go into greater depth about Barnes' claims in his article, but we don't "limit" the voice of modern scientific knowledge to a few brief words - after all, our goal is not to promote Broda Barnes, but to provide a useful overview of the current state of human knowledge. MastCell Talk 18:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"what prizes or awards did he receive?" At the AfD I contributed this quote: "The brilliance of his research papers on thyroid function led to his being named chairman of the Health Education Department at the University of Denver" (Langer, 2000,2006)."
I'm reasonably familiar with Dr. Barnes' scientific discoveries and medical practices in low basal temperature, but I don't know many answers to questions about his biography. Barnes' biography seems little known prior to Langer's 2nd edition introduction biography, written by request of readers of his 1st edition. Presumably Barnes was a modest man not given to self promotion in place of dedication to science and the well-being of his patients. That modesty seems to be reflected at the Barnes Foundation.
If you are really interested in this article, I suggest taking the time to read the long AfD with posted sources and quotations that so far can't be added to this article due to misplaced agenda bias. Milo 23:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, these claims about Barnes strike a somewhat odd and overblown note. One might expect a brilliant thyroid researcher to be named section head of Endocrinology, or Chief of Medicine at an academic medical center. The University of Denver does not have such positions; in fact, it does not have a medical school at all and is not an academic medical center. That's not to take away from a position in health education, and I think we should mention that he held such a position. To Barnes' credit, he apparently established a fund to provide financial aid to worthy students, again something we should mention. I'm opposed not to the mention of such things, but rather to the constant twisting, spinning, and hyping of every tidbit. It's unencyclopedic. MastCell Talk 04:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←For easy reference here is WP:NPOV#Undue weight:

WP:NPOV/WP:UNDUE: "In articles specifically on the minority viewpoint, the views are allowed to receive more attention and space; however, on such pages, though the minority view may (and usually should) be described, possibly at length, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view (and that it is, in fact the minority view). The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail so the reader understands how the minority view differs from the widely-accepted one, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should clearly be identified and explained." [emphasis added]

I read the underlined section as meaning the majority viewpoint is to be clear, but limited and brief compared to the minority viewpoint. Otherwise, it would just be another majority article.

Also, you seem to have ignored my request for sources on your "alternative medicine" claims. Maybe you haven't had time to do that research, so I'll give you a few days to do that.

However, the impasse created by unrepentant reversions of specific good and unchallenged edits makes it impossible to proceed further with editing. Without the ability to make good edits, progress is impossible. Discussion is moot since it is going around in circles, and nothing else can be settled by the accumulation of good edits. See that behavioral meta issue below. Milo 23:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that we need to be at an impasse. I'm actually open to arguments based on policy and content, and I suspect other editors watching this page are as well. You may have reached the point where you actually need to convince others (not necessarily me, but at least some others) that your views have merit and are in line with this site's goals and policies. From my perspective, the edits in question create an erroneous impression of the actual state of current knowledge in the field. They reflect an effort to rewrite the story of hypothyroidism from a verifiably minoritarian perspective within the confines of this article, thus violating the segment of WP:WEIGHT which you link above.

As to supporting Langer's book as "alternative medicine", I'm pretty sure that any reasonable, objective person looking at the book description, blurbs, and content matter will place it squarely under the aegis of alt-med. But fine: Langer is president of the American Nutritional Medical Association ([4]), a distinctly non-mainstream organization ([5]). He is mentioned and promoted solely on alternative medicine websites (representative example). He's mentioned in "Alternative Medicine: The Definitive Guide". In fact, I'm feeling much less comfortable using Langer's book as an encyclopedic source at all; there appears to be a small walled garden of a handful of people promoting Barnes' claims at present, and we give them far more weight than is appropriate given this site's goals and policies. MastCell Talk 04:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Langer isn't mentioned at the main descriptions of either of two organizations which had/have the name American Nutritional Medical Association. He is not mentioned at the website of the current association in Stockton, CA. The one to which you have linked is described as moving and changing its name decades ago, another man is inconsistently named as president while it had that name, and it seems to have disappeared in 1992. Since your link is defamatory and lacks a proven connection, I request that you delete it per WP:BLP.
I requested (Milo 11:54) "reliable sources to verify to whatever extent Barnes' methods were picked up by alternative practitioners, as reliably defined". Close, but I don't think you're there yet. "Alternative Medicine: The Definitive Guide"'s mention of Langer seems to be only his weight loss book that mentions candidiasis, so that's a synthetic connection. Further searches of the book may yield a more specific connection of Barnes to Langer. However, Barnes and his method are described on page 1095 and can be referenced in the article.
Also you still haven't got a reliable source definition for alternative medicine that makes sense. The same page that mentions Barnes, also describes TRH-TSH blood testing, which I think is a mainstream procedure. Milo 07:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the alt-med connection has been clearly established, and Langer is not a reliable source. There is nothing wrong with the links MastCell provided (in fact quackwatch and Barrett have frequently been found to meet WP:RS). We do not need to provide a definition of alt-med here, please stop asking for one. Rather than accusing people (frivolously) of WP:BLP infractions, it would be more constructive if you brought reliable sources that support the edits you want to make, suggest what edits you want to make, and engage collaboratively in discussion about those edits. Again, I fully agree with MastCell. Verbal chat 08:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP violations are among the most serious issues facing the Wikimedia Foundation. Since you clearly don't understand the gravity of accidentally defaming a professional (libel per quod), you shouldn't be commenting on it, or worse, trivializing it. Milo 08:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are yet again failing to assume good faith, and your edits appear to be very patronizing. If you think there is a problem with this link, take it to WP:BLPN. Quackwatch is a reliable source, as has been established multiple times. On reading the link I saw no BLP problems. Legal threats are a problem, per WP:NLT. I highly recommend you change your attitude towards collaborative editing or WP:DR steps will have to be taken. I'd much rather work on improving the article. Verbal chat 08:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but it would be a further WP:BLP violation to explain what you got wrong. Some things in life just have to remain a mystery. Milo 09:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Langer is listed as "president of the American Nutritional Medical Association" by various sources; I cited amazon.com, but you'll find others if you Google. Note that the information is from the "About the Author" blurb, which is usually provided by the author himself and thus hardly seems libelous. At least one organization by that name has a history which is detailed in the Quackwatch link I provided. I'm not aware of anything defamatory in discussing this information; if you're aware that Amazon, the blurb on Langer's book, or material hosted at Quackwatch are factually incorrect, then please let me (and preferably the sites in question) know.

As to linking Langer to the organization described by Quackwatch, I have no idea how many organizations share this name. It would be uncommon, but not impossible, for someone to take on an organizational name without checking into its history. It is possible that Langer is the president of a different "American Nutritional Medical Foundation", but if multiple low-profile organizations share this same name, then it only serves to underscore the position of this material outside the realm of sources on which this encyclopedia should depend. I don't see a BLP issue here; rather, I think it's an essential part of evaluating sources, and one which you have repeatedly demanded. You are of course welcome to solicit outside opinions at the BLP noticeboard. MastCell Talk 17:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Langer is a reliable source for what people in the alternative medicine community believe, but can't be used to establish the notability of these views. We'd need some kind of coverage of these views in reliable secondary sources, such as mainstream newspapers, to decide what kind of weight to give those beliefs. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Content removal vandalism[edit]

Both Verbal and then MastCell have reverted sizable swaths of both newly written and other large blocks of content under color of WP:BRD. But WP:Vandalism policy trumps WP:BRD.
The problem is not a reverting of those specific items they objected to for explainable guiderule reasons. The problem is that everything I (and another editor) wrote was reverted. If one can't cite explainable guiderule reasons for each item reverted, it's WP:IDONTLIKEIT which is not an acceptable reason for making any contentious edit, such as, during any revert.

Verbal noted in edit summary that some of my edits were good edits. Ok, one can't revert good edits, because it disrupts progress of the project. The first time it's probably a misunderstanding. But it's vandalism to do it again after that point has been explained.
It's also not possible to explain at talk why one wrote a 3.5K intro, when both good and objectionable portions were wholesale reverted.

The reason some editors thoughtlessly engage in wholesale reversion is because it's work to go through and pick out only the edits with guiderule-citable reasons for reverting them. Yeah, well, it was a lot more work to do all that writing. If you think it's 'too much work' to save the good edits, then don't do a revert.

So here's what's could happen if non-selective content removal happens again: Next time, with both parties having been warned, it's probably going to be clear-cut content removal vandalism, and I will have these options:

  • A vandalism template – I template regulars so they can't later claim they didn't know/weren't warned.
  • A noticeboard report – several choices.
  • An admin report – hundreds of choices.
  • A wikiproject report - that editor x is bringing them into disrepute, or asking for help with vandal-watching.
  • Add another charge to a private draft RFC/U, give the vandal enough rope, and wait while doing real world.

Milo 11:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reverts were and are not vandalism. We have moved on to discussion, and so far you haven't justified your edits - only made attacks on other editors. Please justify your edits on the talk page, and gain consensus for them (The D part of BRD). I also suggest you have another look at WP:VANDALISM. By good edits, I meant some of the edits might add to the article, but as a whole and in the form you added them (unqualified praise in wikipedia's voice) they were unsupportable, as MastCell noted above. Verbal chat 13:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Milo, please take a look at what vandalism is not. If, after reading that policy section, you remain convinced that Verbal and I are vandalizing the article, you are of course free to take whatever action you feel is appropriate. MastCell Talk 18:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Vandalism/Archive 6#blatant POV warriors who delete large portions of text:
..."Message from village pump:

"In the past two years I have seen groups of editors delete well referenced material from wikipedia.
"These editors are not simply deleting one or two references, sometimes they are dozens. I saw one of these editors delete 8 cited paragraphs that he personally disagreed with, making the article a stub. These deleted references are not to web sites but scholarly books and magazine articles.
"Is there any policy or any guidelines in place to stop this? Is any group policing this behavior? There are the toothless WP:Edit war guidelines, which only apply to one article and one person. Travb (talk) 09:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
"It's just content removal vandalism unless they can provide a good reason for doing so. Richard001 00:07, 30 September 2007"

Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism
"Blanking

"Removing all or significant parts of a page's content without any reason, or replacing entire pages with nonsense. Sometimes referenced information or important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary." [emphasis added]

Removing good edits knowingly is vandalism. Removing them for WP:IDONTLIKEIT is frivolous. Verbal admitted to removing good edits. MastCell (above section, 22:12) apparently removed good edits by a vague claim of "overall" which violates "readily apparent by examination of the content itself". Use of "overall" is indistinguishable from a cover up of frivolous WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If permitted, claims of "overall" would excuse both frivolity and complex vandalism.

WP:Vandalism is policy. Reversions claimed by WP:BRD must still be specifically identifiable and nonfrivolously justified at talk. Milo 21:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided a "non-frivolous explanation" for my edits here on the talk page, one which every editor except yourself in the thread above has found at least somewhat convincing. Again, if you think there's a real policy violation here, then follow one of the steps you've outlined above. MastCell Talk 23:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I've provided a "non-frivolous explanation"" For the sake of this argument, let's presume that's so. The more important issue is that no one can tell which of the mass-reverted statements are unchallenged by you, which means that you will be committing and attempting to cover up vandalism the next time you unselectively revert. Consider yourself warned. Milo 23:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been fairly specific, I think. Others seem to agree. You can try to convince the other editors here, or you can seek outside input, or you can pursue some sort of sanction against me. The constant bluster and empty threats are tiresome, though, and I decline to participate any further. If you have content and sources to discuss, I'm listening. MastCell Talk 03:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Milo, I reverted 3 of the 5 edits you made. The two I didn't revert were the "good" ones; although I since realised I didn't read them closely enough and the "significant minority" claim isn't supported. We're doing a poor job of mass, non-selective, reverting. Feel free to take my actions to ANI, although note that your actions will probably quickly become the focus. You should also have a look at WP:AGF. The talk page is for discussing improving the article, not making personal attacks and empty threats, see WP:TALK. Another relevant policy for you is WP:OWN. Like MastCell I am tired of this, and this will be my last response to such attacks. However, if you bring RS with awards and further biographical information, then we can discuss those. Verbal chat 06:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We could rehash the details, but since you may not have understood what content removal vandalism is, you get a pass with a warning. Whatever you did or didn't do last time, this is about your future behavior. If you selectively revert next time, and provide an explanation for each challenged item (word, phrase or sentence), there shouldn't be a problem. If however, you unselectively revert or don't provide an explanation, you will be committing and attempting to cover up content removal vandalism. Consider yourself warned. Milo 08:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


←I have real world to do, so I'm giving both of you a few days to cool off and rest up from tiredness. When I work on this again, edit by the rules and this issue won't be a problem. Milo 08:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at WP:NOTVAND and WP:AGF. You are very much mistaken about wikipedia policies and guidelines, and how they apply. I suggest you start with the core policies and listen to the advice given to you by much more experienced editors, especially those that have never been blocked. Verbal chat 08:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have confused me with some other user. Milo 09:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions[edit]

All editors of this page should be aware that this article comes under the set that are covered by Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions. Please read and familiarise yourself with this document. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you reach that conclusion? WP:PSCI clearly shows that this would not be considered pseudoscience, especially when one considers that the prevalence of hypothyroidism is an active scientific controversy today. II | (t - c) 16:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sanctions can be applied to subjects that are "defined as articles which relate to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted", Barnes work is commonly used today in a pseudoscientific manner (see this for example), so this article relates to that use. This is not a comment about Barnes himself, or on his work when set in a historical context. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing for "simple test for iodine deficiency"[edit]

I've (again) removed this material as poorly sourced. I disagree with both of the cited rationales for restoring it: letters to the editor of a medium-sized newspaper are not a reliable source of fact (perhaps, at most, of opinion, but even then they are far weaker than even an op-ed). And it would most certainly be a medical breakthrough if Barnes had discovered a "simple test that could detect iodine deficiency" through the skin. However, since this supposed breakthrough is utterly unsourced (so far as I can see) beyond this letter to the editor, it fails WP:REDFLAG. Basically, as with many of the issues with the article, it comes down to a lack of suitable, encyclopedic reliable sources.

I'd like to solicit some additional input. Am I mistaken in describing this as a letter to the editor? I can view only part of the text online. Assuming that it is a letter, do other editors believe this is suitable sourcing for a) a matter of fact and b) a fairly remarkable and exceptional claim? MastCell Talk 03:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked for some more sources dealing with this question. This article discusses the idea. Hopefully this will resolve the difficulty in including this poorly-sourced statement, as we can state that Barnes might have believed this, but that there is no reason to think that his belief was true. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Tim. I'm concerned about the poor quality of our article's sourcing, more so in light of the article you've produced. Your citation (besides dismissing the utility of transcutaneous iodine testing) does not identify Barnes anywhere as having developed or described such a test, though it does mention by name other researchers who did participate in its development. Barnes, as far as I know, never published anything in the medical literature on the topic. Did Barnes mention this idea anywhere - in his books, or letters, etc - that we can verify? Right now, the only source I see linking Barnes to an iodine skin test is this letter-to-the-editor, which appears directly contradicted by the more reliable source which Tim has produced. I'm still holding out hope that RAN will make an appearance on the talk page between reverts to discuss the issue, so I'll wait a bit longer before editing the article any further. MastCell Talk 18:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


That's a good point, it would be maligning the man to base the statement that he believed something so odd on such a poor source. Perhaps better attribution would solve the problem:
I would have to agree with MastCell on this one. I have read all Barnes books and most of his peer reviewed papers and have not seen any reference to iodine skin testing. Let's wait until we find a really good reference for this before it is added.Mkronber (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


In a letter to the editor of The Charlotte Observer in 2005 a member of the public called XX stated that Barnes had used a test that he believed could detect iodine deficiency, which involved testing iodine being absorbed through the skin.

However, this still does not address the question as to if a letter written by a member of the public to a newspaper is a reliable source. It might be a good idea to ask that question on the reliable sources noticeboard, to gather some independent input. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We could certainly do that. Before doing so, I'd like to confirm that this is indeed a letter-to-the-editor (I'm basing that on the brief amount of freely available info at the link provided). I'm also wondering whether there is a real dispute here - if only one editor feels that this source is encyclopedic, and all others do not, and that one editor can't be bothered to use the article talk page, it seems like a matter of WP:CONSENSUS that doesn't require an additional layer of noticeboarding. MastCell Talk 19:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Sunlight is the best disinfectant". Tim Vickers (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmph - I thought it was iodine :P MastCell Talk 21:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


New Section on Heart Disease[edit]

To some degree the slimming down that MastCell has done to the topic has improved readability, however, I think the pendulum may have swung too far the other way now. Specifically I think it is a mistake to have taken out the previously existing section on Heart Disease. Research on heart disease comprised arguably the biggest part of Barnes' research. He published 2 books specifically on the topic, plus the largest section of his New York Times best selling book "Hypothyroidism: the unsuspected illness"--as well as several peer reviewed papers on heart disease. In his lectures(available at the foundation) he also spends significant time on the topic. So to have a section on his pregnancy urine testing (though reported in TIME, it was a minor footnote in his career) but not have a section on Heart Disease seems an unbalanced view of his research. So what I'm proposing is bringing back the old section (which the wiki admin said was ok), and then opening it up for further edits and improvements. Does this sound reasonable?Mkronber (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. It is refreshing to hear someone admit that the bitterling research was a minor footnote in Barnes' career. Making this glaringly obvious point has previously provoked a torrent of abuse (not from Mkronber, to be fair). I'm not sure who the "wiki admin" is - after all, I'm a wiki admin... but I assume you meant someone else. :) What would you propose we say about Barnes and heart disease? Can we brainstorm it here on the talk page? MastCell Talk 22:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I double checked, it was actually someone else who put the comment in, not an admin... I stand corrected. Anyway, as I mentioned previously, (based on his books, papers an lectures) Barnes spend a huge portion of his time, research and writings on the cause of atherosclerosis. He spent 1 full month a year reviewing autopsies in Austria for many years trying to understand the enigma of the rapid rise of heart attacks after the war. It resulted in several peer reviewed papers and books in which his proposed that hypothyroidism and changes in infectious disease rates best explain the changing death patterns during WWII--not diet. Based on this research he concluded that the mainstream view that high cholesterol *caused* heart disease was false. (He did agree that when thyroid function decreases, serum cholesterol levels rise, so in a way he agreed the *association* was sometimes valid). Like his view on the prevalence of hypothyroidism, this is an area where he departed from the mainstream medical opinion & generated controversy. If you look back at the heart disease section, say around Oct 26, 2008, it did a pretty good job of summarizing his views and research with proper references. What about taking a look at that version as a starting point, and propose any wording changes from there? Mkronber (talk) 02:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a consensus to restore this section, so I have removed it pending further discussion. Verbal chat 07:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Milo has agreed to my proposal on my talk page "I agree with your proposal to restore and improve the previously existing section on Heart disease at Broda Otto Barnes. ' Milo 22:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)" [reply]
And, I did not hear any reply to my previous post from the usual objectors (MastCell and Verbal). So, I did a careful job in taking the previous content, verifying it and rewording it to make it more neutral. Everything in the text was checked from the references and the content and is completely basic, central and well documented from Barnes works. So below again, is the text. Mkronber (talk) 13:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Usual objectors?? I have no problem with the removal of the urine testing section if you feel it is undue, but I'm not convinced that restoration of the previous long section on heart disease that appears to be a coat is appropriate. Verbal chat 14:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with keeping the pregnancy urine testing section, it did get covered in TIME after all. I just think covering that in detail yet hardly mentioning Barnes' greater research on heart disease, would not accurately portray his research career and an important reason for his notability. Your concerns are valid and I think we can address them by making sure the text highlights that his conclusions were not embraced by the mainstream. Mkronber (talk) 01:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'm kind of tired of arguing about this article, and I think Mkronber is several orders of magnitude more reasonable than some of his predecessors here, so I don't feel strongly either way. I guess the only bone I have to pick is that it might be nice - from the perspective of clarity and accuracy - to indicate that the "multi-decade study" Barnes cites was published in one of his books, and not in the medical literature. Obviously, a discerning reader may attach substantially different levels of significance to studies published in books promoting a panacea as opposed to those published in the peer-reviewed medical literature. But that is a relatively minor point in the grand scheme of things. MastCell Talk 18:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. We can make sure the final wording of the part discussing his own study makes it clear this was a small study from his own clinic. Mkronber (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the sandbox section below I have posted Mkronber's 02:22, 3 June 2009 proposal edit to the article in the left column (don't edit) with an editable draft in the right column (do edit). Milo 18:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heart Disease Perspective[edit]

Barnes devoted a significant part of his life's research into the cause of heart disease, and differed from the mainstream view on the etiology of it.[1] For many years he spent as much as 1 month per year in Graz, Austria, reviewing and researching autopsy reports in the city hospital, widely considered to be the oldest and most complete in the world. His study of over 70,000 of these autopsy reports spanning the war years of 1939-1945, lead Barnes to suggest that [[atherosclerosis] was not caused by diet and cholesterol as is widely believed, but instead by hypothyroidism. [1]

The widely accepted cholesterol theory of heart disease credits the drop in consumption of fatty foods during the war years for the drop in heart attacks, and the increase of heart attacks after the wars end with the resumed availability of fatty foods. [1] Barnes’ disputed this, claiming to show that in the war years when the rate of deaths from heart attacks dropped, the patients who were dying—-largely due to Tuberculosis--had in fact greatly accelerated rates of atherosclerosis. [1]

Barnes reasoned that the hypothyroid patient is both susceptible to infection and atherosclerosis, and it is a question of circumstances that will determine which will be fatal first. He claimed therefore that drop and rebound of heart attacks during and after WWII can be attributed to an increased rate of infectious disease during the war, and a sharp decrease after the war due to the availability of antibiotics, which simply modulated the timing of impending coronary events.[1]

Barnes also conducted a multi-decade study of his own patients, that claimed to show a 94% reduction in the rate of heart attacks as compared to the Framingham Heart Study. Barnes asserted that this was due to the thorough screening and effective treatment of hypothyroidism among his patients, which largely prevented the development of atherosclerosis.[1]

Mkronber (talk) 13:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox for "Heart Disease Perspective"[edit]

To change the draft, click on the edit button at the top of the right column (not the header above). Strikes for deletions and underlines for inserts are suggested, or use anything else understandable such as square brackets or colors. Please add your signature to the list below the bottom line after each draft edit.

Note: Ignore references which the sandbox reference section picks up from other sections of the talk page.

Signatures added horizontally will reduce the need for vertical scrolling: Milo 18:03, 3 June 2009, 03:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC) ;[reply]


I think a reasonable amount of time has passed to allow editing and modifications to this Heart Disease section. I propose we now move the edited section to the topic. Are there any objections to proceeding with that?--Mkronber (talk) 00:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Get consensus for making the change. Without more discussion I oppose the change. Verbal chat 08:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My biggest concern is that it's way too much detail sourced solely to one of Barnes' books. We should certainly cover his beliefs and claims about heart disease, but if these attracted so little attention as to be unnoticed outside of his own popular-audience books, then our coverage should probably be weighted appropriately. The language is a bit too declarative given that the claims are sourced solely to Barnes' book - for example, when it states that Barnes conducted "a multi-decade study", a logical question would be: where was that study published? Was it described anywhere besides Barnes' popular-audience book? It also misstates the "cholesterol theory"; no one would seriously point to heart-attack rates during WWII as the most convincing evidence supporting it. If Barnes made such an argument, then perhaps that's notable here, but we shouldn't phrase it in absolute, declarative terms. MastCell Talk 18:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing houses[edit]

I'm not sure I understand the rationale for this revert by Milomedes (talk · contribs). The edit summary asserts that "Harper-Collins is a respectable publishing house." I have no argument with that statement. However, the source I removed was not published by Harper-Collins; it was published by New Voice Publishing, an obscure, apparently one-person operation, and does not meet reliable-sourcing criteria. I just wanted to clarify whether this was a simple misunderstanding about the actual publisher. MastCell Talk 18:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, it was my misunderstanding.
Here you removed 13 reliable source verification quotes, including those from two Harper-Collins books, against the consensus to keep quotes established in a section above. Next you removed a 14th quote, unrelated to the New Voice Publishing book also removed:

</ref><ref name="hypotype2">{{cite book |last=Starr |first=Mark |authorlink= |coauthors= |title=Hypothyroidism Type 2 |year=2005 |publisher=New Voice Publications |pages=174 | url=http://books.google.com/books?id=NbFzAAAACAAJ&dq |isbn=0975262408 }}</ref>

As I wrote in the 27 April 2009 AfD, the New Voice Publishing (NVP) book, should go to the reliable sources noticeboard to vet for contextual reliability. NVP may be obscure, but it's not self-publishing. It's operated by two PhDs, possibly assisted by a contract production staff. As PhDs with thesis publishing experience, they have checked the book for libels, copyvio, plagiarism, and obvious errors. They are undoubtedly aware that other books have been published in this field which are in substantial technical agreement. The author, Mark Starr, is a licensed medical doctor, reporting in this book his clinical experience with the significant minority medical practice view. Therefore Starr does have professional expertise in that minority medical practice, which makes it a possibly reliable source in describing one side of a medical practice controversy. Milo 20:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how a book by an unknown physician, published by an obscure, essentially vanity press which appears to publish few or no other books, and which makes claims dramatically at odds with current medical and scientific understanding, can be considered a useful encyclopedic source. This is, after all, intended to be a serious and respected reference work; can you image Encyclopedia Brittanica, for instance, citing such a source? I suppose it could potentially be used to source the fact that Barnes' claims have been embraced by a segment of the alt-med community, but that point is already well-made with more appropriate sources, so I don't see a need to lower the bar.

I don't know how many Ph.D.'s you know, but publishing a thesis does not give you automatic experience in editing others' work, making a legal assessment for defamation, understanding copyright law, or even being able to spot obvious errors outside of one's immediate area of expertise.

That said, we can of course solicit additional opinions here, from the Medicine wikiproject, or from the reliable sources noticeboard. MastCell Talk 23:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←"...book by an unknown physician..." I don't think he's unknown. His name has about 2,000 hits on Google web combined with "hypothyroidism". His book, "Hypothyroidism Type 2: The Epidemic" has Amazon.com sales rank #11,010 in books. (By comparison, Barnes and Galton's "Hypothyroidism: The Unsuspected Illness" has Amazon.com sales rank #20,212 in books.) His blurb describes him as listed in a 1999 Who's Who – a paid entry perhaps, but purchased name recognition counts.

"essentially vanity press" ... "publish few or no other books" Those two things are mutually exclusive. An author pays a vanity press for printed copies of books, which the author owns outright and sells without the press getting a further cut. Since a vanity press makes its money from authors, the press doesn't put much if any effort into promoting or selling books. (I've seen a vanity press on the web with a long list of titles only.) Since a vanity press continuously needs a lot of new authors, the fact that NVP has a relatively small catalog suggests that they lack the volume to be a vanity press. Also, the Amazon.com sales rank suggests they are making some money from Starr's book.

"...claims ... at odds with current ... scientific understanding,.." I'm not aware of any claim at odds with scientific understanding. You raised this issue in the AfD concerning the nature of "type 2 hypothyroidism". I did the research you requested, explained in the AfD that it is Starr's popularized name for thyroid receptor resistance, and described Starr's origin for the "type 2" name in consultation with a medical professional who had the condition. I also found at PubMed and posted in the AfD, a scientific reference to support the existence of thyroid receptor resistance.

"...claims ... at odds with current medical ... understanding..." The core of this controversy is a medical practice dispute about methods and test parameters of hypothyroidism diagnosis, as well as sources and mixture ratios of replacement hormones. Barnes' research was on the leading edge, but the dispute has persisted long beyond Barnes' lifetime, because both patients' clinical experience (that I've read) and scientific research (that I've read) support the minority view.

"dramatically" The source of the drama is hundreds or more of activist patients and their doctors demanding reform of hypothyroidism diagnosis and treatment standards. This activism exists elsewhere in the world, but in the UK it's an issue embarrassing to the government National Health Service and supportive UK medical societies being criticized by private doctors. Activist complaints about heavy-handed disciplining of private doctors on an unscientific basis is reportedly reaching members of Parliament.

"...can you image Encyclopedia Britannica, for instance, citing such a source?" I follow your intended point, but you're using that invalid cliché on the wrong editor. I may have been the first WP editor to declare that the Britannica model for Wikipedia was dead. I've strongly argued WP:NOTBRITANNICA since the symbolic date of March 22, 2007 when Wikipedia was banned as a primary source by professors at several US universities. (Here's the story I broke on Wikinews 2007-03-22 NBC Nightly News - Wikipedia charged with "bad information".)

"...how many Ph.D.'s you know..." Ever, too many to count.

"... publishing a thesis does not give you automatic experience in ... making a legal assessment for defamation, understanding copyright law..." You've heard the phrase publish or perish. PhDs are educated to become writers of original thought and research. Of necessity such education includes training in attribution to prevent career loss due to plagiarism, and the basic law of copyright and defamation to prevent lawsuits. No research university would risk embarrassing itself by excluding the opportunity for such education from its curriculum. No proficient advisor or experienced mentor would fail to mention the need for such learning, formal or informal, at some point in the thesis process. I'm not familiar with small institutions granting reputable humanities doctorates, but it's hard for me to believe that they wouldn't have the same attribution, copyright, and defamation learning standards as a world class university.

"editing others' work" I agree that isn't automatic in the PhD process; some PhDs write and therefore edit poorly. PhDs in English can certainly edit others' work, but editing is a business skill that many non-PhDs successfully master with practice. That is NVP's business, and one can examine the book to see if they did it professionally.

"...spot obvious errors outside of one's immediate area of expertise..." Straw man. I just wrote unqualified "obvious errors", which are of course, obvious.

"I don't see how ... can be considered a useful encyclopedic source." Lacking a major publisher, Starr/Type 2 is not the strongest source, but nothing I've seen in policy declares it unreliable. WP:V#Reliable sources: "The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context." Starr's book is in the context of a minority view, and one of the few contemporary medical professional sources that discusses Barnes' clinical methods in some detail.

The mainstream medical practice controversy is real, the minority practice view is significant, so WP:NPOV policy requires accurately describing the controversy. That is better done with two third-party sources that seem to agree with each other, for independent factual verification of the results of methods described by Barnes' own works. Milo 09:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This longwinded attempt at deconstruction does not correctly address the points raised, which are correct. NVP is a poor source and doesn't meet RS. You know where to take it if you disagree. Verbal chat 09:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; while I am a bit concerned by the sheer volume of questionable assertions being aggressively pushed here, I'll limit myself to the specific content/policy issue. The book by Starr does not qualify as a reliable source by Wikipedia's criteria. I've explained my reasoning; briefly:
  • WP:RS: Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Fails, and fails. Obscure one-book publishing houses are not considered a "reliable publication process" for medical or biographical material, and I am unaware of any indication that Starr is considered an authority by experts in the field of thyroid disease. I'd welcome sources attesting to the latter, but would prefer not to receive a lengthy string of editorial opinions and Google hit-counts in response, as these do not address the question.
  • WP:RS: Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In general, low-profile alternative-medical books from obscure, low-volume publishing houses, promoting entities which do not exist in the scholarly medical literature ("type 2 hypothyroidism"), may not be considered to have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." If I'm missing serious, scholarly, peer-reviewed sources supporting the existence of "type 2 hypothyroidism", then please enlighten me - but please do not regale me with additional novel editorial syntheses of various primary papers combined with musings on what might be "biologically plausible". I would prefer to simply see a peer-reviewed journal article, textbook chapter, or expert-body statement from a reputable, scholarly source mentioning and describing "type 2 hypothyroidism". Not too much to ask if this is really a significant, notable controversy rather than obscure fringe nonsense, right? MastCell Talk 08:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Starr's NVP publishing house (break 1)[edit]

(Skip to next section)

←The Barnes article objective here is to determine if Hypothyroidism Type 2 (Starr, 2005) meets the following publishing standards of WP:RS that you quoted:

  1. reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
  2. reliable publication process
  3. authors are generally regarded as trustworthy
  4. credible published materials
-1A-

MastCell (08:57): ""WP:RS: Articles should rely on ... sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"" The publisher's portion of this requirement is initially met by definition. By default, NVP PhDs have an academically-certified reputation for fact-checking and accuracy until proven otherwise.
A publisher's fact-checking and accuracy reputation is limited to checking verifiable statements about third parties, the rationality of conclusions drawn by the author as based on third parties, and the plausibility of conclusions drawn by the author based on his own data collection. A publisher's fact-checking and accuracy reputation does not depend on mainstreaming of their author's significant minority view, if it's based on a possible interpretation of the available facts (typically facts unknown to the majority view).

-1B-

MastCell (08:57): "...promoting entities which do not exist in the scholarly medical literature ("type 2 hypothyroidism")..." I've already briefly summarized this issue in Milo (09:23) and referenced details posted in the AfD. For the convenience of all readers, here is my AfD post with referenced evidence on the origin of "type 2 hypothyroidism":

(Copied from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broda Otto Barnes)

  • Origin of "Type 2" According to Hypothyroidism Type 2: The Epidemic, Dr. Barnes and Dr. Lawrence S. Sonkin MD, PhD, believed that "Peripheral Resistance Syndrome" was responsible for the vast majority of hypothyroidism (p.59).
According to a review of "Thyroid hormone resistance syndromes" (McDermott MT, Am J Med. 1993 Apr;94(4):424-32. Abstract), "Selective peripheral resistance to thyroid hormone (PerRTH)..." had been identified in one patient with "normal serum thyroid hormone and TSH levels but was clinically hypothyroid and improved with thyroid hormone administration. All of these disorders are probably more common than is generally recognized and are often misdiagnosed and inappropriately treated."
L Wikström, et al, (EMBO J. 1998 January 15; 17(2): 455–461. Abstract) "developed mice lacking the thyroid hormone receptor TR alpha 1." In addition to abnormal hearts, "The mice have a body temperature 0.5 degrees C [about 1ºF] lower than normal and exhibit a mild hypothyroidism, whereas their overall behavior and reproduction are normal."
"Type 1" and "type 2" hypothyroidism were defined by Dr. Mark Starr, MD, and Dr. Thomas H. Boc, DDS (p. 45). They were each other's patients. Dr. Boc had weight gain with fatigue, normal thyroid blood tests, basal temperature of 2ºF low, and a positive response to thyroid hormone within three months (p. xv). Dr Boc's two school age daughters also had a positive response to treatment (p. xvi). "Around 7% of Americans suffer Type 1 hypothyroism." "...blood tests do not detect Type 2 hypothyroidism" [emphasis in original]. "Type 2 hypothyroidism is usually inherited." (p. 45). Add 7% to the about 33% diagnosable only by symptoms or low basal temperature, and that gives about a 40% figure according to Dr. Barnes' survey research, which justifies Dr. Starr's use of the "epidemic" term in the book title. Milo 08:28, 4 May 2009

As sourced above, the exact phrase "type 2 hypothyroidism" originated with Dr. Starr and Dr. Boc as a popularization of the clinical and scientific entities variously known as "Peripheral Resistance Syndrome", "Thyroid hormone resistance syndromes", and "Selective peripheral resistance to thyroid hormone". In other words, there is no obvious scientific or clinical consensus term for the entity that Starr wanted to discuss, much less a simple popular term that patients would find easy to read.
Simple opposition to a doctor writing a popular medical book through the device of coining well-defined popular terminology is elitist or anti-educational. A demand that a secondary-source popular term with a scientifically-defined meaning, must first appear in primary peer-reviewed literature in order to be described in a Wikipedia article, is wikilawyering (the attempt to defeat principles by the application of technical rules).

-1C-

"Not too much to ask..." Yes, it's too much to ask. Starr, 2005, was published only 4 years ago. It may be a long time (if ever) before the popular term "type 2 hypothyroidism" is adapted in medical practice literature (perhaps due to frequent usage by patients). It could be sooner marginalized by a consensus term with the same meaning.

-1D-

"...novel editorial syntheses of various primary papers..." As sourced above in the AfD quote, the synthesis is that of Broda Barnes MD, PhD, and Lawrence S. Sonkin, MD, PhD. Therein, I've supplied primary sources to verify the clinical and scientific basis for Barnes' and Sonkin's belief that this entity is responsible for the vast majority of hypothyroidism, as well as to verify Dr. Starr's (and Dr. Boc's) credibility in citing Barnes and Sonkin as the basis for popularly naming the entity "type 2 hypothyroidism".

-1E-

"I would prefer to simply see ... scholarly source mentioning and describing "type 2 hypothyroidism"." I would prefer that also, but it's not necessary since a list of references has been cited for the equivalent entities named in the peer-reviewed literature. For article purposes, the scientific meaning of the popular term "type 2 hypothyroidism" is verifiable through Starr's attribution of it to Barnes and Sonkin.

  • 1. Therefore, New Voice Publishing meets the first stated requirement for a reliable source publisher: reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
-2A-

MastCell (08:57): ""WP:RS: Reliable sources ... with a reliable publication process;"" We are agreed that New Voice Publishing is not a major publisher, but there is no guiderule or policy prohibiting publishers from being RS merely because they are small. Since NVP could not be a vanity press, you haven't been able to prove that NVP lacks some kind of reliable publication process for error checking.
A major publisher is usually an automatic RS because of its standard commercial error-checking process: a number of staff, each with a narrow expertise (such as a lawyer-paralegal team to check for defamation). But that's not the only way to reliably check for errors. For example, a web site which states that they correct errors, and requests readers to inform them of errors – this can be an RS process. WP:V/WP:RS doesn't require proof of an RS process actually being used, only that some RS process appears to be available.
An unusual available error-checking process is the apparent presence of generalists and experts who have the capability of doing many tasks that normally require a number of staff. This process couldn't be used at a major publisher due to the volume of work, but it's easily achieved with a small publishing volume. Small generalist and expert publishers also can hire contract staff by the job, and professionally review all aspects of their work.

-2B-

So, what RS process does NVP appear to have available and be motivated to use for error checking?
NVP does have the capability of an RS error-checking process for cited reporting, logic, and plausibility through in-house research expertise in the field of hormone replacement.
In a list of errors to be checked, even a major journal publisher would be unlikely to ask to check Dr. Starr's proprietary data against his clinical research conclusions. That leaves a journal, and NVP, the purview to check for errors in reporting cited research, and errors of logic or plausibility in an author's synthesis of conclusions based on all forms of research.
I've already covered attribution, copyright, and defamation error-checking (Milo 20:16 & 09:23) through the universal expertise of PhDs like Marcus Plourde, the commercial publisher of NVP. Plus, I think one can presume obvious error editing by most commercial publishers (spelling, grammar, paragraphs out of order, etc.).
Discerning NVP's motivation for RS process, PhDs are certified-intelligent people who understand knowledge authority. NVP would not risk smudging their reputations (and two expensive educations) by failing to research the facts underlying a heated medical practice dispute. Such research is also routine for anyone with a statistical research education (which all PhDs have), and at least some knowledge of medicine and biochemistry.

-2C-

New Voice Publishing is apparently co-owned by Marcus Plourde, PhD, publisher, and Elizabeth Plourde, PhD, author of Your Guide To Hysterectomy, Ovary Removal & Hormone Replacement, 2002. As it turns out, NVP greatly exceeds 'at least some' knowledge of medicine and biochemistry:

"ELIZABETH PLOURDE, Ph.D., C.L.S. ¶ Dr. Plourde is a licensed Clinical Laboratory Scientist with a Ph.D. in Psychology. This training in the fields of both medicine and psychology is augmented by invaluable experience gained while working with cutting-edge medical research laboratories. The author's well-rounded education and professional expertise provided the background necessary to research the 100-year history of medical literature encompassing hysterectomies and compile the information into an easily understandable format. ¶ Dr. Plourde's 20-years of research and expertise in the field of women's health have resulted in her appearances on ABC's 20/20, Berman & Berman: For Women Only, Good Morning America, The Gary Null Show, and numerous network news programs and radio shows across the country."[6]

Note that E. Plourde's research includes hormone replacement, and a review of 100 years of medical literature on hysterectomies. The historically large extent of hypothyroidism among women, and the profound cross-association between hypothyroidism and gynecological disorders is unmistakable in any competent professional review of medical literature. It's further possible-to-likely that E. Plourde read Barnes' peer-reviewed paper listed in the article: "The treatment of menstrual disorders in general practice." Barnes BO. Ariz Med. 1949 Jan;6(1):33. PMID 18106263

  • 2. Therefore, New Voice Publishing meets a second stated requirement for a reliable source publisher: a reliable publication process.
-3-

MastCell (08:57): "I am unaware of any indication that Starr is considered an authority by experts in the field of thyroid disease." I'm sure you can provide a good source for stating the majority view in the article, but the majority view is not relevant here. I agree that they would not consider Starr a mainstream expert thyroidologist. If they did, there would be no medical practice dispute to describe in the article. The relevant issue:
—»Is Mark Starr, MD, a trustworthy source for clinical practice experience with the significant minority view?«—

WP:RS:"their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand."[emphasis added]

The "subject at hand" (WP:RS) is the current "significant-minority view" (WP:UNDUE) of:

—the clinical medical practice as pioneered by Dr. Barnes, including: methods and test parameters of hypothyroidism diagnosis – and – sources and mixture ratios of replacement hormone treatments—

Starr is a licensed medical doctor with significant name recognition, by the public through his book: (14,200 Google hits today searching: { "Mark Starr" hypothyroidism }), and his peers through his professional associations:

"American Academy of Physical Medicine Rehabilitation and a Diplomate of the American Board of Pain Medicine. He has studied with President Kennedy's famous pain specialist, Hans Kraus, M.D., and Lawrence S. Sonkin, Ph.D., renowned endocrinologist at the New York Hospital-Cornell Medical Center."[7]

  • 3. Therefore, New Voice Publishing meets a third stated requirement for a reliable source: authors are generally regarded as trustworthy.
-4-

MastCell (08:57): ""WP:RS: Reliable sources are credible published materials...""

M-W.com "credible": "1  : offering reasonable grounds for being believed <a credible account of an accident> <credible witnesses>" ....

Starr as a credible source, for clinical practice experience with the significant minority view, is reinforced by his theory, diagnostic, and treatment methods consensus with:

  • Dr. Stephan Langer's clinical practice as described in The Riddle of Illness, (2000),
  • Dr. Barnes' peer-reviewed research, and his clinical practice reported in two books, Heart Attack Rareness in Thyroid Treated Patients, (1972), and Hypothyroidism: The hidden Illness, (1976),
  • Dr. Sonkin's belief, along with Barnes, that "Peripheral Resistance Syndrome" is responsible for the vast majority of hypothyroidism.

The latter is not only a consensus, it is the primary theme of Starr's book. Starr states that "type 2 hypothyroidism" is equivalent to "Peripheral Resistance Syndrome", for which I have provided equivalent-term scientific references to the peer-reviewed primary literature.

  • 4. Therefore, New Voice Publishing meets a fourth stated requirement for a reliable source publisher: credible published materials.

This New Voice Publishing book was considered in detail above by WP:RS standards. In summary it has:

  1. a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy
  2. a reliable publication process
  3. an author ... generally regarded as trustworthy
  4. credible published materials

Hypothyroidism Type 2: The epidemic, by Mark Starr, MD, is a reliable source with unusual but validly-available error checking qualifications. Accordingly, it is adequate to co-source the minority medical practice view of hypothyroidism pioneered by Dr. Broda Otto Barnes. Milo 10:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Starr's NVP publishing house (break 2)[edit]

Please make your posts shorter, on topic, and easier to read. See WP:TALK. Please give a concise justification of this source, either here or at WP:RSN. The above does not count as concise or a justification. And please don't link to dictionaries for simple words, it's rude. Verbal chat 10:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Milo (10:10) is compliant with WP:TALK as I wrote and formatted it. Specifically, a "detailed, point by point discussion" is authorized. Its exceptionally clear subnumbered organization is a discussion reference asset to limit repetition of the same objections by WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.
My post is laid out much better than requested by WP:TALK. I carefully organized it with an enumerated statement of objectives, numbered-lettered subsections for readability, parallel-enumerated running summaries, and a parallel-enumerated conclusion summary. This structure self-proves that it's completely on topic.
The topic itself is inherently not short, nor can a refutation like this be made concise without conceding the debate on points of detail.
In a regulatory argument, what seem to be simple words can be ambiguously misunderstood. It is a routine debate practice to supply definitions for founding a chain-of-authority discussion. If you find this normal practice disturbing, it suggests that you have insufficient experience with league debate.
I have reverted your unauthorized reformatting of my format-error-free post, including your dismissive editorial commentary subtitle. Changes to others' error-free formatting are not permitted under WP:TALK.
Among other issues, your unauthorized reformatting prevents page searching for soft links to post subsections ("-1A-"). For your convenience I have added a navigation skip link at the top of my post to the next section header below it.
If you find a post with detailed scientific, regulatory, and logical argument about a complex article subject, too "difficult to read" – especially when that post is highly organized with whitespace, subnumbers and subheaders – you have the option to seek less challenging topics. Milo 04:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Starr's NVP publishing house (break 3)[edit]

I don't think it's a good idea to go down the road of mining the literature for "thyroid resistance syndromes" and asserting that these are equivalent to the claims made in Starr's book. Mostly because it's egregious original synthesis, but also because it points up the flaws in Starr's book. For example, you quote Starr as saying (in original boldface): "Blood tests do not detect Type 2 hypothyroidism." But according to PMID 9350446, thyroid hormone resistance is "characterized by elevated free thyroid hormones in the serum and failure to suppress pituitary thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) secretion." In other words, it can be detected by blood tests (in fact, they are "characteristic"). Additionally, patients with true thyroid hormone resistance are either asymptomatic or thyrotoxic (hyperthyroid, again per PMID 9350446) - that is, they present in every way except that claimed by Starr in his book. I hope you can appreciate that it would be not only original synthesis, but unfounded original synthesis, to try to link Starr's claims to this particular rare medically recognized syndrome.

As to the larger point, we are still left with an obscure two-person publishing house, which publishes a small number of low-profile books (2?) by authors without recognized expertise in the field, making claims at odds with common understanding. Nothing you've written convinces me that this constitutes a useful encyclopedic source. MastCell Talk 19:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←
• MastCell (19:52): "publishing house, which publishes a small number ... (2?)" There are three books on NVP's "Our authors" page. Two of NVP's books can be reasonably termed "low-profile":

  • Elizabeth Plourde's "Hysterectomy? The Best or Worst Thing That Ever Happened to Me?" has a 7/10 Amazon.com Sales Rank of #821,941.[8]
  • Elizabeth Plourde's "Your Guide to Hysterectomy, Ovary Removal, & Hormone Replacement" has a 7/10 Amazon.com Sales Rank of #373,792.

But sales of their third book may pay for the Plourde's utility bills every month.

MastCell (19:52): "of low-profile books" NVP's third book, Starr, 2005, is not low-profile, and is a book with apparently unique Barnes resources for this article.

  • Mark Starr's "Hypothyroidism Type 2: The Epidemic" has a 7/10 Amazon.com Sales Rank of #22,852.[9]

Compare to Barnes, 1976, which has a 7/10 Amazon.com Sales Rank of #25,422.[10] (These unaveraged numbers sharply rise or fall daily depending on Amazon's other daily sales).

Starr, 2005, sells persuasively because it has 5-star reviews. Its sales have been boosted by being promoted as "Frequently Bought Together" with Barnes, 1976, and, importantly, with an Amazon.com best-seller at #429: "Adrenal Fatigue: The 21st Century Stress Syndrome". Not surprising that the latter is frequently bought together with Starr, since this is a pair of books which mirrors Barnes' invention of the "combination treatment" of thyroid and daily 5mg physiological-dose adrenal-substitute prednisone (Barnes, 1976, p.208).

Starr also got an undeniably helpful Amazon.com top review from James T. Webber, MD, of San Diego, California (diabetes, metabolism & endocrinology, family practice – 30 years experience):

(excerpt) "Skepticism helped medicine leap forward centuries ago. Dr. Starr's excellent book brings it on. After reading this book, you will know, you, or someone dear to you, will have some expression of hypothyroidism type 2 (thyroid hormone resistance syndrome). His book will empower you to seek, no, insist, on getting the proper treatment. Dr. Starr's assessment that this is an epidemic is true. This is a must-read for all healthcare professionals." [author misspelling corrected][11]

• MastCell (19:52): "authors without recognized expertise in the field" I previous discussed that issue in Milo (10:10 -3-) above, but here's a summary plus new evidence.

  • Elizabeth Plourde, PhD, has enough expertise (degree, CLS licensure, 20 years of medical literature research experience, national media exposures, wrote a professionally-referenced book with "hormones" in the title) to reliable-source error-check the Starr, 2005, manuscript for errors in third-party references to hormones. That's all the expertise that she needs to error-check this Barnes article on the significant minority view.
  • Mark Starr, MD, is a licensed medical doctor, with public and professional name recognition. Since you have been unable to prove his Barnes-inspired positions on "Type 2 hypothyroidism" to be scientifically incorrect, he stands as a publicly-recognized expert for the minority medical practice view. My understanding of WP:NPOV policy is that a POV of the majority view may not disqualify an expert of a significant minority view, by catch-22 claiming that the majority doesn't recognize the minority as experts.
  • James T. Webber, MD, of San Diego, California, inclusively an endocrinologist, as quoted above has given high praise to Dr. Starr and recommended "Hypothyroidism Type 2" as "must-read for all healthcare professionals". This is a very public peer recognition of expertise for the minority practice view, and strong evidence that author Mark Starr is "regarded as trustworthy ... in relation to the subject at hand per WP:RS."[emphasis added].
Furthermore, had Starr's book contained significant endocrinology reference errors, Dr. Webber would have known this and certainly not have endorsed Starr's book. Accordingly, NVP/Plourdes not only had the reliable source process available to error-check (see Milo 10:10 -2B-,-2C-), but Webber's glowing endorsement is evidence that that they either did error-check it, or Starr wrote no errors, making Starr, 2005, a WP:RS reliable source by trustworthy expertise about the minority practice view.

• MastCell (19:52): "Nothing you've written convinces me..." Since you were disappointed that this article wasn't AfD'd, neutral observers wouldn't necessarily expect you to be convinced by any source available for this significant minority view article.
MastCell (19:52): "...that this constitutes a useful encyclopedic source useful encyclopedic source." For just one example of the usefulness of this source, Starr provides an apparently unique report of the Barnes and Sonkin view; that the missing ~33% of hidden hypothyroidism is caused by "Peripheral Resistance Syndrome", as they and science understood it, circa 1988. Milo 04:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Starr & thyroid resistance syndromes[edit]

• MastCell (19:52): "...literature for "thyroid resistance syndromes..." .... "...points up the flaws in Starr's book." No source I've read has found the clinical or scientific evidence to prove Starr (or Barnes) are scientifically or clinically wrong. I've evaluated your Chatterjee citation as follows, and you haven't found it either. (We have both emphasized the distinction between hypo- (too little thyroid) and hyper- (too much thyroid) for the convenience of other editors in following this discussion.)
MastCell (19:52): "...according to PMID 9350446, thyroid hormone resistance .... can be detected by blood tests..." Congratulations, you have evidenced Barnes' case against thyroid hormone blood tests in the inverse.
Chatterjee does describe GRTH and PRTH as associated with "elevated free thyroid hormones in the serum". Both of these are hyperthyroid conditions by blood tests, but since only PRTH patients are thyrotoxic, the blood tests for GRTH are diagnostically inaccurate for symptomatic hyperthyroidism. Why should the exact same tests be inerrantly trusted for hypothyroidism diagnosis?
MastCell (19:52): "unfounded ... to try to link ... to this particular rare medically recognized syndrome" Agreed, since Chatterjee, 1997, is describing a different thyroid resistance syndrome.
Read more carefully PMID 9350446, abstract of Chatterjee VK, (Horm Res. 1997;48 Suppl 4:43-6),: "...patients with thyrotoxic features, suggesting predominant pituitary resistance (PRTH). Molecular genetic analyses indicate that both GRTH and PRTH are associated with diverse mutations in the thyroid hormone receptor beta gene..." [emphasis added]
Now reread L Wikström, et al, (EMBO J. 1998 January 15; 17(2): 455–461. Abstract) "developed mice lacking the thyroid hormone receptor TR alpha 1." In addition to abnormal hearts, "The mice have a body temperature 0.5 degrees C [about 1ºF] lower than normal and exhibit a mild hypothyroidism, whereas their overall behavior and reproduction are normal." [emphasis added]
By matched description of symptoms, mice missing TR alpha 1 receptors have the same entity that Barnes observed clinically, that Barnes and Sonkin described as due to "Peripheral Resistance Syndrome", and which Starr and Boc popularly named "Type 2 hypothyroidism" [Starr capitalizes the "T"].

• MastCell (19:52): "I don't think it's a good idea to go down the road of mining the literature for "thyroid resistance syndromes"" This seems to be necessary, because an NPOV requirement is triggered by the article statement: "Barnes' views on the prevalence of hypothyroidism ... run counter to the current medical understanding of thyroid function..." The medical practice community bases this understanding on controversial blood testing which ignores thyroid resistance syndromes. Barnes generally refutes the diagnostic accuracy of blood tests of thyroid hormone supply (Barnes, 1976, p.41-42), Starr and Langer confirm Barnes, and among some non-Barnes sources, David Derry MD, PhD, questions the accuracy of TSH [12]. Furthermore, non-Barnes primary source McDermott, 1993, published research which scientifically supports Barnes' position:

"Thyroid hormone resistance syndromes" (McDermott MT, Am J Med. 1993 Apr;94(4):424-32. Abstract), "Selective peripheral resistance to thyroid hormone (PerRTH)..." [had been identified in one patient with] "...normal serum thyroid hormone and TSH levels but was clinically hypothyroid and improved with thyroid hormone administration. All of these disorders are probably more common than is generally recognized and are often misdiagnosed and inappropriately treated." [emphasis added]

A citation to McDermott also supports various positions of Sonkin, Starr, and Langer.

If "current medical understanding" in the article is allowed to claim or imply that Barnes, (and Sonkin, Starr, and Langer) are wrong, then "current scientific evidence" (per McDermott, 1993, etc.) is allowed to claim or imply that Barnes, et al are correct. Milo 04:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Broda Otto Barnes. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Broda_Otto_Barnes&oldid=1195533305"