Talk:Paul Hartal

Citing sources

The Paul Hartal article does cite its sources. Take a look at the first two external links and you will see every fact that is in the article has been verified there. Thus I have removed the sources tag you put on the article. Hu 09:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC) (Copied from his talk page by Fyslee)

External links provide more information not included in the article and are not considered as real references:

• "Wikipedia articles can often be improved by providing links to web pages outside Wikipedia which contain information that can't or shouldn't be added to the article. These links belong in an External links section near the bottom of the article." - WP:EL

• "Sites that have been used as references in the creation of an article should be linked to in a references section, not an external links section. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources for specific formatting and linking guidelines for citations." [1] (added emphasis - Fyslee)

Since you are (perfectly appropriately) using them as sources for the article, then they should be included as embedded links (with the appropriate quotes, pages, and URLs) and formatted as real references. This has the added advantage of "upgrading" the links to article content rather than mere external links. This eliminates them from the External links and makes room for other external links so that section doesn't get too long.

Right now the article doesn't even have a references section. It is not the duty of readers to search through the contents of external links to verify that the article content is reliable. It is the duty of editors to provide immediately and easily verifiable proof of the reliability of their additions by providing referenced proof right at the spot in the article where it is needed and relevant. -- Fyslee 11:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC) (Copied from his talk page by Fyslee)

The External links on this article contain A) information that was used in the article and B) more information that can't or shouldn't be added to this article. The URLs link directly to the web page needed in each case, so there is no more or less searching through the external links whether they were standard footnote references, standard reference links or standard external links. Since it will ease your concern, I will move a couple of the external links into a references section. I think your logic is a bit flawed, since so long as the URLs are included in the article, users have to search through external pages anyway to verify the article content is valid, regardless of whether those pages are linked in footnotes, references, or external links. I am well aware of how to use footnotes, where appropriate. I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill and I suggest that there are hundreds of thousands of articles more deserving of your scrutiny and attention than this one which is well researched and verified and referenced. Hu 13:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the one who makes the Wikipedia guidelines, I just follow them as best I can. That's what I'm suggesting you do. Right now it's not a big problem because there is so little content, but when the article gets larger it could be a problem. (Paul Hartal is a controversial person who libels Stephen Barrett, so this article may get very interesting!) That's why it is helpful if one follows the guidelines right from the beginning. -- Fyslee 15:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hartal objects

I strongly protest your uncalled-for personal attack, Fyslee. I am not in the habit of making any libelous comments. -- Paul Hartal 17:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a statement of fact for information purposes, so not a personal attack. (Hu needed to know why this article would grow.)

To make sure we don't misunderstand each other, I don't make idle statements about things I don't understand, and I'll make my case by starting with your own edits here. Right here you have provided a good definition of libel, so you can't claim ignorance as to its meaning:

• The Oxford Dictionary of Current English defines libel as "published false statement damaging to person's reputation, act of publishing it; false defamatory statement or representation". -- Paul Hartal 19:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC) [2]

The specific libel I am referring to above is the one where you write that Stephen Barrett "lost his medical license," which is found in this article:

• DEBUNKING "QUACKWATCH": Why the Medical Establishment Attacks Columbia Pacific University

That article from 2001 (which contains other examples of false statements and straw man attacks) is still (2006) accessible on the http://www.altcpualumni.org/ website right here. It is also quoted other places on the internet.

You know perfectly well that it's not true, as evidenced by a Dec. 14, 2001 version you have chosen not to use. [3] There you write:

• " Stephen Barrett, a former medical doctor who states his current licence status as "retired",..."

Yet you have later chosen to use your first (libelous) version. Thus you have provided evidence that you are acting against better knowledge (which in a court of law would be proof of bad faith). Not a good thing!

He never "lost" it in any sense of the word. He merely retired. He was never disciplined, delicensed, disbarred, criticized, censured, punished, forced to retire, forced to give up his license, or anything even resembling it. He simply retired and allowed his license to go into inactive status, just like many other MDs do when they retire from active practice.

So, according to the definition you provided, your statement that he "lost his medical license" is clearly libelous:

• It is a "published false statement", and you know it, so you have uttered and written it in bad faith. You can't claim ignorance or good faith.

• It is obviously designed (and the rest of your article backs this up) to be "damaging to [his] reputation."

All of this is abundantly well documented and in a safe place for future use if necessary. I would suggest you immediately do two things:

• Publish a retraction on the CPU website, and send it to Stephen Barrett at sbinfo AT quackwatch DOT com. In that retraction you might do what you can to save your skin by documenting where you got the idea that he had lost his license. If you have been deceived by someone about that matter, then explain how and by whom you were deceived.

• Revise that article and remove that and other libelous statements, including your straw man attacks. When you're done it shouldn't even remotely smell like anything designed to damage his reputation! You can write to me [4] and get details of the other matters to be revised.

You claim that you are "not in the habit of making any libelous comments." I really don't know if it's a "habit" -- I only know what you have written on the internet and here at Wikipedia. That's pretty easy to document, and it certainly fits the definition of libel you provided above.

You also promote your critical article on the following sites (and get severely criticized for your attempted defense of your dubious CPU degree):

• http://www.badscience.net/?p=226
• http://www.vote29.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=322
• http://raw360.com/item/1456

Another one of your distasteful tricks:

Barrett is and always will be an MD, so your disparaging use of "Dr." Barrett (you put it in quotes) and "Mr. Barrett" say more about you than about him. He has every right to be called Dr. Barrett and deserves that respect. If anyone here deserves to have their "Dr." put in quotation marks it is you, as your so-called "Ph.D" is from a dubious diploma mill, while his is a genuine medical degree.

Another false matter you have written in your article:

• Dated December 22, 1999, the Harvard affiliated Massachusetts General Hospital's Neurology Web Forum published on the Internet an article under the title :"PAC" Money for "quackwatch". It reveals that "the FDA and the Pharmaceutical Advertising Counsel ("PAC"), which represents some 35 major drug companies, have formed and co-founded a corporation under a joint letterhead, calling itself the National Council Against Health Fraud ("NCAHF")." Stephen Barrett, MD, who publishes "Quackwatch" on line, William Jarvis, MD, and others, are paid by PAC " to publicly discredit as unscientific or unknown any of all viable herbs, vitamins, homeopathic remedies or non-allopathic therapies, particularly those that are proven to have the most promise and present the greatest threat to the PAC members".

I'll let Barrett speak for himself on this one (which he did here at Wikipedia):

• Dr. Barrett responds: The "article" to which you refer was a posting to a bulletin board. The statement is a pack of lies. Neither Quackwatch not NCAHF has ever received any money from the FDA or the Pharmaceutical Advertising Council (PAC). My only connection with the PAC was as a reviewer of a grant request that it had made to the FDA in the 1980s. I recommended that the FDA not give the grant because members of the PAC had engaged in false advertising. In a recent deposition, Tim Bolen, one of the people I am suing for libel, admitted that his statements that Quackbusters are directed and funded by a drug-industry entity was something he made up. When asked to identify the entity, he replied that there was none. Sbinfo 01:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC) [5]

The discussion can be found here: FDA and PAC: The Answer to Quackwatch's Funding?

Your mention of the posting on the BraingTalk forum is quite disingenuous. It's far from an "article." Anyone can post to a web forum with totally unreliable information, lies, libel, gossip, etc.. There is absolutely no evidence for any of the false claims made in that "pack of lies."

Well, that's enough for now. How are you going to correct your serious breach of ethics and common decency? -- Fyslee 15:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

A Refutation of Libellous and False Claims

Fyslee, I was under the impression at first that this entry is about my work as an artist and poet. It seems that you are unable to make any constructively relevant analysis in this regard and , instead, use Wikipedia as an extended forum for “Quackwatch”. As to your claims, let me explain that for my part the status of Dr. Stephen Barrett’s medical license is not an issue. Since I respect the facts and gladly admit an error, I corrected my article years ago, stating that Stephen Barrett, MD, is a “retired” psychiatrist. Yet even to say that Dr. Barrett “lost” his medical license is not libellous because I did not say that he did something illegal. A Webster Dictionary connotes the verb lose as “to come to be without”, to give up”, “to cease to have”, in addition to other meanings. Thus, to say that a person "lost" his license can simply mean that he gave it up and ceased to have it. Period. But again, Barrett’s license is irrelevant in the context of my paper. Unfortunately, I have no control over the Internet and the earlier version of the article is also displayed on the web. I am sorry that I cannot live up to your expectation and show sycophantic, uncritical admiration for the Quackwatch leader. Mind you, Stephen Barrett’s medical degree does not give him the right to pose as the only legitimate spokesman of truth. His organization suppresses the freedom of information and has unfairly blacklisted thousands of honest professionals, including Nobel laureate Linus Pauling [6]. I refer to Dr. Barrett in my article also as Mr. Barrett, and “Dr” Barrett in order to remind him that he is a citizen, a member of society and not above it. Moreover, the word “doctor” means teacher, and his teachings not only harm public interests but are contrary to the principles of advancing science and promoting health. There is no doubt about it that Quackwatch represents the interests of orthodox allopathic medicine and of the pharmaceutical industry. At the same time, if ‘”PAC” Money for “Quackwatch”’ published by a Harvard affiliated web forum, is not true then it is libellous. However, I never said that it is true, just that this piece is published on the Internet. Complaints about this source should be made to Harvard not to this author. To sum it up, you misread my article and deny my right to disagree with Dr. Barrett. There is nothing libellous in it and I don’t see any justification for your accusations. You demand respect for one academic degree but show disrespect and bully another one, although the latter is also legal, valid, and earned through hard and serious work. You call Columbia Pacific University (CPU) a “diploma mill”, which is libellous. So, please don't lecture me about "breach of ethics and common decency". CPU was State accredited (approved) and the court ruled that its degrees are legal and valid. My doctoral dissertation on The Interface Dynamics of Art and Science has been critically acclaimed also in book form as The Brush and the Compass (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1988, 341 pages) and taught at a number of universities in North America and overseas. Also, maybe I disappoint you, but I really don’t care if you recognize my PhD or not. I am not requesting you even to recognize my high school diploma or my Master’s from Concordia University of Montreal. Nevertheless, for other readers who are more open-minded than you, I would like to quote from a document concerning The Brush and the Compass. Dated August 5, 1986, and signed by James E. Lyons, Publisher of University Press of America, the Reader’s Report, among other things, says: “Contrary to the popular belief, promulgated by C.P. Snow and others, the author believes that science and art are not distant polarities, but rather complementary symbolic systems through which humanity structures and interprets reality…Very few writers are capable of writing on art and science with this amount of depth and grace. The author demonstrates a thorough acquaintance in the disciplines of mathematics, physics, computers, painting, philosophy, and psychology…Most definitely this work is a significant contribution, namely to the history of ideas, a discipline which Arthur Lovejoy made famous…Because of sophistication is required of an author in more than one discipline, there is not much being written in the history of ideas in today’s specialized age, an age in which more than any other, this kind of thing is required…Despite the fact that this work seems to have been a Ph.D. dissertation…it shows a high degree of learning and creative thinking, going far beyond the normal expectations of dissertations in general”. I would like to add that I had researched for years the material used in the writing of The Brush and the Compass. In the course of the study I collaborated with renowned artists, writers, mathematicians and scientists, including Bernard Grad, P.R. Halmos, J.G. Kemeny, Arthur Koestler, Sir Rudolf Pearls, Victor Weisskopf, as well as Nobel Prize laureates in physics Aage Bohr and Sir Nevill Mott.

Paul Hartal 23:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Above you write:

• "Since I respect the facts and gladly admit an error, I corrected my article years ago, stating that Stephen Barrett, MD, is a “retired” psychiatrist."

Why then isn't that version the one you list on the CPU alumni website? You can change that matter, since the revised version is already there, but not linked for the public to see. -- Fyslee 21:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I am going to ask Earon Kavanagh to make the change on the CPU alumni website,

Paul Hartal 04:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. My hat off to you. -- Fyslee 08:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Merged articles

The content of the Lyco art article is now merged into the Paul Hartal article. It is not notable enough to stand on its own, but can certainly be used in the Hartal article. I hope that this will satisfy Hartal. -- Fyslee 17:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Lyco Art as an Art Trend

Lyco Art (Lyrical Conceptualism) is a theory of art, as well as an art trend. When I say this, some people frown. How can you call Lyco Art an art trend, they ask, when it is just an art idea of a lonely artist? [7].

Now let me pose a question to you. How many artists are needed for the creation of a movement? Art currents, after all, are not political parties with thousands or millions of members. The Neo-Impressionist trend of Pointillism, or Divisionism, for example, is basically associated with the name of Georges Seurat, although another French painter, Paul Signac, worked closely with Seurat on the development of Pointillism. Similarly,the art movement of Neo-Plasticism, or De Stijl was started by Piet Mondrian, a very loose organization held together by Theo van Doesburg.

Now, please open on page 151 the sixth edition of Artists/USA 1979-80, edited by Howard Jeffries, ISBN 0-912916-06-0. Here, the visual artist and mathematician Kara Szathmary [8] says: "When modern art is viewed as a periodic table, Cosmic Symbiosis emerges as an isotope of Paul Hartal's element, Lyrical Conceptualism". Kara and I collaborated and exhibited together throughout the years. His statements on his affiliation with Lyrical Conceptualism can be found in other publications as well, including the 7th edition of Artists/USA. On June 24, 1978, Le Nouveau Journal in Paris reviewed my show of "les Conceptions lyrique" at the Raymond Duncan Gallery and reported that I won the Prix de Paris. The Canadian poet Tom Konyves [9] wrote about Lyrical Conceptualism and the foundation of the Lyrical Conceptualist Society (LCS) in The Montreal Star, July 21, 1979. The LCS also organized exhibitions, including the 1979 International Concrete Poetry exhibit held at Vehicule Art in Montreal. Artists affiliated with the LCS include Gertrud Nasri, Jon Roll, Bernard Re [10], and Mogens Otto Nielsen [11], [12].

The 19th edition of Who's Who in Art (The Art Trade Press, U.K., 1980), ISBN 0-900083-08-5, on page 202 acknowledges that I am the originator of Lyrical Conceptualism and the founder of the LCS. In the 1990s the Tokyo Inter-Communication Center initiated a research project on Lyrical Conceptualism. Also in Japan, I have contributed to over a hundred "Brain Cell" editions produced by the Osaka artist Ryosuke Cohen. Collaboration with artists from other movements, among them Conceptual Art, Blankism , Space Art and Mail Art has eventuated in the cross-fertilizing exchange of ideas. Stamp designs of mine have been exhibited, for example, by the Musee de la Poste in Paris and the A.S. Popov Museum in St. Petersburg, Russia [13].

Lyrical Conceptualism is an open ended system and it is in constant flux. In 1994, "as a noted Space Artist", I received an invitation from Space Week International Association to display my visionary work on the cosmos at the NASA Space Center in Houston. In September 1988 Radio Canada International broadcasted to millions of listeners an interview on Lyrical Conceptualism and the Korean Consulate's press release on my invitation as an Olympic artist in Seoul. Exploring similarities and differences between the Blankism [14] of Cho Sang Hyun [15] and Lyrical Conceptualism, an exhibit organized by the Seoul International Fine Art Center in Korea attracted 5,000 visitors in one week. During the show of Painting and Poetry, a Lyrical Conceptualist event held at Hanseo University in Seoul, I was a visiting artist in Korea and gave numerous interviews to newspaper journalists and TV reporters. Please see, for example, Art Korea, February-March 2004, pages 102-5. Also, artists, architects, poets and students approached me with their questions about my work. The influence of an art work cannot be objectively measured, but it transcends the walls of the exhibition hall.

For the verification of "notability", allow me, please, also to draw your attention to a book by Jean-Marc Denomme and Madeleine Roy, Pour Une Pedagogie Interactive, Gaetan Morin Editeur, 1998, ISBN 2-89105-688-4. The front page of the book is illustrated with a painting of mine and on page 2 you find a biographical note of the artist. Here is an excerpt from it: (Paul Hartal) "Poete et artiste reconnu mondialement, il est a lâ origine du conceptualisme lyrique" (a poet and artist recognized worldwide, he is the originator of lyrical conceptualism).

Let me also point out that since the early 1990s I have collaborated with the renowned writer and scientist Clifford Pickover, contributing numerous illustrations to his books, including Chaos in Wonderland; The Zen of Magic Squares, Circles and Stars; and the frontispiece on Einstein in Strange Brains and Genius. In Mazes for the Mind, Dr. Pickover wrote a chapter about the significance of my work, lyrical conceptualism and the philosophy of space and time. A few years ago Alisa Barstow in Russia reviewed in "Life Style" [16] the exhibits of two exponents of the "Moscow School of Lyrical Conceptualism", Elizaveta Berezovskaya [17] and Yekaterina Nesterova [18].

Paul Hartal 03:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)