Talk:Gabriel Cousens/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Infobox picture

I have removed the picture of the not notable person from the infobox - as discussed in the Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_March_5 - and as per my interpretation of Wikipedia:IMAGES - as there are other images of his students I have not placed it lower in the article although this is a possibility that I would not have objections to if it is deemed relevant to some content in the article - I was going to crop the picture to a portrait of the subject but what was left was poor to replace to the infobox imo , I have no objection if others disagree and want to crop the not notable person out and replace to the infobox. - Youreallycan 21:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd love to include the image lower down on the page. I will look for a relevant place in the next few days. If you want to try and crop it, that would be an asset in any case. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 23:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I will do that later today or tomorrow so you can see if you feel its worthy of insertion. - Youreallycan 08:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits

Dr. Cousens wikipedia page was deleted about a year ago at the request of his lawyer. He was deemed a non-notable and from what I can see from this article he is still such. The only notable thing he's accomplished seems to be this alleged malpractice suit, which he was cleared of. Why does this man have a wikipedia entry? I vote for deletion. 63.227.89.65 (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC) Ox in the Box

Hi, I appreciate the attention this article has received. This article just passed deletion review, where its notability was questioned in relation to the article subject's objections over creating it. That is part of the reason so many sources and reputation-related material was included, to show his notability and how he is viewed. In general, I think a close reading of the article shows that it is in fact balanced. There is 'promotional' content, as well as critical content, including the Levy incident. The article was written to show how Cousens views himself and how others view him, not to promote (or for that matter criticize) him.

I also think appropriate attribution is given to Cousens' views and medical claims. The article never suggests he is right about these issues, only that he believes strongly in his philosophy and approach. Let me respond to a few specific changes

• The Woody Harrelson quote, although certainly not a reliable source for Cousens' abilities does show that he has gained prominence, including among some celebrities. That was the purpose of the quote.

• There was also content which was removed that does not seem promotional to me. Including:
  • The teachings offered at Cousens' Tree of Life Rejuvenation Center, the location for which he partly selected because it's located at the same latitude as Jersusalem, are called "the Essene Way". Cousens offers training and education for ordaining priests and priestesses in the Essene Order of Light, a faith recognized in the Encyclopedia of American religions; as of 2004 he had ordained 30 members. Cousens said, "There is never enough food to feed a hungry soul. Our work is to feed the hungry soul. We have a message - be your authentic self and know God." Cousens grew up in a Jewish family and is a rabbi.\His teaching are influenced by the Jewish spiritual mysticism Kabbalah. Cousens sees a direct link between physical habits and spirituality: "As the body is purified of physical blockages, you can experience the revelation of light within yourself." Tree of Life also draws on teachings from Eastern religions and Native American beliefs. The center seeks to raise a generation of "new world planetary citizen[s]", by promoting a philosophy called the "Sevenfold Peace," which includes: peace with the body; peace with the mind; peace with the family; peace with humanity; peace with culture; peace with the earthly mother; and peace with the heavenly father.
  • Cousens believes that diabetes can be cured through natural therapy and diet, though he acknowledges that this view is controversial ("Every Medical School disputes this," he said). He believes diabetes is caused by toxicity in the body and thinks processed foods and sugars impair the immune system and lead to diabetes and other ailments. Politically, he thinks that diabetes is the consequence of "corporate greed". Cousens claims that a person can be cured in three weeks through dietary changes, and subsequently live a life without drugs. He offers a 21 day program to cure diabetes, and advertises that 33% of type 1 diabetics and 55% of the type 2’s come off their insulin and have a blood sugar of lower than 100.
  • He believes that genetically engineered food is toxic to the body and causes 'chaos' therein. "We can think about disease as chaos in the field; that's a different way of talking about it. Healing is bringing coherence to the field," he said. Cousens believes nutritional supplements, such as vitamin B12, are important for vegans. He also thinks sufficient Vitamin D is essential for good health. In 2009 Cousens signed a letter saying that swine flu vaccines had not been sufficiently tested and could be dangerous.

I'm not sure which parts of this are inappropriate for the article, or why. I'd appreciate some feedback there, since I think most of that content is relevant, although perhaps should be summarized.

• The article is currently tagged with advert and peacock. I'd appreciate some specific examples, since I generally disagree.

• The article is also tagged with unreliable sources. There are admittedly many small, regional, and niche sources used in this article. Some are local news articles; others are natural health publications. Are there specific ones that seem inadequate? Are they used to support controversial information or claims? Specific feedback here would be great as well, so I know what to focus on.

Again, thanks for the close look. I hope to resolve most of these issues shortly. I just need a little more detail about what parts you can be improvemed. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 11:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The material I deleted (some of which is indicated in the first bullet point above) is not a BLP violation and so it can be re-added without consensus if someone objects to my edit. I deleted it because I think there's far too much of "Cousens says this" and "Cousens says that" in this article; in fact I'd prefer further deletions along these lines. Cousens has said a lot of things, and it's not necessary nor appropriate to include them all -- so there's nothing wrong with being choosy in this regard, and my view is simply that less is better. But I won't object if others take a different view. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• The entire "Views" section is totally overblown, in my opinion. His "views" aren't interesting let alone relevant unless they mean something. If the guy proposes some kind of diet, and reliable sources (not just the free Asheville newspaper) report on it or discuss it, that could be encyclopedic--but his views? He's not a certified guru whose every word is parsed; I don't see how his words and views make any difference at all, pace Woody Harrelson. Drmies (talk) 14:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oh, the "advert" tag--propounding someone's views when the relevance of those views is highly questionable, that's practically advertising a person under the pretext of providing neutral information. Drmies (talk) 14:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Once you start looking closely, you notice how much of this content was sourced to his own website and biography. Biographies should be based on reliable sources, not on what the subject says about himself. Hence these edits. Drmies (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • BTW, I am totally not convinced by the Harrelson quote--from the Argentinean Rolling Stone? How odd--was the real Rolling Stone not interested? Makes you wonder too about the Ghana News Agency. Drmies (talk) 14:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Tree of Life

Next section: the Tree of Life. Claims about its worldwide reputation are sourced to this thing here--if that isn't spam, I don't know what is. Then there's claims like the following: 'Cousens' website advertises that the center was called by Harper’s Magazine, “One of the world’s best 10 yoga and detoxification retreats” and the "fasting destination of choice" by the New York Times.' And why is this in an encyclopedic article? Cousens website claims that Harper's said something good and so did the New York Times? Seriously. Drmies (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Removed material

The article has been liberally edited, removing content viewed as not noteworthy, not well sourced, not relevant or otherwise not appropriate. I must admit that the article is a shell of what it was before, and whether that is a net improvement or not is what I'd like to discuss. Rather than go over every single change up front, I'd like to make a few general statements about what I think the recent edits:

• Much material was removed from reliable sources, albeit minor ones, and the content based on them shouldn't be presumed inappropriate.
• Much of Cousens' actual views on nutrition were removed from the article. Many of his positions were sourced to secondary publications.
• The article now gives much more weight to the Charles Levy incident, which previously was just 10% of the full text is now closer to half of the article. I think this is misleading and unacceptable, and if it remains a reason the article could be deleted, per WEIGHT, BLP, and the subject's own objections. My strong preference is to add back relevant, sourced information to balance the weight again.
• Specific sources like NaturalNews, Ghana News Agency, and Midwest Book Review need to be discussed. I don't presume them to be unreliable simply because they're small or niche sources.

In short, I'd like the cutting spree to at least pause while we look at individual changes. I do aim for the inclusion of a good portion of what was removed, though perhaps in a better summarized form. Because of the Levy section, there is some urgency to doing this, and I am reverting to most of the prior version so we can discuss any and all relevant aspects of the article and its sources. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 11:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• No, it was not liberally edited: it was edited in accordance with our BLP guidelines, and our policies for all articles--about reliable sources, puffery, balance, et cetera. You're making a mockery out of this article and I won't let you. In brief: his positions are irrelevant unless they're reported by decent sources--not vegan websites and local free rags. There is nothing to discuss about, for instance, the Ghana News Agency. If you think that the Ghana News Agency is a reliable source to hang someone's reputation on, there is a screw loose in you. They are not "small" or "niche" sources: they are ridiculous sources. For crying out loud, the Midwest Book Review is written by local librarians, not by food scientists. Personally, I don't give a flying fuck if you want to trim the malpractice section (I'm beginning to think you have a COI), but you will NOT get around WP:UNDUE by inflating the rest of the article. Your tactic is very transparent: there are two utterly reliable sources for the death of this man (what you call an "incident" is a guy giving another guy a shot of gangrene), and you wish to acquire balance by draping the Argentinean Rolling Stone and the Ghana News Agency (are you fucking kidding? the Ghana News Agency? an expert on raw food diets and diabetes management?) all over the joint. It's not going to happen. Drmies (talk) 14:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it's better to continue this discussion when you've gained more control over your emotions. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with Drmies and appreciate, in good humor, his charge. The article tabbed or otherwise is terrible for a number of reasons, not the least of which are its dubious sources. The BLP guidelines are there to protect reputations of notables, non-notables, and Wikipedia. BTW, his birthdate is wrong. If you can't even source that right, how do we take anything else seriously. 75.164.8.243 (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC) Ox in the Box

I too agree with Drmies. Before I read this exchange I left a note on Youreallycan's page referring to his comment about an afd, which I would support if the balance can't be restored back to WP policy. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Tom, I saw Youreallycan's edit summary, and now your comment--I don't know how that works, AfDing when there are reliable sources (at least two! but they're not favoring the subject). A concern here is weight, obviously. I have to do what I think is right: trim the biography from fluff etc. I understand that I'm moving closer to the article appearing to have undue weight, though that's through no fault of mine. I've looked at the allegations and have trimmed it some (you can see that in the history) but didn't know how to trim more. If you think you can trim it to where the article (in my last version) is more balanced, please do so. Lest this is in doubt, for whatever reason, I am not trying to blackball the subject and to have the death of that patient outweigh everything else--at the same time, a man died, and a coroner ruled on it, and a board listened to the evidence, and a newspaper reported there was a settlement. Can you make this article better? IP 75, I appreciate the comment: it's just really, really hard to find real reliable sources on the guy apart from the two that report on his case before the medical board... Drmies (talk) 23:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT does not say we have to have a parity of opinion using self-promotional sources if necessary. We're supposed to summarize what the reliable sources say and not give undue weight to fringe or otherwise suspect sources. Personally, I'm tired of Wikipedia being a battleground for every crackpot topic whose champions believe their freedom of speech is being infringed if they can't get a free billboard for their opinions. These disputes waste time that would be better spent bringing up the quality of legitimate encyclopedia entries. If it's not notable enough to be covered in a reliable source, I'd just as soon do without it instead of busting my ass trying to make accommodations by stretching policy in an effort to avoid being accused of bad faith. Ocaasi says he spent 20 hours on this article, and look what he has to show for it. If that's all he can come up with, the article either shouldn't be here or it should reflect reliable sources in the same proportion as they cover the topic. If that's weighted toward the death of the man and the subsequent lawsuit, so be it. We don't spend any time or ink covering how much Stalin loved his mother. In fact, I think a good case could be made to delete this article and write one titled Charles Levy malpractice case. It's certainly notable enough to have been covered in enough reliable sources. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with moving the article to something like Charles Levy malpractice case - this seems to be the focus of the reliable sources. Clearly as a project and any users editing such an article would need to proceed and cite according tightly to wikipwedia polcy - actually although there are limited externals I would have preferred the article had not been recreated.Youreallycan 05:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Youreallycan, there are a total of 3 sources--only 2 significant mentions--about the incident. I think it belongs as part of an article, but not half of one, and not one by itself. My goal this week is to use Drmies' shortened version as a base and see if he we can reach consensus to add back some of the information he removed that was in fact sufficiently sourced and relevant. I'd appreciate a few days to work on that before either moving, or AfDing the article.

Tom Reedy, You're right that we can't use self-promotional sources in search of parity. But it's not true that Cousens or I are trying to promote his work. Cousens has requested several times to have the article deleted. I believe that Cousens, as reliable sources describe him, is more than just the malpractice case. It's just a question of which sources are sufficient and relevant. This week I want to go through them individually, since I think some decent ones were removed during the recent cuts. That's all I'm requesting, a week to see what we can salvage, and if that's not enough, then I am fine with AfD. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 12:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Drmies, you said it's not 'interesting' what his views on nutrition are. I don't know how you reach that conclusion. If local, regional, or foreign newspapers talk about his views, how do we determine they're not good enough sources. I think his views on nutrition are very interesting and critical for a reader knowing what he actually thinks, teaches, and does. I'd like to take a look at the views section shortly and see if we can reach some consensus on it. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 12:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Well I can tell you that the article as you wrote it reads like an advertisement and will not stand. Wikipedia doesn't repeat promotional blurbs from his website as if it were a WP:RS, nor does Wikipedia write or delete articles under threat of litigation. And I didn't see anything at all in either version about Cousens not being eligible for an M.D. license in Arizona because his license was revoked and later reinstated in California and he remains censured in New York. I think moving the article to Charles Levy malpractice case makes a lot of sense, since the information is attested to by neutral reliable sources, while the rest of the article seems to be sourced to organic food market giveaway fliers. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Tom, my full version of the article went through Deletion Review where it was accused of being a 'hitpiece', really. In an attempt to balance the accusation as well as demonstrate notability, I liberally included sourced information about Cousens' reputation. Although not great sources, multiple, local, regional, niche, and foreign sources referred to Cousens repeatedly as a leading, prominent, expert in raw foods. The article I wrote reflected that, not to promote him, but because that's what I found in my reading. You are right that I did not include the piece about Cousens's arizona license. That claim was only present in one source, and given the controversial nature of the section I opted to be conservative and only report the facts of the case and the lawsuit. As I mentioned above, there are only 2 real articles about the malpractice case, so I don't believe it meets criteria for its own article. Take a look at the current version; I think it approaches neutrality and weight in a reasonable way. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 01:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• And you won't find anything more verifiable on the internet. I've looked. The only real media coverage this character has ever garnered is the PNT article. Even his claim to fame in Harper's and the NY Times were in opinion pieces. Are we now taking editorials as verifiable third party sources? Dr. Cousens seems to be notable within the context of a fringe dietary fad movement. He's written a number of woo-laden books on nutrition and a few on plain woo. He claims that Swami Muktananda declared him liberated before he died, but the SYDA Foundation charged with stewarding Muktananda's lineage doesn't acknowledge his existence much less his "enlightenment". I'm sure he's a well-meaning, stand-up guy (aside from whatever the hell happened in 1998), but he's certainly not Wikipedia material, and he won't be until he gets his shot on Oprah or whatever. Sadly, this article will likely do more to defame his medical practice than to support any readers interested in his niche work. 63.227.89.65 (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC) Ox in the Box

Added Drmies biography section

To start making progress towards a consensus version, I have added the biography section which Drmies edited. To anticipate objections that the controversy is not yet included, I'll note a full intention to include it when we've taken a closer look at other removed material and sources, which might require a few days of pestering WP:RSN. I've been accused of writing a hit piece as well as an advertisement, so I'm not really phased by insinuations that I'm trying to shield Cousens' reputation, particularly considering I wrote the controversy section. Next step, I'll be posting here with different removed material and at RSN with specific sourcing questions. I appreciate the patience with keeping a partial (but uncontroversial) version of the draft up while we discuss the rest of it. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 01:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Objections made by the subject of the article over the Levy incident

I wrote this article and supported its creation at Deletion Review. I am also in contact with Mr. Cousens' offices, and they have objected to our coverage of the Levy incident. On their behalf, I am asking for some uninvolved editors to review the section which is in question (Gabriel_Cousens#Controversy, as well as the fourth paragraph of the lead).

I have argued that the controversy section is sourced to three different reliable sources: Phoenix New Times, AZ Central, and Quackwatch. In an article of 4000 words, the controversy receives under 500. I believe it is neutrally described without going into excessive detail. Of course, it could always include less information, but I believe doing so would deprive the reader of basic facts about the case needed to make their own determination.

Cousens' office has argued that the sources on which the section is based are not reliable, especially Phoenix New Times. They have also disclosed a private statement to me about the incident suggesting the sources about it are inaccurate. Since that statement is not published, I could not incorporate it into the article.

I would appreciate someone, or multiple someones, taking a look at this section. Thanks very much. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the section is both well written and well sourced and in general the article is actually overly laudatory. The New Times is a major source of news in Arizona and I would consider it generally reliable, especially when it is confirmed by other sources. If the content of these news pieces is manifestly incorrect and defamatory then Mr. Cousen's beef is with the news outlets, we should be covering what is out there, per WP:V. I do think the section should be renamed. "Controversy" is a vague non descriptive term, something like "Allegations of malpractice" would be more accurate. --Daniel 17:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the section is fine as well, and I support the proposed rename. As for the rest of the article -- far too much direct quotation of his own words. If people want that sort of thing, they can read the interviews and his own publications. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I just happened to stumble across this article, after never hearing of Cousens before. I think the content is fine. As with the others, I also agree that a more neutral section title is necessary though. SmartSE (talk) 01:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The article is no longer 4000 words in length and the Levy incident dominates the page. It is not balanced. It violates BLP standards. It is a minefield and will continue to be until this doctor receives more notoriety than the alleged malpractice suit. 63.227.89.65 (talk) 21:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC) Ox in the Box

I believe the article still meets notability guidelines, but more urgently, the article is not yet 'stable'. I intend to carefully add back some of the information (perhaps in a summarized form), in a measured way and with the consultation of other editors. The usual avenue for proposing deletion is Articles for Deletion, and I have offered Cousens' office to nominate it myself on their behalf. I have also asked them to give the article a week so that it can settle into a likely short to medium term state. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 23:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how the PNT article is considered a reliable secondary source. Citing that article is clearly a violation of the reliable sources policy. Read here: WP:BLPSOURCES. The tone of the article is far from neutral. "Arizona's homeopathic board is the second chance for doctors who may not deserve one" - the title of the article alone is implicitly contentious, predisposing the reader to the opinion of the paper. I don't care what kind of awards they've won. That's not objective journalism. While the material in the new article may be streamlined, the article cited is highly slanted. WP:BLPREMOVE Because self published sources are rarely used here (WP:BLPSPS) it is highly unlikely that any rebuttal Dr. Cousens would have regarding his side of the story on the Levy Case could ever be used, so Ocaasi's permission for Dr. Cousens to put a rebuttal on his website to be cited in the article is laughable. It would never stick here. So he is basically at the mercy of shitty journalism from 4 years ago about an event that happened 14 years ago. Sadly, it is all he is really known for in the mainstream media, so it shadows all his other work, private and public, thanks to Wikipedia's popularity on Google. Thanks to this article Dr. Cousens' skeletons (real or plastic) are now part of his first web impression. Great work! While the notability of Dr. Cousens is debatable (depending on where you get spoon fed your news), one thing is certain, in terms of marked notoriety, he is known for one event - the Levy case. This is in clear violation of the policies here: WP:BLP1E. I would cite the following reasons to DELETE this article from here WP:DEL#REASON:

1. Content that meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion
2. Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish
3. Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
4. Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)
5. Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons
6. Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia 75.164.8.243 (talk) 00:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC) HoneyBadgerCowboy

In what way is the source 'clearly a violation of the RS policy or BLP policy'? Please be specific. You're right that the PNT article has a sensational title; however, the source is incorporated conservatively. What about the AZcentral article? I have yet to hear any mention of that major state newspaper which similarly covered the incident. Cousens is not known only for the Levy controversy; far from it, he's a noted (leading, prominent, highly respected) expert in raw foods, as I doubt I have to tell you. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

1. The article does not meet any of the WP:CSD criteria. If you disagree, please site one specifically.
2. It's not a redirect, first of all, and the page does not even begin to disparage the subject; it only reports neutrally on it.
3. Although not overwhelming, there are enough independent, published, reliable sources. More are available and being incorporated.
4. The article was determined to meet the relevant notability guideline at its deletion review. Although this draft is considerably shorter, the consensus is that it was mainly lower quality sources that were removed, leaving the better ones.
5. In what way does the article breach WP:BLP? Please be specific.
6. How is the content not suitable for an encyclopedia, other than it reports on a negative aspect of Cousens' career? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

It meets two criteria for WP:CSD, namely G10 and A9. The page immediately sources an article that disparages the subject. Want to know about Dr. Cousens? Look at this slanderous blurb from this Phoenix rag! I will be interested to see the many sources you are able to site on the good doctor, though I suspect few to none will surface. He is remarkably non-notable, and deletion review only determined his notability based upon the original puke you put up. Again the sources were found to be trash, but you've still got your gem, er, terd to celebrate. The content is not suitable in that he is non-notable. If he is as notable as you claim, then the new polished, trim crap you've posted is markedly understated, which is also a BLP violation. You do have to tell me how prominent he is, because your article certainly doesn't. If you are suggesting I am COI then you are as paranoid as you are a lousy writer. 75.164.8.243 (talk) 00:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC) HoneyBadgerCowboy

I disagree with A9 as the article does establish Cousens importance as a raw food expert. G10 would be the appropriate category, if you could demonstrate libel or non-neutrality. Otherwise please remain civil; it will be to everyone's benefit. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 22:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me. I missed the article where he presented at that middle school in Oregon. And also the one that proves he is renowned abroad because of the local rag that did an article on the San Rafael man who knew him? Notable indeed. 75.164.8.243 (talk) 00:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC) HoneyBadgerCowboy

We can't demonstrate libel beyond his claims that it is such; however, that article cited in the Levy bit is demonstrably non-neutral. So let me get this straight - You can make a neutral statement, but cite a non-neutral source to support your neutrality? 75.164.8.243 (talk) 00:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC) HoneyBadgerCowboy

Do a Google book or scholar search and acquaint yourself more thoroughly with Wikipedia policies. And please learn how to format and not break into signatures. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Tom, but I have a life. 75.164.8.243 (talk) 00:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC) HoneyBadgerCowboy

I smell a sock puppet. Ox in the Box 174.18.79.72 (talk) 03:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Statement from Gabriel Cousens

I must point out that it was communicated to me through email by Cousens' assistant that they intended to take legal action to address this article. Though not invalidating their position, it does invoke WP:LEGAL, and I believe the account may need to be blocked until the threat of legal action is removed. I have notified OTRS (ticket: 2012032110000726) and forwarded them the relevant communications. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 16:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

To Whom It May Concern,

I am Gabriel Cousens. I am submitting this input to the discussion on the topic of deletion from Wikipedia to voice my opinion as to the subject of me as an entry to the Wikipedia viewers.

First of all, I would like to thank the Administrators at Wikipedia for recognizing that the entry of me, as a living and relatively non-notable person, may not meet the standards that the Wikipedia organization has set forth for the website to promote the public’s trust in the information posted about its subjects. While I cannot help but feel a modicum of pride in the many accomplishments, which a long life in medicine has enabled me to enjoy, I am disappointed that the focus of the Wikipedia entries, which give rise to these discussions, have cast that history and me personally in such a negative and false light. I have never asked to be a part of the subject matter found on Wikipedia, nor do I wish to ever be; therefore, I am truly grateful to Wikipedia for taking up the discussion of deletion of this Wikipedia entry on me.

I have been practicing medicine since 1973. During my entire tenure as a doctor I have met with numerous successes in my chosen field and have built a reputation for dealing with very difficult cases. However, in the past year, I encountered some difficulty in a business dealing with a person who has since attempted to smear that career as a helper and healer of people. In fact, I publically exposed this individual for what two lawyers deemed as unethical business dealings to my network of friends. I suspect that this individual, who is a computer expert, created this Wikipedia page, and then used the poison-pen entries to damage my reputation. The reason that these entries are “poison-pen” is that throughout my career I have had virtually no negative consequences to any of those I sought to help. However, the entries into Wikipedia have focused on one specific instance in which a person who came to my Arizona center, already seriously ill and under treatment with another holistic physician who was unable to help him as his condition continued to deteriorate.

The information posted on Wikipedia was apparently taken from an editorial article in a minor and narrowly circulated Phoenix publication. I was truly surprised to learn of the publication of such a poorly investigated editorial article by the Phoenix publication when I read about it through Wikipedia’s posting. The information contained in this publication could not have been verified by that publication due to the extremely sensitive and private nature of the person’s illnesses, which were only discussed during the course of investigation and discovery by attorneys and authorities whose sole charge was to get to the bottom of the matter. It is, perhaps, of important note that no charges were ever filed against me and a genuine investigation into me in general will demonstrate that I have never had my license to practice medicine in California (you may investigate this with the California Medical Board as a reliable secondary source) revoked or even stalled (by way of active suspension) for even a day. In short, the only claim that has ever been made relative to this extremely ill individual was through my insurance company, who disposed of the matter with a nominative settlement amount. I had no control over the insurance company paying what amounted to an extremely low figure for this person’s passing. However, both the person’s family lawyer and the insurance lawyer deemed it in the best interest of everyone to settle out the matter without protracted litigation. The terms of the settlement were confidential, as my attorneys tell me is standard for most all settlements of any nature. It is a point of fact that the Arizona Board of Homeopathic and Integrated Medicine Examiners did an extensive investigation on this case and cleared me of any wrongdoing.

For the Phoenix publication and the Wikipedia author/poster to imply otherwise goes to the recklessness of the conduct and smacks of an intention to disparage me both personally and professionally. Moreover, the references to me and to medical licensure in California, Arizona, and New York were clearly never verified by the anonymous Wikipedia poster nor the Phoenix publication, on which that poster seems to rely for Wikipedia qualification. It is important to note that the Phoenix publication is essentially a local tabloid, boasting extensive pornographic personal ads. Living in a different city (near the Mexican border) I never saw the article, which was actually written to disparage the Arizona Homeopathic Board, during their license renewal. (I need not explain that homeopathy is competitive with allopathy, and frequently draws criticism.)

I do not feel that it is in the interest of this discussion, on the relevance of me as a Wikipedia subject, to rehash the facts and issues of these two negligently investigated and intentionally disparaging published comments and information by the Phoenix publication, the anonymous Wikipedia author/poster, or Wikipedia itself. However, it is important to me to at least voice my opinion as to the truth of the postings and editorial article and the potential motives for their publication by Wikipedia. This matter has become an invasion of my privacy, both on a personal level and professionally according to Arizona law. My lawyers are now actively investigating the matter of these publications by the Phoenix publication and the author/poster of this misinformation that has recently been posted to Wikipedia. The reason for my input today is because I and those lawyers genuinely believe that the Phoenix publication and the anonymous author/poster have knowingly or recklessly, by using Wikipedia, given publicity to a matter that places me personally, and my career, in a false light that any reasonable person would find highly offensive.

In closing, I would again like to thank the Administration of Wikipedia for taking up the matter of my inclusion in its repertoire of information on various notable subjects. I respectfully submit to Wikipedia that I am not such a notable figure that warrants inclusion into its vast array of subjects. Among other reasons, the postings made on its website are inflammatory and exist only to disparage me due to the level of incomplete facts/allegations and misinformation on the topic the author/poster seeks to convey. Further, I do not believe that the minor and narrowly distributed Phoenix publication is the type of source that Wikipedia would deem as reliable if it knows of it at all. Moreover, my inclusion of limited and one-sided, poorly-sourced, biographical postings seem to clearly violate Wikipedia’s policy on not posting biographies on living persons.

In short, I do not believe, nor do I feel that any reasonable, informed reader would believe that the content posted by others about me and my career is suitable for an encyclopedia. So, again, thank you to the Administrators of Wikipedia for this opportunity to voice my opinion on the topic of my inclusion as a Wikipedia subject. It is my “vote” and opinion that you at Wikipedia should delete all information about me regardless of its source and content. I feel that to do otherwise is simply a perpetuation of the publicity to the false light in which I have been placed and a continued invasion of my privacy. I hope that you will consider my position and point of view in your decision to delete me as a subject on Wikipedia. In my mind, the use of Wikipedia for slanderous, libelous intentions is clearly not in the spirit of composing an encyclopedic body of knowledge. Thank you for taking the time to read my entry.

Respectfully, 63.227.89.65 (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC) Gabriel Cousens, M.D., M.D.(H)

I believe this is a verbatim copy of the statement posted to the 2010 version of this article, which was deleted. Particularly relevant is "I encountered some difficulty in a business dealing with a person who has since attempted to smear that career as a helper and healer of people. In fact, I publically exposed this individual for what two lawyers deemed as unethical business dealings to my network of friends. I suspect that this individual, who is a computer expert, created this Wikipedia page, and then used the poison-pen entries to damage my reputation." I don't know if that suspicion has any credence, but suffice to say, this is a new article and I am certainly not a business person nor a computer expert, nor someone who ever had dealings with Cousens in the past. Mr. Cousens, you should also note that the speculations about your Arizona medical license are absent from the current draft of the article. A closer look at the text which is actually there will reveal that. As for the sources, Phoenix New Times is published by the same people who publish the Village Voice and has won awards for its investigative journalism. Although I can't say for sure, I believe both the Phoenix New Times and AZcentral performed their own research into the court documents before writing their articles. I understand your desire not to have a Wikipedia article, but it met our notability guidelines despite your objections in a recent Deletion Review. If you want to nominate the article for deletion, it should go through WP:AFD, per our procedures. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 16:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused about the notion that the license issue is controversial. "Cousens is not eligible for an M.D. license in Arizona because his license was once taken away (but reinstated) in California and remains surrendered in other states." Is there evidence that the article's claim in this respect was wrong? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why he hasn't sued the Phoenix New Times, if everything they wrote about him was bogus. All WP does is report what reliable sources say, and Phoenix New Times certainly qualifies as one. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I was told that the PNT article was beyond the statute of limitations. That would put Cousens in a difficult place in terms of treating the claims as defamatory; however, I think we've handled it thus far conservatively and responsibly on our end. If Cousens wants to pursue legal action, that's their right. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 22:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

(Reposting. You deleted my comment when you posted.)

Well, I took him up on his invitation to "investigate this with the California Medical Board as a reliable secondary source" and turned up this. The entire case is outlined in the PDF. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Not saying you want to , But imo we couldn't use that as a source per my interpretation of WP:BLPPRIMARY - Youreallycan 07:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It can only be used to support a secondary source. My only reason to link to it here was to determine how much credibility we can give to the message above allegedly from the subject. I also searched the Harper's Magazine archives and failed to find any mention of the spa; I did find some in the NYTimes: [1], [2], and [3].

Look: I'm not out to do a hit piece on this subject; what I'm interested in is doing a balanced, well-sourced, neutral treatment. I've been to such spas myself, and personally I think the SAD is lethal and the cause of most degenerative diseases. But in my experience trying to avoid or whitewash unpleasant incidents just makes things more difficult, in both RL and on WP. It's the cause of 90 percent of edit wars, IMO. So if we just write to WP policy as it is clearly laid out and stop trying to read the gray, the article will be fine and we'll all be better editors in the end. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Tom - my interpretation of BLP Primary is relation to that external is that it can't be used, not even to support anything, unless you want to insert it it doesn't matter - let me know if you insert it. Please don't mistake me for being bothered about any of that whitewash or unpleasant incident whatever. This article should not have been recreated imo - it's - a not notable death attached to a low notable person - the subject of previous deletion and previous OTRS reports - I don't give a f*** about fringe medicine one way other. I am here only to protect the living subject from policy and guideline violations and remove any WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE content violations - IMO this articles existence is in violation of an in depth mature interpretation of wikipedia's policies and guidelines and such an assessment would have disallowed its recreation. I am safe from litigation in this situation and have not added any content to this article - in fact, I opposed its recreation vocally and I oppose its continued existence and publication via the en wikipedia project.- Youreallycan 17:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

YRC, how do you interpret this part of WP:BLPPRIMARY: "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source." I have taken that in the past to mean that we could use primary sources in certain limited circumstances in BLPs. Do you read it differently? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 18:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually that is a very recent addition - added by PatW as I recall - I oppose that position in the majority of situations - if you have a reliable source you do not need the primary - we don't report primary sources - we are here to report on what others have reported - If you need a primary source or a legal document to augment the secondary report/s then the issue is likely not notable enough to be reporting on here.Youreallycan 18:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion really doesn't make any difference; the policy is clear, IMO, and IIRC it's been the same since I began editing in 2007. I'll use a primary source to determine if a questionable secondary source is accurate. I added "physician" to the lede because the primary source—in this case the California Medical Board—supports the information on Cousens' self-published web page and other non-RS sources about his license and education. I consider that to be the proper use of primary sources as per policy. The primary source from the NY Dept. of Health (which is really a secondary source dealing with an incident in another state) I linked to above also confirms the secondary sources' contention about why he is ineligible for an Arizona MD license. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Youreallycan wrote: "I am here only to protect the living subject from policy and guideline violations and remove any WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE content violations." Would you care to shed some light on your relationship with Dr Cousens? I think that statement deserves some elaboration. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there something against policy or is that comment you quote not something all wikipedia editors should do? As for any relationship with the living subject of this article, I suggest you ask anyone who knows me. I am sure they will tell you. What part of my above comment, "I don't give a f**** about fringe medicine" is confusing? Youreallycan 20:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I can vouch for Youreallycan: He's a strong defender of BLP articles and policy. More strict than I would be, but certainly not a COI editor. I don't think those suspicions or accusations have been helpful at all in these discussions, and I suggest they stop. Let's just focus our energies on using the best sources through Google News archives and including what is well sourced first. We can deal with marginal issues afterwards. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

YRC, thanks for clarifying. Asking for a clarification is not an accusation. I don't really think that you and I are that far apart on adherence to policy, which I thought I made clear in explaining how I use primary sources, nor do I think I know everything about WP policies. I questioned his role as a policeman instead of an editor, and his statement "I am here only to protect the living subject" appeared strange to me. I am here to help build an encyclopedia, as little as I do toward that end. The idea of confining myself to the role of policeman is foreign to me, although to be honest I'm sure other editors I've interacted with in the past may have thought that is exactly how I saw myself. IMO all editors are bound to edit according to policy when they open an account.

TL; DR: Apologies that I appeared to be acting in bad faith. I assure you I was not; I thought the statement needed elaboration.

Ocaasi, as far as sources and other issues with the page, let's please discuss below. This section is too long and unwieldy. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Content to consider

Some of the sources are paywalled through HighBeam Research. If you want to view a copy I can email it to you, or lend you my account." Ocaasi ^{t | c} 11:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Cousens wrote in his book Depression-Free for Life, "We don't suffer a deficiency of Prozac, but we do suffer a deficiency of God."

• Cousens provides natural therapies for treating depression. He claimed a 90% success rate, but he acknowledged that rigorous studies had not been conducted due to lack of funding: "We’re not at this stage yet...I have no money to conduct such trials."

• As a licensed psychiatrist, Cousens does not advocate the use of many common psychiatric medications, especially in youth.

• Cousens' approach was criticized in the book Health Food Junkies as a type of dietary extremism with orthorexic symptoms, an obsessive approach to eating healthy in which concern over diet takes over the lives of practitioners.

• In his book Conscious Eating advocates a mindful approach to diet Cousens suggests exercises like eating with your eyes closed, as a form of meditation, to slow down one's eating habits.

• Cousens' book, Spiritual Nutrition looks diet as a spiritual journey. Cousens believes that what bringing awareness to what one eats will benefit them emotionally, psychologically, and spiritually. Cousens encourages "spiritual fasting" to aid in "awakening people to the spirit of God".

• Cousens believes that vegeterianism is, "The only way to create peace in the human and animal world, with the earth, with our own bodies and with all starving people in the world."

• Cousens' nutritional views are informed by his reading of the primary Jewish text, the Torah, which he reads as as supporting a vegetarian diet. He think that the Torah's commandment to take care of the environment also requires a vegetarian lifestyle, citing the resource demands and waste he associates with a meat-based diet. Ultimately, Cousens believes that vegeterians live a longer life, and he emulates the ancient ascetic Jewish group the Essenes, who were vegetarians and reported in the Torah to have lifespans of 120 years. At the Tree of Life Rejuvenation center Cousens celebrates traditional Jewish holidays such as Shabbat and Passover. His Passover seder includes an all raw, vegetarian meal.

• The teachings offered at Cousens' Tree of Life Rejuvenation Center, the location for which he partly selected because it's located at the same latitude as Jerusalem, are called "the Essene Way". Cousens offers training and education for ordaining priests and priestesses in the Essene Order of Light, a faith recognized in the Encyclopedia of American religions; as of 2004 he had ordained 30 members. Cousens grew up in a Jewish family and is a rabbi; his teaching are influenced by the Jewish spiritual mysticism Kabbalah, and he sees a direct link between physical habits and spirituality.

• Cousens promotes shamanic astrology.

• Cousens is strongly opposed to medicinal marijuana. He doesn't think it is medicine. He argues that it causes “irreversible brain damage”, even though it reduces pain. Instead, Cousens proposes an “80 percent live food, plant source only diet,” yoga, meditation, prayer and chanting.

• The Tree of Life center was visited by, Nana Otimpong Otibribi, chief-king of the Baika people in the Buem Traditional Area of Ghana, who visited the center to advocate for diabetes awareness and education. The center was also visited by Ambassador Taye Habte Atske-Selassie, Ethiopian director general for the Americas/foreign affairs, who explored how the center's teachings could help improve nutrition in Ethiopia, in particular natural cures for diabetes.

• Cousens developed his philosophy of "conscious eating" from the Bible, as well from Muktananda, an Indian guru.

Refs

I don't know that we should go into such detail about his treatments and beliefs, since I'm sure they change over time. If we do include some, they should be attributed to him, such as "Cousens says his nutritional views are informed by his reading of the primary Jewish text, the Torah," etc. Any book information should come from RS book reviews.

I also looked for sources last night, and I found a much more balanced account of Levy's death. I can e-mail them to you if you'd like. I don't know how much time I'll have to give to this today, and I wasn't planning on spending more than a few days next week, which I think should be sufficient. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Article rewrite

I rewrote the lede to start the ball rolling. I think it's neutral and summarizes the material in proportion to its coverage in reliable sources. I used Cousens' web site as a source for himself, which is permissible under WP:SELFSOURCE, but I don't plan to use it without also using "he claims" or some other such qualifier. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with the way you added the Levy detail in the lede like that and I have moved it - imo you gave it undue weight in this persons life. - note My moving it was only to reduce focus on it and not a support of the content in any way. I did not, and have not at any time inserted any content to this article. - Youreallycan 06:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I placed it there because that's what the majority of sources cover. As I stated earlier, there's more reason to have an article on that incident than there is the subject of the article.

I'd like to hear the opinion of other editors on this before I do any more editing. I am, however, going to insert the superior version. Even though I wrote it in lede style, it is more detailed than the old account. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Where are we with this? I would still maintain that, due to the non-notable status of Gabriel Cousens, this article should be deleted. HoneyBadgerCowboy (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I've been busy the past few days with RL, but I plan to get back to it later this week. Cousens is identified as a leading homeopathic/raw foodism diet guru in several reliable sources (not to mention all his self-puffery about how he "is considered the leading live-food medical doctors and spiritual nutrition experts in the world (sic)". But if you want to start an RfD, feel free, though I think you'd be wasting your time. I felt much the same when I first read the page, but I think that was probably more my repugnance at the blatant WP:PROMOTE POV the article was infused with. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Why do you feel that would be a waste of time? HoneyBadgerCowboy (talk) 00:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Because I don't think you'll be successful. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The statement: "The center is studying the impact of raw diets on babies and children.[24]" is an inaccurate extrapolation on the information provided in the cited source. The article states that the educational manager is piloting a study at the time of the article's writing. It does not state that the Center is piloting the study. HoneyBadgerCowboy (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I made edits re: above, but they were altered to this current inaccurate statement. I'm not going to do it again just to have it reversed. Read the article and fix it. HoneyBadgerCowboy (talk) 02:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability is key, what the source actually says

The Tree of Life Rejuvenation Center, a retreat for raw food education in Patagonia, Ariz., is studying the impact of such diets on babies and children. Dr. Gabriel Cousens, the founder and director of the center, created a raw baby formula and is conducting a long-term study of the height, weight and health histories of babies fed all-raw diets. Educational manager Susan Miller-Madeley, who piloted the study, said she was surprised to find that some parents were nervous about the consequences of including their children in the study in the wake of the Andressohn case.

The source supports the text in the article. Do you disagree? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 11:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. I am connected with the actual situation here. Do you want my help, or do you want to haggle over your shitty sources? HoneyBadgerCowboy (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

We don't take people's word for things, even (or especially) if they're connected with the subject. You can read our policy prohibiting original research here. I want you to be civil, and if you can't manage that, to leave. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

HoneyBadgerCowboy, it might be time for you to back off -- if you're interested in editing Wikipedia in any sort of serious way, then perhaps find some other articles to work on. While you're considering your options, have a look at WP:NPA and WP:COI. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I know what the policies are. Bottom line is that the center is not studying those effects. A student in the non-accredited college associated with the Foundation has done a study on children - not the center. Now your source doesn't say that, but then several of your sources are bullshit so I guess it really doesn't matter. As long as it's verifiable, the truth doesn't matter. You don't have to take my word for it, but I'm right, and I can probably help you sift through the endless shit re: this topic... if accuracy actually matters. HoneyBadgerCowboy (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course accuracy matters. But your claims of authority here will do nothing to clarify what is accurate and what isn't. You'll simply have to work out how you feel about that fact and make the decision that suits you best. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't need to work it out: I don't give a damn. Now that we've gotten that out of the way, what I can contribute is extensive knowledge on the subject in question and point you in some directions that will help make this a functional addition to WP. I am COI, and, having resigned myself to the fact that you're going to move forward with this, the least I can do is serve as a compass for what's real and what's bullshit in terms of sources and their claims. If you don't want my help fine, but if I agree to be civil and neutral I don't see what the issue is. HoneyBadgerCowboy (talk) 16:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It would be very helpful if you could furnish some reliable sources. Our goal here—as with any WP article—is to be as accurate and neutral as possible using the best sources available. And are you an example of the spiritual ambiance that prevails at the center? Tom Reedy (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's one that reveals a little of the humanitarian work Dr. Cousens has done: http://www.nogalesinternational.com/the_bulletin/news/ethiopian-ambassador-pays-a-visit-to-patagonia/article_8ab42550-fa69-11e0-bd9c-001cc4c03286.html This article was a precursor to his trip to Ethiopia and the beginning of his work there. I am not immediately involved with the center. I am on my own trip beyond boxes. HoneyBadgerCowboy (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Is Cousens an 'expert'?

• 'Fasting guru': http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/24/style/rest-the-tummy-restore-the-soul.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
• 'Leading medical authority': http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-109121493.html
• 'Forerunner of the live food approach': http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-1079233881.html
• 'Global guru', 'highest international authority' on live food: http://www.rollingstone.com.ar/1319715
• 'Internationally Acclaimed Health Guru': http://allafrica.com/stories/200002160211.html

Ocaasi ^{t | c} 16:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Ghananewsagency.org

Ghananewsagency.org is not one. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing to remove this one, but I would like to briefly discuss it. Ghana News Agency is Ghana's state news outlet. It's being used only to support that Cousens has made claims about treating Diabetes. Why is the source not reliable for that specific information? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 13:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

He wrote a book about it; why not just cite that or from his web site? There are also a few other refs that aren't WP:RS, IMO. Ima go through the article and change them whenever my phone quits ringing. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Because his book and website aren't independent, while it shows Cousens' international significance that Ghana thought he was important enough to write about. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 18:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

His book and website can be cited as sources of information about himself. See WP:SELFSOURCE. Intending to suggest that his work has "international significance" through implication by coverage by a non-US source is WP:OR. It's a puff piece; it's not a serious treatment of diabetes or cures. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Selfsources, though I relied on them heavily in my first draft, were heavily criticized. It's best to avoid them if possible. There's no OR in the article; that the international report reflects his significance is purely my off-the-record observation. I'm still not sure it's a 'puff piece', but I won't fight over removing it. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

While I would oppose any use of his site to source obviously self-promotional statements such as "the leading live-food medical doctors and spiritual nutrition experts in the world", I see nothing wrong with using it to source this particular medical claim of his. We're not saying it's true; we're saying he's making the claim. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, Ghananewsagency.org covered Cousens because he and another bloke started an organization over there. See this: http://www.drcousens.com/FOUNDATION/tabid/1932/language/en-US/Default.aspx HoneyBadgerCowboy (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing that. Unfortunately, it faces the same problem as other excluded sources, which is that its self-published. Thanks for the information, though. I find it interesting that Cousens has spread his influence widely around the globe. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course it does, but it also proves that the Ghana article isn't spam. HoneyBadgerCowboy (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

You know, after exploring that news site and re-reading the article I changed my mind. The article attributes the statements to Cousens and does not assert them as fact, it's written by a reporter, and the news site has editorial oversite. I spoke too soon without thorughly researching the source. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's another article from the Nogales International. The newspaper operates in proximity to Tree of Life - Cousens' center, so they frequently do pieces on the center and Dr. Cousens. Here is an article on Cousens' interface with a king of Ghana. Cousens later visited Ghana and started a center there. http://www.nogalesinternational.com/the_bulletin/news/african-king-pays-royal-visit-to-patagonia/article_6504080e-c529-5361-ac3b-f5c9df4908b2.html HoneyBadgerCowboy (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's an article that states Cousens' stance on medical marijuana: http://www.nogalesinternational.com/news/enlightened-scc-reacts-to-medical-marijuana-law/article_1c20feae-df68-50c9-b0fb-6a460ff7a978.html HoneyBadgerCowboy (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's one that reveals a little of the humanitarian work Dr. Cousens has done: http://www.nogalesinternational.com/the_bulletin/news/ethiopian-ambassador-pays-a-visit-to-patagonia/article_8ab42550-fa69-11e0-bd9c-001cc4c03286.html This article was a precursor to his trip to Ethiopia and the beginning of his work there. HoneyBadgerCowboy (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

This one isn't very good, but it shows a part of his work that few see: http://www.nogalesinternational.com/obituaries/grayce-noteboom-arnold/article_300c8ffa-11a0-5d5a-a272-dd5c9092f071.html HoneyBadgerCowboy (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Uh oh! Looks like someone broke in at Cousens' center and stole a camera! In the spirit of thoroughness you might want to include this too... What a shame... http://www.nogalesinternational.com/the_bulletin/news/vandals-hit-tree-of-life-town-park-and-community-garden/article_b07cbfdf-b9b5-504d-ac14-f5320fc33f06.html HoneyBadgerCowboy (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

One time there was an electrical fire at TOL: http://www.nogalesinternational.com/the_bulletin/news/electrical-fires-hit-at-tree-of-life/article_63270264-316e-11e1-8315-0019bb2963f4.html , but then later it turned out that the fire was on an adjacent easement: http://www.nogalesinternational.com/the_bulletin/news/tree-of-life-says-source-of-fires-not-on-its/article_49717d1c-36f1-11e1-a3ed-0019bb2963f4.html HoneyBadgerCowboy (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The marijuana comment might be usable, but none of the others are. I plan to work on the article this weekend and that will be the end of my contribution to this project. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks HBC for contributing those. I think the visit from the Ethiopian Ambassador and Ghanaian King are interesting. I'll add those to the 'content to consider' section above. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 11:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

ScienceBasedMedicine.org

You bet, guys. I'd also like to call into question the validity of Science Based Medicine as a secondary source. It's a blog. Again, he's got a lot of wrong information in there. For example he states that Cousens directed the film. Not true. Cousens starred in the film. He was consulted (and ignored) during the film's editing. I know, I know, you can't take my word for this, but is this blog really something WP should source to? Thanks. HoneyBadgerCowboy (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

ScienceBasedMedicine.org states: "Science-Based Medicine is dedicated to evaluating medical treatments and products of interest to the public in a scientific light, and promoting the highest standards and traditions of science in health care...We provide a much needed 'alternative' perspective — the scientific perspective...SBM’s authors are all medically trained and have spent years writing for the public about science and medicine, tirelessly advocating for high scientific standards in health care."[4] According to their bio the site has a bias in providing a pro-science perspective. Biased sources can be used, especially if care is taken and attribution is given.

The article on Simply Raw is written by David Gorski, whose brief bio states: "David H. Gorski, MD, PhD, FACS is a surgical oncologist at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute specializing in breast cancer surgery, where he also serves as the American College of Surgeons Committee on Cancer Liaison Physician as well as an Associate Professor of Surgery and member of the faculty of the Graduate Program in Cancer Biology at Wayne State University."[5] Gorski's is also Managing Editor of ScienceBasedMedicine.org. [6] The article, although possibly self-published, appears to be written by an expert. Those types of self-published sources can be used if the writer is an authority, the content is relevant, and the author has been written about in third-party publications.

David Gorski has been written about in third party publications:

• USA Today
• Jewish Exponent
• TheStar.com also [7]
• Canada.com
• DotMed News
• Cleveland.com

Sciencebasedmedicine.org appears as a reference or external link in 35 other Wikipedia articles. That is not proof of its reliability here, but it's a positive indication that the community does not view it as inherently unreliable.

There is a fair question over whether of not this source qualifies as a reliable source for the content it is used to support, and we should indeed discuss it. Please review WP:SPS and we'll have that conversation. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. The piece is written as an opinion piece. It is not written as research. If Gorski voiced his opinion based on his research to prove that Cousens is not in fact reversing diabetes, but merely, say, managing it - a legitimate concern - then I could take it more seriously, but regardless of the line of designations behind his name, he's showing up as a Roger Ebert not a doctor. His opinions are really superficial. Do what thou wilt, but I'd vote to find a more functional rebuttal to the film. HoneyBadgerCowboy (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Levy

We currently include the Homeopathic board's findings, but not the fact specifically that the Santa Cruz County Medical Examiner and the Arizona osteopathic medical board found Cousens' injections at fault. I think it's importance for balance to note all three findings. There's also some dispute in the sources over whether the injections were in fact "bovine adrenal fluid" or something more benign; the current version states as fact that it was BAF. Should we be take a less definite stance on that? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 12:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

If reliable sources disagree that should be noted. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I tweaked the Levy paragraph. The paragraph included unnecessary details that load the paragraph toward innuendo. My revisions are a little more streamlined, and I feel more objective. The revision also takes some undue weight off the incident without whitewashing it. HoneyBadgerCowboy (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

That sort of issue requires exactly the sort of judgment that a COI editor is least likely to possess. These edits would be possible if the talk page discussion comes to a broader consensus that they are desirable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, I feel the changes I made were completely valid, without sacrificing the integrity of the issue. Nevertheless, I would defer to the other editors here. Could you please restore my edits until others have had a chance to weigh in on the matter? HoneyBadgerCowboy (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I won't restore your edit (why would I?) -- it can be viewed here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Nomo. HoneyBadgerCowboy (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed changes to Levy paragraph

HoneyBadgerCowboy made some edits which were reverted. As a COI editor, HBC, you should probably propose changes on the talk page first, especially about the controversial sections. Feel free to do that below. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Ocaasi. Below is my proposal. HoneyBadgerCowboy (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

In 1999, a malpractice lawsuit was filed against Cousens by the family of Charels Levy, who died under Cousens' care.[26][27][28] Cousens' insurance company forced him to settle out of court. The case came up before the Arizona Board of Homeopathic Medical Examiners in 2001, and the board found "no violation of homeopathic law" in Cousens' treatment.[27][28]

Again, to assert my logic here, some of the statements in the paragraph as it stands are inaccurate. For example, the statement "bovine adrenal fluid", implies that Dr. Cousens injected this guy with cow adrenaline, which didn't happen. The writer of the article clearly doesn't understand homeopathy or is being disingenuous. Injecting cow adrenaline into anybody would be completely illegal. Levy was injected with a homeopathic remedy - meaning that whatever he put in Levy was at least 999,999/1,000,000 water. The other details I believe are superfluous and inaccurate, serving only to lace the paragraph with slanderous innuendo. The paragraph as I have revised it presents the bare bones facts of the situation. That is all that needs to be mentioned. It also takes some of the load off the article. What do you think? HoneyBadgerCowboy (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

So what was the 1/1,000,000th part, according to your own knowledge? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, but it may have been cow adrenaline. The problem with the entire issue is that Levy was secretly injecting himself with cells from sheep and cows. This is the notorious cell therapy that supposedly Cousens was involved with, but it's not true. Cell therapy is illegal because of the percentage of individuals that contract ADEM doing it. Incidentally that is what Levy died from. Cousens actually filed a formal complaint against the pathologist who examined Levy. It was her very first body. There were two injection sites - one from Cousens on the hip and one from Levy in the perineum. The pathologist did not consider the second site, but the infection did not run to the site on the hip. Moreover Cousens' lawyers brought in two of the top pathologists in the country to for a second opinion. The evidence was so heavily weighted in Cousens' defense that Levy's family settled outside of court for lawyers fees. They knew they didn't have a case. HoneyBadgerCowboy (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

And yet the original record of cause of death was allowed to stand?? And there was no media interest in the outcome of the suit?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

So is Cousens on trial here or the paragraph? I already explained that a formal complaint was filed and dismissed. There was obviously no media interest at the time, and the case never went to court. It wasn't until the AZ Homeopathic Board was up for relicensing that the article in the PNT came out accusing the board of several indiscretions. This literally happened 3 weeks before their licensure was up for review. The article had no effect, but now it resurfaces on the internet frequently and the same old crap gets regurgitated and rehashed. Levy died of ADEM and Fournier's disease. Whatever infection he had was incidental. Nobody dies of gangrene that fast. He showed up on death's door and disclosed none of his history to the doctor whom he placed himself under. Moving on - I feel that my revision of the paragraph is enough to shed some light on the incident without whitewashing it. Tom Ready indicated that he had found a more balanced source for the story. I'd be interested in seeing what he found. HoneyBadgerCowboy (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey, you're the one attempting to use direct personal knowledge as the basis for decisions on how to edit the article. If you now think it's not relevant (hint: you're right), then by all means let's move on. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Any information which we incorporate into the paragraph or use as justification for what to include/exclude must come from a published source. I have offered several times that if Cousens published a statement on his website we might be able to reference it. So far, he hasn't been interested. It's just not sufficient for us to get the information from you HBC, it has to be published at the least and from a reliable source if at all possible. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree. HoneyBadgerCowboy, please read accepted reliable sources for Wikipedia articles. Personal opinion and non-public information are not. Cousens has made his opinion known and he is quoted in several acceptable articles. But unlike Ocaasi, I would not even consider accepting any website-published explanation in response to a WP article as a usable source. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I also tire of HoneyBadgerCowboy's continued misrepresentation of easily-checked facts.

It wasn't Levy's family who settled on advice of their attorneys; it was Cousens who was forced by his insurance company to settle.

The infection was present in the buttock and thigh, and was traced from an injection site in the buttock, not the perineum.

And it certainly wasn't the medical examiner's first body. Dr. Cynthia Porterfield graduated from the Chicago College Of Osteopathic Medicine in 1989, completing a 5-year residency with the Office of the Medical Examiner Cook County at the University of Illinois College Of Medicine in 1994. She’s affiliated with the Tucson Medical Center, and she’s board certified in Forensic Pathology and Anatomic Pathology.

And yes, people die of gas gangrene that fast.

If he continues to advocate in this manner (which IMO violates WP:BLP), I don’t think he should edit this article in any way, including on the talk page. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

You tire? Jesus... Anyway. The article's a joke, but we've been round and round about that. Here's the thing - the article is contentious. I'm presenting the information I have. I realize you can't use that stuff. My point is that there is controversy here, and sadly this cat's got no one to advocate for him. Given that fact - why can't you simply put the uncontested facts up and leave the questionable material out? What do you gain by peppering the paragraph with information that is suspect. Why is it so important that these details make it in to the article? The important thing is that a guy died, Cousens was sued, Cousens was found not at fault. done. The other stuff is controversial, slanderous, and ultimately unnecessary. Just leave it out. What's the big deal? I'm still waiting to read Tom Ready's balanced article on the matter at hand. HoneyBadgerCowboy (talk) 22:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Our job is to report what reliable sources say in a neutral manner and without undue weight. We do not advocate, and we—are at least I—have no conflict of interest. Please point out what information or sources are suspect.

"Homeopathic doctor sued over death linked to bovine-fluid shots." Arizona Daily Star, Tucson, AZ 24 June 1999: 1B. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

And I agree with Tom about using a statement on the matter from Cousens' website. Especially with this issue. It would be ridiculous for him and WP. HoneyBadgerCowboy (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Tom, that link takes me to a page requiring some kind of ID code to enter. HoneyBadgerCowboy (talk) 01:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Again I'd like to know why the paragraph cannot read thusly, as it is concise and lends less weight to the incident in question:

In 1999, a malpractice lawsuit was filed against Cousens by the family of Charels Levy, a patient who died under Cousens' care in 1998.[26][27][28] Cousens' insurance company forced him to settle out of court. The case came up before the Arizona Board of Homeopathic Medical Examiners in 2001, and the board found "no violation of homeopathic law" in Cousens' treatment.[27][28]

What exactly is the problem with presenting this as such? It avoids all the conjecture and controversy around the topic while citing all the sources, dubious as they may be. HoneyBadgerCowboy (talk) 01:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

And Tom - in response to your "easily checked facts" - Cousens' insurance company forced him to settle because the prosecution attorneys requested a settlement. They requested a settlement (for lawyers fees) because of the amount of evidence to the contrary of Porterfield's lousy pathology report, which contradicted two other pathology reports filed. There were literally 3 different pathology reports (stating 3 different causes of death) submitted. One thing that Porterfield did right was take tissue samples from Levy's brain. Those tissue samples came up positive for ADEM (acute disseminated encephalomyelitis), which is an entirely different issue than "gas gangrene". As I said before, a formal complaint was filed against Porterfield for incompetence at that time.

Bear with me - I know that none of this is useful for you. I understand the WP policies on content - My reason for sharing this is to express that the media coverage of this event is insufficient and inadequate. I am disparaging the disparagers, and, while that may mean nothing to WP, I would hope that it would at least demonstrate the speculative nature of the reporting and therefore the need to make our statements about this matter as concise as possible - as I believe my paragraph does. It is a sensitive topic with a lot of backstory, and to protect both WP and Cousens, it would behoove us to keep it tight. 75.164.8.243 (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid it doesn't demonstrate anything. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

No? Why not? HoneyBadgerCowboy (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

HBC, your proposed draft, though concise is unusable for the exact reason that it fails to mention the cause of death (gas gangrene due to bovine fluid injections given by Cousens) as found by the Santa Cruz count medical examiner or the Arizona Osteopatic medical board. It only reports the finding of the Az Board of Homeopathic medical examiners. Thus, it omits critical information which renders it biased. It is unfortunate that you never refuted the facts of the case publicly, because we can't take into account any of the claims made above that suggest a different cause of death. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Ocaasi. That makes sense. HoneyBadgerCowboy (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, please don't assume that "I" did not refute the facts. Please do not presume to know the manner in which I am involved with all this. HoneyBadgerCowboy (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

And I am, again, not asking you to take these claims into account beyond consideration that this matter is complex and therefore should be handled with care. HoneyBadgerCowboy (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

From my experience, plaintiff attorneys always ask for a settlement, and the only official death report is that of the medical examiner. All the sources I have read say the money was paid to the family. As to your assertions about the other details, they don't really matter if they're not documented, and surely you don't expect us to take your word for it given your past history of misrepresentations that I pointed out.

I obviously didn't have the time last weekend to work on this, but I assure you it is my intention to do so in the near future. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

My "misrepresentations" are only such because they conflict with your secondary sources (the media), which you and other WP editors seem to take for gospel. HoneyBadgerCowboy (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you look up Dr. Cynthia Porterfield's education and experience. You seem very concerned with protecting Cousens' reputation but you don't seem very concerned about your misrepresentation about her. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Why, are you planning on writing a WP article on Porterfield? HoneyBadgerCowboy (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Anything you write here about any living person must accord with WP's BLP policy. If you persist in making unsourced claims about a living person that are designed to cast that person in a negative light, you will likely end up blocked. It makes no difference at all that you might be making claims about a person who is not the subject of the article with which this particular talk page is associated. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand. Thank you. HoneyBadgerCowboy (talk) 23:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Time to remove the article tags?

I'm wondering if, with the AfD closed, there is still dispute about a) reliable sources b) neutrality or c) undue weight. That wouldn't mean that there are just editors who don't like it or even those who dispute its accuracy but that there are policy-based problems that remain in the article. So, what do you think? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 02:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The tags were added when the article was in a very different condition, right? It would help if we heard from the person who added the tags, but even if we don't, I'm inclined to think they can be removed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I took them down. If anybody disagrees they can replace them and articulate their reasons here. I have one more source to find and then hopefully I can finish up my contributions to this page and get busy on the Dickens FA project this weekend. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I would maintain that the article is still heavily weighted on the Levy incident. I'd like to think that will change as some of the content to consider makes it into the article. HoneyBadgerCowboy (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

the pic of the not notable person

Talk:Gabriel_Cousens#Infobox_picture

I removed it from the lede again, for the exact same reasons - I removed it from the article as a whole because I don't see any text the picture of the not notable person supports, which is a bit of a shame as its such a good picture of him but we still need to follow guidelines. Youreallycan 08:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)