Talk:The Barefoot Doctor

Citations needed

I just tagged all the stuff that's clearly value judgment in the text with "citation needed" tags. It's probable that SOMEONE has said all these things about mr. Russell, but they need to be presented as citable statements by someone, not as "facts that need no authority".

Things like book publishings and appearances on BBC I've left without tags, since they're statements that are clearly either false or true, and can be checked by a more-or-less mechanical lookup process. Statements like "many people have been helped" and "he is the perfect choice" are just not amenable to a false-or-true judgment; we need to know who makes that claim.

If there's nobody providing backing for the claims in a reasonable time, I'll just take them out of the article. --Alvestrand 08:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

guardian talk

we need to add a mention of when the guardian talk crowd turned him over - it's mentioned in Private Eye so a source exists - anyone know the issue? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fredrick day (talk • contribs) 21:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

example:

"A case study, Mr Barefoot: my bus has crashed - I've got a compound fracture in my right leg, the bone is sticking out from under the skin and is wedged into the 'Used Tickets' receptacle, my skull has had a good old thump against the seat in front and is impersonating a boiled egg after the first thump with the teaspoon, and my ribs have been broken into bits like a packet of smokey bacon crisps someone has stood on.

What herbs and aromatic oils would you recommend?"

1Z 04:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Link from the GU talk page

live online appearance

This link was too good not to mention in the article. Added! --Alvestrand 16:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sadly it's not good enough as a source. We can't extrapolate the claim "Russell's practice has elicited a fair amount of skepticism" from the Guardian talk page - we can extrapolate "Russell was once criticised by members of the public who didn't like him, when he was part of an online chat forum", but that's hardly encyclopaedia material. --McGeddon 10:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

what about the fact that his employer sent around a memo asking employees to go on and write nice things as mentioned in private eye? 193.35.133.151 11:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit weak, as scandals go. We can't really extrapolate anything very interesting from it, beyond "newspaper is concerned about profile of columnist", and it doesn't tell us anything about Russell himself. The sex scandal and scientific criticism are well documented and can be expanded from reliable sources, but I don't think the Guardian talk page can be taken anywhere. --McGeddon 11:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

How about putting it under a new heading, such as Trivia, Career (as in down hill) or Public Humiliations?Gowt 15:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed dubious material, which relies on tawdry gossip, ....this is against wiki policy, and lowers the standard of a reputable encyclopedia. Wiki should be above such things. As I believe there was no proof any allegations were ever made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nursemaz (talk • contribs) 02:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Scandal?

I understand that there was some kind of sex-scandal? Does anyone have any citations referring to his alleged sleeping with his patients (can a man with no medical qualifications actually have patients?)? 134.146.9.19 15:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC) CaptLockheed Not only did he not have a practice at the time of this rather tawdry account of attempted salaciousness, but even tho he admitted having sex with ex patients, that's perfectly acceptable for medical doctors....especially 7 years after they were patients. Nursemaz (talk) 05:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC) Nursemaz Removed dubious material, which relies on tawdry gossip, ....this is against wiki policy, and lowers the standard of a reputable encyclopedia. Wiki should be above such things. As I believe there was no proof any allegations were ever made. Wiki should not be associated with unfounded gossip material, within biographical articles. )Nursemaz

Needs looking at

This page currently reads like an advert written by Mr Barefoot. Do we really need BD is devoted to making the world a sweeter place for everyone. at the end? Actually, I'm going to remove it myself. MyNameIsClare talk 15:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of harmful material

Hi guys. You'll see from the history that I have been trying to remove the second paragraph under the contoversy section. I feel strongly that it is outwith the spirit of wikipedia and breaches the official ethical and stylistic WP policies, which state:

Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm".

The paragraph I am trying to remove is clearly damaging and harmful. Wikipedia editors aren't there to set themselves up as moral arbiters or judges of people's behaviour, especially when we only have a small amount of the true facts available to us. Whatever view we might take about this, wikipedia isn't there to act as a kangaroo court, allowing people who feel they have been wronged to use it as a platform to take their revenge on someone who is essentially helpless to reply. It just makes a laughing stock of wikipedia.

79.68.45.127 (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Normally I would agree but we have to look at this within the context of his proffessional activity - if he was working as a world famous expert on physics, then i'd agree that it had no bearing and should be removed - but it occured within his work as a healer/guru/therapist so had direct bearing on his activities in that sphere.

In regards to facts - wikipedia is not about truth, it is about verifiability - and in this case, we have an excellent source (The Guardian) and are just citing their reporting, we are NOT acting as the primary vehicle so that is a red herring. Since the section is so small, I would not even say that it is being given undue weight. Finally An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". - I'm sorry that's just too simplistic for what we are dealing with - everything has to be examined on it's own merits and with full understanding of the context - it would be a whitewash to remove this sourced relevent information. --Fredrick day (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This would be a fair comment if we were spreading rumours from a weak source, or presenting blandly neutral facts with a disapproving slant, but we're quoting a serious Guardian news article here. An article about therapists, in which Mr Russell's behaviour is singled out in detail, with quotes from complainants and patient groups, and a response from Russell himself. The tone of that section needs more work, but it's definitely relevant, and it's definitely possible to write the story up in a way which is neither "sensationalist" nor portrays us as "moral arbiters or judges of people's behaviour". --McGeddon (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I agree with the first contributor that the paragraph titled "controversy" is spurious, and not within wikipedia spirit. No complaints were ever made to the police, and of course Russell is alowed to refute anything which is damaging to his viable reputation, if it is not true. we all know the press can make things up, and sensationalise things. There is not proof that Russell was involved with any mis behaviour, and the women mentioned seemed to have vanished as quickly as they appeared. The whole episode appears like a ruse. In addition, Russell did not have a practise at the time of the alledged incidents,(wiki states earlier that he ran his practise for 17 years, from 1983, (thus up to 2000) so i think the question of whether has "patients" leads us off track. I would like the paragraph removed because it relies on very sketchy details, which makes it's position in wikipedia untenable.Nursemaz (talk) 02:33, 8 January 201Removed dubious material, which relies on tawdry gossip, ....this is against wiki policy, and lowers the standard of a reputable encyclopedia. Wiki should be above such things. As I believe there was no proof any allegations were ever made. Wiki should no)4 (UTC)Nursemaz Removed dubious material, which relies on tawdry gossip, ....this is against wiki policy, and lowers the standard of a reputable encyclopedia. Wiki should be above such things. As I believe there was no proof any allegations were ever made. Wiki should not be party to such gossip, I refer to the second pillar of wiki. Nursemaz (talk) 03:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you have better sources which say something different? bobrayner (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Why do you persist in relying on completely unfounded gossip? Where is any evidence that these allegations went any further than some women false allegations?? Do you wish wiki to be nothing more than a sensational gossip column? Do you want to keep this paragraph in order to generate dubious controversy just to make wiki "popular"? Can you find any evidence there is a strong scholarly reason to keep this paragraph? Nursemaz (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

By "completely unfounded" you mean something that was published in a reliable newspaper?

I'm curious; other parts of the article have worse sourcing, but you only removed bits which reflects badly on the "Barefoot Doctor". Why is that? bobrayner (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello...? Why is it that you skip over other parts of the article that have worse sourcing, and only remove bits which reflect badly on the "Barefoot Doctor", even though they're sourced? This is supposed to be a neutral article, not a hagiography. bobrayner (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe wiki to be a serious encyclopedia...using mere sensationalism, especially in the area of sexual mores is beneath wiki...recently, especially in the UK, there have been high profile cases of celebrities being sexually predatory....what is the tenuously alleged of Russell is not worth the e-ink it's written on...it makes a mockery of real abuse, true reporting and of wiki. Russell was not charged, had any formal allegations brought upon him, or indeed, had any allegations of misconduct with current "patients". To be taken seriously Wiki should not be seen to be libellous....that would bring Wii into disrepute...I am curious as to why you would want that? I would like wiki to treat serious issues seriously, not stoop to sensationalism. NursemazNursemaz (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Formal allegations were made to Witness, Russell responded to them, and all of this was reported by a reliable newspaper source. I can see that Russell might not like this information being on the public record, but I don't see how it is "dubious", "tawdry gossip" or "sensationalism" to repeat the Guardian's story here. I have restored the paragraph. --McGeddon (talk) 13:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course it is gossip, nothing ever came of the allegations....can you find any official responsible allegations, made to an official body? When people make dubious allegations about a relatively famous person often it is usually gossip or for financial gain etc....when this is replicated in wiki, this lessen wiki as a reliable, responsible, serious encyclopedia,....I am trying to find a link to "witness"....that is what I mean...if wiki is making a claim that women made an allegation to witness, then wiki readers should be able to follow that through....I sincerely hope you are not just keeping a link to newspapers, as that just seems laziness. As for whether Mr Russell likes it or not, I have no idea.....what I, as a woman, don't like, is that any mention of any hint of a scandal is seen to be titillating enough to put on wiki...I want serious, official allegations reported, otherwise it lessens any woman's credibility...let alone, that of wiki....surely, you only want citable sources on wiki....I want to see what witness made of the claims, otherwise, it is at best, hearsay, or at worse, libellous....I am beginning to think, that despite your obvious intelligence you have a vendetta against alternative therapists without having anything to back that up with. I don't subscribe to alternative therapies, but they're probably harmless enough, if not taken seriously....wiki IS taken seriously so only serious, evidenced things should be written in it. Please don't cheapen wiki to that of a cheap rag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nursemaz (talk • contribs) 16:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

"if wiki is making a claim that women made an allegation to witness, then wiki readers should be able to follow that through" - they can follow it through by reading the "serious, evidenced" Observer article which is provided as a source. It's a newspaper article that includes a response by Russell, which puts it above the bar of WP:BLPGOSSIP. That you think the patients might have been lying for money, or that readers might find these kinds of allegations "titillating", are not reasons to omit the material. --McGeddon (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

They were NOT patients!!!!! He had stopped practising 7 years prior!!!Nursemaz (talk) 16:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The source says "Jonathan Coe of Witness said his organisation had received five complaints about Russell relating to patients in treatment at the time of the alleged incident". But even so, that you think "some women" were lying for reasons of money or gossip is not relevant here. --McGeddon (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Checking for relevant BLP policy, WP:PUBLICFIGURE seems relevant, and has changed since the material was first written: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." As it stands the article could only offer the one Observer source, which is not enough. It shouldn't be added back without a second source. --McGeddon (talk) 09:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Removed R.D Laing claim

Removed: "He has studied under prominent Western practitioners such as R. D. Laing in addition to leading doctors of Chinese medicine."

No reliable citations given for either. If he studied with Laing then evidence should be easy to provide. AS to "leading doctors of Chinese medicine - again proof should be easy to find if correct.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Really2012back (talk • contribs) 16:15, 5 March 2008

Refutation

We could use a clearer source for "Russell [...] consequently refutes these allegations which have never been upheld.", as the linked source on his webpage is unhelpfully cryptic ("The pejorative allegations made against him as part of a slur campaign spearheaded by the Observer for whom he used to write and mentioned in Wikipedia were unfounded. These allegations were never upheld in any manner and he refutes them fully."), and it isn't ideal to be quoting "allegations were never upheld" solely from the accused. I'll tweak the quote to clearly attribute it to Russell, for now. --McGeddon (talk) 11:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I've re-added the deleted "claimed" from this section - we should not be using Russell as a source for whether Witness upheld the complaints against him. --McGeddon (talk) 21:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Monocle-1000 is right that we don't currently have a source saying that the claims have been upheld. But a personal statement on Russell's blog can't be used as a source for something as controversial as this, which means we don't have any usable sources either way. We shouldn't make any statements about whether or not the allegations were upheld until we have a reliable source that reports it. --McGeddon (talk) 11:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

His webpage now says "Pejorative allegations made against him as part of a slur campaign were unfounded, were never upheld in any manner and he refutes them fully.", without mentioning either the Observer or Wikipedia, making it even less useful a reference. It is not clear what allegations he is talking about. --McGeddon (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, per WP:SPS we should "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.", so I've cut the bit about him accusing ex-patients of lying for the sake of a "slur campaign" which was sourced only to his website. --McGeddon (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Nice work. Thanks. bobrayner (talk) 20:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Spam, alt-med, and promotional fluff

What can we do about the article's ownership problem? bobrayner (talk) 13:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Cutting all material which has no source, or which is only sourced to interviews, may clear things up. The article has attracted a lot of oddly similar SPAs over the years, but if the only problem is the COI/fan addition of obscure personal or professional details which no secondary source has ever cared about, it should be easy enough to trim it back. --McGeddon (talk) 15:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

It should be easy, but all attempts at fixing that are automatically reverted. bobrayner (talk) 19:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I cut some of it a few weeks ago and it stayed cut. The only reverts I can see in the history are you dialling back User:Nursemaz's edits wholesale (and reintroducing the single-source patient complaint story in violation of WP:PUBLICFIGURE in the process), and Nursemaz not unreasonably reverting that. Make specific cuts with specific reasons and if they get reverted they can be discussed. --McGeddon (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)