Talk:The Barefoot Doctor

message: 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)
thread_title:  Citations needed 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  guardian talk 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Scandal? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Needs looking at 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: What can we do about the article's ownership problem? bobrayner (talk) 13:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It should be easy, but all attempts at fixing that are automatically reverted. bobrayner (talk) 19:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Spam, alt-med, and promotional fluff