Talk:Rashid Buttar/Archive 2

Birth date

His birth date is 1966 according to his website [1], but this is a primary source. Therefore it should not be added? Skeptic from Britain (talk) 01:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Passed away on 5/20/2023. 64.85.203.236 (talk) 14:08, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

See threads below. Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2020

Please change X to Y In 2010 the board, in response to this and other concerns, chose to formally reprimand Buttar but allowed him to continue to practice.[2][10]

In 2010 the board, in response to this and other concerns, chose to formally reprimand Buttar but allowed him to continue to practice.[2][10][11]

11. North Carolina Medical Board Consent Order - Rashid Ali Buttar, D.O., March 26th, 2010 Crm master (talk) 02:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. This is extremely difficult to figure out what you want. Please be clearer with your requests. It seems like you want to add an additional source to this statement. However, for this sort of statement, we need secondary sources, for which there are already two. What you've given is primary, and it's being served by an unreliable site anyway. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

References

This is an obvious violation of biography of living persons rules. The source says this: The medical board reprimanded Buttar for dispensing his skin drops to a child from Michigan before he treated the child as a patient. A clear, concise explicit cause for the reprimand and assorted other actions.

It doesn't say the synthesized nonsense that is currently on the page for the sole purpose of deception by omission. It is 2020 and we're digging up dirt on the guy from 10-15yrs ago all the while he didn't lose his license to practice for a second. I wonder why? Is it because Dr Buttar is on Fox news questioning the government's actions regarding Covid? or ust some incredibly odd coincidence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:c800:2260:7c1b:1a38:7a13:f9d9 (talk)

I'm open to discussion on this, but while the document you linked to discusses the case you mentioned, it also raises "patients A-D" and "F, G and H". I can't see where it says that the decision is soley based on patient E, as you say, but it does refer to "patients" rather than "patient" in one of the concerns, and states that the consent order resolves "all pending complaints". I may have missed something, though, and I'm happy to see the wording changed if I did. - Bilby (talk) 23:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Source??

has twice been reprimanded by the North Carolina Board of Medical Examiners for unethical treatment of patients Offiicialofficialcolten (talk) 16:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Covered in:

• https://ncbomprod.ncmedboard.org/DataTier/Common/Repository/0/0/4/6/71951c6b-52dd-4916-bb47-e04a8ef1cec4.pdf
• https://www.wcnc.com/article/news/local/medical-board-reprimands-mecklenburg-doctor-of-osteopathy/275-374414498

Bilby (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

discredited osteopath

Rashid Buttar, is a widely discredited osteopath and has been using social media to spread falsehoods about the virus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToddGrande (talk • contribs) 17:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Yep I think we can says "widely discredited"Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

He's also not an osteopath, just FYI, but an osteopathic physician. They're not the same. Otherwise, I agree he's discredited and spreading misinformation about COVID and a myriad of other medical topics. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

This "conspiracy theory" about the origin of the virus, although denied for 3 years, has been confirmed since last year by large publications and many other sources. Are you still living in the past of denial of relevant evidences? Mgdnmt (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

No, not confirmed, alleged. Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Hasn’t been confirmed, but yes, Lab Leak is now acknowledged to be at least a plausible origin.

I think Wikipedia’s reliance on only what it seems “reliable sources” is problematic and should be changed and a brief explanation of Wikipedia’s sourcing policies should be included as a box at the top of controversial medical topics. This page isn’t the place for proposed changes to Wikipedia policies. As for this article now, policy on Wikipedia is to repeat what WP:RS say so we should do that until that ever changes. JustinReilly (talk) 05:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Lab Leak is now acknowledged to be at least a plausible origin No, it is not. Not in sources which are reliable for that sort of thing.

I think Wikipedia’s reliance on If you want to change that rule to "rely on unreliable sources instead" or "for every article I disagree with, add a disclaimer", this is the wrong place. See WP:TALK for what article Talk pages are for. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2020

The page says he was twice reprimanded for “unethical treatment of patients”. If you read the 2 sources cited that is not true. It should simply say he was reprimanded twice. 2600:1700:BA0:3CB0:1C92:D38:4431:2E4 (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

So what was he reprimanded for?Slatersteven (talk) 08:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

 Already done GoingBatty (talk) 00:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2020

At the end of the fifth paragraph under Background, the quote for the Discovery article has an extra "a" before it. Also, here's a link to the Discovery article. DavidHarkness (talk) 08:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Broken reference link - editing help

Reference 4 (the 2019 Consent Order) no longer works because NC Medical Board changed its database.

The corrected link is https://portal.ncmedboard.org/file/fileDisplay.aspx?FileID=%2fE4Rb6FjCC0%3d&TYPE=DISCLIC

(taken from the "Actions, Adverse and Administrative" tab of https://portal.ncmedboard.org/Verification/viewer.aspx?ID=155456 )

Hrpmrl (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Expansion of lede and infobox based upon a single ref

Re [2]:

I'm not clear how the information is even verified to start. Please quote from the ref, explaining especially how it's not WP:OR to say he's "well-known" for all these areas.

It seems grossly WP:UNDUE given the article content as it is and the addition of a single ref. --Hipal (talk) 16:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Hipal, please explain your reversion as your edit summaries are vague and don't seem to add up. Please explain how the statements about Buttar's spreading of misinformation, which is a major theme of this article, are undue. I strongly disagree. So, I'm interested to hear how you're justifying that assessment, especially when it's sourced directly in the body of the article and makes up a significant part of it.

I'm also really going to challenge you on the OR characterization. It's very clearly not. There's an entire section literally titled COVID-19 misinformation in this article detailing exactly how he spreads such misinformation and we have good sources detailing that he is a prolific spreader of misinformation that occupies a decent portion of the article. We reflect what the sources say and the sources say he is a prolific spreader of misinformation about vaccine hesitancy and pseudoscientific CAM treatments, conspiracy theories, and vaccine hesitancy. This edit [3] seems to be little more than whitewashing. Several prominent and reliable sources covered this story, highlighting its importance and impact, and characterize Buttar as someone who is a noteworthy spreader of misinformation in the areas of CAM, vaccine hesitancy, and COVID-19 misinformation. [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], TylerDurden8823 (talk) 09:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, no. OR and V are policy. No one just gets to ignore or dismiss them.

You added the information with the single The Hill ref. Please identify exactly what in that ref verifies all the information you added. Once we've get past those basic V/OR problems, we can look at the rest and what we can do with the proposed refs you've brought up. --Hipal (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The rewrite seems good [14] as far as verification is concerned. I've merged it into the article body for now.

Let's see what we can find in all the proposed refs you've indicated above, especially any statements that publishers make in their own voice about him on the topic. --Hipal (talk) 16:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

They're not being ignored. I just flat out disagree with your interpretation. Plenty of refs in the article. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

So, where do we stand at this point with the article content? --Hipal (talk) 02:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Nationality

Info box is showing "American" but as he was born in London, technically he's English? I realise he is also a US Citizen and a Permanent Resident in New Zealand. What's the usual protocol for "Nationality" on wiki? Hineahua (talk) 04:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

No Nationality is the nation he is a citizen of.Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Desiree Jennings updates

A recent NBC News podcast report gave an update on the Desiree Jennings story, including the Vaccine Court dismissal in 2019. I updated a mention on 2009_swine_flu_pandemic_vaccine#Dystonia but would like other editors to weigh in on what's appropriate to add to this article, in accordance with WP:BLP. ScienceFlyer (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Another report from NBC News ScienceFlyer (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Social media reports of death

I reverted unsourced edits referencing Buttar's death. It can be added back if there is a reliable report. On a different topic, a useful reference for improving this article is the book Do you believe in magic, which includes a chapter about Buttar. ScienceFlyer (talk) 11:08, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I have now asked for PP to stop this silliness. Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks. It may be genuine but the only "sources" offered thus far have been dreck. Example: https://greenmedinfo.com/blog/loving-memory-dr-rashid-buttar-1966-2023a - not a source prone to publishing anything damaging to SCAM practitioners, but still unreliable. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Dead

As per last poster, I hear this man has died. I do not have confirmation and the source is not someone you would consider reliable. The info was sent me by a prominent doctor. Redacted99 (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

David Icke says it's true, so I am treating it as presumptively false at this point. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, it is true. I received notification from his website. So David Icke isnt always a liar, huh? 184.63.84.215 (talk) 23:48, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

You are not an RS. Nor is Rashid Buttar's website. Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, his website might be for this (ABOUTSELF), but random emails claimed by people we can't verify, stated to be from his website, are not of course. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:39, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2023

Rashid died today. Please update. 2607:FEA8:6040:8000:A42D:5A08:E7C7:93A8 (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. Do you have a reliable source? -- Euryalus (talk) 22:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Check his website, his family has sent notifications from that source 184.63.84.215 (talk) 23:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

No that's not how it works. If you have a reliable secondary source for your proposed edit, you need to post it here with your edit request. Note that reliable sources don't generally include blog posts, random websites with no quality controls, or social media. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:18, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Is his website https://drbuttar.info/ - I can't find an update there. I am sure that if true this will be covered in something the we can source soon. The problem is that in the past hoax announcements of deaths have been added to Wikipedia articles causing great distress to still-living subjects, so we would rather be slow in providing the news but accurate when we do. - Bilby (talk) 00:39, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Doctor Buttar passed away

Rashid Buttar has passed away on 18th May 2023: https://greenmedinfo.com/blog/loving-memory-dr-rashid-buttar-1966-2023a

According to couple sourced on social media (one shows part of the funeral): https://twitter.com/squawkying/status/1659803548865970176 https://twitter.com/OffCyndisc/status/1660097051609255936/video/1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXgYuYfK06s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGyzMjLDIv4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7BgQH-2eb8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rf4nBwTbyo This might have been the last video interview(17th of May) he gave a day before passing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCCQCAlKrgw https://twitter.com/DrButtar/status/1658632491341606912 --84.115.210.234 (talk) 07:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

None of these are reliable sources. We need to add a source for this, and it needs to be a reliable one. So, Icke is right out. No blogs, no Twitter, no YouTube.

Also, do not make loads of new sections for the same thing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:15, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

The person in question is dead now

Changes need to be made to show that he has died. Apparently he died on May 18 2600:1014:B00F:16A0:4195:3828:7BB:A88D (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

See above. We need a reliable source. And right now the only sources that seem to care, are canonically unreliable. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:38, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

it is very hard to believe in your side of the argument when even a google search turns up a lot of different sources all saying that he died. Because of that it cannot be ignored just because of your bias.This is not a subject that one discusses (an example being what film genre does "eaxmple name" fit), it is one that establishes a fact: the fact here is that the person in question has died. Wikipedia does not have a list of sources that it turns to for information as that would impede with Wikipedia's ability to be neutral so your bias here is not what wikipedia is about when there are multiple sources confirming the death. 2600:1014:B00F:16A0:4195:3828:7BB:A88D (talk) 01:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Lots of unreliable sources report his death, but no reliable ones. We need several very reliable mainstream sources. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The sheer number of different sources reporting a death that isn't steeped with some controversial information to it is justification enough to post that he has died. Wikipedia cannot solely focus on mainstream websites for information as what they focus on is always narrow and wikipedia cannot have a bias by solely relying on mainstream sources. Regardless of what the source is, reporting on a person's death can be very accurate despite what the source (what made the report on the person's death) maybe whether it be a blog, a YouTube video, an opinion column etc. What matters is the content of the report first. Yes, reliability is good to have but you cannot ignore that the sources are solely reporting a death with no controversial debatable information tied to it they are solely reporting a fact. Because of that their general reliability based off of their usual content can be overlooked. What hurts worse here is your use of the word "reliable" as that insinuates that wikipedia does in fact have a bias instead of being neutral. The only "reliable" sources that wikipedia can have are unbiased primary sources for certain things like works of fiction for example. 2600:1014:B00F:16A0:4195:3828:7BB:A88D (talk) 03:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

There is no potential harm from being slow to report his death. This is a risk of harm from being too quick to report someone's death, and unfortunately Wikipedia has made that mistake before, causing distress to the subject and their family. While this method is overly cautious, I think it is better than the most likely alternative. - Bilby (talk) 04:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The amount of sources that confirm his death basically prove that no harm will come. A slow cautious approach actually hurts wikipedia more as wikipedia is a site where the information on it's pages can be quickly taken care of. The slow approach can also hurt wikipedia by allowing false information to remain for an extended amount while under protection. No article has it's page cemented as the final version because an article is always open to discussion and changes. That is essentially Wikipedia's direction for handling stuff, we post new information as it comes in and handle any mistakes afterwards. You can't have a slow cautious wikipedia as that is just a existential crisis 2600:1014:B00F:16A0:4195:3828:7BB:A88D (talk) 04:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Mildly, we don't just "post new information as it comes in and handle any mistakes afterwards." Per this policy: Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations. That means we shouldn't be posting anything that might be a mistake, unless we have a reliable source to support it. That usually means Wikipedia is not "first with the news," but that's not the point of this site. On the actual topic of this thread: is there a single reliable source (ie not twitter, not youtube, not a random social media site) that confirms this person's death? If so, would you mind posting a link to it here? Once we have that, the article can potentially be amended. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Could you confirm a list of "reliable sources" then. Wait I can answer that for you: you can't because that would be giving wikipedia a biased viewpoint instead of a neutral one. Read my replies above as to get a better understanding. Euryalus you are mistaken if you think I am referring to wikipedia as a "first with the news" information provider, it's more of a database of what was reported by a "first with the news" information provider. I mean as the sources confirm the information then we add the information which by the way is usually when the confirming source is a article on a website or bookþ journal that means it was confirmed before publication. Reliable doesn't mean wikipedia always turns to the same sources for information as that leads to creating a bias instead we have to look at information from a wide variety. 2600:1014:B00F:16A0:4195:3828:7BB:A88D (talk) 05:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, I agree with pretty much all of that, and apologise for misjudging you. Thanks for the reply. :) -- Euryalus (talk) 05:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

A "first with the news" information provider" for this type of information is often the worst type of source. Gossip sources and tabloids are the first, and we do not use them. We frequently have to wait for these matters. The very fact we are having to wait is not a good sign. This usually means the "death" is a hoax or rumor.

If the death of a notable person occurs, it will be described in more than one major source, so just wait. You have been answered by several very experienced editors and some administrators, so stop pestering us. Wait until you can give us several very reliable mainstream sources. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

OK its been a day, have any actual RS picked up on this yet? Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

This is the type of situation where a primary source, the person's own website or workplace, can sometimes be used. I note that no one at his website has mentioned this: https://www.centersforadvancedmedicine.com/. If he worked alone, that might explain the lack of such mention, but he doesn't work alone, and no one at his workplace says anything about his death. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 13:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no interest in suppressing real information. People like Buttar who push quackery and conspiracy theories, are themselves surrounded by people who do the same, and they sometimes become the victims of such nonsense. So why isn't he saying anything? Either he really is dead or he's getting unwarranted publicity from all of this. Even bad publicity is publicity. I keep searching the internet and it's only junk sources that mention this.

Wikipedia does have an interest in protecting people, and itself, from fraudulent info, so there is no harm in waiting, while there is great harm to the person and Wikipedia if we prematurely announce his death based on junk sources. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 13:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Looks like Valijean,"Guy" and "Bilby" owe a wikipedia user an apology lol 2600:1014:B035:FF4C:6988:F944:8BC5:5234 (talk) 08:41, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Why? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 13:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

For dragging on the topic of whether he died or not, for silently abusing their powers against users who argued the fact that he died yet wikipedia users in high positions of power hurt wikipedia by denying the credible information by delaying the adding of his death information to his wikipedia page by waiting until what they determined as a credible source by following their bias, etc. Hopefully this incident knocks a few people (the involved wikipedia users in high positions of power) off their high horses with their inflated egos and makes them more grounded 2600:1014:B035:FF4C:6988:F944:8BC5:5234 (talk) 20:37, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

bravo. A relative told me they are subpoena in the information and thinking of suing these particular users for libel because of what they said. The best part is when Dr. Buttars loved ones had to get the Founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, who made up the word Wikipedia, and invented it, to set them straight. It will be interesting to see if the relatives really do take legal action. At least if they do it would tie up those top users in court for many years. And Lord knows they have the money. FriendswLarrySanger (talk) 06:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

So that's where that came from? Well, it did not help because Sanger does not understand how online encyclopedias work. It's in the article now not because of his trolling but because there are reliable sources now, just as the users who refused inclusion of unreliable sources intended. Your side did not win.

Read WP:NLT. Schoolyard bullies are not tolerated here. Streisand effect is good reading too.

Lord knows they have the money Yes, quackery pays well. See British Chiropractic Association v Singh - the BCA also had the money, but Singh had the facts.

Can we stop this? WP:NOTFORUM. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2023

Express.co.uk reported, on May 23, 2023, that Dr. Butter had died, on May 20, 2023, after self-reporting, that he had been poisoned. 107.19.0.32 (talk) 05:33, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Not done. That is a questionable rag. We need several better sources for something as sensitive as a death. No harm is done by waiting for better sources. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

How to resolve the death question

To resolve this, we need a community declaration on sourcing. Go to WP:RSN, start a thread there, and ask whether your proposed sourcing (and be very specific) is acceptable for a death declaration. Also look at WP:RSP. Provide links back to this talk page and its discussions.

The Daily Express is a tabloid, and that's not good enough for this purpose. A discussion about it can result in a ruling that will then be registered at WP:RSP. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Side note: I've noticed for the last ten or so years, that when a biographical subject dies on a Saturday, it can sometimes take up to a week for a reliable source to report it. Not sure why this is, but I suspect it's because newsrooms have been decimated by media consolidation, and the people who used to write obits no longer exist. My take, anyway. Viriditas (talk) 08:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
COVID deniers and anti-vaxxers also often die of COVID, since they do not protect themselves against it. Especially in the case that this applies here, RS will have better information than conspiracist venues trying to hush it up and talking about "poisoning". --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I’m well aware. My point (which I don’t think you were responding to), is that the lag time in obituary writing has become particularly acute within the last decade. Pew reported that U.S. newsroom employment has fallen 26% since 2008, while back in 2016, Vanity Fair wrote about the possible loss of hundreds of jobs at the New York Times alone. This became evident to me in 2021 when Thomas D. Brock died on a Sunday. I had to wait 18 days to read an obituary about him in the Times. The people who used to write obits just don’t exist anymore, hence why only the worst sources end up getting the scoop. My point is that there’s a reason this keeps happening, and it’s important to understand the reasons which could help inform our policies. In other words, due to the dearth of obit writers, we should be overly cautious when faced with the most recent, published obits, as the more reliable ones tend to take longer to produce. Viriditas (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Yea, lets wait till decent RS confirms this. Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Vice report. [15] Probably not RS for his death though, given the wording: "according to a statement attributed to his family and shared widely online". AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Would it be contrary to Wikipedia policy for me to observe that y'all are acting like clowns? --Larry Sanger (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Per wp:npa maybe. Why are we "acting like clowns"? Slatersteven (talk) 18:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Because if you were decent, you'd actually care about the feelings of the bereaved family, who, as you might actually notice if you were capable of caring, badly want this page updated. Gee. Maybe there's something wrong with WP:RSP, and this case shows that? --Larry Sanger (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:BLP is policy. If that means treating people as alive if they are actually dead if their death is not verified by reliable sources, so be it. While you have spent the last two decades slamming us as "biased" what have you accomplished exactly? All of your post-Wikipedia projects like Citizendium have been abject failures by any measure. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

If you are right, that means these policies need changing. If the family themselves credibly declare the man is dead, and no "reliable source" cares enough to report the fact, then apparently, you refuse to report the fact either. But since his article lives on, that makes your article inaccurate (at least at the top of the article, for now), and offensive so. Your move. --Larry Sanger (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Larry, has Rashid Buttar's Citizendium article been updated yet? Zaathras (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

This is kind of an idiotic response, you know. Par for the course for this place, though. Larry Sanger (talk) 20:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

No need to fling personal attacks when we're talking about a man's possible death.small jars tc 19:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Also, if this is not true would not it be even worse to say it is? Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

We do not even know if there is a "bereaved family". We only know that a bunch of reality-challenged weirdos on the internet who are known for spreading false rumors claim that there is and that they "attribute" a statement to them. They may be right, or they may not. If a relative of mine died and I wanted Wikipedia do write about it, I would tell a real newspaper. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

You know nothing except whatever it pleases you to admit. Larry Sanger (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

We get that sort of vague insinuation all the time from people pushing crazy ideas. I guess it means "you know I am right, you just won't admit it". That "reasoning" is generally applicable to any conflict by any party, and therefore worthless. I could just as well claim that you are aware that you are wrong, but I won't because bad reasoning is only needed by people defending the indefensible. We are used to that sort of bluster here, and it does nothing except hurt the reputation of the insinuator. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:55, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Don't worry, Larry. We won't think any worse of you for that. Favonian (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I added the Vice source. Feel free to revert if there isn't consensus. I think mentioning the death with attribution to family with the Vice source is probably fine, but others may disagree. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

As I suggested earlier, I'm not entirely happy with using Vice as a source, given the wording. They write that they've read something 'widely online', which seems deliberately equivocal. If they were certain about the death, I'd have thought they'd just report it as fact. What do other people think? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I think we should update the article if one more reliable-ish source like Vice reports on his death, however equivocal. The subject is a controversial figure, and other reliable sources might base their reporting on where Vice based it as well. Considering the other stories from "rags" like Express and Daily Star on top of Vice and another hopefully-upcoming report from a reliable source, it will be reasonable to update the article. Merko (talk) 19:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Updated the article. If this one gets reverted as well, I'm out of it, WP:1RR for contentious topics. Merko (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:DAILYDOT report. [16] Merko (talk) 20:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The fact that he's dead is pretty undeniable at the moment, his fan club is having a veritable meltdown over the "CNN poison" angle. So as long as we're reporting the death and also including the notable content regarding the antivaxxer people using this death to advance their conspiracy theories, IMO the Vice link is sufficient for now. Zaathras (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

If that's the situation, the mainstream media should get around to reporting the 'meltdown' - and confirm the death, if true. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

IMO this is one of those edge cases where the online chatter (I am NOT suggesting such chatter is itself usable as a source) is enough to at least support the fact that he's dead, as reported by Vice, Daily Dot, and some of the other marginal sources. The idea that this is a hoax is simply not in play. Zaathras (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd say there's enough coverage of the death to include in the article, what with Vice, Daily Dot and the UK Express. None of these are first-rate sources by any means, but alas not everyone will receive, say, a NYT obit and it seems unlikely the claim is a hoax. At the least we could say the article subject was reported to have died, but I feel that sounds like weasel words - let's just say he died in May 2023, add the sources we presently have, and move on. And in passing, Mr Sanger your personal attacks really aren't helping. Maybe stick to discussing the sources? -- Euryalus (talk) 22:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see Merko has already added it, with two of those refs. Moved the sentence to the article body as the lead already includes it in the birth and death dates after the name. Hope that's ok! -- Euryalus (talk) 22:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

did you really just insult the man who founded Wikipedia, coined the name and you wouldn’t have this account if it weren’t for him? You probably don’t even know. His name is Larry Sanger. I’m not sure if you do this for free or paid by Pharma but 2600:1700:FF00:6870:A0D5:FECC:CD2E:5C03 (talk) 06:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Please do not cast aspersions on fellow editors without any evidence whatsoever. Merko (talk) 07:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

No, he did not. Calling a personal attack like "you are all acting like clowns" and "if you were decent" a personal attack is not an insult. Get a grip. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:58, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Why isn't it mentioned the place where he died? 86.126.141.91 (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

A reminder to everyone of WP:DEADLINE. 92.40.199.21 (talk) 10:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Rashid's "fan club" is like any crowdsourced chat room, expressly forbidden as a source for anything, especially a BLP matter. It's the worst source possible.

I strongly disagree with any addition yet. If we're so eager that we're in error, I hope his supporters and other cranks don't end up using our violation of our own sourcing and BLP policies as an example of how unreliable Wikipedia is, yet again. We've been here many times and been burned.

If we're wrong, the ones who, without a solid consensus, added that content should be made to suffer the consequences. Maybe a topic ban from all BLP matters. Right or wrong, we're sending a bad signal by acting too soon. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@Valjean I consider Vice and Daily Dot as reliable sources, and updated the article as a result. In addition, if there are consequences to be suffered because of policy violations, it should not depend on if we turn out to be right or wrong. Merko (talk) 23:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

When one has been warned and then proceeds anyway without a solid consensus, yes, it should result in sanctions. See the BLP thread. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The article text has been amended to note the death is reported, which I think is a reasonable compromise but obviously subject to further consensus here. Personal attacks and ban threats aren't especially helpful, so let's leave these to one side going forward. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

That is certainly better. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

One question, is there actually an attributed quote form a family member saying he is dead? Not sources saying "according to the family" an actual attributed quote? Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Thread at BLP

I have opened a thread at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Rashid Buttar and the topic of "death announcements" here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Workplace confirmation

While his workplace website says nothing, a call gets an answering machine message confirming his death. While an unusual source, I feel it justifies tweaking our wording to an actual death. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Official workplace answering machine. < redacted >. Try it. While an unusual source, I feel it justifies tweaking our wording to an actual death. Such a source should be listed as generally reliable for this purpose. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Unsure that does not fail wp:or. Also as I am in the UK, that would be prohibitively expensive. Can others confirm?Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

An answering machine message is probably ephemeral and it's doubtful that it counts as published. It would be annoying for his workplace if calls started pouring in from people wanting to verify the reference. I would just leave the page alone for now. small jars tc 15:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we should mention the phone message in the article, at least not without a change of our sourcing policy to use such sources. Just use the existing poor sources we use, but change the wording to confirm his death.

I totally understand that this is classic OR, but since it's an official workplace phone message, we should IAR and just accept that he's dead. At some point the website will contain some form of message, and we can add that primary source. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Or we can wait until an official announcement is made. Again, why have no family members come on record saying this? Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Our second source mentions his family. Standing alone, that source is far from good enough, but backed by our OR knowledge from the phone message, I think we can justify IAR here. As is pretty obvious from my history at Wikipedia and my firm demands for better sourcing above, I do not take this lightly. I almost never (or maybe ever!) use IAR, but it exists for rare situations like this one.

I believe that whenever IAR is used, because of some "gap" in our PAG, we should tweak the PAG so that situation will not happen again. We should now tweak policy and MOS to allow official workplace phone messages as a legitimate source for confirmation of death. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:51, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

" according to a statement attributed to his family and shared widely online. ", I asked for an official announcement, not a claim there was one. Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I understand. It is odd, but maybe it will come later. We need to ignore that part this once and just cut to the chase now. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

IAR? No, absolutely not. Not under any circumstances. We should not be encouraging contributors to engage in personal communication with colleagues, friends, or family of possibly deceased persons. That could very well constitute a gross breach of privacy. Answering machine messages are not reliable sources. They are not published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. They are personal means of communication, and ephemeral. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Most of that does not apply to an official workplace messaging machine. We're looking at a new situation that justifies IAR and a change of PAG and MOS. I am not suggesting we accept any form of other private communication. I'm talking about an OFFICIAL primary source that can be checked by editors, leading them to IAR (ignore PAG in their current formulation).

I am not suggesting that, without this knowledge from the official answering machine, we should accept the current sourcing. I don't think they are good enough to accept in any other situation. Here I have discovered by phoning his workplace that he is indeed dead. That's pretty compelling knowledge that leads me to invoke IAR. Now we need a consensus to IAR in this case.

If we are being punk'd, then the workplace is in on it. They are not answering their phone. There is only the message. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

While I don't think this is a citeable source, I think in combination with the cited Vice and Daily Dot sources, I am more comfortable with the current article text. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

A phone message is definitely not a citable source. This situation just means we do what IAR says, that we literally look away from normal practice and the demands of good PAG. We make an exception that does not affect how we should normally practice. In any other situation, we should normally strictly follow PAG. IAR was created to cover cases like this. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

BTW, I am not insisting we change the current formulation. I'm comfortable with it. I'm just suggesting that if we get a consensus to IAR here, we could go ahead and change the wording now. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

There is clear consensus not to IAR here. small jars tc 16:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

We are still discussing. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we should be. I appreciate your effort in looking for confirmation, but using this as a source is just a univocally bad idea. small jars tc 16:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I have not proposed using it as a source, nor am I insisting we make any change to the article at all. On the contrary. Read everything I've written above and below before you reply. You're jumping into the middle of a conversation without understanding where I'm coming from (been here since 2003 and helped created our PAG) and what I've written in these threads. I am practically THE ONLY ONE who has strongly objected to using poor sourcing for this matter, yet others insisted on creating the content we have now. Now we've come into a situation where IAR applies. IAR exists for a reason. It comes into play when our PAG are inadequate, where they have a "hole" and don't work. This is such a situation, and believe me, I don't like it, but so be it. The solution is to tweak our PAG so this doesn't happen again, and that is to officially accept telephone messages from official workplaces as a primary RS for "death announcements" (only!). -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry. I read your "While an unusual source," in the first comment and assumed that the IAR you were suggesting was to use this source despite its unusualness. After re-reading your later messages, I'm a bit confused, but are you suggesting that we change our interpretation of the sources that we do cite, in light of our own secretive knowledge of a source that we would, for good reasons, never cite? small jars tc 21:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Good question! Even after all these years, this is a new situation for me. I'm a stickler for sticking to policy and to using good sources, so the very idea of IAR grates against my nerves, but it is policy and exists for a reason. Now I've encountered a situation where it applies. It literally means to ignore what PAG say and do something we normally wouldn't do. That's really a radical approach, but "when it improves the encyclopedia", that can be necessary.

PAG are general and specific but do not cover every imaginable situation, so I feel this situation should spur us to fix that situation, to "plug the hole", so to speak. We need to make this exception for death announcements. An official workplace phone message is as official as a workplace website, BUT I don't think we should ever use it as an actual source or mention it in the article. We should just use it as an aid for our own thinking and decision-making on the talk page.

I think we should accept that the sources are basically accurate, at least about him being dead, but without this OR "knowledge" we have, we wouldn't know for sure they were not the victims of a hoax. That has happened before because over-eager editors have put Wikipedia's reputation on the line and damaged it by not being patient enough to wait for better sources. I think we should just keep using the sources we have, but replace them with better sources when they become available. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't see clear consensus. Merko (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Correct, and no change is being demanded. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I have redacted the phone number above. Do not restore it. We do not engage in uninvited personal communication with associates of article subjects. This is not open to negotiation here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Good idea. Anyone can look up the number on the website. Personal communication with associates isn't available at the present time anyway. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Reported by Stuff.co.nz in this article. While it's not listed on WP:RS/P, the Wikipedia article of Stuff makes it look decent, so I'm adding it to support the death claim. Merko (talk) 00:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

If noe on is arguing we should change the page as it stands, what are we discussing? As if we accept what we already have, there is no need to add a dubious source for the sake of it. Slatersteven (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

No one is suggesting we add a phone message as a source. On the contrary. We're talking about how IAR applies when we have clear confirmation of his death and only rather poor sources. IAR is intended to cover situations like using common sense as the deciding factor, when common sense is often OR. I think this thread is about exhausted.

BTW, have you listened to the message? You should. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Can you document what it says? Merko (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

It's a fairly long message and I don't know how to record it. I obviously can't pause it. It explains that the clinic is closed due to his death and that the family and staff are saddened and are having to deal with lots of issues, such as questions. They give the standard options of "If you are a patient...do this". "If it's an emergency, call 911." It's a very carefully prepared message, and I see no reason to suspect it is a hoax. If you live in the USA, you can make the call and listen. The clinic is clearly in crisis mode.

The clinic website will probably be updated with some sort of message soon. We can then use that message as a primary source, per ABOUTSELF. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Your suggestion that a recording of an answering machine message could ever be used as a source is so utterly absurd that I'm having doubts that this isn't an exercise in trolling. How about leaving discussions of biographical content to people who have an actual clue what they are talking about? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

edit conflict I just wrote this above before seeing this message: "An official workplace phone message is as official as a workplace website, BUT I don't think we should ever use it as an actual source or mention it in the article. We should just use it as an aid for our own thinking and decision-making on the talk page."

You really need to AGF and back off with the snark. Really. I at no point have proposed a phone message be used as a source. You know full well I would never troll, and that I'm a VERY experienced editor who always demands good sources. This is a unique situation where IAR applies. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:51, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Merko (talk) 23:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

You are very welcome. This is a new situation for all of us, and we are all having trouble dealing with it, hence the disagreements, but we should be able to, in good faith, hash this out in an agreeable manner. Thanks for helping the discussion move along smoothly. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

at no point have proposed a phone message be used as a source. Really? Official workplace answering machine. < redacted >. Try it. While an unusual source, I feel it justifies tweaking our wording to an actual death. Such a source should be listed as generally reliable for this purpose. [17] How is that not a proposal to use a phone message as a source? Were you suggesting we list such material as 'generally reliable' for any other reason than to use it for sourcing purposes? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I can see how that might be understood in that way, and I certainly don't want to go in that direction. I would reword that to mean we should be allowed to use such a source to guide our decision-making process on the talk page (without it be considered OR, IOW a change to the OR policy), and thus maybe accept lesser quality sources that are actually correct. Does that make a bit more sense? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

It makes more sense only in that it seems to be based around a profound misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. If we don't have reliable sources for something this significant, we don't add it. The existence of material we absolutely shouldn't be looking for in the first place doesn't alter that. We don't play amateur private detectives here. Especially not when dealing with a potential bereavement. You may have got an answering machine message, but the next person following up (on the phone number you improperly posted here) might very well not. How do you think colleagues of Buttar might feel if random dudes from Wikipedia start phoning up to ask if he's really dead? Have some common decency, and leave it to the professionals to do their job. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and we don't initiate communication with article subjects to settle content disputes, or to justify poor sourcing. That isn't remotely appropriate. Ever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. No one was ever going to literally place into the article <ref>I called this phone number, lol</ref>. Mentioning the voicemail one can hear at that number was simply a way to inform all of us editors, that we're not dealing with a hoax death here. The subject is dead. Deceased, perished, shuffled off this mortal coil, he is an ex-antivaxxer. We have a momentary and problematic gap between "he's dead" and "the sources saying he's kinda dead are kinda sucky", and maybe this is one of those times where we WP:IAR and just remember to breathe a bit. Sanger's presence in this discussion was a disruptive time-sink, and while he was screeching "INCLUDE IT NOWNOWNOW", I would worry that some here may still want to keep it out of the article just to spite him. WP:DNFTT. Zaathras (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

The point of refs is verification. The point of not using something as a ref is that it does not verify something by Wikipedia standards. The harassment concern is secondary to issues of verifiability. Nothing belongs in the overlap between what should never be used as a ref and what can inform assertions made in the article. small jars tc 23:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

The point of being an obstinate "DA RULEZ, DA RULEZ" stickler is that sometimes it makes us look completely idiotic. Again, I will say this very clearly for you -- Rashid Buttar is dead. This is not debatable. Zaathras (talk) 23:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I believe it to some degree of confidence, based on tabloid coverage. The problem is that I can't verify that it's true to a greater degree of confidence without making a call to Buttar's workplace, which I don't think is an acceptable or necessary thing for a stranger on the internet to be doing at this time. Readers are not meant to rely on the trust that an anonymous editor has seen the truth for themselves, but on the trust that Wikipedia is accurately summarising reliable secondary sources, ideally with attribution. We don't have intentionally undisclosed sources on B(L/D)Ps. If there's any serious reason we can't allow ourselves to say where we heard something from, we shouldn't be saying it at all. small jars tc 00:13, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

SmallJars, OR is allowed on talk pages. It sometimes informs how we interpret sources and develop wordings. It should not cause us to write things contrary to RS. In some cases, it informs us so we don't use RS that are wrong. They make mistakes, and sometimes OR uncovers the error so we don't fully "buy" what a RS is saying. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

"Nothing belongs in the overlap between what should never be used as a ref and what can inform assertions made in the article." We could turn this into: "IAR belongs in the gap between what should never be used as a ref and the type of OR knowledge that can inform assertions made in the article." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

MSN - [18], if we need another source to put a cap on this. Like Jacob Marley, dead as a doornail. Zaathras (talk) 23:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Not that I'm arguing against the fact that he's dead, but MSN is a reposter. The actual source of that is Knewz. Merko (talk) 23:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the original source is the news aggregator website Knewz. I'm not sure it's very good. It isn't listed at WP:RSP. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

What are we even discussing at this point? We reasonably concluded that he's dead, and support to keep his death information in the article. I think we should move on before the conversation gets ugly. Just my two cents. Regards, Merko (talk) 23:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree. We should now just do what we always do, and that is to replace poor sources with better ones when available. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

The website has finally announced his passing. See https://www.centersforadvancedmedicine.com/ -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Updating the article. Merko (talk) 02:22, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Already done, silly me. Merko (talk) 02:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

MedPage Today also reporting on his passing. Albeit it's leaning heavily on Daily Star reporting so not sure whether to cite. VintageVernacular (talk) 17:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Unwise to cite anything that explicitly attributes content to the Daily Star. A red flag basically saying "read this at your own risk". AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

So (again) has there actually been an official announcement? Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

What constitutes 'official'? Presumably there will be a death certificate at some point, but we don't generally cite primary sources. For deaths, we go by what appropriate reliable sources say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

An actual statement by the family, issued in their name as reported by RS. An Obit. Slatersteven (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

When it comes, we can cite it. Until then the most official we have is from his workplace. They are closed because of this:

Dr. Rashid A. Buttar passed away suddenly, at his home, with his family on May 18th, 2023. The family, staff and supporters of Dr. Buttar are in shock and grieving at his sudden passing.

The Centers for Advanced Medicine Clinic is closed. If you were a patient of the clinic and need medical records or assistance, please email existingpatients@drbuttar.com.

We recognize that many of you have lots of questions, the family is currently processing a lot. More information will be available at a later time. We appreciate your patience and understanding with this unfortunate situation.[19]

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I find that acceptable, as it is a clear unequivocal statement by people who would actually know, rather than some bloke on the internet saying he has been told it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

How about replacing the name of his workplace with a short description instead, maybe with simply "his office"? --Hipal (talk) 00:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Done. --Hipal (talk) 17:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Military Service

Why is there no mention of his military service? 108.162.128.222 (talk) 17:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Source? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)