Talk:Rashid Buttar

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)

References

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)

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)

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)