Talk:Barbara O'Neill/Archive 1

Archive 1

Barbara O neil

Who wrote this on Barbara. I had a vicious attack against her character. This is a brilliant woman. The least you can do is start with who she is and what how she got started in naturopathic work before you being up what happened to her in Australia. Shame on whoever wrote this for Wikipedia. 70.78.136.35 (talk) 18:10, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

See [1]. If you have a vicious attack against her character, you should probably not write it on Wikipedia, here we try to summarize WP:RS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

So all almost all the references are from media outlets - not a very good critical analysis. In addition she was a nurse for many years 91.110.85.126 (talk) 08:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

The references are from sources that the Wikipedia deems to be reliable. Zaathras (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

The entire article is a smut piece of a very intelligent "professor". For example, the part claiming she gave "dangerous advice" which was 'to feed infants raw goat milk or almond milk blended with dates & banana instead of infant formula.' This being dangerous isn't fact, it's the author's opinion. It doesn't explain why or how it's dangerous because it's not. anyone could argue the opposite in fact from a little research you'll find traditional infant formula is likely MORE dangerous than her suggestion. Reading through the entire article it's clear to see that whoever wrote this is biased and is just trying to make her look bad. Someone not having the "required credentials" as the article states doesn't deem her work invalid. Anyone can do a little research and see that in fact the results of other scientific studies (That ARE performed by scientist with the proper credentials.) validates much of her work. The credentials they refer to are a piece of paper after all, a paper doesn't determine what is true and what isn't. Shame on Wikipedia. They're as bad as the rest of mainstream propaganda. 2601:1C1:8401:85D0:E1A5:93BA:5066:9FD (talk) 09:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Being as bad as mainstream propaganda is pretty much the purpose of this website. More at Wikipedia:All your bias are belong to us. But the internet is vast. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Just wanted to add here that she never was a nurse. She was a trainee nurse at a private psychiatric hospital, but she never graduated and was never a registered nurse. Tim (Talk) 09:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

exactly and neither was she a naturopath 2407:E400:A01D:3700:2D72:AF6:C6A9:847F (talk) 05:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

she was never a naturopath. Read the Health Complaints Commission statement 2407:E400:A01D:3700:2D72:AF6:C6A9:847F (talk) 05:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

As the OP points out, this article is an appalling hatchet-job. That it exists as it does and that it is defended as it is only serves to demonstrate just how low Wikipedia has sunk. Boscaswell talk 11:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. This does not help improve the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Referencing

Just wondering if there is any specific reason why this referencing type ({{R}}, etc) is being used, rather than the conventional {{Cite}} templates? If not, I'm inclined to update this article to make the references easier to work with in the Visual Editor and to do a bit of a general clean up. Tim (Talk) 08:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm guessing per WP:CITEVAR/creators preference. That said, I don't mind at all if you change it to the more common method. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:33, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Cheers! I will try and chip away at this article over the next little while to bring it over to the newer citation system :) Tim (Talk) 13:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made these changes and done some general clean up/copyediting. Let me know if you think I've missed anything etc. Tim (Talk) 07:11, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Not a NATUROPATH

Barbara O'Neill was never an accredited naturopath. The Statement of Decision by the Health Care Complaints Commission specifies that this was the case. She had no accreditation as a naturopath and the accreditation she purported to have was from a 'education' provider that was never registered to educate on health. The title 'naturopath' here is incredibly misleading and insulting to us that have Degrees in Health Science Public Statement and Statement of Decision in relation to Mrs Barbara O'Neill - NSW Health Care Complaints Commission

[2]https://www.hccc.nsw.gov.au/decisions-orders/public-statements-and-warnings/public-statement-and-statement-of-decision-in-relation-to-in-relation-to-mrs-barbara-o-neill#:~:text=On%20the%20basis%20of%20the,as%20able%20to%20cure%20cancer 2407:E400:A01D:3700:2D72:AF6:C6A9:847F (talk) 05:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made this change as part of the update to the article to reflect the HCCC decision. Tim (Talk) 07:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Article slant.

I have always enjoyed Wiki but this page while being factual fails to take into account the thousands of clients O'Neill has helped and paints a very slanted picture right from the first sentence. Normally I would not make mention and move on but this smacks of outside interference from a platform that is seemingly very unbiased. Just a thought, nothing to see here, as you were...... RevvCardVIP (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

The goal of a WP-article is to summarize the existing WP:RS on the article subject. Sometimes we come reasonably close. If those sources lean a certain way, so will the WP-article, per WP:FALSEBALANCE. In the case of this article, there is also WP:BLP to consider, and possibly WP:MEDRS. What WP:RS about the thousands of clients O'Neill has helped do you suggest for what text in the article? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2023

My edit suggestions for Barbara O'Neill are complex. I would like to first note that the information provided is only a small fragment of her bio. This article is sadly lacking information on her practice and knowledge of botanicals and their historical relevance in healing and healthcare throughout the ages, prior to the petroleum based pharmaceuticals inserted by the Rockefeller Foundation without scientific evidence for their claims to safety and effectiveness of their "medicines"; which have indeed caused the deaths of millions of people. Barbara has zero claims that her practice using traditional medicine has led to the death of even one person. The Rockefeller Foundation coined the term "quackery" in reference to ancient homeopathic traditional medicine, by which our ancestors lived and flourished. These are the methods that Barbara O'Neill practices, with great success, yet no attempt to include testimonials from her clients have been inserted. She was only found to be "misleading", as she never actually claimed that she could cure cancer...only that she has witnessed her clients to have shrunken tumors and tumors that have disappeared following her treatment protocols.

The article solely focuses on the fact that she was banned, but fails to include that this is only in Australia due to one complaint by one in the medical field, but does not mention that she is free to practice in other countries, and currently does so, successfully. Also missing is the fact that she was found not guilty of the claimants complaints about her practice, but rather was found to be "misleading" to the public by the Australian court, ([4]https://web.archive.org/web/20230418055622/https://www.hccc.nsw.gov.au/ArticleDocuments/216/Statement%20of%20Decision%20-%20Mrs%20Barbara%20ONeill.pdf.aspx) yet was banned in Australia, regardless. Had she been found guilty, she would have been sentenced to serve time in prison, and she was not. [3] https://web.archive.org/web/20230216034246/https://www.hccc.nsw.gov.au/decisions-orders/public-statements-and-warnings/public-statement-and-statement-of-decision-in-relation-to-in-relation-to-mrs-barbara-o-neill

This article comes off as a highly biased scathing review of an individual who clearly has not been researched thoroughly. It reads more like a blog rant than an official biography. It is my observation that the author has blocked anyone from adding or editing in any way, a public Wikipedia "article", which is clearly a hostile and deeply opinionated reflection, rather than a true biography of a human being who successfully practices traditional medicine. There is no intellectual balance, the omittance of crucial data is evident (even her birth-date, education, and personal history have been omitted), and the intentional neglect of all facts is obvious. This article needs to be edited to be more inclusive of all available factual information, or be deleted altogether, as it is misleading at best, and I know that Wikipedia has the intent to educate and inform readers on a non-biased platform.

This article contains proven false information: [6]https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/oct/03/naturopath-who-said-bicarbonate-soda-cures-cancer-banned-for-life-by-health-watchdog [7]https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/audio/2019/nov/01/the-naturopath-who-claimed-to-cure-cancer-and-the-murky-world-of-wellness [9] [10] [11]

Dr O'Neill was ONLY banned in Australia: https://robmann.substack.com/p/41923-barbara-oneill-australias-loss 2601:181:8301:79F0:75E9:F220:92BE:2B3 (talk) 22:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• Not done. Edit requests are not for rants or promotion of fringe theories. They are only for uncontroversial changes, so a consensus must be established among editors first. Such a consensus is no longer controversial and can be installed. They are also for single changes, not many changes, and all changes must be backed by reliable sources, not fringe sources. The request must be in the form of "change X to Y". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• Maybe you can provide some information from reliable sources. She describes herself as a qualified naturopath and nutritionist. Where did she study and what official degrees does she have in those fields? BTW, naturopathy is a quack profession, full of pseudoscientific nonsense. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• The article from The Guardian says this:

The misinformation has huge potential to have a detrimental effect on the health of individuals as Mrs O’Neill discourages mainstream treatment for cancer, antibiotics and vaccination,” the commission’s decision, published in October, found."[3]

I find it odd that she opposes vaccinations when Ellen G. White, the prophetess of the SDA church, recommended them. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Archiving

We currently have

• Talk:Barbara O'Neill/Archive 1
• Talk:Barbara O'Neill/Archives/ 1

If someone who are good at archiving wants to fix that, it would be good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2023

bringing to the forefront that food is medicine 204.112.198.251 (talk) 04:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. Please read above: This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". Cullen328 (talk) 04:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2024

Under the cancer section I recommend making it more clear that the stage IV cancer occurred before seeking Treatment from O’Neill as well as 2 years in remission after receiving treatment. Also I believe that The HCCC needs to be identified more clearly as a regional health organization and not a national or international organization. 2603:9000:E401:E2B6:6432:D9F:2503:997A (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the cancer treatment changes?

I think it's pretty clear the HCCC is a state organisation ("the New South Wales Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC)"). Lard Almighty (talk) 08:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Shadow311 (talk) 16:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Opening description

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The article opens with the highly subjective comment: known for promoting dangerous and unsupported alternative medical practices and ideas". This is a matter of opinion and too broad. The opening statement could be amended to be more accurate: such as: "known for promoting natural therapies and controversially banned in Australia for one alleged misdemeanour." The article overall is extremely poor and inaccurate however my request is to adjust the opening line and then piece by piece the article can then be dissected. Furthermore, the protection should be removed. The glaring inaccuracies and bias do not deserve this level of protection. Kazilicious (talk) 06:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The content is based on reliable sources and is accurate. We do not whitewash such things. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.